The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 02/02/1999 - : II ii'';Ipii i i,i;'� Il�j!i .II�::J,ij I;•!,J III: `L..II I';,r lyjlii:i, !ri. I I.I j; L;!.'! I!, L,.I!I.'I I i:!I�!II'I j!i:L,,Iliil,;' I, li City of KentC-11ty Council Meetin -g i III !i I. !il: • : Agenda i iiiil i II II I BC " !; CITY o ..c!.Sr !...! ' Ili II .I" I III I III I�; I i ` ' i I141I1I .:w I .i it ' 'i'�ivr'tal�:�•,.!.I:Ild�ill!-,. ( :C� II IlY Mayor J i rri W h ite �i Counellmer77, ers II Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Con:nie E:p!perly !; : li Tom Brotherton Judy Woolds fig Tim Clark: Rico Yin il:i`ng k ' !: ill L. February III 2, 1999 ill Offloe of the City Clark i .� I i;lj I IIII!I •'�',::: ..i••;Ij j 'I'' i I i • !'ii�IF!'!i °i.� I ' ' Illlilll,i I'i I!I:I`I' „Ijl li.^I illlji jl I•� :: H!!Liilluiillli,ua.:lll.:lll;ail:.lil!IIII Ipillllgi I il!,!li`Iiiil !In! IIIII• ................�} _ff e��ejF �F1 CITY OF SUMMARY AGENDA hFVICTA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Jim White February 2 , 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. Employee of the Month B. GFOA Distinguished Budget Award Presentation C. Kentview P.U.D. Report D. Introduction of Appointees 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS None 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B. Approval of Bills C. Emerald Ridge Preliminary Plat - Set Meeting Date D. Diversity Training Consultant Contract - Authorization E. Purchase of Fiber Optic Cable from TCI - Authorization F. King County Grant Agreement, 1999 City Optimal Program - Authorization G. Seattle/King County Health Dept . Grant Agreement, Hazardous Waste Collection - Authorization H. LID 349, SE 223rd St . Sanitary Sewer, Charge in Lieu of Assessment - Authorization I . LID 349, SE 223rd St . Sanitary Sewer, Final Assessment Roll - Set Hearing Date J. Zoning Code Update - Ordinance 343`1 K. Transportation Funding Alternatives Task Force - Appointments L. Resolution Establishing Moratorium on Card Rooms and Setting Hearing Date M. Traffic Striping - Accept as Complete N. Horseshoe Acres Annexation - Accept 60% Petition O. Human Services Commission Reappointment - Confirmation (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 7 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Councilmanic Bonds and Project Authorization B. Mixed Use Development C. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments D. Shoreline Master Program 8 . BIDS None 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Property Acquisition 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 . 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 s PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS L A) Employee of the Month B) GFOA Distinguished Budget Award Presentation C) Kentview P.U.D. Report D) Introduction of Appointees ......... ................... . I CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action:Councilmember ow moves, Councilmember IA) seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through 0 be approved. w rf-I' 00 c " Discussion m C Action 6A. Approval of Minutes . Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of January 19, 1999 . 6B . Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through January 15 and paid on January 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on January 19, 1999 . Apyroval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 1/14/99 211300-211502 $1, 060, 900 . 19 1/14/99 + 211503-211811 2, 153 , 318 . 99 1/15/99 211812-211861 254 , 195 . 24 $3 , 468 , 414 .42 Approval of checks issued for payroll for January 1 through January 15 and paid on January 20 , 1999 : Date Check Numbers Amount 1/20/99 Checks 232971-233342 $ 303 , 690 . 81 1/20/99 Advices 75061-75766 897 , 957 . 54 $1, 201 , 648 . 35 Council Agenda Item No . 6 A-B f Kent , Washington January 19, 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, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Planning Director Harris, Parks Director Hodgson, and Finance Director Miller. Approximately 85 people were at the meeting. CHANGES TO THE Co=rehensive Plan and Z=ina Amendments. AGENDA Shoreline Master Program Orr recommended that Other Business Items 7C, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments, and 7D, Shoreline Master Program, be removed from tonight ' s agenda to allow time for review. There was no objection from Council . It was clarified that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments will come back to the full Council on February 2nd with a staff report and any other input received, and that the Shoreline Master Program will go to the Public Works and Planning Committee r..� on February 1st and to the full Council on February 2nd. It was noted that no public hearings are recommended, as they have been held through the Land Use and Planning Board. ORR MOVED to make letters received this evening a part of the record. Woods seconded and the motion carried. It was noted that Councilmembers should get their questions to the Planning Department in writing within the next few days, and that correspondence from citizens would be accepted as well . Ralph Knudsen, landowner on the Green River, said he feels there should be a public hearing on the Shoreline Master Program. Upon a question from Don Clasen, 13602 S .E. 282nd Street, Mayor White reiterated that comments on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments should be made in writing. LID 340 S 196/200 Street Corridor Proiect. T. J. Parkes, representing Nick Nesland, asked that Item 6D, LID 340 , be deleted from the agenda and said public comments should be taken on it before the City Council as a whole . Mayor White 1 Kent City Council Minutes January 19, 1999 CHANGES TO THE noted that this issue has been handled by the AGENDA Public Works Committee, that considerable effort has been made to provide for protests, and that he would not allow additional public comments unless the Council votes to open the public hearing. Operations Director McFall noted that the interest rate in Section 4 of the proposed ordinance is 6 .25% . The ordinance establishing the Final Assessment Roll for LID 340 was later adopted under the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC Jaycee Week. Mayor White read a proclamation COMMUNICATIONS noting that the Kent Jaycees have been a vital part of the development of young leaders for the past 53 years and that they have contributed to the betterment of the community through involvement in the City Christmas decorations, Cornucopia Days and the Community Children' s Fund. He declared January 17-23 , 1999 as Jaycee Week and encouraged all citizens to acknowledge the service of the Jaycees . The proclamation was presented to Kent Jaycees President Angie Struttman. Groundhog Job Shadow Day. The Mayor proclaimed February 2 , 1999 as Groundhog Job Shadow Day in the City of Kent and encouraged local businesses to get involved in the program. He explained that it is an opportunity for students to experi- ence the workplace and to be exposed to a wide range of career choices . He added that he has participated in the program, and that it gives students a greater appreciation of what their elected officials do . Mrs Kent Presentation. Mrs. Kent, Susan Hill of the Police Department , said she will represent the City of Kent in the Mrs . Washington Pageant in June . She explained that this is part of the Mrs . America Pageant , which is the oldest 2 Kent City Council Minutes January 19, 1999 PUBLIC national pageant for married women. She ex- COMMUNIATIONS plained the competition and said her platform is personal safety education. She said she is seeking financial sponsorship, asked for support, and invited citizens to attend the pageant in Moses Lake on June 5th. Kant Qbam er of coerce Food World 198 ReDOrt. John Ryan, 1999 Chamber President, explained that they have experienced difficulty this year in recruiting for domestic exhibitors because of the Asian economy. He noted that the show was held but was smaller than in the past for this reason. He added that there was a strong Asian contingent who had planned on attending but had difficulty getting visas . He noted that they are working to ensure that they are prepared for next years show in any circumstance . He thanked the city for their support . Upon a question from Yingling, Ryan explained that the U.S . Embassy restricts foreign visitors and that they hope to address �✓ U.S . Embassy officials when they are in China. He emphasized the importance of governmental support and said the city is doing what needs to be done . Debbie Smith explained they are working on marketing internationally, broadening their focus, and getting more support from agriculture . She thanked the city for their support, without which they would not be able to help Kent become a trade smart community. CONSENT ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar items A through F CALENDAR be approved. Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of January 5 , 1999 . HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) SANITATION Skyview Warehouse No. 6 . ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale for Skyview Warehouse #6 submitted by 3 Kent City Council Minutes January 19, 1999 u HEALTH & Auburn Commercial Development, Inc. for continu- SANITATION ous operation and maintenance of 200 feet of watermain improvements and release of bonds after expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located at 7818 So. 194th street . TRANSPORTATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) LTD 340 3 196120o street corridor Protect, Final Assessment Roll. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3438 establishing the Final Assessment Roll . for LID 340 - S . 196/200 Street Corridor, as recommended by the Public Works - Board of Equalization. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7E) T ngRortstion Funding Alternatives Task Force, 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 profes- sionals, 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 . ORR MOVED that the Council create a Transporta- tion 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 . Woods seconded. Orr explained that the reason for creating this task force is to try and find a better way to fund major road projects and to ensure that home owners are aware of any assess- ments . She asked Councilmembers to provide names of potential members to her or the Mayor by the end of the week. Clark explained some of the problems and urged support of the motion. Amodt also expressed support and the motion then carried. 4 Kent City Council Minutes January 19, 1999 r..r PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) 1999 Mill Creak Fish Habitat. ACCEPTANCE of the 1998 Mill Creek Fish Habitat Improvements con- tract as complete and release of retainage to Subdivision Management, Inc . upon standard releases from the State and release of any liens, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract amount was $185, 855 . 22 . The final construction cost was $152, 150 . 12 . PLATS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) Kay Preliminary plat sU-98-10 . 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 . Upon questions from Council, Wickstrom explained that the EMA and the conditions mentioned on Page 5 of the Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendations are not unusual . �✓ CLARK MOVED to approve the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval with conditions for the preliminary plat application of Kay Preliminary Plat . Epperly seconded and the motion carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B) Erin Glade Preliminary Plat SU-98-6 . 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 . Upon questions from Councilmembers, Wickstrom explained that the plat will be on City water and sewer and the Health Department will have to approve the plans, and that the number of daily peak hour trips is determined by a standard calculation. CLARK MOVED to approve the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval with conditions for preliminary plat application of Erin Glade 5 Kent City Council Minutes January 19, 1999 PLATS Preliminary Plat . Epperly seconded and the motion carried. Y2K (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) Y2K Consultant Contract. 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 . CITY HALL (BIDS - ITEM 8A) Service. & Information Services Tenant Tmnroywment project. 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 enter- ing into agreement with Springhills Engineering, Inc . for $67, 400 , plus tax, including Alternative No. One for $500 to cover expected overtime. WOODS MOVED to award the contract to complete the Development Services and Information Services Tenant Improvement Project to Springhills Engineering, Inc . , for $67 , 400, plus tax, plus Alternative No. 1 in the amount of $500 to cover expected overtime . Epperly seconded and the motion carried. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills. 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 , 868 . 55 12/15/98 210048-210469 2 , 17 , 063 . 51 $2 , 752 , 932 . 06 6 Kent City Council Minutes January 19, 1999 FINANCE Auvroval of checks issued erl for vouchers : Date check Number Amount 12/31/98 210470-210800 $ 765, 811 .28 12/31/98 210801-211299 2 , 711, 745 . 71 $3 , 477, 556 . 99 A_D_oroval of checks iBsue for payrolj 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 . 38 $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 A-pproval 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 REPORTS Council President. Orr reminded Councilmembers to provide input regarding the date for the annual retreat to the Council Secretary. 7 Kent City Council Minutes January 19, 1999 REPORTS public Safety CgIlaittee. Epperly noted that the next meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 26 at 5 : 00 p.m. Public Works & Planninc Comssittee. Clark noted that the committee will meet on February 1st at 3 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers and, due to the holiday, the second meeting of' the month will be held on Wednesday, February 17th. EXECUTIVE McFall reminded Councilmembers of an executive SESSION session of approximately 20 minutes regarding negotiation for property acquisition and potential litigation. The meeting recessed to executive session at 7 :45 p.m. and reconvened at 8 : 15 P.M. Property Acquisition. WOODS MOVED that the City of Kent purchase the 21. 84 acre Columbia Greenhouse Inc . property for $2, 650, 000 plus closing costs, subject to testing of leaks for the Underground Storage Tanks and/or acceptance by the seller of an addendum addressing removal and any necessary soil remediation of three underground storage tanks, and after final review and approval of the City Attorney, and recommend a short term loan from the Water Fund at current Treasury interest rate, funds to be repaid with the sale of Councilmanic bonds anticipated on April 1, 1999 . Epperly seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 17 p .m. Brenda c er, CMC City C1 r 8 ................ .. Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: EMERALD RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT SU-98-16 - SET MEETING DATE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set February 16, 1999, as the date for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner' s recom- mendation of approval with conditions for preliminary plat application of Emerald Ridge Preliminary Plat . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (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. 6C i Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: DIVERSITY TRAINING CONSULTANT CONTRACT - AUTHORIZATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Upon award, this contract will provide Inclusion and Diversity Training for all City employees from Executive Diversity Services, Inc . , for $85, 000 plus tax. As directed by Mayor White and the City Council , Employee Services has, in conjunction with a committee of City employees and citizens, selected Executive Diversity Services, Inc . as the consultant to provide Inclusion and Diversity Training to all City employees . 3 . EXHIBITS: Contract and Request for Proposals (RFP) 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee and Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $85 000 plus state sales tax SOURCE OF FUNDS : Budgeted Funds in ' 99 Citywide Training Budget 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: r.. ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND EXECUTIVE DIVERSITY SERVICES. THIS AGREEMENT is made this 31' day of December, 1998, by and between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), and Executive Diversity Services, located and doing business at 675 South Lane Street, Suite 305, Seattle, Washington, 98104-2942 (hereinafter the "Consultant"). Recitals 1. The City of Kent, Washington(City)wishes to utilize the services of a consultant to conduct a comprehensive diversity training program for all full-time employees and part-time regular employees of the City of Kent. The primary objectives of this diversity training program are to provide all City employees with opportunities to acquire cross-cultural understanding, cross-cultural competence, and to teach City employees racial, gender and ethnic sensitivity and respect. (Cross-cultural is defined as �., including all groups specified in the City's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, which covers race, color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, and physical or mental disability.) 2. The Consultant agrees to perform the services more specifically described in the Scope of Work,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. Description 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, an amount not to exceed $85,000 during 1999 for the services described in Section I herein. This is the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement, and shall not be exceeded without the `� 1 prior written authorization of the City in the form of a negotiated and executed supplemental agreement. The Consultant's billing rates shall be as delineated in Exhibit A. B. The Consultant shall submit monthly payment invoices to the City after such services have been performed, and a final bill upon completion of all the services described in this Agreement. The City shall pay the full amount of an invoice within forty-five(45)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. M. Relationship of Parties The parties intend that an independent contractor-employer relationship will be created by this Agreement. A 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. Page 2 of 11 Revised January 13, 1999 LE IV. Duration of Work The City and Consultant agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Exhibit A immediately upon execution of this Agreement. The parties agree that the work described in Exhibit A is to be completed prior to the end of the 1999 calendar year. V. Place of Work The Consultant shall perform the work authorized under this Agreement at its offices Seattle, Washington. Meetings with the City staff as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work,shall take place at the City's offices at 220 0 Avenue South,Kent, Washington or at locations mutually agreed upon by the parties. VI. Termination A. Termination of Agreement for Failure to Provide Services Bargained For. The Consultant agrees that Executive Diversity Services was hired by the City based on the Consultant's representation that employees identified in the proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B, will be available to perform the services described in Exhibit A for the duration of this Agreement. If any of the employees identified in the proposal are unavailable to perform the services bargained for, for any reason, the City of Kent reserves the right to terminate this contract or renegotiate the amount of consideration. The consultant must immediately notify the City, in writing, if any employee identified in the .proposal is unavailable to perform the services described in Section I of this Agreement. Nothing in the foregoing language will alter the Consultant's independent-contractor status. B. Termination of Agreement for Failure to Execute Work or to Complete Work Satisfactorily. If the Consultant refuses or fails to execute 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 shall be effective Page 3 of 11 Revised January 13, 1999 LE t.✓ 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. "Additional Costs" shall mean all reasonable costs incurred by the City beyond the maximum contract price specified in II(A), above. C. Excusable Delays. The right of Consultant to proceed shall not be terminated nor shall Consultant be charged with liquidated damages for any delays in the completion of the work due to: 1) any acts of the federal government in controlling, restricting, or requisitioning materials, equipment, tools, or labor by reason of war, national defense, or other national emergency; 2) any acts of the City, its consultants, or other public agencies causing such delay; and 3) causes not reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the execution of the Agreement that are beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God, fires,floods, strikes,or weather of unusual severity; and(4)negotiated and executed supplemental agreements between the City and Consultant for Consultant to perform extra work defined as tasks not included in the ..� Scope of Work referenced as Exhibit A. PROVIDED,HOWEVER,that the Consultant must promptly notify the City within ten(10) calendar days in writing of the cause of the delay. If, on the basis of the facts and the terms of this Agreement,the delay is properly excusable, the City shall, in writing, extend the time for completing the work for a period of time commensurate with the period of excusable delay. D. 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. Page 4 of 11 Revised January 13, 1999 LE VII. Discrimination 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 terms 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. VM. IndemniDradon 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 performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Consultant's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. Page 5 of 11 Revised January 13, 1999 LE `fir IX, Insurance 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. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than$1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than$1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and$2,000,000 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 (XCU) if applicable; and employer's liability; and 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 insurer's liability. 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. Page 6 of 11 Revised January 13, 1999 LE X. Ei'i-e of Infer�tioa The City warrants the accuracy of any information supplied by it to Consultant for the purpose of completion of the work under this Agreement. The parties agree that the Consultant will notify the City of any inaccuracies in the information provided by the City as may be discovered in the process of performing the work, and that the City is entitled to rely upon any information supplied by the Consultant which results as a product of this Agreement. XI. Oe+nershiD of Recaords sad D acumnsts original documents, drawings, designs and reports developed under this Agreement shall belong to and become the property of the City except that confidential questionnaires and surveys shall remain in the custodial care of the consultant. All written information submitted by the City to the Consultant in connection with the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement will be safeguarded by the Consultant to at least the same extent as the Consultant safeguards like information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available is already in Consultant's possession or known to it,or is rightfully obtained by the Consultant from third parties, Consultant shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. All data, documents and files created by Consultant under this Agreement may be stored at Consultant's office in Seattle, Washington. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon its request at all reasonable times for the purpose of editing, modifying and updating as necessary until such time as the City is capable of storing such information in the City's offices. Duplicate copies of this information shall be provided to the City upon its request, and at reasonable cost. XII. 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. Page 7 of 11 Revised January 13, 1999 LE IM.i Hi .. XM. Entire Aft 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. XIV. C'ity's Right of Ins 'on 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. XV. Consultant to Maintain Records to SupMrt IndeMdent 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 necessary accounts with the Washington State Department of Revenue and other 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, if necessary; 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, and as required to show that the services performed by Consultant under this Page 8 of 11 Revised January 13, 1999 LE Agreement shall not give rise to an employer-employee relationship between the parties which is subject to RCW Title 51,Industrial Insurance. XVI. Work Performed at Commkof 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 hereunder 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. XVII. Mod' 4" 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. XVM. AssiUMOM 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. XCV. Written Notice `.r 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 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. XX. Governine Law This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. XXI. 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. Page 9 of 11 Revised January 13, 1999 LE N3M. Resolntian of ak Should any dispute, misunderstanding, or conflict arise as to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, the matter shall fast 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 attorney's fees incurred in any litigation arising out of the enforcement of this Agreement. IN WITNESS VVF EREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. CITY OF KENT CONSULTANT By: By: Its Its Date: Date: Notice to be sent to: Notice to be sent to: Sue Viseth, Director Employee Services 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Page 10 of 11 Revised January 13, 1999 LE APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roger A. Lubovich, Kent City Attorney ATTESTED: Brenda Jacober, City Clerk S:\PU13UC\MVane\C0NSULT.doc Page 11 of 11 Revised January 13, 1999 LE Exhibit A SCOPE OF WORK From the beginning, Executive Diversity Services would rely on internal staff to understand current culture and workplace issues,provide feedback on design, and assist in implementation strategies to make sure they are appropriate for the City of Kent's workplace culture. Components include establishing goals and measurements, conducting an organizational cultural assessment, development of a training curriculum, facilitating a briefing with senior executives, and conducting Diversity Awareness and Skills Building Training for all managers and supervisors and Awareness Training for line staff. Executive Diversity Services, Inc. will continue to partner with the City of Kent to tailor consulting services to meet the vision, goals, and objectives of the organization. The following steps detail the process and the anticipated consultant time required. DETERMINE LEARNING MEASUREMENT AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS (GOAL SETTING). The EDS Project Manager will meet with the Directors of Employee Services and Operations and the Diversity Training Project Director to determine overall goals for the diversity program and determine any measurement tolls to be used. Outcome: • Completion of goals and measurements. Total time for this step 2-Hours Consultation (at an hourly rate of$250/hour) ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT AND CURRICULA DESIGN Following the determination of goals and assessment tool(s) EDS will conduct an organizational cultural assessment using interviews, focus groups and review of pertinent policies and procedures. Based on the results of the Diversity Audit, EDS in consultation with the City of Kent Diversity Training Committee,will develop the curricula for staff and managerstsupervisors. The EDS Project Manager will meet with the Diversity Training Committee to brief them on results of the assessment as well as receive input on the final curricula. Outcomes: Final draft of curricula for 2 day manager/supervisor training and 1 day training for line staff. Total time for this step: 6 consultant days TRAINING FOR SENIOR STAFF EDS will conduct a 4-6 hour briefing with senior staff members. This briefing will familiarize them with the issues identified in the assessment and the concepts and skills to be taught in training. Outcome: • Completion of 4-6 hour briefing. Total time for this step: 1 Consultant Day DELIVERY OF MANAGER/SUPERVISOR AND EMPLOYEE TRAINING �.r EDS will conduct twenty eight one-day employee and manager training sessions and five one-day manager/supervisor follow up training sessions @ $2,600/training team day. Outcome: • Completion of manager/supervisor training. • Completion of employee training. • Understanding a common definition of diversity. • A further developed awareness of personal culture and values. • An understanding of how culture and values affect perceptions and behaviors in the workplace. • Identification of individual and organizational strategies for creating a more effective environment for diversity. FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 days to summarize evaluations, draft and finalize report and present to The City of Kent @ $1,300 for 31/2 associate days and $2,500 for 1 '/2 EDS principal days. Outcome: • Delivery of final report with recommendations. V.✓ Exhibit B .r, PROJECT TEAM pmje : Elmer Dixon Responsible for: • overall project coordination • contact with committees and personnel • Consultation with the City Design of evaluation • Conducting assessment • Training managers, supervisors and employees Training Coordinator. Linda Taylor Responsible for: • Design of training curriculum • Conducting evaluation Senior and Associate Trainers: Donna Stringer, Ph.D., Elmer Dixon, Andrew Reynolds, Carolyn Trapp,Robert Christensen, Akemi Matsumoto, and Marian Lyles. Responsible for: • Training • Assisting in conducting assessment to ✓4 . FG Exhibit C c 19' 9g PAYMENT TERMS, SCHEDULING, TRAINING MATERIALS, AND CANCELLATION POLICY The City of Kent shall schedule participating staff; identify, schedule and provide training facilities, and provide necessary equipment as identified by the EDS project manager, and duplicate training materials from an original provided by EDS. EDS will invoice monthly as services are performed, and payment shall be due on receipt. Past due invoices will be subject to interest at one and one-half (1'/2%)percent per month after thirty(30) days. Individual training sessions may be canceled by giving fourteen(14) days prior notice. The City of Kent will be invoiced for any training dates canceled with less than fourteen (14) days notice. The City of Kent will reimburse IDS for any non-refundable travel expenses related to canceled training dates, unless canceled by EDS. PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DIVERSITY TRAINING SERVICES TO CITY OF KENT Submitted by Executive Diversity Services, Inc. 675 South Lane Street, Suite 305 Seattle, WA 98104 October 2. 1998 BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING Executive Diversity Services, Inc. (EDS) has substantial expertise and experience in understanding municipalities and structures similar to the City of Kent. EDS principals have over 30 years of combined experience as managers in public, private, and non-profit organizations. Most recently, Linda Taylor and Elmer Dixon completed 8 years as Directors of City of Seattle cabinet level departments and Donna Stringer was Deputy Director of a major State of Washington agency until 1988. Our experience as managers of public sector agencies has given us an understanding of the particularly sensitive nature of cultural diversity needs in visible public/political settings. All sub-contractors utilized by EDS, Inc. have experiences as both line employees and managers, allowing us to relate effectively to both public sector employees and management. Dixon, Stringer and Taylor have 15 years experience as Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity managers in the Washington State public sector. Both maintain familiarity with current relevant legislation and case law. Additionally, training team members include attorneys and managers specializing in employment law and supervision. We are currently working with two cities and two counties that are experiencing similar growth in both population and diversity as the City of Kent. We have trained the employees of seven cities and three counties in our eleven-year history and continue to advise them as they continue to develop their diversity program. EDS understands the both the intent of the program and training objectives and the City's awareness of the evolutionary and developmental quality of the diversity program. Common foundation, experience and definitions/understandings accompanied by initial skills for competency with co-workers and customers can result in decreased conflict and misperception and increased effectiveness and responsibility for individual communication. In order to maximize the benefits to the organization of its diversity program, the following are critical organizational components that the City of Kent is either actively involved in or preparing for as noted in the RFP document: ✓ Support from Executive level management, beginning with program design and continuing through implementation. The Mayor's Multicultural Diversity Task Force and the City Council Members have taken care to understand the impact of diversity on a growing municipality. They are understanding of the ranae of activities that allow a city to value diversity and manage its' impact and have supported training as one of the recommendations. ✓ Access to an "Executive Champion" for periodic feedback sessions throughout the program. The on-going involvement of the Directors of Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 2 Operations and of Employee Services through monthly progress meetings allows opportunities for both executive leadership and communication. ✓ Understanding and modeling of behaviors that value diversity by managers and supervisors. A critical part of establishing a common foundation and initial competency tools to all employees is the on-going practice of those tools by managers and supervisors as well as supporting employees use of them. ✓ Willingness and ability of the Mayor, City Council and the Employee Services and Diversity Project staff to modify policies and procedures that create barriers to inclusion and cultural competency as they are identified. The examination of the City's employment Process and job descriptions, as well as, compliance with the ADA set the stage for an effective and integrated approach. Additionally, it shows the willingness to identify and remove barriers. ✓ Effective internal communication systems to let leadership and functional staff know from the beginning what is being done and why. EDS will advise the City of Kent on creative communications to both maintain the momentum created by the training and capitalize on other diversity activities and information. Periodic reporting of training activities and progress can be readily folded in to on-going communication across the City ranks. ✓ Partnerships between leadership and functional staff that lead to trust that management is serious about making required changes as identified to create `�✓ a productive, quality-oriented, and inclusive organization. The development of the Diversity Training Committee and the on-going involvement of Department Directors lay the foundation for not only partnerships between those two groups, but the ability to design communication with all employee groups to build on the commitment and momentum of the diversity project. ✓ A designated organizational partner (project director) who can respond rapidly to program and logistical issues. Not only has the city designated a project director but has taken appropriate steps to established adequate staffing. diversity training committee and will name a training coordinator. APPROACH 1. METHODOLOGIES EDS' philosophy of diversity covers both our relationships with our clients and the policies and training programs we design and deliver. Proposal/City of Kent Page 3 With regard to our clients, our philosophy is that the best successes come from partnerships. We work closely with clients to craft a product,which is better than either of us alone could achieve. Diversity initiatives necessarily result in organizational change. We collaborate with the client to be sure that the change is one that meets their .business needs, and that it is designed to increase inclusion and generate support and participation from employees, not resistance. We respect that clients know what will work within their own organization. We expect that they will respect our expertise in the area of organizational development and diversity. Our design and delivery of training programs is grounded in research and application from the fields of intercultural communication, social psychology and adult learning. This translates to the following beliefs and practices: * Training content should always include a combination of awareness, information, and tools which people can use to develop greater effectiveness. We involve participants' heads, hearts and hands. To maximize participant learning, we balance support and challenge. * We believe it is important to provide a framework of understanding culture and values that is applicable to abroad range of interactions, not just specific information that is useful only in certain situations. Our approach is `Value based,"because our research and experience have provided us with evidence that it best helps participants understand the visible and invisible aspects of culture. This understanding includes how culture teaches values, behaviors and perceptions. * Employer-provided training should have a business purpose. Therefore, we design training that is both workplace and behavior focused. We help participants learn how their culture, values, and perceptions impact how they see others—individually and in groups —and their effectiveness in the workplace. We provide participants with new information, behaviors, and tools, which enable them to decrease cultural misunderstandings and conflict and to increase effectiveness and productivity. * Because people learn more readily in environments where they feel safe, our training is non-confrontational. Each participant is treated with respect and without judgment allowing them to participate without concern of evaluation. A primary motivator for employees in our training is the positive, non-judgmental attitude of the trainers and training materials. The consistent focus is on increasing information, tools, and skills. * Because modeling is a powerful form of teaching, EDS always provides training with a two-person team. This allows us to fully attend to the needs of all participants, to demonstrate two different styles of communication and training, and to model how a diverse team of people can work effectively together. * Attention to adult learning styles is critical to the success of any training program. We attend to developmental stages as we design both content and process for training curricula. Facilitation methods include brief lectures (which we call lecturettes), Proposal/City ofKcnt Pagc 4 related articles, bibliographies, case studies, simulations, small group exercises, discussions, videotapes, and other visual aids, role-playing, self-analysis, and other group exploration. * Class size affects dynamics. We typically limit class size to a maximum of 30, with 25 being optimal. This number enables the trainers to create a safe, effective environment in which no one individual can either"disappear"because there are too many people in the room, or feel they are in the "spotlight"because there are too few. 2. WORKPLAN From the beginning, Executive Diversity Services would rely on internal staff to understand current culture and workplace issues, provide feedback on design, and assist in implementation strategies to make sure they are appropriate for the City of Kent's workplace culture. The above philosophy of training, as well as our experience with other diversity initiatives, leads us to believe the following steps are an effective way to implement a diversity program. We would recommend that the City of Kent approach their diversity program using these steps—recognizing that the approach may be modified as we develop our partnership with you and customize our ideas to your specific workplace culture. Step 1: Determine learning measurement'assessment tools (Goal setting) This step in the process is critical because it establishes the "why" one is engaging in the training, "what" one expects to achieve, and develops the"how"by which the achievement of those goals will be measured. This step would initially be undertaken in meeting with the Directors of Employee Services and Operations and the Diversity Training Project Director. The more clearly the organization identifies its goals and expectations for this program, the more clearly they can be communicated early to employees. The more involvement by employees in the audit focus groups, the more successful the program will be. Employees are more likely to support and participate in changes they understand and have had input to. Measuring the results of awareness training is challenging. Research indicates that the impact of such training may not be readily apparent for months or years. Nonetheless, with finite goals we can work with the City of Kent to develop short- and long-term measurements. We could measure the impact of this training in two ways: immediate response to the training and longer-term results. Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 5 Immediate results will be measured by a post-training evaluation at the end of the training session. This evaluation will ask, among other things, whether the participant believes the training was valuable, whether s/he will use information from the class immediately in the workplace, and how s/he will use the information. Additional items can be designed in partnership with the City. Additionally, participants can develop action plans, in training,to be carried out in their day to day work. These plans should be behavioral and as such, visible over time in there results. We would assist in developing benchmarks pre-training and measure those benchmarks post training (again, in 12 months). Examples of these measures might include retention rates, grievances, absenteeism, or other measures that might indicate that employees felt more positive about the workforce and organization than they did pre-training. A thud way of measuring the results of the training would be to conduct a second cultural assessment (see Step 2 below), asking the same questions with the same individuals to identify whether their assessments of the work environment had changed since the training. Deliverable: Goals, assessment approach and benchmarks done on-site Step 2: Organizational culture assessment & curricula design Following the determination of goals and assessment tool(s) we would conduct an organizational cultural assessment using interviews, focus groups and review of pertinent policies and procedures. This assessment will allow us to identify the specific content (breadth and depth of information provided) and process (types of learning activities) which will work best in your setting. These focus groups also allow EDS to quickly understand the unique City culture and to tailor training examples and case studies. Diversity Project Staff and training committee will be critical in partnering with EDS to identify both interviewees and focus group participants to gather critical information in a focussed and cost effective manner. We would expect to interview both formal and informal leaders among a broad cross-section of the organization to determine current organizational issues and level of awareness regarding diversity. Following this information gathering and consultation with staff, we would design curriculum that addresses issues and concerns identified in the assessment and which builds the foundation on the current level of awareness about diversity. Following this design phase, we would again meet with staff to identify and make needed revisions in the training. Deliverable: Assessment results and finalized training curricula and related materials. Focus groups and interviews done on-site, analysis and curricula Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 6 design—off-site. Meetings with Diversity Training Committee and Training Coordinator on-site. Step 3: Training for senior staff, mwiagers, supervisors and employees As outlined above, understanding, by senior managers, of the business case for diversity and the best practices for the City of Kent to employ is critical to the overall success of building an inclusive, productive and skilled organization. For this reason, EDS recommends beginning with a 4—6 hour briefing with senior staff members. This briefing would familiarize them with the issues identified in the assessment and the concepts and skills to be taught in training. Additionally, it would allow them to identify their leadership responsibilities to the project's success. As a general rule, we encourage a mix of managers/supervisors and line staff in all training sessions unless the presence of management would act as a damper on the interactivity of line staff. Whether to mix employees and managers/supervisors or train them separately would be recommended based on information obtained during the organizational assessment and consultation with the City Diversity Project staff. No matter what training configuration is decided upon, we recommend a second day for managers and supervisors to allow them to gain and apply additional tools for managing diversity. In the cost data submittal that follows we outline two options. The first option recommends a one-day training for employees and managers, followed by one additional day for managers. This approach is optimum and allows participants, in day one, to learn an approach for understanding and assessing personal, co- worker and client difference, as well as, behavioral tools for effectiveness. Day two for managers and supervisors, then allows for teaming and application of managerial responsibilities and additional skills, as well as, action planning for building a strong and inclusive diverse team. The second option recommends a four-hour training for employees and managers, followed by the follow up day for supervisors and managers. The four-hour training is primarily information giving, supported by initial tools for increased effectiveness. Both options can be effective, the choice is driven by the City of Kent's goals, their time, and financial resources. With both options, EDS would recommend follow up activities to be carried out by the City staff to build on both the skill and the momentum developed in the training effort. Deliverable: Training of Managers, Supervisors and employees done on-site. Monthly progress meetings with Directors done on-site. Written progress reports done off-site and reviewed on-site. Proposal/City of Kent Page 7 Step a: Final report atul Recommendations EDS will prepare a written report including a summary of participant evaluations of the training sessions, trainer observations during the training, and our recommendations for next steps for City of Kent to consider. Final Report written off-site and delivered to directors, committees, and other appropriate parties on-site. 3. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING EDS offers a core team of nine individuals who would assist in consulting or training services as appropriate to their areas of expertise. Actual training teams would consist of an EDS principal or Senior trainer and an additional trainer or subcontractor. All EDS trainers or subcontractors have five or more years experience working with and training in cross cultural issues. Additionally, all have completed our forty- (40) hour trainer's program in content, philosophy, values and ethics. Selection of specific training personnel for this project would be conducted in consultation with the City of Kent based on the best match for the target training population and needs. The project team, including the manager, training coordinator and senior and associate trainers would commit to complete the project. The group is large enough to absorb any unanticipated turnover without compromising the quality of the project. Because EDS is a certified women and minority-owned business with the State of Washington and has sufficient personnel to accomplish this scope of work, we would not propose to subcontract any portion. Resumes of key personnel and all trainers are found in Appendix B. Project Manager: Elmer Dixon Responsible for: • Overall project coordination • Contact with committees and personnel • Consultation with the City • Design of evaluation • Training managers, supervisors and employees Training Coordinator: Linda Taylor Responsible for: • Design of training curriculum • Conducting evaluation • Training managers, supervisors and employees • Contact with committees Proposal/City of Kent Page 8 Senior and Associate Trainers: Donna Stringer, Ph.D.,Elmer Dixon, Andrew Reynolds, Cleo Molina, Bob Christenson, Akemi Matsumoto, Lisa Weinberg, and Marian Lyles. Responsible for: • Training • Assisting in conducting evaluation The trainers employed by EDS have educational degrees in Psychology, Public Administration, Law, Human Resource Management, Education, Inter-cultural and Speech Communication, and in Black, Asian, Chicano, Bilingual and Ethnic Education. They have experience both as employees and managers in the public, private and non- profit sectors. An organizational chart reflecting responsibilities of personnel assigned to this scope of work follows on the next page. Page 9 Proposal/City of Kcnt \ k \ \ , \ � % \ cc c cc \ 4 t _ / e a ■ i ) •� � EL y � ■ •- - c .k = F .§ .§= '| Ij < s \ < \ S 2G < k . Oj \ .5 § < < E \ \ / \ / f c � •§ •� � 3 ) � < cc § \ { ) \ •§ $ x Y. § s \ § \ r 2 id � ® ƒ\ ) \ \ \ ) z cr . , . . , § / \ / \ / Proposal/Cin 3m PaJ 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE Task Person Schedule for completion and Responsible deadline Step 1: Determine learning Taylor Two weeks after contract signing; measurement &assessment tools may be completed in 1998. Step 2: Organizational culture assessment & curricula design. • Assessment & Interviews and Dixon/Taylor Six weeks after contract signing; results delivery. may be competed in 1998, by • Curricula Design/Finalization and Taylor December 18 . delivery. Step 3: Training for senior staff, managers/supervisors/employees • Senior Staff Training Dixon Senior Staff Training to be Option 1: completed in January 1999. • Employees & Managers Dixon, et al. • Managers/Supervisors Follow-up Dixon, et al. Option 1 training 4-5 days per Option 2: month, January— September 1999. • Employees & Managers Dixon, et al. Option 2 training 4 days per • Managers/Supervisors Follow-up Dixon, et al. month, February— July 1999. Step 4: Final report, Dixon/Taylor Final report written and delivered Recommendations and delivery by November 10�' 1999. COST DATA Executive Diversity Service's Public Sector rates are $250/hour, $1,000/half day, S1,450/associate day, $1,650/principal day, and $2,800/training team day. We endeavor to economize by combining tasks, billing in the most effective manner for the client and using the appropriate EDS resource to meet the need. Because this scope of work is substantial and has the possibility of being multi-year, EDS would discount our public sector rate to $1,350/associate day, $1,500/principal day, and $2,600/training team day; our hourly and half day rates remain the same. Additionally, Proposal/City of Kent Page 11 while EDS' rates will go up in January of 1999, we will commit to the above fees through 1999. The following scope and budget is calculated on 700 employees, of which approximately 120 are managers and supervisors. Steps 1 and 2 below can be accomplished in 1998. option l Option 2 Step 1: Determine learning measurement and assessment tools (Goal setting)- $ 500 $ 500 Two meetings @ $250/hour Step 2: Organizational culture assessment wid curricula design. 4 days assessment and interviews and 2 days for design and finalization @ $1,350 per associate day $ 8,100 $ 8,100 Step 3: Training for senior staff, managers, supervisors and employees. Senior staff training: 1 EDS principal day @ $1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Option 1: Twenty-eight one-day employee and manager Trainings and Five 1-day manager/supervisor follow up trainings @. $2,600/training team day. $ 85,800 Option 2: Twenty-eight 4-hour employee and manager trainings and Five 1-day manager/supervisor follow up trainings @ $ 2,600/training team day. $ 49,400 Step 4: Final report and Recommendations 5 days to summarize evaluations, draft and finalize report and present to City of Kent @ $1,350 for 3 '/: associate days and $2,500 for 1 1/2 EDS principal days. $ 7 550 $ 7.550 Sub-Total $103,450 $67,050 10% for monthly meetings with department directors, diversity training committee, administrative support in producing monthly reporting and scheduling, and related consultations as necessary. $ 10 345 $ 6.705 Total $113,795 $ 73,755 Proposal/City of Kent Page 12 RELATED EXPERIENCE EDS has extensive experience with organizations similar to City of Kent including Pierce Transit, Bonneville Power Administration, Metro, Seattle City Light, Bellingham Transit, the APTA, and Community Transit. Without exception, EDS has concluded all contracts at or under budget, within agreed upon time frames, and exceeding expectations. We take pride in our long-term relationships with the aforementioned organizations and many others on our client list. We have designed and implemented cultural diversity assessments focused on occupational categories, work teams, departments, divisions, and organizations. Additionally, we have assessed workplace systems, team development and individual, inter and intra-group communication. We have provided policy and programmatic recommendations, conducted and evaluated training for executive, management and employee populations and developed internal training teams and diversity programs for municipalities, utilities, transit, shipyards and state departments. Both Linda Taylor and Donna Stringer, co-owners of Executive Diversity Services, Inc. (EDS)have received graduate level training in organizational development, cross-cultural communication, minority studies, curricula design and the adult learning process. Dr. Stringer received her doctorate in Social Psychology with a focus in research and assessment design and methods with women and minorities. Both have attended and taught at the Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication which focuses on organizational consulting, curricula design and development specifically in the area of multi-cultural issues. At Community Transit (CT) in Everett, EDS began our partnership by becoming a member of an already established employee diversity advisory group, which is a sub- committee of CT's overall steering and vision team. This group had been developing its knowledge of workplace diversity as it struggled with the unique organizational issues of community and company growth and the policy needs of an increasingly diverse population. EDS provided team building and diversity training to the group and worked with them to develop diversity, equal employment, and behavioral expectation policies. Using the counsel of the group, EDS conducted an organizational culture audit with recommendations for their diversity initiative. We facilitated their development of a diversity strategic plan with action steps. We continue to assist in the implementation of this plan. EDS is provided two-day manager and supervisor training at CT. We have trained fourteen internal trainers and are co-training employees with the internal trainers. EDS designed and participated in the implementation of the advertising, interview and selection, and preparation of this training group. Additionally, we continue to meet with both the Diversity Committee and the internal Training Group one day per month to continue their development. We will provide Phase II employee training in 1999. Proposal/City of Kent Page 13 We have provided support, coaching and intervention to both individual employees and intact work teams. We consult on the design and provision of communication regarding the diversity initiative and organizational change to the organization and the Board of Directors. Client Name: Community Transit 1997— 1998 Address: 7000 Hardeson Road, Everett,WA 98203 Project Manager: Tim Villarreal, Supervisor of Training Telephone: (425) 348-7113 EDS has partnered with Eddie Bauer(EB) in Redmond for over three years, serving in both a training and consulting capacity. We began by assisting them in developing a business case that fit their unique product oriented environment, coupled with best practices for behavior that meshed with their existing overall company values and success strategies. As we have advised them in gathering data through focus groups and developing accountabilities for leadership and behavioral change,we have worked to develop a keen understanding of their culture in order to tailor strategies that met their needs with maximum success. We have developed and provided training in the areas of retail, catalog sales, customer service, and corporate and administration. Additionally, we have developed training courses, including facilitator manuals, which are provided by internal EB trainers and managers both domestically and internationally. .. As EB has developed in their understanding of diversity and its role in their environment, we have continued to participate in strategy sessions, to develop new ways of doing business which are inclusive, productive and cost effective. Through this partnership EDS has gained a greater ability to think about training in new formats and lengths in order to meet the constraints of their business. We have also gained a level of comfort in a developmental and incremental approach to a diversity initiative. Client Name: Eddie Bauer 1996— 1998 Address: 15010 NE 36th Street, Redmond, WA 98073-9700 Project Manager: Michelle Clements, Director—Eddie Bauer University Telephone: (425) 882-6682 While the Seattle King County Department of Public Health is a larger organization and workforce than City of Kent, it represents and serves a large geographic area with very diverse populations and needs. EDS conducted an employee cultural audit that resulted in a series of organizational observations and recommendations. We interviewed and selected a multi-level, multi- occupation and geographically represented employee diversity management committee (DMC) that we supported through the development of their strategic plan. This group Proposal/City ofKcnt Page 14 RELATED EXPERIENCE EDS has extensive experience with organizations similar to City of Kent including Pierce Transit, Bonneville Power Administration, Metro, Seattle City Light, Bellingham Transit, the APTA, and Community Transit. Without exception, EDS has concluded all contracts at or under budget, within agreed upon time frames, and exceeding expectations. We take pride in our long-term relationships with the aforementioned organizations and many others on our client list. We have designed and implemented cultural diversity assessments focused on occupational categories, work teams, departments, divisions, and organizations. Additionally, we have assessed workplace systems, team development and individual, inter and intra-group communication. We have provided policy and programmatic recommendations, conducted and evaluated training for executive, management and employee populations and developed internal training teams and diversity programs for municipalities, utilities, transit, shipyards and state departments. Both Linda Taylor and Donna Stringer, co-owners of Executive Diversity Services, Inc. (EDS) have received graduate level training in organizational development, cross-cultural communication, minority studies, curricula design and the adult leaming process. Dr. Stringer received her doctorate in Social Psychology with a focus in research and assessment design and methods with women and minorities. Both have attended and �.r taught at the Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication which focuses on organizational consulting, curricula design and development specifically in the area of multi-cultural issues. At Community Transit (CT) in Everett, EDS began our partnership by becoming a member of an already established employee diversity advisory group, which is a sub- committee of CT's overall steering and vision team. This group had been developing its knowledge of workplace diversity as it struggled with the unique organizational issues of community and company growth and the policy needs of an increasingly diverse population. EDS provided team building and diversity training to the group and worked with them to develop diversity, equal employment, and behavioral expectation policies. Using the counsel of the group, EDS conducted an organizational culture audit with recommendations for their diversity initiative. We facilitated their development of a diversity strategic plan with action steps. We continue to assist in the implementation of this plan. EDS is provided two-day manager and supervisor training at CT. We have trained Fourteen internal trainers and are co-training employees with the internal trainers. EDS designed and participated in the implementation of the advertising, interview and selection, and preparation of this training group. Additionally, we continue to meet with both the Diversity Committee and the internal Training Group one day per month to continue their development. We will provide Phase lI employee training in 1999. Proposal/City of Kent Page 13 continues to oversee the development of the diversity initiative today. EDS facilitated two senior management and DMC retreats to prioritize goals from the strategic plan and develop actions. Through these retreats and interim joint meetings this group built understanding and trust across the management and employee ranks. They developed a cohesive and shared diversity vision that sustains their continued work today. Since that initial work, EDS has worked extensively with both the Central and North Districts to resolve diversity issues, develop shared behavioral expectations, improve communication, develop systems and policies to support their vision, and provide skills training in cultural competency. In both areas we have worked to build the capacity and skill of key staff who can continue to carry out this work without our assistance. Client Name: Seattle-King County Department of Public Health 1996— 1998 Address: 2124 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98121 Project Manager: Sharon Stewart Johnson, Deputy Director, SKCDPH Telephone: (206) 296-4552 Project Manager: Nova Jones, Regional Administrator, Central Region Telephone: (206) 296-4790 Project Manager: Donald Proby, Regional Health Educator, North Region Telephone: (206) 296-4765 At King County Department of Transportation (formerly King County Public Works, Roads Division), EDS provided training to supervisors and leads, employees and intact work groups covering communication, culture and EEO and discrimination law. Additionally, we conducted team building, conflict interventions, behavioral norm setting and coaching with intact divisions and individual supervisors. This work took place over a three-year period. Client Name: King County Department of Transportation 1995— 1998 Address: Renton, WA Project Manager: Roderick E. Matsuno, Operations Manager— Maintenance Section Telephone: (206) 296-8140 Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 13 EDS partnered with the City of Portland to conduct a citywide needs assessment, train two groups of internal trainers and provide two day trainings to all managers, supervisors and employees. EDS co-trained with the internal trainers in all employee levels. We developed the internal trainers to a point where they were able to plan other training workshops and informal offerings. Client Name: City of Portland 1992- 1995 Address: 1220 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, OR 97204 Project Manager: Celia Heron,Director Telephone: (503) 823-4134 At Clark County, EDS conducted a county-wide needs assessment, designed training for both phase I and II, trained an internal training group and conducted both phases of training with the internal trainers. We also assisted in the writing of diversity policies. Client Name: Clark County 1994- 1997 Address: PO Box 5000, Vancouver, WA 98668-5000 Project Manager: Carol Chislett,Personnel Representative Telephone: (206) 699-2456 A more extensive client list is provided in Appendix C. City of Kent is welcome to contact other clients for their experience and recommendations. EDS would be glad to provide both contact names and phone numbers at your request. Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 16 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND INSURANCE This proposal, submitted by Executive Diversity Services, Inc. (EDS), is in strict compliance with the Request for Proposal except for the item listed below. Suggested change in RFP language: In addition to the City's definition of cross- cultural, EDS would add that diversity is defined broadly to include, not only visible characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, physical and mental abilities, sexual orientation, but also invisible characteristics which include religion, political ideology, marital and family status, social and economic status, skills and occupation, education, language, and level in the organization among others. This broad definition would have a marked impact on the acceptance of the training and the level of individual responsibility and willingness of city employees to change their behaviors and develop new skills. Our experience has shown again and again that a more inclusive definition has considerable positive results. Additionally, broadening the definition allows the city to operationalize its value of the diversity of all its employees. LIABILITY INSURANCE EDS maintains the required insurance and would name the City of Kent as an additional insured and provide a certificate of insurance and endorsement after contract signing. Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 17 APPENDIX A Note: Training is customized to meet client needs. This is a general outline to provide information about typical components. SAMPLE Course Description & Curriculum - 1998 DIVERSITY AWARENESS One Day Class This class focuses on diversity issues that can improve both internal and external effectiveness with co-workers and customers. Participants will learn common definitions of diversity and culture and explore the roles of perception and stereotypes in creating cross-cultural misunderstandings. The class explores the three invisible aspects of culture which are most critical to being effective in cross-cultural interactions with co-workers or customers: non-verbal behaviors, communication styles and values. Participants will receive information, have opportunities to increase personal awareness, and learn tools, which can be used to improve interpersonal effectiveness across difference. GOALS: • Participants will learn a common, broad definition of both diversity and culture. ■ Participants will understand how both perception and stereotypes impact interpersonal effectiveness. ■ Participants will learn how cultural differences (values, communication styles and nonverbal behaviors) can create mis-understandings or conflict across difference. • Participants will identify their own cultural learning and explore how it may affect their approach to people different from themselves. ■ Participants will learn tools for positive thinking and greater effectiveness with people different from themselves. ■ Participants will learn a model describing personal and organizational challenges regarding diversity. ■ Participants will practice tools, applying them to specific situations involving diversity. Proposal/City of Kent Page 13 Day One Topic EDS principal Outcomes Introductions Culture Contact Exercise a Establish goals Goals, Expectations Flip Chart a Introduction of trainers and Large& Small Group Discussion participants ■ Develop broad definition of diversity ■ Assess past cross-cultural experiences of participants and how they affect the workplace Perception, Programming and Perception exercise & model ■ Experiencing perception differences Stereotypes Stereotype & Generalization and understanding how perception exercise occurs Flip Chart a Differentiating stereotypes and Large group discussion generalizations ■ Identifying how stereotypes and generalizations affect individuals and the work environment a Learn tools regarding Intent vs. Impact,controlling knee jerk reactions and being flexible Culture Lecturette ■ Understanding what culture is,how we Small Group Discussion learn it and how it informs our Workplace culture exercise behaviors and perceptions a Identifying the effects of culture in the work environment ■ Examine the synergy derived from blending the best of two cultures into one as a means of reducing wetthey behaviors. ■ Identifying personal and work cultures and how they can create both conflict and effectiveness on the job. Learn strategies for cross culture effectiveness. Invisible Culture: Lecturette a Identifying individual style Communication Styles Communication Styles Exercise preferences. Overhead Projector a Exploring sources of misperception and conflict across style differences Identifying strengths of each style and how each contributes to the work environment and effective team development. a Learn tools for clarifying style and being more respectful and effective across style differences. Proposal/City of Kent Page 19 Invisible Culture: Lecturette Understanding the origin and role of Values Flip Chart values. Values Exercise • Identifying potential workplace conflicts across value differences or sensitive workplace situations. ■ Exploring how to identify values and use them to improve work place effectiveness and reduce conflict caused by value differences. ■ Learn tools for effectiveness across value differences and sensitive workplace situations. Invisible Culture: Demonstration Examine cross culture preferences for Nonverbal Behaviors Group Exercise nonverbal behaviors and their potential Discussion for misunderstanding. ■ Identify tools for greater effectiveness across ■ different nonverbal behaviors. Individual and Organizational Lecturette Learn a model for understanding the Challenges Discussion challenges to individuals and organizations in showing a value for diversity. ■ Leam a tool for moving toward greater effectiveness. Tools, Resources & Lecturette • Review all tools identified during Multi-Cultural training. Characteristics • Provide participants with information about company resources available to them. ■ Review characteristics which lead to multi-cultural effectiveness. Evaluation and Closure Written feedback form ■ Feedback to trainers and the organization regarding effectiveness of training. Proposal/City or Kent Page 20 APPENDIX B CONSULTANT RESUMES LINDA E. TAYLOR Linda Taylor has assisted more than 2,000 public, private and non-profit organizations in meeting the challenges and capitalizing on the resources of changing workforce demographics. She combines 15 years experience as a successful public sector manager of diverse employee groups and organizations, with sound theoretical knowledge and commitment. A highly acclaimed consultant, trainer and speaker, she is widely recognized for her ability to lead and empower diverse populations. Linda has provided consulting and training services in understanding, valuing and managing diversity to over 15,000 public sector leads, supervisors, managers and employees in Washington, Oregon and California. These services have been provided to department divisions including DSHS Income Assistance, Lottery Sales, and Mt. Hood Forest National Park Summer Supervisors, and to entire departments, regions, municipalities and counties including DSHS Region IV and Income Assistance, Washington State Lottery, Cities of Bellingham, Washington and Portland, Oregon, and the Counties of Clark, Washington, and Sacramento, California. EDUCATION Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication, Portland, OR; 1989, 1990, 1996 Senior Management Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA M.A. Program, Applied Psychology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA B.A., Psychology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA WORK EXPERIENCE Executive Vice President, Executive Diversity Services, Inc., Seattle, WA. Consulting, needs assessments and training for organizations and executives in effective understanding and management of diversity in the workforce and client populations. Director, Office for Women's Rights, City of Seattle, WA. Directed an Executive Branch department in city government responsible for policy and legislation affecting women and sexual minorities. Reported to the Mayor, with membership on the Mayor's Cabinet and the Sub-cabinets for Human Services and Executive Administration. Proposal/City of Kent Page 21 Youth Employment and Training Director,Washington Energy and Employment �y Resources, Spokane,WA. Administered 23 employment and training programs covering a nine county area, with a budget of over four million dollars. Director, Black Education Program, Eastern Washington University, Cheney,WA. Administered Academic, Social Service and Counseling divisions. Designed policy and programmatic objectives for department and successfully presented them to Board of Trustees. PUBLICATIONS (Partial listing only) Stringer, Donna, and Taylor, Linda, "Twenty tips for interviewing multicultural candidates," Cultural Diversity at Work newsletter,November 1996. Stringer, D., and Taylor, L., Training Internal Trainers of Organizations: Some Thoughts," Training& Culture Newsletter, March 1990 Stringer, D., and Taylor, L., Guidelines For Implementing Diversity Training: Tips for Managers." Training & Culture Newsletter, May 1991. COMMUNITY SERVICE (Partial listing only) Curriculum Committee, Leadership Tomorrow, Seattle, WA Volunteer Development Committee, United Way of King County, WA Member, King County Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Allocation Board Member and Chair, Family Opportunity Council, Region 4, Dept. of Social and Health Services Board Member, Youth Committee Chair, East Madison YMCA, Seattle, WA Member and Program Chair, Women+Business Board of Directors, Seattle, WA Founding Member, Women's Funding Alliance, Seattle, WA Board Member and Chair, Spokane Industrialization Center, Inc. Board Member and President, National Organization for Women, Spokane Chapter Founding Member and President, Washington State Black Women's Political Caucus Advisor, NAACP Youth Chapter Proposal/Croy of Kcnt Page 22 DONNA M. STRP.VGER. Ph.D. Donna Stringer is a social psychologist with 20 years experience as a manager, teacher and trainer. She has managed city, state and higher education departments, and has extensive experience with Affirmative Action and Equal Employment law. She has been a featured speaker at many local, state and national conferences, and has conducted training programs for more than 30,000 persons. She is an active researcher and has published in the areas of management, sexual harassment, diversity, gender roles and self esteem. She has been an adjunct faculty member on eight campuses, and is a faculty member for the Intercultural Communications Institute. Donna is a charismatic speaker who combines her theoretical knowledge, practical experience and commitment to effective human relations to provide outstanding consultation and training in organizational settings. EDUCATION Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication, Portland, OR; July 1989-1993 Program for Executives in State and Local Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Boston, MA Ph.D., Social/Developmental Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA WORK EXPERIENCE President, Executive Diversity Services, Inc., Seattle, WA. Consulting, needs assessments and training for organizations and executives in effective understanding and management of diversity in the workforce and client populations. Adjunct Faculty, Seattle University and Antioch University. Taught courses in Management Principals, Managing Diversity and Supervisory Practices. Faculty, Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication, Portland, OR, 1994- current. Associate Dean for Student Services, North Seattle Community College. Responsible for development and implementation of multi-cultural services for students, faculty and staff. Deputy Director, Washington State Department of Licensing. Chief Operating Officer responsible for a budget of$750 million and staff of 1200 located throughout the state. N,.o Proposal/City of Kent Page 23 Assistant Director,Vehicle Services, Washington State Department of Licensing. Responsible for a budget of$350 million and staff of 1500 located throughout the state. Director, Office for Women's Rights, City of Seattle. An executive branch department within city government responsible for policy affecting women and sexual minorities. Reported to the Mayor with membership on the Mayor's cabinet. Human Resources/Affirmative Action Officer, Montana State University,Bozeman, Montana PUBLICATIONS (Partial listing only) Stringer, Donna, and Taylor, Linda, "Twenty tips for interviewing multicultural candidates," Cultural Diversity at Work newsletter,November 1996. Stringer, Donna M., "Customizing diversity training for skilled labor," cultural Diversity at Work newsletter, May 1995. Stringer, Donna M., The role of women in workplace diversity consulting," Chapter in Journal of Organizational Change MgnIgiment, Volume 8,Number 1, 1995. Stringer, Donna M., Education and the Workplace," Chapter in Diversi y as Dialogue. Johnella Butler and Betty Schmitz, editors. 1994. Stringer, Donna M. "Benefits and pitfalls of diversity task forces," cultural Diversity at Work newsletter, November 1994 Stringer, Donna, and Taylor, Linda, "Guidelines for Implementing Diversity Training: Tips for Managers," Training& Culture Newsletter, May 1991 Remick, Helen R., Ginorio, A., Salisbury, J., and Stringer., "In-house investigation of sexual harassment complaints," Women Studies Quarterly, Summer 1990 Stringer, Donna, and Taylor, Linda, "Training Internal Trainers of Organizations: Some Thoughts," Training & Culture Newsletter, March 1990 Stringer-Moore, D. M., "Dual Career Couples: Impacts and implications for employers." Public Personnel Management_ Spring, 1990 Proposal/City of Kent Page 24 ELNIER J. DIXON .. .... .... .. .: .. �r✓� Elmer Dixon has educational training in Public Administration, and 16 years of management experience in public, private and non-profit organizations. During five years as the EEO/Affirmative Action Officer at the Seattle Parks Department, Elmer developed hiring, training and retention programs for a multi-cultural staff, and assisted both management and employees in investigating and resolving conflicts. He possesses the ability to combine innovative theory, practical experience, and a dynamic classroom presence to effectively teach adult learners. A highly acclaimed tactician and speaker, he is widely recognized for his ability to lead and motivate diverse populations. EDUCATION Public Administration, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Sociology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR Advanced Management Program, City of Seattle WORK EXPERIENCE Senior Associate, Executive Diversity Services, Inc., Seattle,WA Consulting, needs assessments and training for organizations and executives to help in understanding and managing diversity in the workplace and with client populations. Operations Manager, Department of License and Consumer Affairs, Division of Animal Control, City of Seattle. Responsible for budget development, division operations, staff scheduling, training and facility management. Director, Citizens' Service Bureau, City of Seattle, Office of the Mayor. An executive branch department within city government responsible for servicing complaints and questions from citizens, and acting as liaison for the Mayor and citizens on a variety of public issues and concerns. Training and Education Manager/EEO Officer, Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation. Responsible for the design and development of annual training plan for an organization of 1300 employees. Responsible for development, implementation and monitoring of affirmative action policies. Executive Director, Sydney Miller Community Service Center. Responsible for overall management of non-profit community service agency. Proposal/City of Kent Page 25 COMMUNITYSERVICE (Partial listing only) Executive Committee and Chair, Teen Seattle Board Member, Atlantic Street Center Board Member, Seattle Urban 4-H Challenge Board Member, Sydney Miller Group Board Member, Central Area Motivation Program Board Member, Central Seattle Community Health Center Member, Voices of Civil Rights Project Committee Member, EOP Community Liaison Committee, University of Washington Member, Police and Community Relations Task Force, Church Council of Greater Seattle Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 26 %NDY RF.YNOI.DS Andy Reynolds has the management and training experience and successful community involvement that makes him an effective consultant and trainer. His effectiveness is continually rated high by participants in his workshops. He has worked with and for a number of public, private and non-profit organizations, helping them to productively meet the challenges of ever increasing diverse workforces. He is widely recognized for his ability to lead and empower diverse groups. EDUCATION Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication, Portland, OR Journalism Program, Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University, NYC B.S.,Biology, North Carolina A& T University, Greensboro,NC B.A., Liberal Arts, Lincoln University, PA WORK EXPERIENCE ti.✓ Senior Consultant/Trainer and Vice President, Executive Diversity Services, Inc., Seattle,WA. Consulting and training for organizations and executives to assist them toward effective understanding and management of diversity in the workplace. Senior Information Officer, Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle, WA. Managed the department's marketing and public relations programs. Also managed the department's efforts toward an annual strategic planning process. President, Andy Reynolds and Associates, Seattle, WA. Management Consulting specializing in public and media relations marketing. Reporter/Producer/Host, KING Broadcasting Company, Seattle, WA. News Reporter covering a variety of issues, including those of the diverse populations of Seattle. Also developed and hosted one hour weekly program that focused on issues of diversity. Reporter/Producer, WCAU-TV, Philadelphia, PA. Correspondent for half-hour program on issues of diversity. Teacher/Curriculum Developer, Pennsylvania Advancement School, Philadelphia, PA. Taught, developed curriculum and trained teachers. �.r Proposal/City of Kent Page 27 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES (Partial listing only) Vice President, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Chair, Washington State Lottery Commission Chair, Human Resources& Diversity Task Force, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Board Member, Executive Committee member, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Board Member and President, Leadership Tomorrow Alumni Association Board Member and Chair, Marketing Committee, Leadership Tomorrow Board Member and President, Friends of the EOP, University of Washington Board Member and Chair, Marketing Committee, Seattle-King County Red Cross Board Member and Chair, Public Affairs Committee, Northwest AIDS Foundation Member, Northwest Chapter, Society for Human Resource Managers Member, Society of Human Resource Management HONORS AND AWARDS 1993 Recipient of the Eddie Carlson Outstanding Alumni Award, Leadership Tomorrow 1994 Recipient of the Distinguished Leadership Award, National Association of Community Leadership Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 28 CLOTILDE L. MOLINA .............._._............... Clotilde "Cleo" L. Molina has degrees in both bilingual education and minority culture. Cleo has over five years experience in training and evaluation, specializing in cross- cultural communication, bilingual education, mediation and Mexican American cultural education. Cleo was recently a member of the Washington State Nicaragua Election Watch delegation. She is currently the Director of High School Relations and Multicultural Student Services at North Seattle Community College. EDUCATION M.Ed., Education Psychology and Bilingual Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA B.A., Minority Culture and Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Mediation Training, Antioch University, Seattle, WA Community Organization Training, Organize Training Center Leadership Tomorrow, Seattle, WA WORK EXPERIENCE Director of High School Relations/Multicultural Student Services,North Seattle Community College, Seattle, WA Director of Student Recruitment/Intemational Student Services, North Seattle Community College, Seattle, WA Director of Communications and Development, North Seattle Community College, Seattle, WA Program Coordinator, Center for Justice and Peace, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Counselor, Northwest Chicano Health, Seattle, WA Instructor, Center for Chicano Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Program Coordinator/Researcher, Northwest Chicano Health, Seattle, WA Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 29 PUBLICATIONS (Partial listing only; C.L. Molina, nee C.R. Gold) Gold, C.R., Hispanic Women and Family Planning. United States Department of Health ...� and Human Services, 198.1-1982. Vasquez, J.A., and Gold, C.R., Counseling and Minorities: A Bibliograuhy. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1981. COMMUNITYACTIVITIES (Partial listing only) Board Member, National Institute for Women of Color Official Observer to Nicaraguan Elections Board Member& Executive Committee Member, Ethnic Heritage Council Planning Committee and State of the City Task Group, Church Council of Greater Seattle Member of the Board, KUOW Mayoral Appointee, Joint Advisory Commission on Education Board Member, Global Reach Mayoral Appointee and Chair, Citizen's Commission on Central America Founding Member, Past President, MANA Northwest Advisory Council, Northwest Women's Law Center Proposal/City of Kent Page 30 ROBERT S. CHRISTENSEN -_ - - = ........................................................::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::................__...-........ €ro°` .. . €'...............-............................................. y ...........:............I..............:... :tl}H:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::}�:6:1^:::::::::::::: V Bob has extensive experience in both public and private, for profit and non-profit sectors in positions which require strong organizational, problem solving, interpersonal and analytical skills. With over five years experience with the Division of Children and Family Services, Bob has served as a Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator, coordinating planning, implementation and monitoring of Office of Civil Rights mandates and ADA requirements, and managed the regional Cultural Diversity Initiative. As a Social Worker, he provided assessment, case management, crisis management and brief therapy for youth and families. He also has experience with statistical analysis, development and coordination of staff training, management and policy development. EDUCATION Doctoral Candidate in Counseling, University of Washington, Seattle, WA M.S.W., University of Washington, Seattle, WA B.S., PsychologyB.A. Philosophy, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA WORK EXPERIENCE Social Worker 3, DSHS, Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS), Child Protective Services, Kitsap County,WA. Provide risk assessment, case management, crisis management, and brief therapy for children and families. Included short and long term planning, goal setting, resource development, negotiation and litigation in the areas of child abuse, family crisis and adoption. Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator, Region 5, DCFS. Coordinated planning, implementation and monitoring of Office of Civil Rights mandates and ADA requirements; managed regional Cultural Diversity Initiative and ADA Initiative; developed Regional HIV/AIDS Advisory Team and policies. Tasks included data collection and reporting, development and coordination of staff training; LEP compliance monitoring; served as member of statewide diversity and ADA coordinators. Manager of Operations and Development, The Calling Company, Seattle, WA. Responsible for managing all operational aspects of a direct marketing firm. Duties included budget management, account liaison, pricing recommendations, sales reporting and analysis, supervision of 48 line staff, 3 supervisory staff plus support personnel, hiring training, disciplinary actions, personnel policy development; reduction of staff turnover to less than 50% of the industry average, negotiated $17,000 annual savings in telecommunication services. Proposal/City of Kent Page 31 Research Analyst, Center for Social Welfare Research, University of Washington, Seattle,WA. Responsible for statistical analysis and maintenance of multiple database structures for longitudinal research study. Also responsible for hiring, training and �- supervising data collection staff, grant writing, and long term planning. Consultant, Department of Social and Health Services. Developed journalistic account of welfare reform legislative process. Interviewed state government officials, legislators and legislative staff, community activists and academics. Developed final report which provided documentation of the bill's developmental process and a balanced account of multiple and conflicting viewpoints. Consultant, State Attorney General's Office, Child Welfare Law and Policy. Developed criteria with which to evaluate casework practice against professional standards and departmental policy in relation to major lawsuit. These criteria were later incorporated into statewide model. Regional Training Consultant, Northwest Resource Center, University of Washington, Seattle,WA. Consulted with government and private social service providers in four state area to provide training and policy development around youth and family service issues. COMMUNITY A CTIVITIM (Partial listing only) Volunteer member of outreach and training panel, King County HIV/AIDS Task Force Co-Chair of Family Services Committee, United Way of Pierce County Board Member, Chair of Program Planning Committee, Youth Advocates, Seattle Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 32 .. ............ LISA WEINBERG, Ph.D. .... SKILLS ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT ♦ Directed assessment of student needs regarding issues of diversity and development of plan for curricular and programmatic change. ♦ Served as in-house management consultant, designing and conducting management studies and advising managers on organization and staffing issues. ♦ Designed and conducted study of external affairs function at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); reported findings and proposed options for reorganization to Agency's administrator. ♦ Administered and analyzed survey of employee morale at U.S. EPA; presented findings and recommendations to Agency executives. ♦ Developed management plans for $21 million federal program administered via contract, monitoring service delivery and reporting quarterly performance. PROGRAM DESIGN & MANAGEMENT Designed and managed pre-career Master of Public Administration program. Designed and managed professional development programs (management development; secretarial orientation and skills; collaborative problem-solving, including the training and supervision of trainers and the oversight of contracted work. FACILITATION & TRAINING ♦ Teach concepts and techniques associated with organizational and process analysis at the graduate level; oversee student projects in public and non-profit agencies. ♦ Designed and conducted a series of sessions on Total Quality Management and Organizational Change for mid-level managers. ♦ Designed and facilitated focus groups with managers and professional staff, examining perceptions of managerial and human resources practices in a company of 22,000 employees. ♦ Conducted program of supervisory skills training. Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 33 WORK EXPERIENCE 1993 - present Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public Affairs University of Washington, Seattle, WA 1993 - present Consultant to Cascade Center for Public Service; Danka, Inc.; Eastman Kodak; National 4-H Council 1989 - 1993 MPA Program Coordinator and Instructor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 1985 - 1989 Management Analyst and Employee Development Specialist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1985 Assistant Director for Academy Studies,National Academy of Public Administration, Washington D.C. 1984 - 1985 Independent Consultant to nonprofit housing advocacy agencies New York, NY EDUCATION 1993 Ph.D. Public Administration and Public Affairs, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 1981 Master of Public Affairs, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 1977 B.A. in Government, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY Proposai/City of Kcnt Page 34 MARIAN C. LYLES EDUCATION M.Ed., Cross-Cultural Education Specialty, Interpersonal Communication Emphasis University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 1996 B.A., Speech and Intercultural Communication Alaska Pacific University Anchorage, Alaska 1988 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Total Staffing Solutions, Seattle, Washington 1997-Present Project Coordinator,Educational Consultant Design and implement job readiness and customer service training programs for low- income and unemployed program participants. Provide outreach, recruitment, liaison and mentoring services. Coordinate the recruitment program and establish extensive contacts in the community. Seattle Central Community College, Seattle, Washington 1996-Present Adjunct Instnictor, Humanities and Social Sciences Division Distance Learning Instructor Design and teach course curriculum and provide a safe learning environment for exploring the process of interpersonal, intercultural, and small and large group communication. Develop and enhance creative and critical thinking skills, using various pedagogical methods. Promote an understanding of diverse human communication. Bridge theory and practice by applying what is learned in the classroom to 'outside" worlds. Designed and taught curriculum for a new Intercultural Communication course "Dealing with Diversity." And "Diversity in the Curriculum: Infusing Cultural Pluralism." In-Service Coordinator Recruit national and local presenters, oversee curriculum, schedule, and plan in-service workshops for professional-technical certification in elements of teaching, curriculum development, course organization, and occupational analysis. Design advertisements announcing in-service workshops for the academic year. Proposal/City of Kent Page 35 Interface Bilingual Education, Multifunctional Resource Center, Anchorage, Alaska 1991 -1996 Educational Consultant Designed and taught customized curriculum and developed a wide range of instructional programs for K- 12 and higher education institutions, and conferences throughout Alaska. Developed a variety of innovative formats and styles that would facilitate maximum effectiveness. Provided support to students, parents, and educators. Hope Cottages, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska 1987-1996 Human Resource Recruitment and Staffing Coordinator Designed, developed, and implemented the agency employee scheduling program. Developed various methods that enhanced employee recruitment, staffing, and retention for six departments. Facilitated weekly new employee orientation and provided professional staff development training in-house and offsite including: Sensitivity and Diversity, Interpersonal Communication, Communicating, as a Team, How to Access Community Resources, and Intercultural Communication. Provided leadership to 35 employees. Organized and maintained databases. Conducted needs assessment interviews and follow-up. Coordinated staffing needs of 45 residential and employment sites. Established and maintained effective communication channels. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ♦ Accommodating Students with Disabilities, Seattle Central Community College ♦ Alaska Staff Development Network Summer Academies ♦ Alaskan Native Teachers First Annual Conference, University of Alaska Fairbanks ♦ Ford Foundation Campus Diversity Initiative Conference: Diversity Education and the Public Good ♦ Welcoming Diversity, Seattle Diversity Works Proposal/City of Kent Page 36 AKEMI MATSUMOTO Qualifications A seasoned professional counselor with twenty years experience in the Washington Community College system. Extensive Teaching and Group Process Experience partnered with academic and practical understanding of organizational development and change. A diverse, multi-cultural background including: • being a third-generation Asian American • serving in the U.S. Peace Corps in Thailand for two years • teaching and studying four years in Berlin, Germany • Asian Studies undergraduate and graduate work • coordinating Foreign Student Program • teaching Asian-American Studies Yakima Valley College Work Experience Tenured Faculty Counselor and Instructor Bellevue Community College, Bellevue, WA September 1989—present �-� Director of Human Development Services Bellevue Community College, Bellevue, WA January 1992—June 1992 Tenured Faculty Counselor and Instructor Highline Community College, Des Moines, WA September 1975--June 1989 Minority Student Counselor and Instructor Yakima Valley College, Yakima, WA October 1974--June 1975 Education Counselor—Teacher U.S. Army Education Center Berlin, West Germany July 1970—March 1974 English As a Foreign Language Teacher U.S. Peace Corps Kanarat Bambumsaam School Pathum Thani, Thailand August 1966—April 1968 Proposal/City of Kcnt Page 37 Education Master of Education, Guidance and Counseling Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR August 1974 Graduate Work in Japanese Studies University of California, Berkeley, CA 1968-1969 National Defense Language Fellowship Monterey Institute of Foreign Studies Summer 1969 Professional Organizations Asian/Pacific Islander Council American Association of Community Colleges American Association of Women in Community and Junior Colleges National Association of Asian and Pacific American Education Washington Executive Board 81 -82 World Future Society Washington Community College Counselors' Association Officer 78 -79, Executive Board 83 - 84, Steering Committee 88 -89 Washington Education Association Washington Mediation Society Community Organizations Asian Pacific Women's Caucus, Executive Committee 1992--1995 King County Mental Health Board 76—BO, Planning Committee Liaison to Highline West Seattle Mental Health Center Liaison to Asian Counseling and Referral Service Washington Governor's Commission on Asian American Affairs 78 - 82 Public Relations Chairperson Nominations Chairperson Executive Committee Auction Fundraiser Chairperson Japanese American Citizens' League Seattle Chapter Board 77 - 78 Scholarship Chairperson 78 - 79 American Civil Liberties Union National Or¢anization of Women Ploughshares -Returned Peace Corps Volunteers Working for Peace Million Cranes Project Co-Chair 84 - 85 Hiroshima Peace Pilgrimage, 85 Northwest Namukai Taiko (Performing Japanese Drumming Group) 1979 - 1994 Proposal/City of Kent Page 38 APPENDIX C `..� Clients (partial listing) Private Public (continued) Aetna City of Ellensburg Aurora Medical Services City of Portland Battelle Research Institute City of Seattle Cinnabon Clark County,WA Deloitte &Touche Community Transit Eddie Bauer Dept. of Navy, Bangor,WA First Security Bank King County Library System Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce King County Prosecutor's Office Hewlett Packard King County Public Works Mobil Oil Company Multnomah County Sheriffs Department Music Corporation of America (MCA) Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Navistar (METRO) NW Federal Credit Union Pierce Transit Pepsi Cola Company Puget Sound Regional Council PW pipe Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Prestige Ford Sacramento County, Califomia Puget Sound Regional Council Seattle City Light RR Donnelley and Sons, Co. Seattle Housing Authority. Simpson Timber and Paper Seattle King County Departmeirt of Public United Airlines Health and Department of Youth Services United States Gypsum (USG) Seattle Public Library U.S. West Communications Shoreline Water District Washington Mutual Bank Sno-Isle Regional Library System Weyerhaeuser State of Washington Departments: Corrections General Services Health Care Authority Public Labor& Industries Liquor Control Board Bonneville Power Administration Lottery Commission City of Bellingham Personnel City of Bremerton Social and Health Services City of Edmonds U.S. Forest Service, Regions V &X Proposal/City of Kent Page 39 .. ...................... Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 1999 `- Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PURCHASE ADDITIONAL FIBER OPTIC CABLE FROM TCI - AUTHORIZATION 2 . SUKKARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to apply funds, estimated at $155, 213 from the Technology Plan contingency budget to extend the City' s fiber Optic backbone, as provided under the City' s franchise agreement with TCI . By extending the City' s I-Net to the remaining City facilities we will have the ability to create a faster overall network with reduced operational costs . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum to Council Operations "Purchase of Fiber Optic Cable from TCI" , Letter to TCI requesting additional fiber optic cable, TCI ' s response "Additional I-Net Sites" Memo from Moss Bay Group discussing fiber costs, Diagram of current and added sites . 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $155 , 213 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Technology Plan Contingency Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E a' Date: January 12, 1999 .,.,� To: Council Operations Committee From: Marty Mulholland, Director of Information Services Re: Purchase of Fiber Optic Cable from TCI Background: As part of our franchise agreement with TCI, the City expects to receive fiber optic cable to the following sites by July 1, 1999 under an agreement reached with the City and TCI: • City Hall • Fire Station 74 • City Shops • Corrections • Fire Station 77 We have been referring to this project internally as "the TCI fiber buildout", which is intended to act as the City's internal network (I-NET) backbone. TCI refers to this project as the "I-NET" project. Having access to fiber optic cable is advantageous to the City for many reasons. Fiber cable �J can be used for data, voice, and video types of communications. Using the fiber can eliminate operational costs associated with purchasing lines from U.S. West, although electronic equipment must be purchased in order for the fiber to be usable. Fiber has tremendous capacity, and the type of fiber associated with this installation has an expected life of at least 20 years. Members of the I.S. department have been meeting with TCI over the past few months to monitor the progress of the above fiber installation. TCI has completed the design and quality control portions of the project, and they have shown us the design drawings for the project. Option for Additional Connectivity: As part of the design review process, we began investigating the possibility of asking TCI to provide fiber to additional City facilities and to schools within the City of Kent city limits. Under our franchise with TCI it is appropriate to request additional fiber connectivity, and clearly this is the best time to request additional sites because TCI is already committed to its own significant buildout efforts. Section 8 of our franchise agreement allows the City, or other public agencies, to extend their I-NET to new locations, so long as the City and TCI agree on cost allocations. My formal request to TCI requesting additional sites is attached. The Kent School District is clearly interested in participating, and the Federal Way schools are considering participation. TCI developed costs for connecting the following sites to the City's internal fiber network: • Parks Kent Commons • Parks Senior Center • Parks Resource Center • Fire Stations 71, 72, 75, 76 • Possible New City Maintenance Facility • Possible New Valley Comm. Site • Golf Course facility This franchise proposal calls for delivering 6 to 12 strands of fiber optic cable to each of the above sites, plus 24 strands of fiber cable between station 74 and City Hall. The costs are as follows: Cable install $129,938 Sales Tax $ 11,175 Contingency 10% $ 14,100 Total $155,213 Budget: This I-NET opportunity with TCI just recently arose, so the City's Technology Plan did not include it. However, there is an overall contingency budget of$226,000 associated with the .✓ Technology Plan for unanticipated projects and/or cost overruns. The value of this I-NET backbone is tremendous. Capacity and potential operational cost savings are significant. I took some time to determine what our costs would be to independently implement this type of an installation. Our network consultants provided me with a pricing model for similar fiber installations. Using that model, estimates for a similar fiber installation would cost 5 to 6 times as much as the proposed cost as part of this franchise proposal. In terms of operational cost savings opportunities, we pay approximately $3600/year just for data services to a number of these sites. The capacity of one pair of the fiber, after purchasing electronics, is 65 times faster than the typical data services we purchase. We may then use a 2nd pair of fiber strands of the fiber to eliminate or reduce the costs of voice lines. This would leave us with two more additional strands for future requirements. The life of this fiber is expected to be at least 20 years, and the reliability of the fiber is similar to the reliability of dedicated phone services. Recommendation: I strongly endorse using the contingency budget of the Technology Plan exercise this franchise option. Not only will this put the City in a tremendous position in terms of overall fiber capacity, this also puts the City in a good position to connect to our our likely new sites. We in I.S. will facilitate any necessary agreements between the City and school districts to address such issues as security and maintenance. We do not foresee any problems, and we 2 are excited about collaborating with TCI and the School Districts in order to deliver fiber optic cable to our City schools at such an attractive price. Attachments: • Formal Request to TCI from City • Response letter from TCI • Moss Bay Typical Fiber Cost per 6-strand foot estimate • Network Diagram Motion: I move that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council that the mayor be authorized to apply funds, estimated at $155,213, from the Technology Plan contingency budget, to extend the City's I-NET backbone, as provided under the City's franchise agreement with TCi. 3 CITY OF Jim White, Mayor January 5, 1999 Sean Bristol TCI Network Engineering &Construction 18000 7fo Ave. S., Suite 160 Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mr. Bristol The purpose of this letter is to express an interest on the part of the City of Kent in working with TCI to extend fiber cabling to additional sites within our City. Pursuant to Section 8 of the City's ordinance 3108, which is the Franchise Ordinance with TCI, we believe we may identify a need for further educational or public safety bi-directional networks. Also within that section of the ordinance, we understand that TCI is to be given an opportunity to present a response in terms of the costs and appropriateness of such requests. Our request to you is to provide us with costs for extending fiber as follows: • 6 to 12 strands of fiber to 10 additional City facilities, in a star configuration using Fire Station 74 as a hub • 6 strands of fiber to 17 sites on behalf of the Kent School District, for 17 schools within Kent City limits, using Fire Station 74 as a hub • 6 strands of fiber to 3 sites on behalf of the Federal Way School District. for 3 schools within Kent City limits, using Fire Station 74 as a hub • 24 strands between Fire Station 74 and City Hail Hub Site names and addresses are provided on the attached sheet. Please know that we are very appreciative of your cooperation with us in terms of exploring this opportunity. We will work with the school agencies to facilitate a response to you on their behalf and will create agreements between the City and school distncs in terms of security arrangements. I am pleased to note that you have reached some milestones for the fiber buildout portion of our franchise agreement. I look forward to the successful celivery of fiber location identified in the franchise agreement by July 1 of this year. Sincerely Marty Mulholland, Director of Information Services Attachment: Site Lists :'0 un +vFNUE SOUTH I %ENT.'•vASHINGTON'48032-5895, TELEPHONE .Z53)859-3300 TCI TCI Necwork Enpneering And Construction I S0110 rT"Ave S.Suite 160 Kent WA,98032 January It. 1999 Marty.Mulholland Director of information Servirs City of Kent 120,r"Avenue South Trent Washington 99032 RE: Additional 1-Net sites Dear Marty. ,is per your rcyucat of January i 1998.1 am rorwa ding you coat analysis to expand your h-ber cabling to additional sites within your city franchise area. �..+ PIcase note that these costs can only be achieved if we age able to comment the additional cabling along side of the required site cabling.in doing so we will be able to maximize total construction cost and only add additional fiber cost for your newly rujucstal sites. The cost associated with the attached document can be considered accuruc within 10%.However,T will iced to have a final decision on which sifts will be added no latter then February 5 1999.This is when the bulk fiber order wi it be placed for the City of Kent T-Net project. .as with any rypt of construction please keen in mind d uu any out of the ordinary situations that:nay,.rise in ;cmn,cabling into any of the requested sites may add additionai cost to the project.At this time I am most confident that we would be axle to build Elie requested sites at me cost stated. 1 appreciate the good working rclanonshio that we save ecc.t able to build aver the last few months and look forward to continuing this relationship into the future. Sincerely. ScAn Unstol TCi Project Ma=6%-r C_: Mary Hansen/TO Debbie Luppold/TCi Janet Tutpen I TO J s MOSS GROUP November 11. ]998 I--hno \IaI11t?:I.IeM Ms. Marry Mulholland, I.S. Division Director Citv of Kent 220 4' Ave. S. Kent, WA 99032-5895 Dear Ms. Mulholland: This letter formally responds to your inquiry regarding the cost of acquiring and placing fiber optic cable in an outside plant environment. As you are aware, we routinely design similar fiber optic systems for public sector agencies throughout the West, and our staff includes both specialist certified ' in cable and wire infrastructure design and estimating, but also a former GTE plant engineer. Out staff estimates th= the cost of placing a 6 fiber optic cable on existing joint poles would be between 52.00 and S2.50 per foot. This cost would include all labor for placing, splicing. testing and terminating on patch panels but does not include the cost of eiectrorucs. The cost would be closer to S 1.50 to 32.00 per foot if the testing and termination labor is removed from the equation. Ms. Mulholland. please call me at 425-82'-3363 if you should have any questions or require additional information. i Sincerely, � f l� David M. Nicksic. RCDD/LAIN Vice President -Northwest !Mare oWWe) Southern Cafifornia 0IRce 3323 Lakeview Drive. Suite 200 13540 Woodcrest Drive KirKlano, ',VA 98033 Sherman Oaks. G 91403 423.827 3363 818.-88.0479 -AA 82" .002 :AX .38.3489 O � Q , ZO H LMANOW �a LL U2 O � gcg�� J U �M w Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KING COUNTY GRANT AGREEMENT, 1999 CITY OPTIONAL PROGRAM - AUTHORIZATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the King County Grant Agreement, 1999 City Optional Program, and direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget in the amount of $36 , 286 . 00 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Grant agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY:Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO____.I_ YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : a 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: i Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds i I E DISCUSSION: I i ACTION: 1 Council Agenda Item No. 6F CONTRACT 4 D 2673 L D INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Between KING COUNTY and the CITY OF KENT This Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) is executed between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and the City of Kent , a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "County" and "City"respectively. This Agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each party as designated below: King County Motion No. 8857 City PREAMBLE King County and the City of Kent have adopted the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan which includes waste reduction goals. In order to help meet these goals, the King County Solid Waste Division has established the City Optional Program. The City Optional Program funds projects that enable �jzens to recycle materials not included in curbside collection programs and provides funds for cities to establish and maintain Business Recycling Programs and services. The City will spend its grant fiends to fulfill the terms and conditions set forth in the scopes of work which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by reference. L PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to define the terms and conditions for funding to be provided to the City of Kent from the County for the operation of Special Recycling Events and for the operation of a Business Recycling Program. IL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES The responsibilities of the parties to this Agreement shall be as follows: A. The Citv Ceneral Provisions 1. The City shall comply with the Minority and Women's Business utilization provisions ofKing County Code Chapter 4.18, and amendments thereto, attached to the City's copy of the Agreement as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference to the other two copies of this Agreement. 1 2. During the performance of this Agreement, neither the City nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Agreement shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, nationality, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, age, or presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap in the employment or application for employment or in the administration or delivery of or access to services or any other benefits under this Agreement as defined by King County Code, Chapter 12.16. 3. During the performance of this Agreement, neither the City nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Agreement shall engage in unfair employment practices as defined by King County Code, Chapter 12.18. 4. The City shall use recycled paper for the production of all printed and photocopied documents related to the fulfillment of this Agreement. The City shall use both sides of paper sheets for copying and printing and shall use recycled/recyclable products wherever practical. 5. The City shall maintain accounts of the direct and indirect costs of the programs covered in this Agreement for a period of at least six years. These accounts shall be subject to inspection, review or audit by the County and/or by federal or state officials so authorized by law. 6. The City agrees to credit King County on all printed materials provided by the County which the City is duplicating for distribution. Either King County's name and logo must appear on King County materials (including fact sheets, case studies, etc.), or, at a minims the City will credit King County for artwork or text provided by the County as fo ows; "artwork provided courtesy ofying County Solid Waste Division" and/or"text provided courtesy ofKmg County Solid Waste Division' 7. The City agrees to submit to the County copies of all written materials which it produces and/or duplicates for the Special Recycling Event and the Business Recycling Program which have been funded through the City Optional Program. Upon request, the City agrees to provide the County with a reproducible copy of any such written materials and authorizes the County to duplicate and distribute any written materials so produced, provided that the County credits the City for the piece. Special Recycling Event Provisions 8. Funds provided to the City by the County pursuant to this Agreement shall be used to sponsor two special events for collection from City residents of recyclable materials not included in household collection programs and consistent with the scope of work and budget attached as Exhibit A. 9. Cities applying for City Optional Program funds must agree to collect at least four items, from the following list of eleven, at each event. Polycoated Paperboard • PET tit HDPE Plastic Containers • #3-7 Plastics Ferrous Metals • Clean Wood (untreated) • Non-ferrous metals Tomes • Bulky Wood Waste(>3" diameter) • TIM Reusable Household Goods . Appliances 10. The City will submit to the County reimbursement requests no later than ninety(90) days following the event in a format specified by the County. The City deli be required to maintain records of — where collected materials are sold or processed to gumus a that all the collected materials are either reused or recycled and to verify the amounts collected. The reimbursement request shall be accompanied by an event report which shall include information on the amount of each material 2 collected, the number of vehicles attending, the total cost for each budget item and the amount of that cost for which reimbursement is requested. In the event that the City hires a consultant to manage, plan, or staff the City's events, the City will provide documentation from the consultant of the number of hours spent on the event by task and the hourly rate associated with each task. The reimbursement request shall be accompanied by receipts for verification of expenses. 11. The City will provide the King County Recycling Information Line and the King County Project Manager with the date and location of each event, as well as copies of any printed material used to publicize the event, as soon as they are available, but no later than thirty (30) days prior to the event. In the event there is any change in the date or the location of the event, the City will notify the County a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the event. The City agrees that the events will be open to all King County residents and that the County has the right to publicize the events for the benefit of ail County residents. All promotional material must contain the following sentence: "Partial funding for this event provided by the King County Solid Waste Division." 12. The Special Recycling Events shall be administered by Robyn Bartelt, Conservation Specialist, for the City of Kent, at 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032, or designee. Business Recvcb&Prom=Provisions 13. Funds provided to the City by the County pursuant to this Agreement shall be used to provide waste reduction and recycling programs and/or services to the City's businesses as outlined in the scope of work and budget attached hereto as Exhibit B. 14. The City will submit to the County quarterly reports which include: a) a description of each activity accomplished in the previous quarter related to the scope of work; and b) reimbursement requests with copies of invoices and statements for each expenditure for which reimbursement is requested. These reports shall be submitted to the County on the following schedule: (1)the first quarter report is due by May 1, 1999; (2) the second quarter report is due by August 1, 1999; (3) the third quarter report is due by November 1, 1999; and (4) the fourth quarter report is due by February 1, 2000. Final reports which evaluate the effectiveness of the City's Business Recycling Program according to the evaluation methods specified in the scope of work are due within six months of completion of the program activity but no later than June 30, 2000. 15. The City agrees: a) to promote business recycling services; b) to provide assistance t`o businesses within its Ci to Gsh and expand er recycling, waste preventio and b cled r as described in Exhibit B; and c to wa to service levels for urban areas as defined in the 92 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan on pages III-41 an 42. 16. The City will cooperate with the County to coordinate its efforts with County pro$tams. To facilitate cooperation, meetings may be scheduled between the County, the City, and other cities which are participating in the Business Recycling City Optional Program. The County will coordinate any meetings and cities participating in the Buninm Recycling City Optional Program will be given an opportunity to assist in the coordination of such meetings. The meetings will be held to share information about Business Recycling Programs, to coordinate assistance and programs, and to plan for 2000. 3 17. The Business Recycling Program small be administered by Robyn Bartelt, Conservation Specialist, for the City of Kent, at 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kant, WA 98032, or designee. B. Co=: The responsibilities of the County pursuant to this Agreement are as follows: Gem eral Provisions 1. Within forty-five (45) days of receiving a request for reimbursement from the City, the County shall either notify the City of any exceptions to the request which have been identified or shall process the request for payment. If any exceptions to the request are made, this shall be done by written notification to the City providing the reason for such exception. The County will not authorize payment(s) for activities and/or expenditures which were not included in the scope(s) of work and budget(s) attached as Exhibits A and B, unless the scopes have been amended according to Section V of this Agreement. King County retains the tight to withhold all or partial payment if the City's report(s) and reimbursement request(s) are incomplete(La., do not include proper documentation of expenditures and/or adequate description of each activity described in the scope of work for which reimbursement is being requested), and/or are not consistent with the scopes of work and budgets attached as Exhibits A and B. 2. The County agrees to credit the City on all printed materials provided by the City to the County which the County duplicates for distribution. Either the City's name and logo will appear on such materials (including fact sheets, case studies, etc.), or, at a minimums, the County will credit the City for artwork or text provided by the City as follows: "artwork provided courtesy of the City of Kent" and/or"text provided courtesy of the City of Kent". 3. The County retains the right to share the written material(s) produced by the City which have been funded through this program with other King County cities for them to duplicate and distribute. In so doing, the County will encourage other cities to credit the City on any pieces which were produced by the City. Special Recycling Event Provisions 4. The Special Recycling Events shall be administered by Bill Smith, Project Manager, or designee, specified by the King County Solid Waste Division. 5. The County will not provide Special Recycling Evens within the corporate limits of the City. The County will coordinate the timing and locations of its Special Recycling Events with those of the City to avoid overlap whenever possible. 6. Funding for Special Recycling Events is allocated on the basis of a$4,000 base amount plus a per capita distribution. The City ofKent's budgeted allocation for Special Recycling Events in 1999 is S12,418. Business RggXGfiag Progm Provisions 7. The Business Recycling Program shall be administered by Dale Al" Project Manager, or designee specified by the King County Solid Waste Division. 4 S. The County will not provide technical assistance services to individual businesses within the corporate limits of the City unless such assistance is an integral part of a County targeted commodity or targeted industry program and unless such assistance is undertaken in cooperation with the City. If the City wishes to participate in a County sponsored technical assistance program, the City shall pay the County for participation according to its proportional share of the cost of the program based on the City's employment levels. The City shall be eligible for any regional business services offered by the County that are outside the category of technical assistance. Such regional services are identified in Exhibit D. 9. The County will share the results of previous business audits and/or follow up surveys conducted within the City limits (and any printed materials such as case studies that the City wishes to use in its own programs). The County will provide information about existing Green Works members located within the City limits and will assist the City in signing up new members. The County will also provide its quarterly newsletter production schedule to the City in the event that the City wishes to publish a quarterly insert for distribution to the businesses in the City. 10. Funding for Business Recycling Programs is allocated based on the number of employees within each city. The City ofKent's budgeted allocation for a Business Recycling Program in 1999 is 523,868. Total budgeted funding under this Agreement is 536,286. IIL DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall become effective on January 1, 1999 and shall terminate on December 31, 1999. IV. TERMINATION ,k This Agreement may be terminated by King County, in whole or in part, for convenience without cause prior to the termination date specified in Section III upon thirty (30) days advance written notice. B. This Agreement may be terminated by either parry, in whole or in part, for cause prior to the termination date specified in Section III, upon thirty (30) days advance written notice. Reasons for termination for cause may include but not be limited to: nonperformance, misuse of funds, failure to provide grant related reports/'mvoices as specified in Section II. A. 10 and Section II. A 14. C. If the Agreement is terminated as provided in this section: (1) the County will be liable only for payment in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for services rendered prior to the effective date of termination; and (2) the City shall be released from any obligation to provide further services pursuant to this Agreement. D. Nothing herein shall limit, waive, or extinguish any right or remedy provided by this Agreement or law that either parry may have in the event that the obligations, tams and conditions set forth in this Agreement are breached by the other party. c V. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended only by written Agreement of both parties. Funds may be moved between tasks in the scopes of work, attached as Exhibits A and B, only upon written or verbal request by the City and written or verbal approval by King County. Such requests wilt only be approved if the proposed change(s) is (are) consistent with and/or achieves the goals stated in the scope(s) and falls within the activities described in the scope. VL HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION The City shall protect, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, costs, and/or issues whatsoever occurring from actions by the City and/or its subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall d4fend at its own expense any and all claims, demands, suits, penalties, losses, damages, or costs of any kind whatsoever(hereinafter"claims") brought against the County arising out of or incident to the City's execution o& performance of or failure to perform this Agreement. Claims shall include but not be limited to assertions that the use or transfer of any software, book, document, report, film, tape, or sound reproduction or material of any land, delivered hereunder, constitutes an infringement of any copyright, patent, trademark, trade name, and/or otherwise results in unfair trade practice. VIL INSURANCE A The City, at its own cost, shall procure by the date of mazdan of this Agin and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insuuance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with performance of work pursuant to this Agreement by the City, its agents, representatives, employees, and/or subcontractors. The minimum limits of this insurance shall be S1,000,000 general liability insurance combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. Any deductible or self-insured retentions shall be the sole responsibility of the City. Such insurance shall cover the County, its officers, officials, employees, and agents as additional insureds against liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the City pursuant to this Agreement. A valid Certificate of Insurance is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit E, unless Section VM B. applies. B. If the Agency is a Municipal Corporation or an agency of the State of Washington and is self-insured for any of the above insurance requirements, a written acknowledgement of self-insurance is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit E. VIIL ENT= CONTRACT/WAMM OF DEFAULT This Agreement is the complete ex uumn of the agreement of the County and City hereto, and any oral or written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Waiver of any dahult shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent defauk. Waiver of breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless stated to be such through written approval by the County, which shall be attached to the original Agreement. 4 IX. TE1IE IS OF THE ESSENCE The County and the City recognize that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. X. SEVERABILTTY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phase of this Agreement is, for any reason, found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. XL NOTICE IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by each party on the date set forth below: Citv Kin: County Accepted for King County Executive BY Director of Natural Resources Title lk , Date Date Pursuant to Pursuant to Motion No. 8857 Approved as to form Approved as to form City Attorney King County Prosecuting Attorney Date Date 7 ................._... . ............. tl tl I Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 , 1999 `- " Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SEATTLE/KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. GRANT AGREEMENT, HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION - AUTHORIZATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the Seattle/King County Health Dept . Grant Agreement for Hazardous Waste Collection, and direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget in the amount of $21, 727 . 00 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Grant agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee (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. 6G EXHIBIT I D22059D MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON THE LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR 1999 ACTIVITIES This Memorandum of Understanding between the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health and the City of Kent specifies the administrative procedures and monetary reimbursement regarding implementation of the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. Scope of Work The City of Kent will organize two city-wide Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Recycling Events . At these events the following materials will be collected and recycled: lead acid batteries, antifreeze, all petroleum-based products/oil filters and automobile tires . ReDortinQ ReQuirements The City shall submit progress reports to the Department with each payment request . Payment requests must be submitted within 60 days after the completion of the event involved. Budget Attached hereto as "BUDGET/INVOICE" and incorporated herein. We , the undersigned, agree to the above work: KING COUNTY: CITY OF KENT: Ron Sims Date Jim White Date King County Executive Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM BY T??E OFFICE OF THE KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY EXHIBIT I-A BUDGET/INVOICE The City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dan Moran, Environmental Health Services Supervisor Seattle-King County Department of Public Health 999 3rd Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104-4039 Period of time : January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999 . In performance of an Agreement between the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health and the City of Kent, I hereby certify that the following expenses were incurred during the above mentioned period of time . The Department Program Monitor will have access to details as needed. Signature Date Component Budget Expenses Balance HHW Collection: Local Program Grants $21 , 727 Total $21, 727 For Department Use Only D22059D Approved for payment : Dan Moran Date . ... .. . ................... .. 1�1 Kent City Council Meeting Date IFebruary 2 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LID 349, SE 223RD ST. SANITARY SEWER, CHARGE IN LIEU OF ASSESSMENT - AUTHORIZATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, authorization for the Public Works Department to establish a Charge in Lieu of Assessment for $10 , 129 . 00 per connection (per house) for the affected properties as shown on the attached map . There is an estimated potential for seven connections, therefore the total amount to be collected is estimated at $70 , 903 . 00 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM December 28, 1998 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom CI-0 RE: L.I.D. 349 — SE 223rd Street Sanitary Sewer (1131h Ave SE to 114th Ave SE) Charge in Lieu of Assessment The Department of Public Works requests the approval for establishment of a charge in lieu of assessment for the recently constructed L.I.D. 349 sanitary sewer project. The location of the sewer mains and the properties affected by the charge are shown on the attached map. The charge per connection (per house) is $10,129.00. There is an estimated potential for seven connections, therefore the total amount to be collected is estimated at $70,903.00. However, additional connections may occur. The project is funded primarily by the L.I.D. assessments, however for several reasons as explained below, the City provided funded with the anticipation of a charge in lieu of assessment. There are two properties on the north side of SE 223rd St. as shown on the map that are not included in the L.I.D. These properties are currently in Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, therefore we could not include them in the L.I.D. However, due to the circumstances, Kent should provide service since a City sewer now exists on SE 223rd Street. The City proposed to fund the cost attributable to these parcels and establish a charge in lieu of assessment. Should these properties hook up in the future, they will pay a charge equal to the per house L.I.D. assessment (S10,129.00) to reimburse the City. In any event. the L.I.D. assessments were reduced, as there are two additional properties to share in the cost. The goal of the project was to provide a sewer connection for each property to address the failing septic system issue rather than to promote development. However, properties on the north side of SE 223rd St. are of sufficient size to possibly allow further development. For assessment calculations, five additional connections were estimated. The City proposed to fund the cost of the additional connections and establish a charge in lieu of assessment which would be paid should an additional connection be made in the future. This procedure minimized the initial assessment for the larger properties within the L.I.D. Therefore it became more feasible for the property owner to support the L.I.D., especially if they did not have development plans. However, should they have the need for additional connections in the future, they will be required to pay an appropriate share. The charge is equal to the per house L.I.D. assessment. 349chargtnlieu project 98-3003 file 10.1 Of the properties with development potential, four are within the L.I.D. boundary for which the first connection is covered by the L.I.D. assessment. All additional houses on these properties to connect are subject to the charge in lieu of assessment. The other properties are outside of the L.I.D. boundary, therefore each house to connect is subject to the charge in lieu of assessment. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Public Works Department to establish a charge in lieu of assessment for $10,129.00 per connection (per house) as described above, for the affected properties as shown on the attached map. 349cnargmlieu project 98-3003 file 10.1 W U y = 7 O O U ~ zz w 2 ~ w NI W N W 4 W y w N N N N N W LL 00 z ^ 2 O =- O w w7 \ I W m' i J 3'S 3AV 911 2 I ------ N W s a Z - - - N 2 -O - yN> C OJ U5 L. Ef] 0 -- j LL �y�O -- IN, -- cc 00 0 1 Cn LLI CN j e I_.. W� H rA\ lOL1W.YYL1 L1WWuu CD 7- w /Qwi r �(A 00 / _ :' IN I _. I a !. j �T W lip O I uu(nq�Owuly- C VI Q O \ z O N �, la Ell; J �O GV W O CV �\ \ LIJ CA W Z \ LU m N `-_'3'S 4 � cC r I � I I C�70 33 N �( N UP W o- �o -n.r . . nnum..nu...... nnuammnnmT Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LID 349, SE 223RD ST. SANITARY SEWER, FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - SET HEARING DATE 2 . SuMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, establish March 2nd as the Public Hearing date for adoption of the ordinance confirming the Final Assessment Roll for LID 349 . 3 . EXHIBITS : Public Works Director memorandum i 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) f i 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : i 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: r Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds i i 9 DISCUSSION: ACTION: 9 Council Agenda Item No. 6I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS January 20, 1999 TO: Public Works/Plannin Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: LID 349 — SE 223' Street Sanitary Sewer A public hearing is being scheduled for March 2"1 to adopt the Ordinance which will establish the final Assessment Roll for LID 349. At this time, we are requesting the Committee's concurrence in setting this date. MOTION: Recommend authorization to establish March 2nd as the Public Hearing date to adopt the Ordinance establishing the Final Assessment Roll for LID 349. vt P[,1 D349 #98-3003 `+rrr' PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM January 13, 1999 TO: Mayor and City ouncil FROM: Don Wicks64i , irector of Public Works RE: LID 349—SE 223`d Street Sanitary Sewer (1131h Ave SE to 1141h PI SE) March 2, 1999 has been scheduled for the confirmation hearing on the final assessment roll for the above referenced LID project. BACKGROUND The City received a petition for the installation of sanitary sewers on SE 223`d Street northeast of the curves on Benson Highway (SR 516) as shown on the attached map. Subsequently, all property owners within the project were contacted and there was adequate support to proceed with the formation of the LID. Initially, properties in addition to the area covered by the petition were contacted and asked to complete a questionnaire expressing interest or disinterest in the project. The LID boundary was based on the responses with properties on 1141h and H5`h Place SE being deleted due to lack of support. The Resolution of Intent No. 1501 was approved by City Council on November 9, 1997 which set the hearing date for .January 6, 1998. Zero protests were received, therefore City Council passed Ordinance No. 3388 on .January 20, 1998 forming the LID and ordering the construction of the sewer system. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS The project constructed an 8" sanitary sewer system with one 6" side sewer stub to the right- of-way line for each of the 22 properties included in the LID boundary and 2 properties outside of the LID boundary. Tmv98274 Page l of 3 Project Number: 98-3003 The Construction included 8" sewer at the following location: (see attached map) ON FROM TO SE 223rd Street Approx 200 feet west 114th PI SE Of UP Ave SE 114th Ave SE SE 223rd St 223rd PI SE 223rd Pl SE UP Ave SE West to end 113rd PI SE SE 223rd St South to end Also included was street and general restoration. PROJECT FUNDING Original Final LID $186,972.28 $222,838.00 Soos Creek Water & Sewer -0- 515,725.04 City (Future Charge in Lieu of Assessment 5549491.18 570,903.00 City (Sewer Division) -0- 5439086.19 TOTAL $246,463.46 $3529552.23 The LID share is composed of 22 assessments of 510,129.00 each. This is an LID project, however, City funding is being proposed for several reasons. There are two properties on the north side of SE 223rd Street as shown on the map that are not included in the LID. These properties are currently in Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, therefore we can't include them in the LID. However, due to the circumstances, they should be serviced by Kent since a Kent sewer is already available on SE 223rd Street. The City proposes to fund the cost attributable to these parcels and establish a Charge in Lieu of Assessment. Should these properties hook up in the future, they will pay a charge equal to the per house LID assessment to reimburse the City. In any event, the LID assessments are reduced as there are two additional properties to share in the cost. Each property currently has one existing house. The goal of the project was to provide a sewer connection for each house to address the failing septic system issue rather than to promote development. However, five of the properties currently with one house are of sufficient size to possibly allow further development. For assessment calculations, these properties were considered as two connections since it appears that at least one additional home could be constructed and connected to the sewer on South 223rd Street. The City proposes to fund the cost of the second connection and establish a Charge in Lieu of Assessment which will be paid should an additional connection be made in the future. This S%111 procedure minimizes the initial assessment for these larger properties which made it more feasible for the property owner to support the LID and pay the assessment, especially if they Tmv98274 Page 2 of 3 Project Number: 98-3003 did not have development plans. However, should they have the need for additional connection, they will be required to pay an appropriate share. Soos Creek Water and Sewer District replaced their water mains while the roadway was torn up for the sewer construction. Therefore, they paid half of the asphalt overlay costs for restoring the roadway. The final project costs exceed the original estimate. The assessment to the properties has increased from 58,498.74 to 510,129 which covers only a portion of the increase. Due to the extent of the increase it is recommended that sewer division funds pay the additional cost above the revised assessment amount. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT Each property within the LID boundary receives an equal share of the LID total based on one residential side sewer connection per parcel. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT Upon Council passing the Ordinance confirming the Final Assessment Roll, there is a 30-day in which any portion or all of the assessment can be paid without interest charges. After the 30-day period, the balance is paid over a ten-year period wherein each year's payment is one- tenth of the principal plus interest on the unpaid balance. The interest will be what the market dictates. ANNEXATION TO CITY The LID is located outside of the Kent City limits but within our sewer franchise boundary. These properties were not required to annex to the City prior to the LID formation. However, each person applying for a sewer permit will be required to execute an Annexation No Protest Covenant. This means that in the case of an annexation attempt, they will be counted as a "ves" vote and once enough covenants have been signed, an annexation could proceed. MANDATORY SEWER CONNECTION The Citv Code states that all residences whether within or outside the City limits, located within 200 feet of a City of Kent sanitary sewer shall be required to connect to the sewer and shall be billed for the service. The Code provides that compliance with this provision be within 90 days after the date of official notice to do so. In the case of a public health or safety hazard, compliance shall be within 20 days of official notification. Following construction of the project, the City sends each property owner an official notice that the sanitary sewer service is available to the parcel and is within 200 feet of the house. Following the compliance period, all properties which have not yet applied for a side sewer permit will automatically be added to the sewer billing list. Tmv98274 Page 3 of 3 Project Number: 98-3003 '3'9 '3AV 911 _ a ,V ZZ r U. -> __ 3'S -ld SII V w mLU - I � 'Y uj CD muuonn i Li W i • 'TS *lei 11 Q w CD M , A + W Y I y uuunq � V/ W _ O W r. �.✓ m I N I AO I O O go O I - • nnIIn I11I1Wq: I .I W uj V N I NI va eo H - N ~ I '3'9 la fill y o N LiJ C6�..........' � I \ LiJ W I > . Q � � -► � i N � ✓—ram O � � � T Z — _ F m U"O r; `. '3'S :3AV £If� _� w J lie 2 Ll �� l! "'q H i w s � � _ I W I O �O . /. .1. n.nTR.I1RRRfn W I ........... ... . Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 , 1999 �- Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: ZONING CODE UPDATE - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. amending Title 15 of the Kent City Code . Ordinance No. 3409 amending the Zoning Code was adopted on July 7, 1998 . Subsequent to passage of Ordinance 3409, additional revisions were made to the Zoning Code consistent with the recommendations of the Land Use and Planning Board and as unanimously approved by the Public Works/Planning Committee on January 20, 1999 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance ti 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 15, specifically Section 15.03.020(E)(1), Chapter 15.04, Section 15.05.040, Section 15.06.050, Section 15.08.020, Section 15.08.100(B), and Chapter 15.08. WHEREAS, in 1996, the Kent City Council authorized review of the Kent City Code to determine whether reformatting would make the zoning code easier to use and identify and correct conflicts, if any, and to bring the zoning code into conformity with 11 recent changes in state law; and . WHEREAS,the City of Kent Planning Department met with developers,architects, and Chamber of Commerce representatives. as well as City departments to identify areas i lof the zoning code that needed improvement; and I WHEREAS, the recommendations proposed were reviewed in workshops by the lLand Use & Planning Board beginning in January; and WHEREAS, the Land Use & Planning Board conducted a public hearing on May 26. 1998, and recommended approval of the proposed changes to the zoning code; and WHEREAS, on June 2. 1998. the proposed zoning code amendments were reviewed by the City Council Committee of the Whole; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning code amendments were reviewed by the City Council and were adopted in Ordinance No. 3409 with an effective date of July 13, 1998; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the passage of Ordinance No. 3409, inadvertent errors were discovered in the final ordinance; and WHEREAS,the City Council Planning and Public Works Committee has reviewed the inadvertent errors within Ordinance No. 3409 and recommended approval of additional amendments to the zoning code to conform to the original intention of the Land Use & Planning Board; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Subsection 15.03.020(E)(1) of the Kent City Code is hereby amended lias follows: I Sec. 15.03.020. Official zoning map. I A. Adoption. The designation, location and boundaries of the various districts are shown on the official zoning map. The official zoning map is hereby adopted and made a part of this title. IB. Location; identification. The official zoning map shall be on file in the planning department office. The map shall be identified by the signature of the city clerk and 1 city attorney and bear the title. "City of Kent Official Zoning Map, Ordinance 1827." 1C. Display zoning map. In addition to the official zoning map there may be a display zoning map, which may be used to generally indicate the various districts, but not to locate precise boundaries. D. Amendments. If changes are made in the district boundaries or other matters yr, portrayed by the official zoning map, such changes shall be entered on the official zoning map after the amendment has been approved by the city council. The signature of the city clerk and the city attorney shall be entered on the official zoning map with the ordinance number of the amendment. Each amendment shall be filed as part of the official zoning record. E. Unclassified property. All property not otherwise classified on the official zoning map shall be treated as follows: 1. Interim zoning. All property not otherwise classified on the official zoning map is hereby placed in an interim zone. Such an interim zone shall be governed by provisions applicable to the R! 29 SR-2 single-family residential district. 2. Upon annexation of property, or upon the city otherwise being made aware of property in the interim zoning designation, the planning director shall commence all necessary steps to zone such property. Interim zoning of property shall be for six (6) months unless otherwise provided by ordinance. i SECTION 2. Chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code is repealed in its entirety land a new Chapter 15.04 is adopted as follows: CHAPTER 15.04. DISTRICT REGULATIONS See. 15.04.010. Interpretation of Land Use Tables. ;IIA. Land Use Tables. The land use tables in sections 15.04.020 through 15.04.140 determine whether a specific use is allowed in a zoning district. The zoning districts are located in the vertical columns and the land uses are located on the i horizontal rows of these tables. A purpose statement for each zoning district is included in Chapter 15.03. B. Principally Permitted Uses. If the letter"P" appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row. the use is permitted in that zoning district subject to the I review procedures specified in Chapter 15.09, the development conditions i following the land use table, and any requirements of an overlay zone and the w general requirements of the code. C. Special Uses. If the letter"S"appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use is permitted in that zoning district subject to the review procedures specified in Chapter 15.09, the development conditions following the land use table, the development standards stated in Sec. 15.08.020, any requirements of an overlay zone and the general requirements of the code. D. Conditional Uses. If the letter "C" appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row,the use is permitted in that zoning district subject to the review jprocedures specified in Chapter 15.09, the development conditions following the land use table, the review criteria stated in Sec. 15.09.030, any requirements of an overlay zone and the general requirements of the code. E. Accessory Uses. If the letter "A" appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use is permitted in that zoning district subject to the review procedures specified in Chapter 15.09, the development conditions following the land use table and any requirements of an overlay zone and the general requirements of the code. F. Development Conditions. If a number appears next to the land use or in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use may be allowed subject to the appropriate review process indicated above. the general requirements of the code, and the specific conditions indicated in the development condition with the corresponding number in subsection immediately following each land use table. !11G. .Multiple Development Conditions. If more than one letter-number combination i appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use is allowed in that zone subject to different sets of limitations or conditions depending on the review process indicated by the letter. the general requirements of the code and the specific conditions indicated in the development condition with the corresponding number immediately following the table. I H. Overlay Zones. Overlay districts provide policies and regulations in addition to those in the underlying zoning district. Overlay zones include the Mixed Use Overlay and the Green River Corridor Special Interest District. I. Applicable Requirements. All applicable requirements shall govern a use whether or not they are cross-referenced in a section. J. Interpretation of Other Uses. Any other unnamed use shall be permitted if it is determined by the planning director to be of the same general character as the principally permitted uses and in accordance with the stated purpose of the district, per Section 15.09.065. I 'I Ili III i i i i i I i I �/ I 5 Sec.15.04.020. Residential Land Uses. pa pdncipdy Permitted Uses S■SpeeW Uses C■CondMonal Uses A=ACMsory Uses r r g Ui Goo singla(amiy dwelling per lot P P P P P P P P P P P P p All) A(11 A(1) A11) one duples per lot p one modular home per lot P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Plq P P p p C UWutamgydvmftgs M GU (3) (2)Multibs its► niy dwellings for senior citizens 11>y P P p{71 P(7J MoMe bows and manufactured homes P Mohps hare parks P P P P P (n) (t� (tz► (1» Group homes class I•A P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C C C P Group homes class I•B P P P P P P P P C C C C P C C Group homes dais 4C C C P P P P P P C C P C C Group homes dais II-A C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes dais IFB C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes dais II-C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class III P(!7 PIG) P(S) p(s) P(� RebuMaccessory uses for existing P(S) Pla) P(4) P(S) P(S) P(S) P(6) dwellings Transitional housing Al>il Guest cottages and houses Ala) A(8) A(S) Rooming and boarding of not more than A A A A A A A A A thin persons A(g) Farm workeraccommodadons A A(g) A (1T) (IT) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Accessory uses and buildings A A A A A customarily appurtenant to a permitted (tit) - use A A A Accessory dwelling units (o) (1®) pal p% dal (>D) (1 >ol (lu) 110) (to) (10) 00) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (14) (14) 1141 Hal (14) (14) (t4) (14) 1141 (141 (14) (14) 11 41 (141 AccessorylMngWarlers (14) Homaoccepatbns (fl) (1t) fill (11) (1) (11) (1) fill (it) (tt) (71 A Service buildings Storage buildings and storage of A A A A A A A A A A A A rsaeadonaivehicles (ta) (16) (16) (111) (16) 116) (14) (fs) (16) (fa) (tat Ddvsare churches: welfare facilities: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C l 2) C C C C C C C Ddve4n churches, retirement homes, convalescent homes and other welfare (adages whether privately or publicly operated, facilities for rehabilitation or correction,etc / - V Sec. 15.04.030. Residential Land Use Development Conditions. 1. Dwelling units, limited to not more than one (1) per establishment, for security or maintenance personnel and their families, when located on the premises where they are employed in such capacity. No other residential use shall be permitted. 2. Multifamily residential use shall be permitted only in the mixed-use overlay when included within a mixed use development. 3. Multifamily residential use shall be permitted only in the mixed-use overlay. 4. Multifamily residential uses, when established in buildings with commercial or office uses, and not located on the ground floor. 5. Multifamily residential uses, when not combined with commercial or office uses. 6. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences. 7. Transitional housing facilities, limited-to a maximum of twenty(20)residents at any one (1) time and four (4) resident staff. ,r a 8. Guesthouses not rented or otherwise conducted as a business. 9. Farm dwellings appurtenant to a principal agricultural use for the housing of farm owners, operators or employees, but not accommodations for transient laboF. 10. Accessory dwelling units shall not be included in calculating the maximum density. Accessory dwelling units are allowed subject to the provisions of Section 15.08.350. 111. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section 15.08.040. 12. Except for transitional housing with a maximum of twenty (20) residents and four (4) staff. I I Subject to the combining district requirements of the Mobile Home Park Code, KCC 12.05. 14. Accessory living quarters are allowed per the provisions of Section 15.08.359. it �../ 7 15. Multi-family residential use shall be permitted as a conditional use only when included in a mixed use development. 16. Recreational vehicle storage is permitted as an accessory use in accordance with Section 15.08.080. 17. Accommodations for farm operators and employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 18. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones. I li it I i� �I i Sec. 15.04.040 Manufacturing Land Uses. Zo*1 Districts ■principally Pedmitisd Uses S■special Um g 3 C a Condidonal Uses i A.Accasory Uses N a a 6 rA N rA Z t7 O C� G) C7 O Se '� 3 lM Mamdacbrrkrq proeudrrq,b'ndiId cm an packaging of to and a pr P P P P P P P PR) MiafacbrMg,pro sig.blendi C(1) packaging of drugs, pharmace baNehles and cosmetics. P P P P Msnufaatur mil,processing,blendi C(1) paska&g of dairy products byproduct p p P P P PR) hrdustrW laundry and Dyeing(Inctudinq amen supply and diaper services) P P P C P P P P PQ) Cbv*sW ublishing and allied Industries C14 ) ) and related products mill. I I I t P p C P P(6) Contractor shops and storage p P P P P P(2) atom arts and craft products mfg. c(Q 11 Computers, office machines and P(3) P1* equipment mfg. P(3) P(3) p P P P P(2) Manufacturing and assembly of Electrical CV) equipment; Appliances, lighting, radio, TV communications, equipment and components P P P P P P P(2) Fabricated metal products Mfg.;Custom C(1) sheet metal mfg.,containers,hand tools; hutinq equipment, straw products, estrus'=;coating;and plating PP) PR) P P P P P(2) Manufacturing and assembl y of (21!) Rg) (2g) Rg) ElaWonlc and electrical devices; and sutamotivs,aerospace,missile,airframe and similar products. A A A A(9) A(T) A A A A Hazardous substance land uses AR) A(f) �) ) ) �) Ali) (11) (11) (11) C(8) (15) (15) (15) (11) C(6) C(s) C C C C C C C (12) (12) (12) (16) (15) (i6) (19) Offices incidental and necessary to the A A A P P P P P P conduct of a Principally permidd use p p 126 P warehousing and distribution facilities (26 CO) C C C 14 Rail-Trurk Transfer Uses (IT) (21) (21) P P A A A A A P Outdoor Storage Pncluding tuck huvy equipment and contractor storage yards as allowed by Development Standards Sections 15.04.190615.04110) C P P C P Miniwuahouses self-storage (23) 9 Section 15.04.040 continued � N CD a a ManufecWdng of soaps,detergents,and CM other basic claiming and cleansing prstearatlons C P Manufacturing of Plastics and synthetic C 1 radns C P Manufacturing of Synthetic and natural C f) fiber and cloth C P Mantdagring of Plywood, composition C(t) wallboard, and similar structural wood products C P MerarfacluMg of Nonmetallic mineral CM products such as abrasives, asbestos, chalk,pumice and putty c P lien ischas ig of Halt resisting or C(f) dppcbrrst clay products (brick, tile, or pips)arPomeiainproducts c P Masufacuring of Machinery and heavy CO) mechim tool .equipment for general industry and mining. agricultural, ,`�✓ construction at servI Industries P P P P P FM Manufacturing, processing, assembling, (24) (Sn (32) CM and packaging of articles, products,or merchandise made from previously praparad natural ofsynthedcmaterials P P P P Manufacturing, Processing, treating, 00)) . assembling and packaging of articles, products, or merchandise from previously prepay ferrous,nonferrous or alloyed metals. P P P Compiues which Include a combination of us", including a mixture of office, a"*,and fight manufacturing uses. Accessory uses and buildings A A A A A A A A A A A A customsrfly appurtenant to a permitted (Sty use �O Sec. 15.04.050. Manufacturing Land Use Development Conditions. The following uses require a conditional use permit: a. Manufacture of such types of basic materials as follows: (1) Gum and wood chemicals and fertilizers, and basic industrial organic and inorganic chemicals or products such as alkalis and chlorine, industrial and liquid petroleum, gases, cellophane, coal tar products, dyes and dye products, impregnated products, tanning compounds, and glue and gelatin. (2) Hydraulic cement, concrete, gypsum, lime, carbon, carbon black, graphite, coke, glass and similar products. b. Manufacture of products such as the following: (1) Ammunition, explosives, fireworks, matches, photographic film, missile propellants and similar combustibles. (2) Rubber from natural, synthetic or reclaimed materials. (;) Paving and roofing materials or other products from petroleum derivatives. C. Refining of materials such as petroleum and petroleum products,metals and metal ores, sugar, and fats and oils. I d. Distilling of materials such as bone, coal, coal tar, coke, wood and other similar distillates. �I e. Heavy metal processes, such as ore reduction or smelting, including blast �I �I furnaces, and including drop forging, drop hammering, boiler plate works and similar heavy metal operations: (1) Asphalt batching plants. (2) Concrete mixing and batching plants, including ready-mix concrete facilities. (3) Rock crushing plants and aggregate dryers. (4) Sandblasting plants. f. Animal and food processing, including the following and similar operations: � i i ] (1) Tanning, dressing and finishing of hides, skins and furs. (2) Meat and seafood products, curing, canning, rendering and slaughtering. (3) Nitrating of cotton and other materials. (4) Rendering of animal grease or tallow, fish oil and similar materials. (5) Slaughtering, stockyard, feedlot, dairy and similar operations. (6) Pickling and brine curing processes. (7) Wholesale produce markets. g. Salvage, wrecking and disposal activities, including the following and similar operations: (1) Automobile and building wrecking and salvage. (2) Salvage of industrial waste materials such as metal, paper, glass, rags and similar materials. (3) Sewage disposal and treatment plants. (4) Dump and sump operations for such uses as rubbish, garbage, trash and other liquid and solid wastes. h. Storage of the following kinds of goods: i (1) Bulk storage of oil, gas, petroleum, butane, propane, liquid petroleum gas and similar products, and bulk stations and plants. (2) Used building materials, mover's equipment, relocated buildings, i impounded vehicles and similar materials. (3) Explosives or fireworks. except where incidental to a principally permitted use. 'i (4) Fertilizer or manure. I 2. Small scale, light industrial or manufacturing operations where the building, i structure or total operation does not encompass more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of area. The ten thousand (10,000) square feet total shall include all I, indoor and outdoor storage areas associated with the manufacturing operation. Only one (1) of these uses shall be allowed per lot. 12 3. Small scale light manufacturing operations as follows: stamping, brazing, testing, - electronic assembly and kindred operations where the building, structure or total operation does not encompass more than ten thousand(10,000) square feet of area. The ten-thousand-square-foot total shall include all indoor and outdoor storage areas associated with the manufacturing operation. Only one (1) ten-thousand- square-foot manufacturing operation shall be permitted per lot. 4. Conditional use for manufacturing of paint, but manufacturing of paint is permitted outright in the M-3 zone. 5. Contractor shops where most of the work is done on call, and which do not rely on walk-in trade, but where some incidental storage or semi-manufacturing work is done on the premises, such as carpentry, heating, electrical or glass shops, printing, publishing, or lithographic shops, furniture, upholstery, dry cleaning and exterminators. 6. Accessory uses shall include vehicular drive-through, drive-in and service bay facilities. 7. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including offite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and do not accumulate more than twenty thousand (20,000) i pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this I district. I 1 8. For permitted uses, accessory hazardous substance land uses which are not subject I to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which accumulate more than twenty thousand (20.000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this district. I I9. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including offite hazardous waste `�••✓ I� 13 treatment or storage facilities, which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which do not accumulate more than five thousand (5,000) `.. pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this district. 10. Includes incidental storage facilities and loading/unloading areas. 11. For permitted uses,hazardous substance land uses, including offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities,which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which do not accumulate more than ten thousand (10,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this district. 12. For permitted uses, accessory hazardous substance land uses which are not subject to cleanup requirements of chapter 11.02 and which accumulate more than ten thousand(10,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site or which handle more than twenty thousand (20,000) pounds of hazardous substances and wastes on the site in any thirty-day period of time, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this i district. i 13. Includes incidental storage facilities, which must be enclosed, and loading/unloading areas. 14. Including transportation and transit terminals with repair and storage facilities, and rail-truck stations, except classification yards in the category of"hump yards". 15. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including offite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities. which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which do not accumulate more than twenty thousand (20,000) 14 pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050. Offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities are not permitted in this district, except through a special use combining district. 16. For permitted uses, accessory hazardous substance land uses which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which accumulate more than twenty thousand (20,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050. Offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities are not permitted in this district, except through a special use combining district. 17. Conditional use permit required for trucking terminals and rail-truck transfer uses. 18. For permitted uses,hazardous substance land uses,including onsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which do not accumulate more than twenty thousand(20,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one �,. (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which require a conditional use permit in this district. 19. For permitted uses, accessory hazardous substance land uses which are not subject I to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which accumulate more than twenty thousand (20,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050. except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which require a conditional use permit in this district. a. Offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, subject to the i provisions of section 15.08.050. b. Any hazardous substance land use that is not an accessory use to a principally permitted use. 120. Warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods or products, except 15 for those goods or products specifically described as permitted to be stored only as conditional uses in the M3 district. 21. Conditional use for car loading and distribution facilities, and rail-truck transfer stations. 22. Warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods or products, including rail-truck transfer facilities. 23. Mini-warehouses, provided that the following development standards shall apply for mini-warehouses, superseding those set out in subsection 15.04.100(E): a. Frontage use. The first one hundred fifty (150) feet of lot depth, measured from the property line or right-of-way inward from the street frontage, shall be reserved for principally permitted uses for this district, defined by the provisions of subsection 15.04.100(A)(1), or for the office or onsite manager's unit, signage, parking and access. A maximum of twenty-five (25) percent of the frontage may be used for access to the storage unit area, provided that in no case shall the access area exceed seventy-five (75) feet in width. No storage units or structures shall be permitted within this one hundred fifty (150) feet of commercial frontage depth. b. Lot size. Minimum lot size is one (1) acre; maximum lot size is four (4) acres. C. Site coverage. Site coverage shall be in accordance with the underlying i zoning district requirements. d. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be as follows: a. Front yard: Twenty (20) feet. b. Side yard: Ten (10) feet. C. Rear yard: Ten (10) feet. e. Height limitation. The height limitation is one (1) story. i f. Outdoor storage. No outdoor storage is permitted. i I g. Signs. The sign requirements of chapter 15.06 shall apply. h. Off-street parking. 16 (1) The off-street parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. (2) Off-street parking may be located in required yards, except in areas required to be landscaped. i. Development plan review. Development plan approval is required as provided in section 15.09.010. j. Landscaping. Landscaping requirements are as follows: (1) Front yard: Twenty (20) feet, type III (earth berms). (2) Side yard: Ten (10) feet, type II abutting commercial uses or districts; type I abutting residential uses or districts. (3) Rear yard: Ten (10) feet, type II abutting commercial uses or districts; type I abutting residential uses or districts. For maintenance purposes, underground irrigation systems shall be provided for all landscaped areas. k. Onsite manager. A resident manager shall be required on the site and shall be responsible for maintaining the operation of the facility in conformance with the conditions of the approval. The planning department shall establish requirements for parking and loading areas sufficient to accommodate the needs of the resident manager and the customers of the facility. 1. Drive aisles. Drive aisle width and parking requirements are as follows: I a. Fifteen-foot drive aisle and ten-foot parking aisle. b. Parking for manager's quarters and visitor parking. m. Building lengths. The horizontal dimension of any structure facing the perimeter of the site shall be offset at intervals not to exceed one hundred (100) feet. The offset shall be no less than twenty (20) feet in the horizontal dimension, with a minimum depth of five (5) feet. n. Building materials. If abutting a residential use or zone, residential design elements such as brick veneer. wood siding, pitched roofs with shingles. landscaping and fencing shall be used. No uncomplimentary building colors i should be used when abutting a residential use or zone. i 17 o. Prohibited uses. Use is restricted to dead storage only. The following are specifically prohibited: (1) Auctions (other than tenant lien sales), commercial, wholesale or retail sales, or garage sales. (2) The servicing,repair or fabrication of motor vehicles,boats, trailers, lawn mowers, appliances or other similar equipment. (3) The operation of power tools, spray painting equipment,table saws, lathes, compressors, welding equipment, kilns or other similar equipment. (4) The establishment of a transfer and storage business. (5) Any use that is noxious or offensive because of odor, dust, noise, fumes or vibration. (6) Storage of hazardous or toxic materials and chemicals or explosive substances. P. Fencing. No razor wire is allowed on top of fences. 24. Prohibited are those manufacturing activities having potentially deleterious operational characteristics, such as initial processing of raw materials (forging, smeltering, refining, and forming). 25. The ground level or street level portion of all buildings in the pedestrian overlay of the DC district (as shown in Section 15.04.080) must be retail or pedestrian- oriented. Pedestrian-oriented development shall have the main ground floor entry located adjacent to a public street and be physically and visually accessible by pedestrians from the sidewalk; and may include the following uses: a. Retail establishments, including but not limited to, convenience goods, department and variety stores, specialty shops such as apparel and accessories, gift shops, toy shops, cards and paper goods, home and home accessory shops, florists, antique shops and book shops; b. Personal services, including but not limited to, barber shops, beauty salons i and dry cleaning; 18 C. Repair services, including but not limited to, television, radio, computer, jewelry and shoe repair; d. Food-related shops, including but not limited to, restaurants (including outdoor seating areas and excluding drive-in restaurants) and taverns; e. Copy establishments; f. Professional services, including but not limited to, law offices and consulting services; and g. Any other use that is determined by the planning director to be of the same general character as the above permitted uses and in accordance with the stated purpose of the district, pursuant to section 15.09.065, Use Interpretations. 26. Permitted uses are limited to storage, warehousing, processing and conversion of agricultural, dairy, and horticultural products, but not including slaughtering or meat packing. 27. Excluding slaughtering,rendering, curing, or canning of meat or seafood products. 28. Except for those goods or products specifically described as permitted to be stored as conditional uses. I29. Excluding explosive fuels and propellants. 30. Excluding predominantly drop forge and drop hammer operations. I. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones. 32. Excluding paint boiling processes. �I I i i W,, I 19 Sec.15.04.060. Transportation,Public and Utilities Land Uses. Zoning UiWlcb PaPfittcip*Permitted Uses w s■special Uses C=Conditional Uses A■Accessory Uses eu a a C C Consmdal prldng tots or sWctum Tmppwtatlon and transnfaeigtla C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P(1) C C C Rea"and bus depots,taA atsnds Utand Wpsporttlim fadgtla: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C elg pKWW sutMial"s.pumping or regulating devices forgo transmission of WSW,on,slam.pabdeum,sett C C C C C C pupae fadatlea firshousa,Poece C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P C C C C C Nations,gbrades and administntive onion of gomwmW agenda,primary and secondary edro*,voatlond schools and cegsges A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Accessory uses and buildings .� custsmallr appmwaxt to a pernaw use 9b Sec. 15.04.065. Transportation, Public and Utilities Land Use Development Conditions. 1. Transportation and transit terminal, including repair and storage facilities and rail- truck stations, except classification yards in the category of"hump yards". 2. Accessory uses shall include vehicular drive-through, drive-in, or service bay facilities. I i j i� li I I i I i I� li �'r'I 21 Sec.15.O4.O7O. Wholesale and Retail Land Uses. WIN Districts pzprk*&W Pennkted Uses S a Special Uses Ca CondkiOnalUses A a Accessory Uses tar o< . I IT L9 p P P P PR) Bakeries and ConfalloeaAa p P P wholesale bakery P P P P(1) P(1) Bulk retall C P Awidlog csntare P p P P Rstall+ales of lumber,tools and other bvUq mririals.loduding prweanbled Product p 11 P C P P Hatdmee.P"till led wallPaPar(mtalt) P P Farm ogelpnwrt P 1 P C P P Ganand m erdtandiss:Dry goods,variety mad daparbaest atom(ndaN p p 11 P C P P (1 PN) (12 PRI Food and c mwdmcO Blom(miai9 P P P Aubmso .&bass,sgtomydo,boat and reeestlond vehicles asks(reta8) P P P (1 3 P(5) PM Aatorrfotive afrcraR,motorcycle and (13) marine accessories(Mwl) slg) Sn) SO) S(5) 80) s(e) S(g) s(ai S(s) c Gazallneservlcsstations p (11 P C P P A(8) FM Apparel and acceesodos(retail) P (11 P C P P PM Furniture,home furnishing(retail) P P P(11 p P P P P 1 P P P(5) Eating and drinking establishment(no drive.through) SO) C(r) P S(8) P pp) Eating and drinking establishment$(with cidva.tiuough) A A A A Eating fadlleea for smPloyess (14 Planed DevoloPmest Retail Sales PR) P P (11 P C P P 15 A(8) Mlseowsous retail:Drugs,andques, books,spofting goods,"Iffy 0orist photo esppiles,video rental,computer supplies.etc P PR) P P 11 P C P P Wuorriae P C P P Fa msuppliss,hay,gruin,feed,6mcing, eta lrwiq p C P P Mmwi ,green houses,garden supplies, toeN,ett C P P PR) Pat shape(retail and grooming) P C P P P PM Computers and electronics(retail) P(11 P C P P P P Hatt and motets P P P Comldaa which Include Combinations of uses,Induding a robdtus of otlfcs,light manufadudng,storage and aonenerdal uses P P A A A A A P Outdoor Storage(Including Cock hesvy equipment and contractor storage yards as allowed by Deselopmerlt Standards Sections 15A4.190 S 15.04.2 0) A A AM) Accessory uses and buildings A A A(9) A A A A A A A A A 18 16 1 1 10 A18) 16 18 A A A customarily appurtenant to a pemufted use 22 Sec. 15.04.080. Wholesale and Retail Land Use Development Conditions. 1. Bulk retail uses which provide goods for regional retail and wholesale markets; provided that each use occupy no less than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty (43,560) square feet of gross floor area. 2. All sales, storage and display occur within enclosed buildings. 3. Provided that any restaurant with drive-in or drive-through facilities shall be located a minimum of one thousand (1,000) feet from any other drive-in restaurant use. 4. Convenience and deli marts are limited to a maximum gross floor area of three thousand (3,000) square feet. 5. Uses shall be limited to twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of any single- or multi-building development. Retail and service uses which exceed the twenty-five (25) percent limit on an individual or cumulative basis shall be subject to review individually through the conditional use permit process. A conditional use permit shall be required on an individual tenant or business basis and shall be granted only when it is demonstrated that the operating characteristics of the use will not adversely impact onsite or offsite conditions on either an individual or cumulative basis. 16. Special uses must conform to the development standards listed in Section 15.08.020. 17. Drive-through restaurants, only if located in a building having at least two (2) stories. I8. Accessory uses are only allowed in cases where development plans demonstrate a relationship between these uses and the principal uses of the property: 9. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones. 10. Retail uses operated in conjunction with and incidental to permitted uses, provided such uses are housed as a part of the building comprising the basic operations. I i I. The ground level or street level portion of all buildings in the pedestrian overlay of the DC district, set forth in the map below, must be retail or pedestrian-oriented. r./ i 2J Pedestrian-oriented development shall have the main ground floor entry located adjacent to a public street and be physically and visually accessible by pedestrians from the sidewalk; and may include the following uses: a. Retail establishments, including but not limited to, convenience goods, department and variety stores, specialty shops such as apparel and accessories, gift shops, toy shops, cards and paper goods, home and home accessory shops, florists, antique shops and book shops; b. Personal services, including but not limited to, barber shops, beauty salons and dry cleaning; C. Repair services, including but not limited to, television, radio, computer, jewelry and shoe repair; d. Food-related shops, including but not limited to, restaurants (including outdoor seating areas and excluding drive-in restaurants) and taverns; e. Copy establishments; f. Professional services, including but not limited to, law offices and consulting services; and g. Any other use that is determined by the planning director to be of the same general character as the above permitted uses and in accordance with the stated purpose of the district, pursuant to Section 15.09.065, Use Interpretations. 12. Retail convenience grocery sales are allowed in conjunction with a gasoline service station as a special pemvt use subject to the development standards listed in Section I 15.08.020. 13. Retail sales are limited to tires, batteries and accessories for industrial vehicle and equipment. 14. Retail sales are permitted as part of a planned development where at least fifty (50) percent of the total development is for office use. Drive-in restaurants, service stations, drive-in cleaning establishments and other similar retail establishments are not permitted. 24 15. Incidental sales and services, such as restaurants, pharmacies and retail sales, to �✓ serve occupants and patrons of permitted uses when conducted within the same building, provided there is no exterior display or advertising. 16. Includes incidental storage facilities and loading/unloading areas. 17. Includes incidental storage facilities, which must be enclosed, and loading/unloading areas. 18. Accessory uses shall include vehicular drive-through, drive-in and service bay facilities. i Ground Floor Retail/service Area r.s>nrx. sT. n.wveraso�. e st.• it DC. I . � e i17U3 S t Ii nuutz Ground Floor Retail/Stryice •trse Recuired I' i II � I V 25 Sec.15.04.090. Service Land Uses. Zotalnp 1Jbtrlcfa PaPdncipany Pertniud Uses S■Special Uses C a Conditional Uses A s Accessory Uses w CD ck P P(1) P P P P P P P P(2) P(!) Finance,insurance,real estate services n2) P P (1 P P P C (1 PM P(3) Paraonel services:Laundry;dry dean ing; (10) barber,salena;shoo repair,laundentra P P C P(3) MorturNs Home dry are P p P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Day we claw C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P p P P P P P P P Business cervices,duplicating and blue P P P P P P P PM Pp) pdntiag,travel agenda and employment aw P P P P P PM ee8dteg maintenance and pest control P p p A A A A P outdoor storags pnduding trudr,heavy equipment end contractor storage yards a do wed by Development Standards sections 15.04.190 a 1SA4110) P P P P P PM Rental and leasing services for an, trucks,trailers,fumbre and tools p CM Auto repair end washing services C P P P pncluding bodywork) P P02 P P P P P Pm P(!) Repair services:Watch.TV;electrical; electronic;upholstery P P P P P P P P(2) P(3) professional services:Medial;dimes and other health are related services P P P C P Heavy Equipment and Truck Repair P F(3) (16 P P It P(18 d (1 PR) Conrad Construction Service Offices: (17) Building construction;plumbing;paving and landscaping P P P P P P P P(1) Ppl Educational Services:vocational;trades; an;music dancing;barber and beauty SN) Churches S(4) S(4) S(4) S(4) 5(4) 3(4) S(4) S(4) S(4) S(p IS(4)1 I I S(4)I S(4)I SNI Administretlre and professional offices- P (12 P P C P P P P P P(Z) ►'t3) general Municipal uses and buildings (13 P P (13 (1 (13 P(13 (11 13 P7 11 P P P P P P(Zt 14 Raasrch,development and testing C(8) Planed Development Retail Sala A A 1 Accessory uses and buildings A A A(f) A A A A A A A A A (A (1a1 (a) (>g) A (n) (1s) (e) p A A customarily appurtenant to a permitted use C C Boartfing kennels and breeding C establishment ,41 Veterinary clinics end veterinary hospitals C P(8) P(9) P(9) P(s) C p P P P Administrad"or executive offices which an part of a predominant Industrial operation. Mae incidental and necessary to the A A A conduct of a principally permitted use Z� Sec. 15.04.100. Service Land Use Development Conditions. Banks and financial institutions (excluding drive-through). 2. Uses shall be limited to twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of any single- or multi-building development. Retail and service uses which exceed the twenty-five(25)percent limit on an individual or cumulative basis shall be subject to review individually through the conditional use permit process. A conditional use permit shall be required on an individual tenant or business basis and shall be granted only when it is demonstrated that the operating characteristics of the use will not adversely impact onsite or offsite conditions on either an individual or cumulative basis. 3. All sales, storage and display occur within enclosed buildings. 4. Special uses must conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020. 5. Excluding auto body repair. 6. Retail sales are permitted as part of a planned development where at least fifty (50) percent of the total development is for office use. Drive-in restaurants, service stations, drive-in cleaning establishments and other similar retail establishments are not permitted. 7. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones. I 18. Veterinary clinics when located no closer than one hundred fifty (150) feet to any residential use, providing the animals are housed indoors, with no outside runs, and undproofing must be designed by competent the building is soundproofed. So acoustical engineers. 9. Veterinary clinics and animal hospital services when located no closer than one hundred fifty (150) feet to any residential use, providing the animals are housed indoors, with no outside runs, and the building is soundproofed. Soundproofing must be designed by competent acoustical engineers. 10. Personal services uses limited to linen supply and industrial laundry services, diaper �✓ 27 services, rug cleaning and repair services, photographic services, beauty and barber services and fur repair and storage services. 11. Veterinary clinics and animal hospital services when located no less than one hundred fifty (150) feet from any residential use, provided the animals are housed indoors and the building is soundproofed. 12. The ground level or street level portion of all buildings in the pedestrian overlay of the DC district, set forth in the map below, must be pedestrian-oriented. Pedestrian-oriented development shall have the main ground floor entry located adjacent to a public street and be physically and visually accessible by pedestrians from the sidewalk; and may include the following uses: a. Retail establishments, including but not limited to, convenience goods, department and variety stores, specialty shops such as apparel and accessories, gift shops, toy shops, cards and paper goods, home and home accessory shops, florists, antique shops and book shops; b. Personal services, including but not limited to, barber shops, beauty salons and dry cleaning; C. Repair services, including but not limited to, television, radio, computer, jewelry and shoe repair; d. Food-related shops, including but not limited to, restaurants (including outdoor seating areas and excluding drive-in restaurants) and taverns; e. Copy establishments: f. Professional services. including but not limited to, law offices and consulting services; and g. Any other use that is determined by the planning director to be of the same general character as the above permitted uses and in accordance with the stated purpose of the district, pursuant to section 15.09.065, Use Interpretations. 13. Except for such uses and buildings subject to Section 15.04.150. 1.1. Conducted in conjunction with a principally permitted use. I 28 .r.� 15. Accessory uses shall include vehicular drive-through, drive-in or service bay uses. 16. Contract construction services office use does not include contractor storage yards, which is a separate use listed in Section 15.04.040. 17. Outside storage or operations yards are permitted only as accessory uses. Such uses are incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the property or structure. 18. Includes incidental storage facilities and loading/unloading areas. 19. Includes incidental storage facilities, which must be enclosed, and loading/unloading areas. Ground Floor Retail/Service Area V. SMITH. ST. _ 41. HAFiR1SOH. ST unuasuuIC "! HE HER ST. a it 71YUS ST e N ■,,,z,� Ground Floor Retail/Service Use Required i I i i ti.+ 29 Sec. 15.04.110. Cultural,Entertainment and Recreation Land Uses. ZoeYp ONfaW pPrindpoly PerM!ftd Uses ■9pedd Uses C C■Condkialtd Usaa A■Aaeessory Us" w T:8 _ cv. M q N N y N U O O U U f.7 t3.7 PeAanrirg and pddrrel arts uses,such Pp► P P P P P P PIt) ae art gdWa and studies P P Hhtodc and monumsM Ma Public aaanrb.I(Indoorl:sports WHO"; P P P P P(2► Pa) P(2► P(1) mum wdeodems and ahlbftn halt, CM boeft MOM dart*A*WON, sWengrhea,corm neydubs;athlatic case;rsara" am ms;thaters (excluding school fugltla) P P pulak assarasy(ouWoor):Fairgrounds and swou msr.parks;tsnnls courts; swinges MWs;.MInIsture golf;go-cart bake;dnwan ereaWs;dc. CPM span ass:Csnwteda,pads, C C C C C C C C C C C C C C PC PCg) P(G) c C C C C C C C C C phrygrwnds,golf courses and other rearsom faMMUs,Including buildings or wadura associated therewith. A A A A Employe reasagon anal Private dubs,frstem d lodges,eta C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C (C C C C C C C C) C p Racrssdonal vehicle paAu Access"uses and buildings A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A(4) customariy appurtenant to a pennined use Recrsadonal buildings In MHP A 30 Sec. 15.04.120. Cultural, Entertainment and Recreation Land Use Development Conditions. 1. All sales, storage and display occur within enclosed buildings. 2. Principally permitted uses are limited to indoor paintball, health and fitness clubs and facilities, gymnastic schools and other similar uses deemed compatible with the general character and stated purpose of the district. 3. The ground level or street level portion of all buildings in the pedestrian overlay of the DC district (as shown in Section 15.04.080) must be retail or pedestrian- oriented. Pedestrian-oriented development shall have the main ground floor entry located adjacent to a public street and be physically and visually accessible by pedestrians from the sidewalk; and may include the following uses: a. Retail establishments, including but not limited to, convenience goods, department and variety stores, specialty shops such as apparel and accessories, gift shops, toy shops, cards and paper goods, home and home accessory shops, florists, antique shops and book shops; b. Personal services, including but not limited to, barber shops, beauty salons and dry cleaning; C. Repair services, including but not limited to, television, radio, computer, jewelry and shoe repair: d. Food-related shops, including but not limited to, restaurants (including outdoor seating areas and excluding drive-in restaurants) and taverns; e. Copy establishments: f. Professional services, including but not limited to, law offices and consulting services: and g. Any other use that is determined by the planning director to be of the same i general character as the above permitted uses and in accordance with the stated purpose of the district, pursuant to section 15.09.065, Use Interpretations. 4. Accessory uses shall include vehicular drive-through, drive-in or service bay 31 i facilities. 5. Business, civic, social and fraternal associations and service offices are principally permitted uses. 6. Principally permitted uses are limited to parks and playgrounds. 7. Principally permitted uses are limited to golf driving ranges. 8. Public assembly facilities such as amphitheaters, arena, auditoriums and exhibition halls allowed as a conditional use. I I i I it i i i I ;� Sec.15.04.130. Resource Land Uses. ZorlMp Dtstrids PaPrindpaliy Permitted Uses S i Spacial Uses C=Conditional Uses A■ACMsoty Uses w — yid V a a N c? P Agembral uses(Indudhrg wholesale P P P nursades and greenhouses) Crop end trse homing P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P EAAAAAA storage.mwdsdwing.Pmcmkg and P conversion of aricabnl Products(not lndudkog dwgMwing or most pa"g)Access"uses andbusdngs A A A(1) A A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A Customarily appurtenant to a permuteduse Roadside stands A(3) M1 M► 55 Sec. 15.04.140. Resource land use development conditions. 1. Other accessoryuses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones. 2. Roadside stand not exceeding four hundred (400) square feet in floor area exclusively for agricultural products grown on the premises. 3. Roadside stands not exceeding four-hundred(400)square feet in floor area, and not over twenty (20) lineal feet on any side, primarily for sale of agricultural products on the premise. Sec. 15.04.150. Special use combining district, SU. It is the purpose of the SU district to provide for special controls for certain uses which do not clearly fit into other districts, which may be due to technological and social changes, or which are of such unique character as to warrant special attention in the interest of the city's optimum development and the preservation and enhancement of its environmental quality. A special use combining district is imposed on an existing zoning district, permitting the special use as well as uses permitted by the underlying zone. The combining district becomes void if .� substantial construction has not begun within a one-year period, and the district reverts to its original zoning designation. It is the intent of the special use combining regulations to provide the city with adequate procedures for controlling and reviewing such uses and to discourage application for speculative rezoning. A. Uses subject to special use combining district regulations. The following list is illustrative of the types of uses subject to special use combining district regulations and is not intended to be exclusive: 1. Uses which occupy or would occupy large areas of land. 2. Uses which would involve the construction of buildings or other structures of unusual height or mass. 3. Uses which house. employ or serve large numbers of people. 4. Uses which generate heavy traffic. 5. Uses which have unusual impact on environmental quality of the area. 34 `� 6. Any use which does not lend itself to an interpretation of substantial similarity to other uses identified or described in this title. 7. Uses which, in the judgment of the planning director, warrant review by the planning commission and the city council. 8. Examples of uses subject to review as described in this subsection would include but are not limited to the following: a. Commercial uses: sports stadiums, rodeos, fairgrounds, exhibition or convention halls, merchandise marts and drive-in theaters. b. Special environmental problems posed by: refineries,nuclear power generating plants, airports, heliports, sanitary landfills, extractive industries, solid waste incinerators or energy/resource recovery facilities. C. Hazardous wastes: offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities in M1 and M2 districts only, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050. B. Application procedures. The application procedure for a special use combining district shall be the same as for an amendment to this title as provided in section 15.09.050, except that development plan approval is concurrent with the combining i i district. C. Documentation required. Required documentation is as follows: 1. A vicinity map drawn to a scale not smaller than one thousand (1,000) feet I to the inch showing the site in relation to its surrounding area, including streets, roads, streams or other bodies of water, the development characteristics and zoning pattern of the area, and a scale and north arrow. The vicinity map may be in sketch form but shall be drawn with sufficient accuracy to reasonably orient the reader to the vicinity, and to adequately convey the required information. 3 5 2. A map or drawing of the site drawn to a scale acceptable to the planning department, generally one hundred (100) feet to the inch. The map or drawing shall show the following information: a. Dimensions and names of streets bounding or touching the site. b. Such existing or proposed features as streams or other bodies of water, rights-of-way, easements and other physical or legal features which may affect or be affected by the proposed development. C. Existing and proposed topography at contour intervals of not more than five (5) feet in areas having slopes exceeding three (3) percent, and not more than two (2) feet in areas having slopes of less than three (3) percent. d. Accurate legal description of the property. e. Existing and proposed structures or buildings, including the identification of types and proposed use of the structures. All uses must be compatible with the major use. f. Off-street parking and loading facilities. g. Dimensions of the site, distances from property lines and space between structures. h. Tentative routing of domestic water lines, storm drains, sanitary sewers and other utilities, including an identification of planned disposal or runoff. i. Elevations, perspective renderings or such other graphic material or evidence to illustrate effect on the view enjoyed by and from other !; properties in the vicinity. if required by the planning department. j. Architectural renderings of buildings. ik. A written statement providing the following information: (1) Program for development, including staging or timing. (2) Proposed ownership pattern upon completion of development. 36 (3) Basic content of restrictive covenants, if any. (4) Provisions to ensure permanence and maintenance of open space through means acceptable to the city. (5) Statement or tabulation of number of persons to be employed, served or housed in the proposed development. (6) Statement describing the relationship of the proposed development to the city comprehensive plan. (7) Statement indicating availability of existing or proposed sanitary sewers. 3. Such other data or information as the planning department may require. D. Development standards. In reviewing and approving proposed developments falling tinder the purview of this section, the hearing examiner and city council shall make the following findings: 1. That the location for the proposed use is reasonable. 2. That existing or proposed trafficways are adequate to serve new development. 3. That setback, height and bulk of buildings are acceptable for the proposed use and for the vicinity in which it is located. I 4. That landscaping and other site improvements are comparable to the highest it standards set forth for other developments as set out in this title. 5. That the performance standards pertaining to air and water pollution, noise levels, etc., are comparable to the highest standards specified for other uses as set out in this title. 6. That the proposed development is in the public interest and serves a need of community-wide or regional importance. In reviewing and approving special uses, the hearing examiner and the city council may impose such conditions as they deem necessary in the interest of the welfare of the city and the protection of the environment. 37 E. Period of validity. Any special use combining district shall remain effective only for one (1) year unless the use is begun within that time or construction has commenced. If not in use or construction has not commenced within one (1) year of the granting of the special use combining district, the combining district shall become invalid, and the original zoning designation of the land shall apply. F. Minor and major adjustments. 1. If minor adjustments are made following the adoption of the final development plan and approval of the combining district, such adjustments shall be approved by the planning director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of buildings approved in the final plan, or the density of the development or open space provided. 2. Major adjustments are those which, as determined by the planning director, substantially change the basic design, density, open space uses or other similar requirements or provisions. Authorization for major adjustments shall be made by the city council. ;. The provisions of this subsection pertaining to minor and major adjustments shall apply to various parts of a staged development. Sec. 15.04.160. Development Standards. Development standards are listed down the left side of the tables, and the zoning districts are listed at the top. The matrix cells contain the minimum dimensional requirements of the zone. The parenthetical numbers in I'Ithe matrix identify specific requirements applicable either to a specific use or the entire zone. A blank box indicates that there are no specific requirements. If more than one standard appears in a cell, each standard will be subject to any applicable parenthetical footnote following the standard. I i I, I 38 Sec. 15.04.170. Agricultural and Residential Zone Development Standards. f)191flets m E � m rc m d a rc s rc o Ur 4� N a a q '4 aq c x 0 CD SF 3F MF SF MF SF MF Maximum density: i dula 1 Mel 218 3.63 4.33 6.05 831 L71 L11 16 V1 23 L71 40 dvwllirrg units per acredusilac drrMu ac dudes duefac *M* dualse dwlc �Weld: mac Minimum lot area: 34,700 /ac 3470e16000 9,806 1B00 5.700 4,00t 4,e00 e,OM 4,eM LIM 1500f 4990 IAIO b59ef 4000 8,100 SOOI square fast or acres,as sgIt sqft sqft sqft pR sq pR pR pR pR pR 2500 pft pR 1,100 pR pit 19900p noted pR. p R ftM (1) M Minimum lot width:feet 60R 60ft SOR Soft So it 50ft Oft 40R oft bft 891t Oft Oft Wit 80R 40it SOR 80ft (4) Maximum sib 3011 50% 30% 30% 49% 4911 50% 5511 55% N% coverage:percent of (5) (5) (5) (51 151 (5) 15) (3) (51 (5) 15) (5) (5) site Minimum yard �) requirements:feet v..i Frontyard 20R 30it 20it loft 10ft loft loft left loft loft loft loft 20ft 10R 10ft 2011 loft 10R 20R (6) (7) 16) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) f6) 16) (6) (4) (6) (5) (8) (a) (s) (8) (8) (8) (8) (a) 18) (9) (6) (8) (8) (S) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) l91 Side yard 15ft (10) 15ft 5R 5R 5R SR 5R 5It 5R 5R 5R (11) SR 5ft (11) 5R 5R (11) Side yard on Ranking 20It 20It /Oft 10R loft 10R 10R 10R 10R /oft loft 15ft left loft 15ft loft loft 15R street of a comer lot (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) Rear yard 20It 15R Sft 5R 5R 5R 5R 5R 8R 5R 8R 20ft 5R 8R 20R 5R 8R 20R Additional (12) (13) (12) (14) (14) (14) setbackddistances (15) (15) (15) betwwen buildings Height limitation:in 25t2$7&YI 25 2.5 M 25 25 25 2.S 25 25 25 3stM 25 2.5 3 sbyl 2.5 25 4 WO storieslnot to exceed in 3stry 3 75R i5ft 3S R 35R 70 RR 30 R 30R 3SR R 30�R R m R uR50 R fast (16Maximum impervious 40% 40% 40% 50% 60% 70% 75% 75% 70% 75% Is% 75% 70% 75%surface:percent of (19 (19) R31 (23) (23) (23) (23) (19) (19) 1191 179) 1191 (18) (19) (19) total parcel area Zero lot line and The prorMidn in Sedlarrs 15.Ot.]00,310.320,arM 330"1 apply. clustering (24) Signs The Won reguldbns of Chapter 15.06 00 apply. Oflstrest parking The oft-said parking requaenwas of Chapter 15.05 shop apply. Landscaping The 4ndecapwty requirsrrrstru of Chsptr 15.e7 elgll apply. MuRbfamily Transition ) ) Area Muld-family design ) 28) (26) review Additional standards Addalonal standards for spedRc uses am contained In Chapter 15.Ot and Chapter 15.09. Rol (20) (21) 3�i Sec. 15.04.180. Agricultural and Residential Land Use Development Standard Conditions. 1. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and two thousand five hundred (2,500)square feet for each additional dwelling unit. 2. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and one thousand six hundred (1,600) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. ;. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and nine hundred (900) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. 4. To determine minimum lot width for irregular lots, a circle of applicable diameter (the minimum lot width permitted) shall be scaled within the proposed boundaries of the lot, provided that an access easement to another lot is not included within the circle. 5. Interior yards shall not be computed as part of the site coverage. 6. Porches and private shared courtyard features may be built within the front building set back line. 17. For properties abutting on West Valley Highway, the frontage on West Valley Highway shall be considered the front yard. 18. Proposed front yards less than twenty (20) feet in depth are subject to approval by the planning director, based on review and recommendation from the public works department relative to the existing and future traffic volumes and right-of-way requirements as specified in the city comprehensive transportation plan and city ,i construction standards. 19. At least twenty (20) linear feet of driveway shall be provided between any garage, carport or other primary parking area and the street property line with the exception I of an alley property line. 10. An aggregate side yard of thirty (30) feet shall be provided. A minimum of ten(10) 40 feet shall be provided for each side yard. On a corner lot the side yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the property line. 11. Each side yard shall be a minimum of ten (10)percent of the lot width; however, regardless of lot width, the yard width need not be more than thirty (30) feet. 12. Structures for feeding,housing and care of animals,except household pets, shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line. 13. Additional setbacks for the Agriculture General AG zoning district. a. Structures for feeding, housing and care of animals shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line. b. Transitional conditions shall exist when an AG district adjoins a residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as a river, railroad main line, major topographic differential or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall provided. C. Setbacks, Green River. Industrial development in the AG district abutting the Green River, or Russell Road or Frager Road where such roads follow i the river bank, shall be set back from the ordinary high-water mark of the river a minimum of two hundred (200) feet. Such setbacks are in accordance with the city comprehensive plan and in accordance with the high quality of site development typically required for the industrial park I areas of the city and in accordance with the state Shoreline Management Act of 1971. and shall be no more restrictive than, but as restrictive as, the Shoreline Management Act. 14. An inner court providing access to a double-row building shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet. ! 'r..r 41 15. The distance between principal buildings shall be at least one-half the sum of the height of both buildings; provided, however, that in no case shall the distance be less than twelve (12) feet. This requirement shall also apply to portions of the same building separated from each other by a court or other open space. 16. The height limitations shall not apply to barns and silos provided that they are not located within fifty (50) feet of any lot line. 17. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four(4) stories or sixty (60) feet, there shall be added one (1) additional foot of yard for each additional foot of building height. 18. The planning director shall be authorized to approve a height greater than four(4) stories or sixty (60) feet, provided such height does not detract from the continuity of the area. When a request is made to exceed the building height limit, the planning director may impose such conditions,within a reasonable amount of time, as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibilities with surrounding uses. 19. Except for lots used for agricultural practices, the maximum impervious surface area allowed shall be ten thousand(10,000) square feet when the lot is greater than one (1) acre. 20. The following uses are prohibited: a. The removal of topsoil for any purpose. b. Grade and fill operations, provided that limited grade and fill may be approved as needed to construct permitted buildings or structures. C. All subsurface activities, including excavation for underground utilities, pipelines or other underground installations, that cause permanent disruption of the surface of the land. Temporarily disrupted soil surfaces I shall be restored in a manner consistent with agricultural uses. d. Dumping or storage of nonagricultural solid or liquid waste, or of trash, rubbish or noxious materials. e. Activities that violate sound agricultural soil and water conservation management practices. 42 21. Outdoor storage for industrial uses shall be located at the rear of a principally permitted structure and shall be completely fenced. 22. Mobile home park combining district, :M1HP. The standards and procedures of the city mobile home park code shall apply. General requirements and standards for mobile home park design, 12.04.520; mobile home parks, Ch. 12.05. 23. Except for lots used for agricultural practices, the maximum impervious surface area allowed shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 24. Minimum lot width, building setbacks, and minimum lot size regulations may be modified consistent with provisions for zero lot line and clustering housing development. 25. The requirements of section 15.08.215 shall apply in any multifamily transition area, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within one hundred(100) feet of a single-family district or within one hundred (100) feet of a public street right-of-way. 26. The requirements of section 15.09.047 for multifamily design review shall apply to any multifamily dwelling of three (3) or more units. i I I I I r✓ 43 Sec. 15.O4.190. Commercial and Industrial Zone Development Standards. _ W g s 0 Minimum lot area:square feet or acres,as 180 1, use f,000 1 q,0 t6 t qX 10p* 10 0a too Inn tam 100 20ft 74ft t q0ft noted (1) Maximum site coverage:percent of she 60% 40% 106% 100% 75% 50% 66% 00% 63% T51L 40% Minimum yard requirements:feet inimumra 1SR 1SR (2) (!) (» 15R 15R 26R 25R 76R (n (� (6) (n 15R 16) Side yard 0) n) (2) a) (2) n6) 061 no► n6) nn n2► n� r» n�) s 11ne Side yard on flanking street of comer lot Int) (17) nt) 1161 t5R Rear yard 26 R 1 20 R 11 (21 (3) Pl t+61 (+!) (16!R► 06) P61 R6) (21) (2+) SaR� 12s1 (n) Rh R51 Yards,transitional condions Additional setbacks Height limitation:in stodesinot to exceed 2 sW 2 sW 4 slryl (32) 22 2 u R ri R areR 23s R 2> R u R u R 3 IO R In feet 75 R 40 R 6o R Landscaping The iandsaping rego4emerrls of ChapGr15.07 shall apply• (52) 157) Outdoor storage (39) (39) (40) (40) (40) (42) (13) (43) (44) (45) (59) (0) (41) (51) Signs The sign regulsowl of Chapter 15w shall apply. (60) (46) Vehicle drive-through,drive-in and service bays (en (e11 le>l le>) Loading areas Offstreet parking The oR•sveel parWng regUWff"ta of Chapter 15-05"apply. Intl (5n (101 n1) ISq (6q 1561 I511 Additional Standards (50) (36) (31) (31 n50) (501 (Sol ��) (256) {561 (( (52) (5+) (54) (50) (S1) " (55) (55) (55) (M (56) (56) (561 (56) 44 Section 15.04.200 Mixed Use overlay development standards. OVERLAY DISTRICTS GC-MU 0-MU CC-MU 40 for commercial use. .40 for o MMMW uses. 40 for commercial uses. FFloorrea ratio .50 for commercial uses combined .50 for Om mmoiai two combined .50 for eomruercial uses combined with residential uses:Provided that with residential uses:provided that. with residential uses:Provided that, wmmerci4 floor area may be comm=W flax stow may be commercial floor area may be increased by one square foot for each !=eased by one square AM for each increased by one square foot for each square foot of residential floor area square foot of mgd"W floor area square foot of residential floor area provided up to a maximum provided up to a maximum provided up to a maximum commercial FAR of.5. commercial FAR of.5. commercial FAR of.5. 1.0 for residential uses,Provided that, 1.0 for residential uses,provided that, 1.0 for residential uses,Provided that, residential FAR may be increased by residential FAR may be increased by residential FAR may be increased by .5 if parking is provided below grade, .5 if panting is pwv"below grade, .5 if Parking is Provided below grade, Jage to a maximum of 1.5 up to a maximum of 1.5. u to a maximum of 1.5. rty(40)percent for commercial Forty(40)Percent commerc.d Forty(40)Percent for commercial Site coves uses. rasa. venty-five(75)percent for Sixty(60)Percent for commercial uses Sixty(60)Percent for commercial uses mmercial uses with residential uses, with residential uses,provided that with residential uses,provided that vided that twenty-five(25)percent twenty-five(25)percent of the gross twenty-five(25)percent of the gross the gross floor area is residential floor area is residential use. floor was is residential use. use. provided that Twenty-five(25)feet,Provided that Height wentyflve(25)tact,pmv�ed that Twenty- ve(25)feet basic heights may be increased up to basic heights may be increased up to basic heights may be increased up to the maximum height of fifty(50)feet the maximum heightum of forty(40)feet the maxims height of forty(40)feet (1) (1) Zero(0)feet:provided that some Zero(0)feet:proves that some Zero(0)feet provided that some Front yard setback may be required in the front setback may be required in the front setback may be required in the front yard to accommodate a sidewalk yard to accommodate a sidewalk yard to accommodate a sidewalk which shall be at least ten(10)feet in which shall be at least ten(10)feet in ww6a shill be at least ten(10)feet in width. width Zero(0)feet;provided that setbacks of Zero(0)fat;Provided that setbacks of Zero(0)fat:Provided that setbacks of Rear and side at least twenty(20)feet will be at least twenty(20)foot will be at least twenty(20)feet will be yard required in any rear or side yards that required in any rear or side yards that required in any rear or side yards that are adjacent to a residential zoning are adjacent to a residential zoning are adjacent to a residential zoning district. district. district Retailloffuce uses:Three and one-half Retailloffice uses: Four(4)spaces per Retail/office uses: Four(4)spaces per Off-street parking thousand(1,000)square fat of floor thousand(1,000)square feet of floor (3.5)spaces per thousand(1,000) area. (2)square feet of floor area. (2) area (2) Residential uses (3) Residential uses (3) 1 Residential uses (3) 45 Sec. 15.04.205. Mixed Use Land Use Development Standard Conditions. 1. The following height modifications shall apply: a. Five-foot increases for developments containing residential uses,provided that twenty-five (25)percent of gross floor area is in residential use. b. Five-foot increases for parking under the building. C. Five-foot increases for using a pitched roof form. d. Five-foot increase for stepping back from the top floor (minimum of five feet). 2. The first three hundred(300) square feet of retail or office space that is a part of an individual residential unit is exempt. 3. The following parking requirements shall apply: a. Studio: .75 per dwelling unit (du) without commercial uses; .50/du with commercial uses, provided that twenty-five (25) per cent of overall gross floor area is in commercial uses. b. One-bedroom: 1.5/du without commercial uses; 1.0/du with commercial uses, provided that twenty-five (25)percent of overall gross floor area is in commercial uses. C. Two-bedroom: 2.0/du without commercial uses; 1.25/du with commercial uses, provided that twenty-five (25) percent of overall gross floor area is in commercial uses. Sec. 15.04.210. Commercial and Industrial Land Use Development Standard (Conditions. i, 1. Minimum lot of record or five thousand (5,000) square feet, whichever is less. 112. None, except as required by landscaping, or if off-street parking is provided on site. See the downtown design review criteria outlined in section 15.09.048. 3. No minimum setback is required. If a rear and/or side yard abuts a residential district, a twenty-foot rear and/or side vard setback may be required. See the downtown design review criteria outlined in section 15.09.048. 14. For properties abutting on West Valley Highway, the frontage on West Valley 46 Highway shall be considered the front yard. 5. The minimum front yard setback shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street. This classification shall be determined by the city transportation engineer. The setbacks are as follows: a. Properties fronting on arterial and collector streets shall have a minimum setback of twenty (20) feet. b. Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a minimum setback of twenty (20) feet. 6. The minimum front yard setback shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street. This classification shall be determined by the city transportation engineer. The setbacks are as follows: a. Properties fronting on arterials and collector streets shall have a minimum setback of forty (40) feet. b. Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet. 7. The front yard shall be ten(10) percent of the lot depth. Regardless of lot size,the yard depth need not be more than thirty-five (35) feet. 8. No side yard is required, except when abutting a district other than NCC, and then the side yard shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in width. 9. No side yard is required, except when abutting a more restrictive district, and then the side yard shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in width. 10. No side yard is required, except abutting a residential district, and then the side yard shall be twenty (20) feet minimum. 11. An aggregate side yard of thirty (30) feet shall be provided. A minimum of ten(10) feet shall be provided for each side yard. On a corner lot the side yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the property line. 12. The side yards shall have an aggregate width of ten (10) percent of the lot width. but the aggregate width need not be more than forty (40) feet. There shall be a I minimum of fifteen (15) feet on each side. r✓ 47 13. The side yards shall have an aggregate width of ten(10) percent of the lot width, but the aggregate width need not be more than thirty (30) feet. There shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet on each side. 14. The side yards shall have an aggregate width of ten(10) percent of the lot width, but the aggregate width need not be more than twenty-five(25)feet. There shall be a minimum of ten(10) feet on each side. 15. A side yard of at least five (5)feet in depth shall be provided along the side property lines, except no side yard shall be required between adjacent properties where a common, shared driveway with a perpetual cross-access easement is provided to serve the adjoining properties. 16. Where a side yard abuts a residential district, a side yard of at least twenty (20) feet shall be provided. 17. The minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street. This classification shall be determined by the city transportation engineer. The setbacks are as follows: a. Properties fronting on arterial and collector streets shall have a minimum setback of forty (40) feet. b. Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet. 18. The side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot shall be at least ten(10) percent of the lot width. unless the ten (10) percent figure would result in a side yard of greater than twenty (20) feet, in which case the side yard need not be more than i twenty (20) feet. 119. No rear yard is required, except abutting a residential district, and then the rear yard shall be twenty (20) feet minimum. i'20. No rear yard is required. except as may be required by other setback provisions of this section. it 121. No rear yard is required, except as may be required by transitional conditions. 48 22. A rear yard of at least five (5) feet in depth shall be provided, except when a rear r, yard abuts a residential district, and then a rear yard of at least twenty (20) feet in depth shall he provided. 23. Transitional conditions shall exist when an industrial park M1 or M1-C district adjoins a residential district containing a density of two(2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes intervening use such as a river, freeway, railroad main line, major topographic differential or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided. 24. Transitional conditions shall exist when an M2 district adjoins a residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as a river, freeway, railway main line, major topographic differential or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as defined �I in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided. 25. Transitional conditions shall exist when an M3 district adjoins a residential district I containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as a river, railroad main line, major topographic differential or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided. I �,. 49 26. Structures for feeding, housing and care of animals shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line. 27. Transitional conditions shall exist when an MA district adjoins a residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as a river, railroad main line, major topographic differential or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided. i 28. Industrial development in the MA district abutting the Green River,or Russell Road or Frager Road where such roads follow the river bank, shall be set back from the ordinary high-water mark of the river a minimum of two hundred (200) feet. Such setbacks are in accordance with the city comprehensive plan and are in accordance with the high quality of site development required for the industrial parks area of the city, which MA areas are designated to become in the city comprehensive plan, and are in accordance with the state Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and shall I be no more restrictive than, but as restrictive as, the Shoreline Management Act. �9. Development in the M1 or M1-C district abutting the Green River, or Russell Road or Frager Road where such roads follow the river bank, shall be set back from the ordinary high-water mark of the river a minimum of two hundred (200) feet. Such setbacks are in accordance with the state Shoreline Management Act of 1971. and shall be no more restrictive than, but as restrictive as, the Shoreline Management Act. 30. The planning director shall be authorized to grant one (1) additional story in height, if during development plan review it is found that this additional story would not detract from the continuity of the area. More than one (1) additional story may be granted by the planning commission. 31. The downtown design review requirements of section 15.09.048 shall apply. 50 32. No maximum height limit is required. See the downtown design review criteria outlined in section 15.09.048. 33. Beyond this height,to a height not greater than either four(4) stories or sixty (60) feet,there shall be added one (1)additional foot of yard for each additional foot o building height. 34. The planning director shall be authorized to approve a height greater than four(4) stories or sixty (60) feet,provided such height does not detract from the continuity of the area. When a request is made to exceed the building height limit, the I planning director may impose such conditions, within a reasonable amount of time, as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibilities with surrounding uses. 35. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four(4) stories or sixty (60) feet, there shall be added one (1) additional foot of yard for each one (1) foot of additional building height. The planning director shall be authorized to approve one (1) additional story, provided such height does not detract from the continuity of I the industrial area, and may impose such conditions as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibility with surrounding uses. Any additional height increase may be granted by the planning commission. 36. Design review for mixed use development is required as provided in Section 15.09.049. I 37. The height limitation is two (2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, there shall be i added one (1) additional foot of vard for each two (2) feet of additional building height. The planning director shall be authorized to approve one (1) additional story. provided such height does not detract from the continuity of the industrial i area. and may impose such conditions as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibility with surrounding uses. Any additional height increases may be I i granted by the planning commission. I38. The height limitation is three (3) stories or forty (40) feet. An additional story or building height may be added. up to a maximum of five (5) stories or sixty (60) 51 feet, with one (1) additional foot of building setback for every additional foot o building height over forty (40) feet. 39. Outdoor storage areas are prohibited. 40. Outdoor storage areas shall be fenced for security and public safety by a sight- obscuring fence unless it is determined through the development plan review that a sight-obscuring fence is not necessary. 41. Any unfenced outdoor storage areas shall be paved with asphaltic concrete, cement or equivalent material to be approved by the city engineer. 42. Outdoor storage (for industrial uses) shall be at the rear of a principally permitted structure and shall be completely fenced. 43. Outside storage or operations yards in the M1 or MI-C zone shall be permitted only as accessory uses. Such uses are incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the property or structure. Outside storage or operations yards shall be confined to the area to the rear of the principal building or the rear two-thirds of the property and reasonably screened from view from any property line by appropriate walls, fencing, earth mounds or landscaping. Outside storage exceeding a height of fifteen (15) feet shall be so placed on the property as to not detract from the reasonably accepted appearance of the district. 44. Outside storage or operations yards shall be confined to the area to the rear of a line which is an extension of the front wall of the principal building, and shall be reasonably screened from view from any street by appropriate walls, fencing, earth mounds or landscaping. 1145. Outside storage or operations areas shall be fenced for security and public safety at f the property line. 46. All vehicular drive-through. drive-in or service bays and similar facilities shall be designed so that such facilities. including vehicular staging or stacking areas, shall be oriented away from the adjacent street. Additional landscaping or fencing may be required to ensure visual screening of these facilities from the adjacent street or properties. 52 47. Loading areas must be located in such a manner that no loading, unloading or maneuvering of trucks associated therewith takes place on public rights-of-way. 48. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street frontages as necessary to screen dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-way. Berms shall be a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches and a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height. Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to type III landscaping as described in subsection 15.07.050(C). 49. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street frontages as necessary to screen dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-way. Berms shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height. Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to type III landscaping described in subsection 15.07.050(C) pertaining to visual buffers. 50. Development plan approval is required as provided in Section 15.09.010. 51. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street frontages as necessary to screen dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-way. Berms shall be a minimum of twenty (20) inches in height. Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to type III landscaping described in subsection 15.07.050(C) pertaining to visual buffers. 52. Where building walls face adjacent streets and are unfenestrated for more than forty (40) feet at any point along the fagade, additional landscaping shall be required to reduce visual impacts. In such circumstances. Type II landscaping, as defined in 'I 1 Section 15.07.050, shall be required, provided that evergreen trees shall be at least ten (10) feet in height and deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two-inch caliper at the time of planting. 53. Predominant activities and operations shall be completely enclosed within buildings or structures, except for customary appurtenances such as loading and unloading areas, or where special conditions exist as a result of a conditional use public hearing. The planning director shall be authorized to determine the reasonable application of this provision in cases of operational hardship or other showing of �, 53 uncommon circumstances. 54. Multi-tenant buildings shall be permitted. 55. All required yards, parking areas, storage areas, operations yards and other open uses on the site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner appropriate for the district at all times. The planning director shall be authorized to reasonably pursue the enforcement of this subsection where a use is in violation, and to notify the owner or operator of the use in writing of such non-compliance. The property owner or operator of the use shall be given a reasonable length of time to correct the condition. 56. The performance standards as provided in Section 15.08.050 shall apply. 57. Off-street parking may be located in required yards except in areas required to be landscaped. 58. Those areas not required to be landscaped may be used for off-street parking. 59. Outdoor storage is allowed only as an accessory use to small scale, light industrial or manufacturing operations where the building, structure or total operation, including all indoor and outdoor storage areas, does not encompass more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of total area. I 60. Signage on commercial uses in the M1-C zone shall be as specified in Subsection 15.06.050(B). Signage on industrial uses in the M1-C zone shall be as specified in I Subsection 15.06.050(E). t l SECTION 3. Section 15.05.040 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 15.05.040. Parking standards for specific activities. A. Standards for the number of parking spaces for specific activities are indicated in the following chart: i SPECIFIC LAND USE PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT Living activities Single-family ITwo (2) parking spaces per single-family dwelling 54 Duplex Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. Multifamily' One (1) parking space per unit for efficient apartments in all sized developments; two (2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit for developments with forty-nine (49) or less dwellin units; one and eight-tenths(1.8)parking spaces pe welling unit for developments of fifty(50)or mor welling units. For developments of fifty (50) o ore dwelling units,one(1)parking space for eac fifteen (15) dwelling units for recreation vehicles. Multiple dwellings for low-incom ne (1) parking space for each two (2) dwelling elderly Z units. Accessory dwelling unit One off-street parking space per accessory unit i required in addition to the required parking for the single-family home. The planning director may give this requirement where there are special circumstances related to the property and it location. The surface of a required ADU off-street parking space shall comply with Kent City Cod section 15.05.090(C). Boardinghouses and lodging houses One (1) parking space for the proprietor, plus on 1) space per sleeping room for boarders or lodgm use, plus one (1) additional space for each four(4 persons employed on the premises. I Mobile and—Manufactured home Two (2) parking spaces for each mobile home site arks plus one (1) screened space for each ten(10) lots fo jrecreation vehicles. Recreational vehicle park One (1) parking space for each site. Hotels One (1) parking space for each guest room,plus tw 2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees. I Commercial activities I Banks One (1) parking space for each two hundred (200 square feet of gross floor area, except when part o shopping center. Professional and business offices One (1) parking space for each two hundred an fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area, except when part of a shopping center. Shopping centers Four and one-half (4.5) spaces per one thousand (1.000) square feet of gross leaseable area (GLA �,.✓ 55 or centers having GLA of less than four hundre ousand (400,000) square feet, and five (5.0 paces per one thousand(1,000) square feet of GL or centers having a GLA of over four hundre ousand(400,000) square feet. estaurants, nightclubs, taverns an ne (1) parking space for each one hundred (100 lounges square feet of gross floor area, except when part o shopping center. etail stores, supermarkets ne (1) parking space for each two hundred (200 department stores and person quare feet of gross floor area, except when locate service shops n a shopping center. ther retail establishments; furniture Dne (1) parking space for each five hundred (500 appliance, hardware stores square feet of gross floor area, except when locate household equipment service shops in a shopping center. clothing or shoe repair shops Drive-in business One (1) parking space for each one hundred (100 quare feet of gross floor area, except when locate n a shopping center. Uncovered commercial area, new an One (1) parking space for each five thousand used car lots, plant nursery 5,000) square feet of retail sales area in addition t y parking requirements for buildings, excep when located in a shopping center. I Motor vehicle repair and services One (1) parking space for each four hundred (400 quare feet of gross floor area, except when part o shopping center. ndustrial showroom and display ne (1) parking space for each five hundred (500 quare feet of display area. 1 Bulk retail stores ne (1} parking space for each three hundred fi 350) square feet of gross floor area. Industrial activities Manufacturing, research and testin ne (1) parking space for each one thousan laboratories, creameries, bottlin 1,000) square feet of gross floor area. For parkin stablishments, bakeries, canneries equirements for associated office areas, se riming and engraving shops Professional and business offices. i Warehouses and storage buildings lone (1) parking space for each two thousan 2,000) square feet of gross floor area. Maxim I � 56 ffice area of two (2) percent of gross floor are may be included without additional parkin �✓ requirements. Speculative warehouse and industria ne (1) parking space for each one thousand buildings with multiple use or tenan 1,000) square feet of gross floor area if building potential aze is less than one hundred thousand (100,000 quare feet, or one (1) parking space for each tw housand(2,000) square feet of gross floor area fo buildings which exceed one hundred thousand 100,000) square feet gross of floor area. This is minimum requirement and valid for construction permit purposes only. Final parking requirement will be based upon actual occupancy. Recreation-amusement activities Auditoriums, theaters, places of One (1) parking space for each four(4) fixed seats public assembly, stadiums and or one(1)parking space for each one hundred(100 outdoor sports areas square feet of floor area of main auditorium or o principal place of assembly not containing fixed eats, whichever is greater. i Bowling alleys Five (5) spaces for each alley, except when locate in a shopping center. Dance halls and skating rinks One (1) parking space for each two hundred (200 'i quare feet of gross floor area, except when locate Fn a shopping center. Golf driving ranges lone (I) parking space for each driving station. Miniature golf courses One (I) parking space for each hole. Recreational buildings, whethe ne (1) parking space for each two hundred (200 independent or associated with quare feet of gross floor area. Such spaces shall b multifamily complex located adjacent to the building and shall bel esignated for visitors by signing or other speci I, arkings. clucatinnal activities Senior high schools, public, parochia One (1) space for each employee plus one space fo '`✓ 57 d private each ten(10) students enrolled. In addition, if buse or the transportation of children are kept at the school, one (1) off street parking space shall b provided for each bus, of a size sufficient to par each bus. One (1) additional parking space for each on hundred(100)students shall be provided for visitor in the vicinity of or adjacent to the administration portion of the building or complex. Such parkin paces shall be so designated by signing or othe special marking as approved by the traffic engineer Colleges and universities and rwo and one-half(2 1/2) parking spaces for each business and vocational schools mployee, plus one (1) space for each three (3 students residing on campus, plus one (1) space fo each five-day student not residing on campus. I addition, if buses for transportation of students are kept at the school, one (1) off street parking space shall be provided for each bus, of a size sufficient t ark each bus. One (1) additional parking space for each on hundred(100) students shall be provided for visitor in the vicinity of or adjacent to the administration portion of the building or complex. Such parkin paces shall be so designated by signing or othe pecial marking as approved by the traffic engineer Elementary and junior high Two and one-half(2 1/2) parking spaces for each employee. In addition, if buses for transportation o students are kept at the school, one (1) off stree parking space shall be provided for each bus, of size sufficient to park each bus. One (1) additional parking space for each on jhundred(100) students shall be provided for visitor n the vicinity of or adjacent to the administratio rtion of the building or complex. Such parkin Ipaces shall be so designated by signing or othe special marking as approved by the traffic engineer Libraries and museums Dne (1) parking space for each two hundred tifty 250) square feet in office and public use. Day- care centers ne (1) parking space for each employee, plus 58 oading and unloading areas. Medical activities Medical and dental offices One (1) parking space for each two hundred (200 square feet of gross floor area, except when locate in a shopping center. Convalescent, nursing and health One (1) parking space for each two (2) employees institutions plus one (1)parking space for each three (3)beds. Hospitals One (1) parking space for each three (3) beds, plus one(1)parking space for each staff doctor, plus on 1) parking space for each three (3) employees. Religious activities Churches One (1) space for each five (5) seats in the main auditorium, provided that the spaces for any churc hall not be less than ten (10). For all existing churches enlarging the seating capacity of thei auditoriums, one (1) additional parking space shal e provided for each five (5) additional seat provided by the new construction. For all existing churches making structural alterations or addition which do not increase the seating capacity of the uditorium, no additional parking need be provided -1 Mortuaries or funeral homes Lsquare parking space for each one hundred (100 et of floor area of assembly rooms. Other uses For uses not specifically identified in this section he amount of parking required shall be determine y the planning department, based on staff experience, parking required for similar uses, and, if appropriate, documentation provided by the pplicant. il. Recreational vehicle parking spaces shall be in defined, fenced and screened areas with a minimum of a six-foot-high sight-obscuring fences or landscaping as determined by the planning department, or the developer may provide areas of usable open space equal to that area that would be i required for recreational vehicle parking. A vehicle less than twenty (20) feet long that is used as primary transportation is not subject to recreational �; j 59 vehicle parking regulations. If open space in lieu of recreational vehicle parking is provided, its appropriateness will be determined at the time of development plan review by the planning department. Where enclosed garages are utilized to provide parking required by this title, an eighteen- foot stacking space shall be provided in front of such garage units. Provided, however,the planning director shall have the authority to approve alternative plans where the developer can assure that such garage units will continue to be available for parking purposes and will not cause on-site parking or circulation problems. These assurances including but are not limited to: (1) covenants that run with the land or homeowners association that require garages to be utilized for the storage of vehicles, (2) maintenance of drive aisle widths of twenty-six (26) feet in front of each garage unit, and (3) maintenance of minimum clearances for fire lanes on the site. 2. Exceptions for senior citizen apartments in multifamily buildings in the central business district a. Approved building plans must show one and eight-tenths (1.8) spaces per dwelling unit and also shall show which spaces are not to be initially installed. The additional spaces, plus any required I landscaping, shall be installed if at any time the structure is not used for senior citizen apartments or if the facility shows a continued shortage of parking. ib. The requirement of one (1) space per dwelling unit may be reduced to no less than one (1) space for every two (2) dwelling units plus employee parking as determined by the planning director. The planning director shall base his decision on the following: (1) Availability of private, convenient, regular transportation services to meet the needs of the tenants; (2) Accessibility to and frequency of public transportation; 60 (3) Pedestrian access to health, medical and shopping facilities; (4) Minimum age requirement to reside in subject apartments; (5) Special support services offered by the facility. C. Special parking for recreational vehicles will not be required as long as the facility does not permit recreational vehicles other than campers or vehicles that will fit into a normal-sized parking stall. I recreational vehicles are to be permitted on the development, they must be screened and fenced. d. Compact stalls will not be permitted except for one-third of the required employee parking. B. Mixed occupancies or mixed use if one occupancy. In the case of two (2) or more uses in the same building, the total requirements for off street parking facilities shall be the sum of the requirements for the several uses computed separately; except in shopping centers, and except as provided in the mixed use overlay Section 15.04.200. Off street parking facilities for one (1) use shall not be considered as providing required parking facilities for any other use, except as permitted in subsection C. of this section pertaining to joint use. IC. Joint use The minimum amount of off-street narking required by section 15.05.040 A may be reduced by the planning director when shared parking facilities for two � (2) or more uses are proposed it. I� 1. The total Barking area exceeds five thousand (5,000) square feet; i The parking facilities are designed and developed as a single on-site common harking facility, or as a system of on-site and off-site facilities if all facilities are connected with improved pedestrian facilities and located within five hundred (500) feet of the buildings or use areas they are I intended to serve; The amount of reduction in off-street parking does not exceed ten (10) percent per use unless it is documented that the peak parking demand hours of two (2) or more uses are separate by at least one (1) hour; i 1r,, 61 4. The subject properties are legally encumbered by an easement or other appronrjate means which provides for continuous ioint use of the narking facilities Documentation shall require review and approval by the city attorney: and 5. The total number of narking spaces in the shared narking facility is not less than the minimum required by any single use. D. Employee parking Where employee parking will be maintained separately and in addition to parking for the general public the regulations of this subsection shall apply: l. Minimum parking stall sizes aisle widths and percentage of compact car stalls shall be as per other requirements in this chapter. 2. Employee parking must be clearly identified as such and not become parking for the general public. If the emplovee T)arking is changed to parking for the general public, the normal regulations for offstreet parking shall be in force. 4. Employee parking shall not be in lieu of parking requirements per activity I, as stated in this section. i I E. Temporary parking facilities Temporary parking facilities may be permitted by the planning director when it has been shown_ that: l. The existing use of the subject property has adequate legal nonconforming narking or that existing parking conforms to the applicable standards of this title. 2 The temporary parking. facility is primarily intended to serve the public at li large and not the existing use on the property. ;. The temporary parking facility serves a public need. I — 4. The temnorary facility meets the following minimum standards: a. There shall he a minimum of two hundred eighty-five (285) square feet cross area per stall. b. The pavement section shall be a minimum of four(4) inches of five- 62 eighths-inch minus C R crushed rock with bituminous surface .; treatment subiect to ettaineering department review. c. Onsite drainage control and detention shall be provided per the drainage ordinance. d. Ing_ress and egress and interior circulation and perimeter control shall be subiect to traffic engineer approval. F. Compact car parking. 1. Parking stall size shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet by seventeen f 17) feel Aisle width shall be per the requirements of section 15.05.080 and diagram no. 1 following this chapter. 2. Compact car narking spaces shall be clearly identified by signing or other marking as approved by the city engineer. 3. Compact car parking spaces shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total required narking and shall be interspersed equally throughout the entire parking area. 4. See section 15 05 080 and diagram no 2 following this chapter for typical compact car stall arrangements. 5. No more than four (4) compact car parking stalls shall be placed side-bv- I — side or eight (8) head-to-head. �G. Transit and rideshare provisions. 1. The planning director may reduce the minimum number of off-street parking stalls for businesses which have a commute trip reduction program filed with the city. Based upon a review of this program and input from other staff members a reduction of up to twenty (20) percent of the III minimum standard may be approved Any reduction in the amount of required parking is only valid for as long as the approved CTR program is in effect An invalidated program or a change in use or operations would result in the application of the underlying standards per section 15.05.040 'I A of the zoning code. �✓ I 63 2. The planning director may reduce the number of required off-street narking stalls for businesses which do not have a commute trip reduction program by one (1) stall for every two (2) car pool stalls. and/or one (1) stall for everyone (1)van pool staff if: (a) Reserved rideshare parking is located convenient to the primary employee entrance. Reserved areas are clearly marked by signs for use by approved and qualified rideshare vehicles; u The use of reserved areas for rideshare parking is actively enforced by the employer: and (d) The total reduction in the number of parking stalls does not exceed ten(10) percent of the required stalls. I SECTION 4. Section 15.06.050 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended by adding a new subsection (H) as follows: Sec. 15.06.050. Regulations for specific districts. In all districts the planning director shall have the option to waive sign type requirements in unique and special cases jwhere due to building design or other special circumstance the development is unable to jconform to stated standards. I IA. Signs permitted in residential districts. 1. Identification signs for single-family dwellings and duplexes. One (1) identification sign shall be permitted for each occupancy. The sign shall not exceed an area of three (3) square feet. shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet above the surface of the street. shall be attached directly to a building, fence, standard or mailbox. and shall be unlighted or provided with indirect illumination. Home occupations shall not be allowed additional sign area. ?. Identification signs far multifamily dwellings. One (1) identification sign shall be permitted for each development, except that multiple-family dwellings with more than one (1) street frontage may be allowed an 64 additional sign for each street frontage of such lot. Each sign shall not exceed an area of twenty-five (25) square feet, may be a wall or freestanding sign, shall be unlighted or indirectly lighted, and shall not exceed a height of six(6) feet above the ground if freestanding. 3. Farm product identification signs. No permit is required, but such signs may not be located in the public right-of-way. B. Signs permitted in neighborhood convenience commercial, community commercial, general commercial and commercial manufacturing districts. The aggregate sign area for any lot shall not exceed one and one-half(1 1/2) feet for each foot of street frontage. Aggregate sign area for comer lots shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of street frontage. The permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area. 1. Identification signs for occupancies. Each business establishment may have one (1) freestanding sign for each street frontage if not located in a shopping center, and three (3) additional signs. a. Freestanding sign. The freestanding sign shall not exceed a height I of thirty (30) feet. The maximum sign area permitted is two hundred (200) square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed one hundred (100) square feet. The sign may be illuminated. b. Additional signs. Three (3) additional signs shall be permitted subject to the following restrictions: (1) The total area of all signs, graphics or other advertising shall not be more than ten (10) percent of the building facade to which thev are attached or on which they are displayed. (2) On properties where a pole sign cannot be erected due to setback requirements or building placement, a projecting I sign may be allowed in lieu of the permitted freestanding sign. The projecting sign may not exceed fifteen(15) square i I feet in outside dimension. i r✓ 65 2. Identification signs for shopping centers. One(1)freestanding identification sign, which may list the names of the occupants of the shopping center, ..� shall be permitted for each street frontage of each shopping center. The maximum sign area permitted for a freestanding sign is two hundred(200) square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed one hundred (100) square feet. A freestanding sign shall not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet, and may be illuminated. 3. Automobile service station signs. The aggregate sign area for any corner lot shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of lot frontage, and the aggregate sign area for any interior lot shall not exceed one and one-half(1 1/2) square feet for each foot of lot frontage; and the permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area. a. Freestanding signs. One (1) freestanding lighted double-faced identification sign, not exceeding two hundred(200) square feet for the total of all faces, with no such face exceeding one hundred(100) ` square feet, is permitted. Such sign shall not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet. If on a corner lot, two (2) monument signs not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet per sign for the total of all faces are permitted. Such monument signs shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet. Freestanding signs shall be lighted during business hours only. b. Additional signs. Three (3) additional signs shall be permitted subject to the following restrictions: the total area of all signs, j graphics or other advertising shall not be more than ten(10)percent of the building facade to which they are attached or on which they are displayed. C. Fuel price signs. Fuel price signs shall be included in the aggregate sign area. 66 � 4. Farm product identification signs. No permit is required, but such signs may not be located in the public right-of-way. C. Signs permitted in downtown commercial and downtown commercial enterprise districts. The aggregate sign area for any lot shall not exceed one and one-half(1 1/2) square feet for each foot of street frontage. The aggregate sign area for comer lots shall not exceed one (1) foot for each foot of street frontage. The permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area. 1. Identification signs for multitenant buildings. a. Wall sign. Each multitenant building may have one (1)identification wall sign for the building's identification for each street frontage. The sign shall not exceed a total of five (5)percent of the facade to which it is attached. The sign shall not name or advertise the individual tenants of the building. Aggregate sign area shall apply. A multitenant building will have the option of the sign described in this subsection a. or the identification sign described in subsection C.Lb. of this section. II b. Freestanding sign. Each building may have one (1) freestanding sign on each street frontage. The sign may not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. The maximum sign area permitted for the freestanding sign is one hundred(100) square feet for the total of all f aces. No one (1) fare shall exceed fifty (50) square feet. Multitenant freestanding signs shall not name or advertise the i individual tenants of the building. 2. Identification signs for occupancies. Each occupant of a multitenant building shall be permitted two (2) wall signs. Such signs shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the facade of the individual business unit. Aggregate sign area shall not apply. 3. Identification signs for single-tenant building. a. Each building may have one (1) freestanding sign for each street 'I 67 frontage. The sign may not exceed a height of fifteen 15 0) feet. The maximum sign area permitted for the freestanding sign is one hundred(100) square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed fifty (50) square feet. b. Three (3) additional signs shall be permitted. All signs are subject to the aggregate sign area allowed. The total area of all signs, graphics or other types of signs shall not exceed ten(10) percent of the facade to which they are attached or on which they are displayed. D. Signs permitted in office district. 1. Generally. One (1) freestanding double-faced identification sign shall be permitted for each lot. The sign shall not exceed a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed twenty-five (25) square feet. A freestanding sign shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet and shall be unlighted or provided with indirect illumination. i 2. Identification signs for buildings. One (1) identification sign shall be i permitted for each principal building. The sign shall not exceed an area of five (5) percent of the facade to which it is attached, shall be attached flat against the building, shall not project above the eave of the roof or the top of the parapet. and shall be unlighted or provided with indirect illumination. I Such signs shall not advertise or name individual tenants of the building. 3. Identification signs for occupancies. Signs not exceeding a total of five (5) i percent of the facade of the business unit to which they are attached shall be permitted for each occupancy in a multitenant building when the occupancy has outside frontage. IE. Signs permitted in industrial districts. I 1. Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area for lots in the MA and MI districts shall not exceed one-half square foot for each foot of street � 68 ... frontage. The aggregate sign area for lots in the M2 and DLM districts shall not exceed three-fourths square foot for each foot of street frontage. The aggregate sign area for lots in the M3 district shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of street frontage. In no case shall the aggregate sign area exceed one-half square foot for each foot of street frontage on a comer lot. The permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area. a. Identification signs for buildings. One (1) identification sign shall be permitted for each lot on each street frontage, which may be a I freestanding sign or a wall sign. The maximum sign area permitted for a freestanding sign is two hundred(200) square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed one hundred (100) square feet. If the sign is a wall sign its size shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the building facade. A freestanding sign shall not exceed a height of twenty (20) feet. The sign may be illuminated. b. Identification signs for occupancies. One(1) identification sign shall be permitted for each occupancy on each street frontage and shall be a wall sign. The maximum size of the sign shall be ten(10)percent of the building facade. This sign may be illuminated. If the 'I identification sign permitted under subsection E.La. of this section i is a wall sign, an additional wall sign may be permitted on a building facade not facing a street frontage. i 2. Farm product identification signs. No permit is required, but the sign may not be located in the public right-of-way. IF. Signs permitted in planned unit developments, special use combining districts and I mobile home park districts and for conditional uses. All signs in planned unit developments, special use combining districts and mobile home parks and for conditional uses shall be incorporated as part of the developmental plan and approved with the developmental plan. Subsequent changes which conform to the �✓ 69 i adopted signing program may be granted by the planning director. G. Signs permitted in shopping centers. The aggregate sign area for each occupant o a shopping center shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the front facade of the unit. Wall signs are permitted on each exterior wall of the individual business unit. A minimum of thirty (30) square feet shall be permitted for any occupancy. No combination of signs shall exceed ten (10) percent of the facade to which they are attached. If there is an attached canopy or overhang, a ten-square-foot sign may be attached to the canopy or overhang in addition to the other permitted signs. Such sign shall be at least eight(8) feet above any pedestrian walkway. H. Signs Permitted in GWC zoning district. 1. Azuezate sign area The aggregate sign area for any lot shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of street frontage At€ere¢ate Bien area for corner lots shall not exceed three-fourths square foot for each foot of street frontage The permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total aggregate sjgn area. a. Identification signs for occupancies Each business establishment may have one (1) freestanding_sign per street frontage if not located in a shopping center, and one (1) wall sign per street frontage. Freestanding signs Freestanding signs shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet. The maximum sign area permitted is one hundred 0 00) square feet for the total of all faces No one (1) face shall exceed fifty (50) square feet. The sign may be illuminated. Freestanding signs shall not j rotate. Wall signs One (1) wall sign per street frontage shall be permitted The total area of all signage, graphics or other advertising shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the building facade to which it is attached. b. Identification signs for shopping centers. One (1) freestanding or �I 70 I ... one (1) wall shopping center identification sign shall be permitted for each street frontage of the shopping center. The maximum sign area permitted for a freestanding sign is one hundred (100) square feet No one (1) face shall exceed fifty (50) square feet. Freestanding signs shall be limited to fifteen(15) feet in height. The sign may be illuminated Freestanding signs shall not rotate One (1) wall sign shall be permitted per occugancv except that anchor tenants (business establishments with a store frontage of at least one hundred (1001 feet in length) shall be allowed two (2) wall signs. The aggregate wall sign area shall not exceed ten(10)percent of the building facade to which the signs are attached. SECTION S. Section 15.07.060 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 15.07.060(L)(1)(b).as follows: Sec. 15.07.060. Regulations for specific districts. Landscaping regulations for specific zoning districts are as follows: A. Residential agricultural, RA. None. jB. Single-family residential, SR None. IC. Duplex multifamily residential, MR-D. None. D. Low density multifamily residential, MR-G. Medium density multifamily residential. MR-M. lHigh density multifamily residential. MR-H 1. A minimum of ten (10) feet of landscaping shall be provided abutting a public right-of-way. ?. Open green area shall occupy no less than twenty-five (25) percent of the I, area of the lot. I The side and rear perimeters of properties shall be landscaped to a minimum depth often (10) tiger. r,,,,., 71 �I 4. A minimum of five(5) feet of foundation landscaping shall be placed along the perimeter of any multifamily structure. Foundation landscaping consists of shrubbery or some other combination of landscape materials that helps to reduce the visual bulk of structures and buffer dwelling units from light, glare and other environmental intrusions. E. Mobile home park combining district,MHP. Requirements shall be per the mobile home park code. F. Neighborhood convenience commercial, NCC Community commercial, CC. Commercial manufacturing, CM. General commercial, GC. Professional and office district, O 1. The perimeter of property abutting a residential district shall be landscaped to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet. 2. A planting strip not less than five (5) feet in depth shall be provided along all property lines abutting public rights-of-way. i G. Downtown commercial, DC. I. A minimum of three (3) feet of landscaping to screen off-street parking areas, placement of which shall be determined through the downtown design review process outlined in section 15.09.048. ?. Street trees in accordance with the official tree plan shall be planted. H. Downtown commercial enterprise. DCE Downtown limited manufacturing, DLM. l. The perimeter of properties abutting a residential district shall be landscaped I to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet. �I 2. A minimum of three (3) feet of landscaping to screen off-street parking I areas, placement of which shall be determined through the downtown design review process outlined in section 15.09.048. 3. Street trees in accordance with the official tree plan shall be planted. 72 I. Industrial agricultural, MA(industrial uses) Industrial park district, M1. 1. Front yard. The front twenty (20) feet shall be improved with appropriate permanently maintained landscaping. 2. Side yard. At least fifteen(15) feet of the side yard shall be landscaped as provided in subsection 1.1. of this section. J. Limited industrial district, M2. 1. Front yard. The front fifteen (15) feet shall be improved with appropriate permanently maintained landscaping. 2. Side yard. At least ten (10) feet of the side yard shall be landscaped as provided in subsection J.1. of this section. K. General industrial district, M3. 1. Front yard. The front ten (10) feet shall be improved with appropriate permanently maintained landscaping. 2. Side yard. At least five (5) feet of the side yard shall be landscaped as provided in subsection K.1. of this section. L. Gateway commercial district, GWC. I; 1. Additional landscaping requirements. Landscaping requirements shall include the following: I a. Where buildings abut the required front yard, a landscape strip at j least fifteen (15) feet in depth shall be provided. Where vehicular i parking areas abut the required front yard, a landscape strip at least twenty (20) feet in depth, with an earth berm at least thirty-six (36) inches in height, shall be provided. � b. A A44 landscape strip at least five (5) feet in depth shall be provided along the side property lines of all independent development sites. No landscaping along the side property lines shall be required between adjacent properties where a common, shared driveway with a perpetual cross-access easement is provided to serve the adjoining 73 properties. Where the side property line of a commercial use abuts a residential district, a landscape strip at least ten (10) feet in depth `..� shall be provided. C. A landscape strip of at least fifteen (15) feet in depth shall be provided along side property lines flanking the street of a comer lot. Where vehicular parking areas abut the required side yard, an earth I berm at least twenty-four(24) inches in height shall be provided. d. A landscape strip of at least five(5) feet in depth shall be provided along all rear property lines. Where the rear property line of a i commercial use abuts a residential use, a landscape strip of at least ten (10) feet in depth shall be provided. i SECTION 6. Section 15.08.020 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: i Sec. 15.08.020. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted in the several districts in which they are listed as special permit uses provided that they conform to the development standards listed in this section in addition to conforming to the ,development standards of the zoning district in which the use is located: A. Churches (excluding drive-in churches, which are conditional uses). 1. Vinimum lot area. Minimum lot area is one (1) acre in SR zones; in other zoning districts it shall be the minimum lot area of the underlying district. 2. Front yard. There shall be a front yard of at least twenty (20) feet in depth. I I Side yard Each side yard shall be a minimum of fifteen(15) feet in width. I 4. Rear yard. There shall be a rear vard of at least twenty (20) feet in depth. 5. Ingress and egress. A separate entrance and exit shall be provided. Loading I and unloading areas shall be provided and shall be located off public streets. 6. Landscaping. All yard areas must be landscaped. i 7. Day care centers. Day care centers in churches must also provide the required play area as provided in subsection B. of this section. 74 8. Parking; signs. Off-street parking and sign regulations shall be observed. B.G. Gasoline service stations (with or without retail convenience grocery sales). The provision of gasoline pumps shall not be considered incidental or secondary to a permitted use, and must conform to the requirements of this section. 1. 11inimum lot area. Minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square I feet. 2. Lot frontage. There shall be at least one hundred twenty (120) feet of frontage on a public street. 3. Pump setbacks. The pump island shall be set back fifteen(15) feet from the public right-of-way and any property lines. i 4. Lubrication facilities. Lubrication shall be done within an enclosed building. 5. Buffering of adjacent property. A solid or woven fence, free of advertising, shall be maintained along property lines which flank residential districts. I 6. Lighting. Lighting devices shall be shaded so as not to glare into residential i districts. 7. Hours. Gasoline service stations providing automobile repair services i abutting residential districts shall limit their hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Signs shall not be lit when the service station is closed. 8. Ingress and egress. Driveway widths and separation shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be not more than two (2) driveways per public right-of-way. 9. Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided in compliance with chapter 15.05. 10. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply. 11. Grocery sales facilities. Convenience grocery sales facilities shall be limited to a maximum size of three thousand (3,000) square feet of gross floor area ,I in zones which do not allow retail grocery sales as a principally permitted use. i 12. General development standards. Development standards and criteria of the `.✓ 75 underlying zoning district shall apply unless otherwise noted in this section. 13. Storage of motor fuels. Quantity limitations on hazardous substance land uses, including onsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, shall not apply to motor fuels that may be stored on the site for the permitted use. C.P- Drive-in restaurants. 1. Minimum lot area. Minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. 2. Front yard. There shall be a front yard of at least twenty (20) feet in depth. 3. Side yard. Each side yard shall be at least twenty (20) feet in width. 4. Rear yard. There shall be a rear yard of at least twenty (20) feet in depth. 5. Ingress and egress. Driveway widths shall not be greater than thirty (30) feet, and driveways shall not be closer together than twenty-five (25) feet. Driveways shall not be closer than five (5) feet to a property line. There shall be not more than two (2) driveways per public right-of-way. 6. Landscaping. A ten-foot strip is required along street rights-of-way, except ,v at points of ingress and egress to the property. A five-foot strip of landscaping along side lot lines shall be provided. Landscaping shall be provided in a manner assigned by the planning department at the time of development plan review. it i SECTION 7. Section 15.08.100 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended I !by amending Subsection 15.08.100(B) as follows: Sec. 15.08.100. Nonconforming development. !A. Purpose. The intent and purpose of this section is to: it 1. Ensure reasonable opportunity for use of legally created lots which do not meet current minimum requirements for the district in which they are located. Ensure reasonable opportunity for use, maintenance and improvement of legally constructed buildings, structures and site development features 76 I which do not comply with current minimum requirements for the district in which they are located. 3. Ensure reasonable opportunity for continuation of legally established uses which do not conform to use regulations for the district in which they are located. 4. Encourage the eventual replacement of nonconforming uses having potentially undesirable impacts on conforming uses. 5. Encourage the eventual upgrading of nonconforming buildings, structures and site development features which do not comply with current minimum requirements for the district in which they are located. B. Applicability. Nonconforming uses, structures, lots or signs are not favored by law and this title, and it is to avoid injustice that this title accepts such elements. To benefit from the protection given to nonconforming development, such use, structure,l@t or sign must have been lawfully established prior to the effective date of this chapter or subsequent amendments there to, or pursuant to a county resolution in effect at the time of annexation which rendered it nonconforming. This section distinguishes between and defines nonconforming uses, major nonconforming buildings and structures, minor nonconforming buildings and structures, nonconforming lots of record and nonconforming signs. Different requirements are made applicable to each of these categories. The degree of restriction made applicable to each separate category is dependent upon the degree to which that category of nonconformance is a nuisance or incompatible with the purpose and requirements of this title. I .I C. Nonconforming uses. l. Applicability of restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming uses are in addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming structures, lots and signs. and in the event of any conflict the most restrictive provisions shall apply. 2. Expansion of nonconforming uses. No existing building, structure or land �., 77 devoted to a nonconforming use shall be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed, intensified or structurally altered unless the use thereof is changed to a use permitted in the district in which such building, structure or land is located except as follows: When authorized by conditional use permit, a nonconforming use may be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed, intensified or structurally altered. 3. Change of nonconforming use. When authorized by the planning director, a nonconforming use may be changed to a use of a like or more restrictive nature. 4. Extension of nonconforming use. When authorized by the planning director, a nonconforming use may be extended throughout those parts of a building which were manifestly designed or arranged for such use prior to the date when such use of such building became nonconforming, if no structural alterations except those required by law are made therein. 5. Discontinuance of nonconforming use. When a nonconforming use of land or a nonconforming use of all or part of a structure is discontinued or abandoned for a period of six (6) months, such use shall not be resumed, notwithstanding any reserved intent not to abandon such use. Normal seasonal cessation of use, or temporary discontinuance for purposes of maintenance or improvements, shall not be included in determination of the six-month period of discontinuance. I „I 6. Reversion to nonconforming use. If a nonconforming use is changed to a permitted use, the nonconforming use shall not be resumed. 7. Residential exception to nonconforming use status. Legally established residential uses located in any residential zoning shall not be deemed i nonconforming in terms of density provisions and shall be a legal use. D. .Nonconforming buildings and structures. 1. Applicability of' restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming structures are in addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, 78 lots and signs, and in the event of any conflict the most restrictive �—r provisions shall apply. 2. Major nonconforming buildings and structures. No major nonconforming structure may be expanded, enlarged,extended, reconstructed or structurally altered or changed, nor may any major nonconforming building, structure or lot be occupied after discontinuance of change in use, unless the structure, use and associated grounds and development are brought into compliance with use and minimum development standards of the district in which such structure is located, except as follows: a. Any major nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, war, riot or other natural disaster, may be restored, reconstructed and used as before, provided that the work be vested by permit application within one (1) year of such happening; any restoration or reconstruction not vested by permit application within 12 months from the date of the fire or other '�✓ casualty shall be deemed abandoned and not allowed to be restored. b. Such repairs and maintenance work as required to keep the structure in sound condition may be made to a major nonconforming i structure, provided no such structural alterations shall be made except such as are required by law or ordinance or authorized by the planning director. 3. Minor nonconforming buildings and structures. No minor nonconforming j structure may be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed or otherwise structurally altered or changed, nor may any minor nonconforming building, i� structure or lot be occupied after discontinuance or change in use,unless the i istructure and associated grounds and development are brought into compliance with the minimum development standards of the district in which such structure is located, except as follows: I I a. Any minor nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, i 79 explosion,wind,.earthquake,war, riot or other natural disaster, may be restored, reconstructed and used as before, provided that the work be vested by permit application be completed within one (1) year of such happening-; any restoration or reconstruction vested by permit application 12 months from the date of the fire or other casualty shall be deemed abandoned and not allowed to be restored. b. Such repairs and maintenance work as required to keep the structure in sound condition may be made to a minor nonconforming structure, provided no such structural alterations shall be made except such as are required by law or ordinance or authorized by the planning director. 4. Planning director's authority. The planning director may waive specific development standard requirements or impose additional requirements when all the following criteria are met: a. When owing to special circumstances a literal enforcement of the provisions of this title or other land use regulatory ordinances of the �. city will result in unnecessary hardship. b. When the waiver of development requirements is in harmony with I I the purpose and intent of city ordinances and the comprehensive plan. C. When the proposed use, building and development will function without adverse impact upon adjacent property, development in the area or the city as a whole. d. When a conditional use permit is not required. E. Nonconforming lots. l. Applicability of restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming lots are in addition to the regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, structures and signs, and, in the event of conflict, the most restrictive provisions shall apply. 80 ..i 2. Nonconforming lots of record. a. Residential districts. (1) In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, a single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record as of June 20, 1973, notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this title. Such lot must be in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements for area or width that are generally applicable in the district, provided that yard dimensions and requirements other than those applying to area or width of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. (2) In all single-family zoning districts, with the exception of the RI-5.0 zoning district, if two (2) or more lots or I� combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record prior to June 20, 1973, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the minimum requirements established for lot width and area, the land involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this title, and no portion of the parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this title, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which i. creates a lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this title. '! (3) In the RI-5.0 zoning district, if two (2) or more single- family zoned lots or combination of lots and portions of lots �.+ 81 with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record prior to June 20, 1973, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the following minimum requirements established for lot width, lot area and topography,the land involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this title, and no portion of the parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this title, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this title. (a) Minimum lot area: Four thousand six hundred (4,600) square feet. (b) Minimum lot width: Forty (40) feet. (c) Maximum site slope: Fifteen (15) percent. i b. Other districts. In any other district, permitted building and structures may be constructed on a nonconforming lot of record, provided site coverage, yard, landscaping and offstreet parking requirements are met. Such lots must be in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership prior to June 20. 1973, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the minimum requirements established for lot width and area the land involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this title. and no portion of the parcel shall be used or i sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this title, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this title. IF. .Nonconforming signs. il. Applicability of restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming signs 82 are in addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, structures and lots, and in the event of conflict the most restrictive provisions shall apply. 2. Continuation of nonconforming signs. a. Signs that were legally existing as of the effective date of this title or subsequent amendments thereto that do not conform to the regulations of this title shall be considered nonconforming signs. Nonconforming signs may not be moved, relocated, altered or added to without receiving approval from the planning department. I b. No sign permit shall be issued to allow legal signs on property having an illegal or nonconforming sign until such time as the nonconforming or illegal sign is modified to conform to this title. I Amortization period. a. Abandoned signs. Abandoned signs must be removed within ninety (90) days. r✓ b. Number and type of signs. The number and type of allowable signs i for each occupancy must conform to the regulations of this title. I SECTION 8. Chapter 15.08 of the of the Kent City Code is hereby amended by adding a new section. Section 15.08.400 as follows: Sec. 15.08.400. Planned unit development, PUD. The intent of the PUD is to create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design, and protect and enhance i natural and community features. The process is provided to encourage unique Idevelopments which may combine a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. By using flexibility in the application of development standards, this process will promote developments that will benefit citizens that live and work within the city. A. Zoning districts where permitted. PUD's are permitted in all zoning districts with �i the exception of the A-1, agricultural zone, provided, however, that PUDs in SR zones are not only allowed if the site is at least one hundred (100) acres in size. I 83 B. Permitted uses. 1. Principally permitted uses. The principally permitted uses in PUD's shall be the same as those permitted in the underlying zoning classifications except as provided in subsection 15.04.080 B.(4). 2. Conditional uses. The conditional uses in PUD's shall be the same as those permitted in the underlying zoning classification. The conditional use permit review process may be consolidated with that of the PUD pursuant to procedures specified in subsection F. of this section. 3. Accessory uses. Accessory uses and buildings which are customarily incidental and subordinate to a principally permitted use are also permitted. 4. Exceptions. In residential PUD's of ten(10) acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted in the neighborhood convenience district. In PUDs located in SR zones, attached dwelling units are permitted only if they are condominiums created in accordance with the Washington Condominium Act, RCW ch. 64.34; provided that if a proposed PUD in a single-family zoning district includes j condominiums, the density bonus provisions outlined in section 15.04.080 D. shall not apply, and further provided that no condominium building may exceed two (2) stories. C. Development standards. The following development standards are minimum i� requirements for a planned unit development: 1. Minimum lot sire exclusion. The minimum lot size requirements of the districts outlined in this title shall not apply to PUD's. 2. Minimum site acreage. Minimum site acreage for a PUD is established itaccording to the zoning district in which the PUD is located, as follows: Zones Minimum Site Acreage SR zones (SR-1, SR-2, SR-3. SR-4.5, SR-6, 100 acres SR-8) �i 84 Multifamily (MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H) None Commercial, office and manufacturing zones None 3. Minimum perimeter building setback The minimum perimeter building setback of the underlying zone shall apply. Multifamily transition area requirements shall apply to any multifamily developments (as provided in section 15.08.215), except where specifically exempted by administrative design review (as provided in section 15.09.045). The hearing examiner i may reduce building separation requirements to the minimum required by j the building and fire departments according with the criteria set forth in subsection F.1. of this section. If an adjacent property is undevelopable under this title, the hearing examiner may also reduce the perimeter building setback requirement to the minimum standards in the city building and fire codes. 4. Maximum height of structures. The maximum height of structures of the underlying zone shall apply. Multifamily transition area requirements shall j apply to any multifamily developments (as provided in section 15.08.215) except where specifically exempted by administrative design review (as provided in section 15.09.045). The hearing examiner may authorize II additional height in CC, GC, DC. CM, M1, M2 and M3 zones where l proposed development in the PUD is compatible with the scale and character of adjacent existing developments. 5. Open space. i a. The standard set forth in this subsection shall apply to PUD residential developments only. Each PUD shall provide a minimum of thirty-five (35) percent of the total site area for common open space. In mixed use PUD's containing residential uses, thirty-five (35) percent of the area used for residential use shall be reserved as �I �i ..� 85 open space. b. For the purpose of this section, open space shall be defined as land which is not used for buildings, dedicated public rights-of-way, traffic circulation and roads, parking areas, or any kind of storage. Open space includes but is not limited to privately owned woodlands, open fields, streams, wetlands, severe hazard areas, sidewalks, walkways, landscaped areas, gardens, courtyards or lawns. Common open space may provide for either active or passive recreation. C. Open space within a PUD shall be available for common use by the residents, tenants or the general public, depending on the type of project. 6. Streets. If streets within the development are required to be dedicated to the city for public use, such streets shall be designed in accordance with the standards outlined in the city subdivision code and other appropriate city standards. If streets within the development are to remain in private ownership and remain as private streets,the following standards shall apply: a. Minimum private .street pavement widths for parallel parking in residential planned unit developments. Minimum private street i pavement widths for parallel parking in residential planned unit developments are as follows: No Parking One Side Parking Parking (feet) Both Sides (feet) (feet) i One-way streets 20 29 38 Two-wav streets 22 31 40 The minimum widths set out in this subsection may be modified upon review and approval by the city fire chief and the city traffic engineer providing they are sufficient to maintain emergency access i 86 and traffic safety. A maintenance agreement for private streets within a PUD shall be required by the hearing examiner as a condition of PUD approval. b. Vehicle parking areas. Adequate vehicular parking areas shall be provided. The required number of parking spaces may vary from the requirements of chapter 15.05 and shall be approved by the hearing examiner based upon a parking need assessment study submitted by I, the applicant and approved by the planning director. Vehicular parking areas may be provided by onstreet parking or offstreet parking lots. The design of such parking areas shall be in accordance with the standards outlined in chapter 15.05. I C. One-way streets. One-way loop streets shall be no more than one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet long. d. Onstreet parking. Onstreet parking shall be permitted. Privately owned and maintained "no parking" and "fire lane" signs may be r✓ required as determined by the city traffic engineer and city fire department chief. 7. Pedestrian walkways. Pedestrian walkways shall be constructed of material Ii deemed to be an all-weather surface by the public works director and planning director. i� 8. Landscaping. a. Minimum perimeter landscaping of the underlying zone shall apply. i Additional landscaping shall be required as provided in chapter 15.07 and section 15.08 215. b. All PUD developments shall ensure that parking areas are integrated with the landscaping system and provide screening of vehicles from view from public streets. Parking areas shall be conveniently located to buildings and streets while providing for landscaping i t adjacent to buildings and pedestrian access. tl ``. 87 C. Solid waste collection areas and waste reduction or recycling collection areas shall be conveniently and safely located for onsite use and collection, and attractively site screened. 9. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply. 10. Platting. If portions of the PUD are to be subdivided for sale or lease, the procedures of the city subdivision code, as amended, shall apply. Specific development standards such as lot size, street design, etc., shall be provided as outlined in subsection 15.04.080 E. 11. Green River Corridor. Any development located within the Green River Corridor special interest district shall adhere to the Green River Corridor special interest district regulations. 12. View regulations. View regulations as specified in section 15.08.060 shall apply to all PUD's. 13. Shoreline master program. Any development located within two hundred (200) feet of the Green River shall adhere to the city shoreline master program regulations. jD. Density bonus standards. The density of residential development for PUD's shall be based on the gross density of the underlying zoning district. The hearing i examiner may recommend a dwelling unit density not more than twenty (20) percent greater than that permitted by the underlying zone upon findings and conclusions that the amenities or design features which promote the purposes of this subsection, as follows, are provided: l. Open space. A four-percent density bonus may be authorized if at least ten (10)percent of the open space is in concentrated areas for passive use. Open 'j space shall include significant natural features of the site, including but not limited to fields. woodlands, watercourses, and permanent and seasonal wetlands. Excluded from the open space definition are the areas within the �I building footprints. land used for parking, vehicular circulation or rights-of- way, and areas used for any kind of storage. 88 2. Active recreation areas. A four-percent density bonus may be authorized if at least ten (10) percent of the site is.utilized for active recreational purposes, including but not limited to jogging or walking trails, pools, children's play areas, etc. Only that percentage of space contained within accessory structures that is directly used for active recreation purposes can be included in the ten-percent active recreation requirement. 3. Stormwater drainage. A two-percent density bonus may be authorized if stormwater drainage control is accomplished using natural onsite drainage features. Natural drainage feature may include streams, creeks, ponds, etc. 4. Native vegetation. A four-percent density bonus may be authorized if at least fifteen (15) percent of the native vegetation on the site is left undisturbed in large open areas. 5. Parking lot size. A two-percent density bonus may be authorized if offstreet parking is grouped in areas of sixteen (16) stalls or less. Parking areas must be separated from other parking areas or buildings by significant landscaping in excess of type V standards as provided in section 15.07.050. At least fifty (50) percent of these parking areas must be designed as outlined in this subsection to receive the density bonus. i 6. Mixed housing types. A two-percent density bonus may be authorized if a development features a mix of residential housing types. Single-family residences, attached single units, condominiums, apartments and it townhomes are examples of housing types. The mix need not include some I� of every type. 7. Project planning and management. A two-percent density bonus may be granted if a design/development team is used. Such a team would include a mixture of architects, engineers, landscape architects and designers. A design/development team is likely to produce a professional development i concept that would be consistent with the purpose of the zoning regulations. These standards are thresholds, and partial credit is not given for partial attainment. j I 89 The site plan must at least meet the threshold level of each bonus standard in order for density bonuses to be given for that standard. E. Master plan approvals. The master plan process is intended to allow approval o a generalized, conceptual development plan on a site which would then be constructed in phases over a longer period of time than a typical planned unit development. The master plan approval process is typically appropriate for development which might occur on a site over a period of several years, and in phases which are not entirely predicable. i 1. Submittal requirements. The distinguishing characteristic between a master plan development application and a planned unit development application is that a master plan development proposal is conceptual in nature. However, the master plan application shall provide sufficient detail of the scope of the development, the uses, the amount of land to be developed and preserved, and how services will be provided. The specific submittal requirements are noted below: a. A written description of the scope of the project, including total anticipated build-out(number of units of residential, gross floor area for commercial), and the types of uses proposed; b. A clear vicinity map, showing adjacent roads; it C. A fully dimensional site plan, which would show the areas upon which development would occur, the proposed number of units or buildings in each phase of the development, the areas would be 'I preserved for open space or protection of environmentally sensitive features, and a generalized circulation plan, which would include i proposed pedestrian and bicycle circulation; I d. A generalized drainage and stormwater runoff plan; e. A site map showing contours at not greater than five-foot intervals and showing any wetlands, streams, or other natural features. f. A description of the proposed phasing plan. � 90 .r. g. Documentation of coordination with the Kent school district. ../ h. Certificates of water and sewer availability. i. Generalized building elevations showing the types of uses being proposed. 2. Density. The gross density of a residential master plan project shall be the same as the density allowable in the underlying zoning district. 3. Open space. The criteria in subsection 15.04.080 C.(5) shall apply. 4. Application process. The application process for a master plan application shall be as outlined in subsection 15.04.080 F. 5. Review criteria. The review criteria for a master plan application shall be the same as those outlined in subsection 15.04.080 G. 6. Administrative approval of individual phases. Once a master site plan PUD has been approved pursuant to section 15.04.080 F., any individual phase of the development shall be reviewed and approved administratively, as outlined in chapter 15.09 of this title; provided that for each phase of �,. development that includes a residential condominium, the applicant shall submit a copy of the condominium declaration recorded against the property, and as outlined in RCW 64.34.200. 7. Time limits. The master plan approved by the hearing examiner or city council, as provided in section 15.04.080 F. shall be valid for a period of up to seven years. At the end of this seven-year period, development permits I must be issued for all phases of the master plan development. An extension of time may be requested by the applicant. A single extension may be granted by the planning director for a period of not more than two (2) more additional years. 8. Modifications. Once approved, requests for modifications to the master plan project shall be made in writing to the planning director. The planning director shall make a determination as to whether the requested modification is major or minor as outlined in section 15.04.080 I. ` I I 91 F. Application process. The application process includes the following steps: informal u review process, compliance with the state Environmental Policy Act, community information meeting, development plan review, and public hearing before the hearing examiner. 1. Informal review process. An applicant shall meet informally with the planning department at the earliest possible date to discuss the proposed PUD. The purpose of this meeting is to develop a project that will meet the needs of the applicant and the objectives of the city as defined in this title. 2. SEPA compliance. Compliance with the state Environmental Policy Act and regulations and city SEPA requirements shall be completed prior to development plan review. 3. Development plan review. After informal review and completion of the SEPA process, a proposal shall next be reviewed by city staff through the development plan review process. Comments received by the project developer under the development review process shall be used to formalize the proposed development prior to the development being presented at a public hearing before the hearing examiner. 4. Community information meeting. I a. A community information meeting shall be required for any proposed PUD located in a residential zone or within two hundred (200) feet of a residential zone. At this meeting the applicant shall present the development proposed to interested residents. Issues raised at the meeting may be used to refine the PUD plan. Notice shall be given in at least one (1) publication in the local newspaper at least ten(10)days prior to the public hearing. Written notice shall be mailed first class to all property owners within a radius of not I� less than two hundred (200) feet of the exterior boundaries of the I property subject to the application. Any alleged failure of any it property owner to actually receive the notice of hearing shall not 92 invalidate the proceedings. b. Nonresidential PUD's not located within two hundred(200) feet o a residential zone shall not require a community information meeting. 5. Public notice and hearing examiner public hearing. The hearing examiner shall hold at least one (1) public hearing on the proposed PUD and shall give notice thereof in at least one (1) publication in the local newspaper at least ten(10) days prior to the public hearing. Written notice shall be mailed first class to all property owners within a radius of not less than two hundred (200) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property subject to the application. Any alleged failure of any property owner to actually receive the notice of hearing shall not invalidate the proceedings. 6. Consolidation of land use permit processes. The PUD approval process may be used to consolidate other land use permit processes which are required by other sections of this title. The public hearing required for the PUD may serve as the public hearing for the conditional use permit, subdivision, shoreline substantial development and rezoning if such land use permits are a part of the overall PUD application. When another land use permit is involved which requires city council approval, the PUD shall not be deemed i to be approved until the city council has approved the related land use permit. If a public hearing is required for any of the categories of actions I listed in this subsection, the hearing examiner shall employ the public hearing notice requirements for all actions considered which ensure the maximum notice to the public. I 7. Hearing examiner decision. The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days from the date of the hearing. Parties of record will be notified in writing of the decision. The decision is final i unless notice of appeal is filed with the city clerk within fourteen(14) days of receipt by the developer of the decision. For PUDs which propose a use `.✓ 93 j which is not typically permitted in the underlying zoning district as provided in section 15.04.080 B.(4), the hearing examiner shall forward a recommendation to the city council, which shall have the final authority to approve or deny the proposed PUD. For a proposed residential PUD that includes condominiums as outlined in section 15.04.080 B.(4), a condition of approval by the city council shall be that for each development phase,the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of the covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded against the property. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the hearing examiner's recommendation, the city council shall, at a regular meeting, consider the application. 8. Effective date. In approving a PUD,the hearing examiner shall specify that the approved PUD shall not take effect unless or until the developer files a completed development permit application within the time periods required by this title as set forth in subsection G. of this section.No official map or zoning text designations shall be amended to reflect the approved PUD designation until such time as the PUD becomes effective. G. Review criteria for planned unit developments. Upon receipt of a complete application for a residential PUD, the planning department shall review the application and make its recommendation to the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner shall determine whether to grant, deny or condition an application based upon the following review criteria: 1. Residential planned unit development criteria. a. The proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial effect upon the community and users of the development which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and shall not be detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined I by the comprehensive plan. b. Unusual environmental features of the site shall be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to benefit the 94 development and the community. C. The proposed PUD project shall provide areas of openness by using techniques such as clustering, separation of building groups, and use of well-designed open space and landscaping. d. The proposed PUD project shall promote variety and innovation in site and building design. Buildings in groups shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but contrast shall be provided throughout the site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building scale and orientation. e. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when construction will be in phases. 2. Nonresidential planned unit development criteria. a. The proposed project shall have a beneficial effect which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and not be detrimental to present or potential surrounding land uses as �..,. defined by the comprehensive plan. b. Unusual environmental features of the site shall be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to benefit the i development and the community. I C. The proposed project shall provide areas of openness by the iclustering of buildings, and by the use of well-designed landscaping and open spaces. Landscaping shall promote a coordinated appearance and break up continuous expanses of building and pavement. I d. The proposed project shall promote variety and innovation in site and building design. It shall encourage the incorporation of special design features such as visitor entrances, plazas, outdoor employee lunch and recreation areas, architectural focal points and accent i lighting. �' 95 e. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when construction will be in phases. H. Time limits. 1. Application for development permit. The applicant shall apply for a development permit no later than one (1) year following final approval of the PUD. The application for development permit shall contain all conditions of the PUD approval. 2. Extensions. An extension of time for development permit application may be requested in writing by the applicant. Such an extension may be granted by the planning director for a period not to exceed one (1) year. If a development permit is not issued within two (2) years, the PUD approval shall become null and void and the PUD shall not take effect. I. Modifications ofplan. Requests for modifications of final approved plans shall be made in writing and shall be submitted to the planning department in the manner and form prescribed by the planning director. The criteria for approval of a request for a major modification shall be those criteria covering original approval of the permit which is the subject of the proposed modification. 1. Minor modifications. Modifications are deemed minor if all the following criteria are satisfied: a. No new land use is proposed; b. No increase in density, number of dwelling units or lots is proposed; C. No change in the general location or number of access points is proposed; d. No reduction in the amount of open space is proposed; e. No reduction in the amount of parking is proposed; f. No increase in the total square footage of structures to be developed is proposed; and g. No increase in general height of structures is proposed. Examples of minor modifications include but are not limited to lot line 96 adjustments, minor relocations of buildings or landscaped areas, minor changes in phasing and timing, and minor changes in elevations o buildings. 2. Major modifications. Major adjustments are those which, as determined by the planning director, substantially change the basic design, density, open space or other similar requirements or provisions. Major adjustments to the development plans shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may review such adjustments at a regular public hearing. If a public hearing is held,the process outlined in subsection 15.04.080 F. shall apply. The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision to approve, deny or modify the request. Such a decision shall be final. The decision may be appealed to the city council by the filing of written notice of appeal with the city clerk within fourteen (14) days of the date of the developer's receipt of the hearing examiner's decision. r✓ SECTION 9. - 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. l SECTION 10. SavinQs Clause. Zoning Code provisions amended by this ordinance shall remain in force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 11. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. �I JIM WHITE, MAYOR �-' I 97 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 1999. APPROVED: day of 21999. PUBLISHED: day of , 1999. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent. Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK I P`.CwPOrdmen T.Oe15r omn.dm I I, jI Ili1 II I I 98 Kent City Council Meeting `.. Date February 2 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ALTERNATIVES TASK FORCE APPOINTMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Council President, Leona Orr will announce the appointments to the Transportation Funding Alternatives Task Force . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council President (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. 6K � y ................... . . I Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 1999 �- Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MORATORIUM ON CARD ROOMS AND SETTING HEARING DATE [ 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. 15A imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for and the issuance of any business license or any building, land use, or development permit for card room business establishments, and �J further setting 6-7 1999, as the hearing date for a n hearing on this matter before the City Council . lJ' A number of food or drink establishments conducting commercial stimulant card games have opened recently in the King County Area including the City of Kent . There is a possibility that the City could receive more applications for such establish- ments significantly increasing the number of such uses within the City. The Kent City Code may not adequately address the impacts these uses present . Staff is recommending passage of a resolution establishing a moratorium relating to these establishments to give the City time to review potential impacts and to evaluate whether current regulations sufficiently address these uses . 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution i 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES i I 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ i SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds I j i j 'I i DISCUSSION: `,.. ACTION: ! `I Council Agenda Item No. 6L 'I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for and the issuance of any business license or any building, land use, or development permit or approval for food or drink establishments conducting commercial stimulant card games. WHEREAS, a number of food or drink establishments conducting commercial stimulant card games have opened recently in the King County area including the City of Kent; and r✓ WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned about the potential negative secondary affects that such establishments may create that would be detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, RCW 9.46.295 authorizes cities such as the City of Kent to prohibit any or all the gambling activities authorized under Chapter 9.46 RCW; and WHEREAS, there is a possibility that the City could, in the near future, receive more applications for such establishments that would significantly increase the number of such uses located within the City; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Code relating to food or drink establishments conducting commercial stimulant card games may not adequately address the I Gambling Activity Moratorium various impacts that these uses present and the protection of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare would be jeopardized by the establishment of such establishments prior to a review of the matter and possible adoption of new regulations by the City Council; and WHEREAS, other cities in the surrounding Seattle, Tacoma Metropolitan region and elsewhere in the state have adopted ordinances relating to food or drink establishments conducting commercial stimulant card games based upon the impacts of such uses; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Kent would be well-served if the City more fully addressed and understood the potential affects in the form of health, safety, economic and aesthetic impacts these uses impose upon neighboring properties in the community as a whole; and WHEREAS, the City needs time to review existing information on the affects of these uses and to evaluate whether to permit these gambling activities in the future and if so, review the Kent City Code in a comprehensive fashion to determine whether it sufficiently addresses the impacts of such uses; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 authorizes cities to adopt moratoriums provided a public hearing is held within sixty (60) days of adoption; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the protection of the health, safety and welfare supports imposing a moratorium on food and drink establishments conducting commercial stimulant card games barring the acceptance of all applications for issuance of any business license, or building, land use, or development permit or approval under the Kent City Code for these establishments 2 Gambling Activity Moratorium until additional review has been completed and any necessary code revisions have been adopted by the Kent City Council; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals Incorporated. The recitals set forth in this resolution are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. Moratorium. Due to the findings set forth herein and as authorized pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, the Kent City Council does hereby declare a moratorium upon the acceptance of applications for and the issuance of any business license, or any building, land use, or development permit or approval (including variances and rezones), or any other permit, license, or approval required to construct, install, relocate, or operate any food or drink establishment conducting commercial stimulant card games as defined in Chapter 9.46 RCW or described in the recitals of this resolution. SECTION 3. Duration. The moratorium established herein is established for a period of six months from the effective date of this resolution or until the effective date of anv ordinances establishing new regulations governing food or drink establishments conducting commercial stimulant card games, whichever is sooner, and during said moratorium, no business license and no building, land use, or development permit or approval shall be issued nor shall any such permit or license application be accepted for any such establishment as defined in Chapter 9.46 RCW. `w.r 3 Gambling Activity Moratorium SECTION 4. Public Hearin¢. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this moratorium within sixty (60) days of its adoption. SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of , 1999. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of 1999. JIM WHITE, MAYOR 4 Gambling Activity Moratorium ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1999. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 5 Gambling Activity Moratorium �._..................___ . !p! Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 , 1999 `- Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STRIPING - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Traffic Striping contract as complete and release retainage to Stripe-Rite, Inc . upon standard releases from the State and release of any liens . The original contract amount was $39, 174 . 91 . The final construction cost was $29, 954 . 93 . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds 'I DISCUSSION: �. ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6M ....................... ..................... l Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 . 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: HORSESHOE ACRES ANNEXATION - ACCEPT 60% PETITION AN-98-1 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the petition for 60% of the assessed valuation of the proposed Horseshoe Acres Annexation and direct staff to prepare and file a "Notice of Intent" for the proposed Horseshoe Acres Annexation with the County Boundary Review Board. On June 16, 1998, the Council accepted a valid notice of intent to form the annexation signed by owners of not less than 10% of the area proposed in the Horseshoe Acres Annexation. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6N .-. i Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 . 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENT - CONFIRMATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappoint- ment of Tom Brotherton to continue serving as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission. His term will continue until 1/1/2001 . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 60 iM.......... W MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members FROM: Leona Orr, City Council President DATE: January 29, 1999 SUBJECT: Reappointment to Kent Human Services Commission I have reappointed Tom Brotherton to continue service as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission. His term will continue until January 1, 2001. I submit this for your confirmation. Cc: Mayor Jim White CV ua� Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 . 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: COUNCILMANIC BONDS AND PROJECT AUTHORIZATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Staff requests approval to proceed with a Councilmanic Bond Issue for $20, 858, 000 plus debt issuance costs . Two issues were planned in the 1998 and 1999 Capital Plans and Budgets; however, tonight we are consolidating this into one issue to take advantage of the City' s lowest cost of capital in twenty years, and to save on issuance costs . The Operations Committee recommended approval at their January 19, 1999 meeting. May Miller, Finance Director, and Dick King, of Lehman Brothers (the bond underwriter) , will make brief presentations and will answer any questions . 3 . EXHIBITS: Various memos and financial worksheets 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: tv V. , �� Councilmember 1 moves , Councilmember seconds 1)}'0proceed with the issuance of Councilmanic Bonds of $20 , 858 , 000 plus bond issuance costs; 2+ establish and/or amend the necessary budgets for the projects, debt issuance costs and debt service as outlined; 3y19 proceed with several projects, including tenant improve- ments, Phase II of the Space Study and purchase of the land for the East Hill Maintenance Facility, with the intent to reimburse these projects with the bond proceeds; and 4)44authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Merrit & Pardini for an amount not to exceed $300 , 000 for Phase II of the Space Study. DISCUSSION: ACTION: j Council Agenda Item No. 7A i January 26, 1999 To: Mayor White and City Councilmembers From: May Miller, Director of Finance Subject: Councilmanic Bonds As recommended by the Operations Committee at their February 2, 1999, meeting we are requesting approval to proceed with our planned Councilmanic Bond issues for$20,858,000 plus issuance costs. There are three very good reasons to proceed with the bond issues at this time. First, many of the identified projects are ready to begin,therefore, the money is needed. Second, the project we have been waiting for to purchase the East Hill maintenance facility was approved at the January 19 meeting, providing that all environmental tests are satisfactory to the city. Bond proceeds will provide the funding for this land purchase. The third reason to proceed is to take advantage of the current low interest rates. According to the attached memo from Dick King of Lehman Brothers, we have the opportunity to obtain our lowest cost of capital in over 20 years. Further, he recommended that we consolidate our 1998 and 1999 bond issues as a way to lock in these attractive interest rates and lower our debt issuance costs. The process to plan, review and finally authorize the issuance of councilmanic bonds has several steps. Council has been exposed to and approved the proposed projects through the Capital Improvement Program and annual budget processes. Some projects have already been approved by Council with intent to bond. The step tonight is to pull all the pieces together for both the 1998 and 1999 councilmanic debt into one issue. The next step, expected to go to Council on March 161h, is to finalize the bond sizing, including interest rates, issuance costs and bond sale contracts. Once this is completed, we expect to receive the bond proceeds on approximately March 31" We recommend issuing bonds totaling $20,858,000, plus bond issuance costs. The proceeds are to fund projects falling into four main categories, Land and Buildings, Tenant/ Space and Major Capital Improvements, Technology / Automation , and Other Capital Projects as outlined on the attached pages. Land and building projects, totaling $5,522,000, include the East Hill maintenance facility and Police Headquarters land purchases and the final payment for Fire Station#75. The tenant and space improvements total $4,452,000 and include such projects as renovations at the Correction Facility and Municipal Court, phase two of the space study and facility security improvements. This amount also includes the tenant improvements approved at the December 8, 1998 Council meeting. A total of$8,288,000 is for technology and automation projects. The majority of this �..r is for the Technology Plan, which was approved on April 21, 1998. The balance is for replacement of the Police and Fire mobile data terminals (MDTs)and back up generators for several buildings. The final $2,596,000 will fund improvements on SE 2561h Street and the ...� downtown gateway projects. It is important to note that the debt service will not require any new taxes. The debt service payments are already budgeted in the CIP and Street Funds using existing sales, excise and fuel taxes. In fact, we will save approximately $611,000 in 1999 debt service due to timing of the issuance plus the lower interest rates. Attached is the schedule of the estimated debt service payments and the CIP 6-year forecast showing future revenues, debt service payments for this and future debt issues and cash funded projects with a remaining fund balance. This seems to be an ideal time to proceed with this councihnanic bond issue. The current interest rates will allow the City to provide funding for several major projects, while keeping financing costs at a minimum. I am availabi: anytime at 859-4160 or at the Operations Committee meeting to discuss the process and current market, as well as answer any questions. U LEHMAN BROTHERS MEMORANDUM v TO: Mayen Miller FROM: Richard B. King DATE: January 14, 1999 SUBJECT: 1999 LTGO Bonds As we have discussed, interest rates continue to fluctuate in a relatively narrow band. During the past three months, for example, the yield on the 30-year U.S. Treasury Bond has ranged from a high of 5.37% to a low of 4.70%. While surprised at the resilience of the U.S. economy, particularly the continued strength of consumer spending, our economists are looking for a stable interest rate environment going forward. The inflation situation remains favorable for stable interest rates, and we expect the Federal Reserve's next move to be one of easing, as the pace of economic growth slows. While tax-exempt interest rates have increased slightly since their lows in October, borrowing conditions for municipal bonds remain highly attractive. In today's market, for example, we estimate the City's LTGO Bonds would carry a yield of approximately 5.25% in 2019, and the all-in borrowing cost would be slightly over 5%. This represents the City's lowest cost of capital in over 20 years, so we believe the City has an attractive opportunity to lock in low financing costs. We have recommended the City consolidate its planned Spring and Fall 1999 issuances as a way to capture attractive interest rates and to lower issuance costs. While our economists forecast slightly lower interest rates, today's interest rates are inarguably attractive. Rather than rolling the dice that interest rates will improve between now and the fall,thus,we have suggested taking advantage of today's low and certain financing costs. Furthermore, such a strategy will enable the City to avoid duplicating some of its issuance costs, such as rating agency fees,printing costs and legal expenses. We look forward to answering any questions you may have. t 2COd dS5'ON TbGz 0SE 2SZ f =7l4t=S S63Hl06a NdWH3-1 90:2T 65/bT:10 Lily O,f Kent Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1999 Preliminary Financing Schedule ... Revised January 14, 1999 w„�pp 1r.salr 1 = 1 It j 7 f f 1 t t { { { { ! 6 j 7 f f 7 { { IN ti Is q r f { q 11 U U p It 17 11 3 1s q p d U q I7 tt • a " • " " 1f 0 A 17 11 It a 11 n a " a a a a a a a a a A a a ?C '{ 1 a a s a a a a a a a a aft 71/19 5 Distribute draft POS PC Distribute rating agency presentation outline LB 9 Operating Committee Meeting City 1118 Martin lAther King Day MLK 1/21 Distribute draft Bond Ordinance and Form of Legal Opinion . FP&S (collectively"Legal Docs") 1122-24 May o+a of the office May 1/27 Distribute draft rating agency presentation 212 City Council Mating City 214 May out of the%fte May 2115 President's Day Holiday George sod Abe 2/12-2/16 Review Legal Docs All 2118--311 Brant out of the Qfflice Brent 2122 Deadline for Operations Committee packets All (POS;Legal Does;and current bond sizing) V24 Distribute revised POS and Legal Docs to Rating Agencies and LB Bond Insurers 3/2 Operations Committee Meeting City and LB 3/2 Finalize rating agency presentation City and LB 3/3-3/4 Rating agency presentations in San Francisco City and LB Thursday, 10am—Moody's Thursday, ipm—Standard&Poor's 3/5 Finalize,print and distribute POS LB 3/12 Receive ratings and bond insurance commitments City and LB 3/15 Price and Market Bonds LB 3/15-3116 Finalize Purchase Contract and Legal Docs LB and FP&S 3/16 City Council Meeting All Consider and Adopt Bond Ordinance Consider and execute Purchase Contract 3/17-3/22 Finalize and distribute final Official Statement PC;All 3/31 1 Closing and delivery of proceeds and Bonds All Key City - City of Kent(Issuer) FP&S - Foster Pepper&Shefelman(Bond Counsel) LB - Lehman Brothers(Underwriter) PC - Perkins Coie(Underwriter's Counsel) ECQ'� , o,S*D-1 ZbS7 ose 297 Proposed 1999 Councilmanic Debt Issues Land and Buildings East Hill Mtc. Facility -Land 2,800,000 Fire Station#75 1,622,000 Police Headquarters -Land 1,100,000 5,522,000 Tenant/Space and Major Capital Improvements Corrections Renovations 1,566,000 Miscellaneous Tenant Improvements 1,106,000 Municipal Court 895,000 Russell Road Park and Par 3 Irrigation 435,000 Space Study-Phase 11 300,000 Facility Security Improvements 150,000 4,452,000 Technology/Automation Projects Technology Plan 6,918,000 Police/Fire MDT Replacements 650,000 Back Up Generators 720,000 8,288,000 Other Capital Projects SE 256th Improvements 2,000,000 Downtown Gateway Projects 596,000 2,596,000 Grand Total 20,858,000 BL PROPOSED DEBT 3.x1s 1/14/99 Proposed 1999 Councilmanic Debt Issues Project Amount Description To Be Approved by Council Facility Security Improvements 150,000 Employee security improvements, such as key lock systems, based on the findings of the Domestic Violence Task Force. Space Study—Phase 11 300,000 Long range plans for an eventual city of 100,000 will require a more specific design, costing and sizing of the following buildings identified in Phase I: City Hall, Centennial Building,Police Headquarters,East Hill Mtc. Facility and Russell Road Mtc. Facility. Back Up Generators 720,000 Back up power systems in case of power failure or major disaster for City Hall,Police, Centennial,Kent Commons and Russell Road Mtc. Facility. East Hill Mtc. Facility- Land 2,800,000 Land identified in the space study and the 1998 CIP for the future Parks and Public Works East Hill Maintenance Facility. Police HQ Land Acquisition 1,100,000 Land identified in Phase I of the space study for eventual expanded Police Headquarters. Fire Station#75 1,622,000 Final payment to Fire District#37 for the fire station purchased as a result of the Meridian annexation. Police/Fire MDT Replacements 650,000 Laptop computers to replace the terminals currently in use. These terminals are obsolete and have been discontinued by the manufacturer. Corrections Renovations 1,566,000 Major life cycle improvements at the Corrections Facility, including HVAC, restrooms, showers and laundry. Downtown Gateway Projects 596,000 Projects identified in the Downtown Plan at 0 & James, 4`h &Willis and other downtown projects, including portal installations, median landscaping, light fixtures and street signage. Par 3 Irrigation 250,000 Irrigation project to replace 40 year old galvanized pipe that is disintegrating. BL VAWKS\99CMProposed Councilmanic Debt Issues.doc 01/14/99 Project Amount Description �✓ SE 256`h Street Improvements 2,000,000 City portion of a King County project to widen SE 256'`Street. Municipal Court 350,000 Final improvements negotiated as part of the Aukeen Court lease, including parking, landscaping and improvements to S. 259t' Street. Previously Approved by Council Court/Aukeen Remodel 545,000 Initial remodel at Aukeen court to accommodate the Kent Municipal Court. Approved by Council 2/3/98. Technology Plan 6,918,000 Plan includes business systems, mini computer and central equipment, telephone systems and network systems. Approved by Council 4/21/98. Tenant Improvements 1,106,000 Tenant improvements for City Hall,the Centennial Building, Kent Memorial Park Building, IS Training Center, Fire Prevention and Station 74. Approved by Council 12/8/98. Russell Road Park Irrigation 185,000 Complete the renovations to Russell Road Park by installing an irrigation system. 20,858,000 BL V:`.WKS 99CFP\Proposed Councilmanic Debt Issues.doc 01/14/99 Proposed 19" Councilmanic Debt Issues Original Approved! Request Recommend Late 99 Years Comments Issues Already Approved: by Council 2/3/98 Court/Aukeen Remodel 545,000 20 approved Technology Plan: 3,775,000 10 approved by Courtei14R1/98 Business Systems Mini Computer/Central Equipment 600,000 7 approved by Council 4/21/98 Telephone Systems 1,215,000 10 approved by Council 4/21/99 Network Systems 1,328,000 7 approved by Council 4/21/98 Tenant Improvements: City Hall 100,000 20 approved by Council 12/8/98 Centennial Building 300,000 20 approved by Council 12/8/98 Kent Memorial Park Building Renovations 150,000 20 approved by Council 12/8/98 Fire Prevention/Dev Services/now IS Training Center 212,000 20 approved by Council 12/8/98 Old Court Building Remodel/now Fire Prevention 100,000 20 approved by Council 12/8198 Station 74-Phase 11 99,000 20 approved by Council 12/8/98 Contingency (15%) 145,000 20 approved by Council 12/8/98 Parks Improvements: Russell Road Park Irrigation 185,000 20 approved by Council 12/8/98 Subtotal Issues Already Approved 8,754,000 Other 1998 Projects/Improvements: Facility Security Improvements 100,000 150,000 10 Space Study-Phase 11 300,000 20 Saturday Market 600,000 Back Up Generators 599,000 720,000 20 East Hill Maintenance Facility-Land 2,700,000 2,800,000 20 Subtotal Other Projects/Improvements 3,989,000 3,970,000 1999 Projects (Early Issue) Fire Station#75 1,622,000 1,622,000 20 Fire MDT Replacements 360,000 360,000 7 Police MDT Replacements 290,000 290,000 7 Police Headquarters Land Acquisition 1,000,000 1,100,000 20 Corrections-HVAC 870,000 870,000 20 Corrections-Restrooms,Showers,Laundry,etc. 696,000 696,000 20 Downtown Gateways: Gateway Projects#2,#4,#5,#6 326,000 326,000 20 Gateway Projects-4th&lames,4th&Willis 270,000 270,000 20 Par 3 Irrigation 250,000 250,000 20 SE 256th Street Improvements 2,000,000 2,000,000 20 Municipal Court-Parking and Landscaping 124,000 124,000 20 Municipal Court-P W Improvements to S.259th 226,000 226,000 20 Subtotal 1999 (Early Issue) 8,034,000 8,134,000 1999 Projects (Late Issue) Parking Garage 4,000,000 4,000,000 20 approved by Council 5/5i98 Performing Arts Center-Land 1.200,000 2,500,000 20 originally requested in 2000 Subtotal 1999 (Late Issue) 5,200,000 6,500,000 Total Early 1999 Issue 20,858,000 Total Late 1999 Issue 6,500,000 ` Lodging Tar approved by Council on December 8, 1998. BL PROPOSED DEBT 3 xls 1/14.99 SOURCES AND I rSFS OFF�ity,�S City of Kent,Washington Limited Tax General Obligation, 1999 Principal due December 1 sources: Bond Proceeds: Par Amount 21,245,000.00 Accrued Interest 76,058.04 21,321,068.04 Uses: Other Fund Deposits: General Fund 76.068.04 Delivery Date Expenses: Estimated Costs of Issuance(1.5%) 318,675.00 Estimated Bond Insurance Premium(0.2%) 62,476.24 381,151.24 Other Uses of Funds: Profeds 20,858,000.00 Contingency 5,848.76 20,853,348.78 21,321,068.04 Jan 14,1999 1107 am Prepared by Lehman Brothers (4204a Kent:199912) S00d bSS'ON TPSF 098 SSZ E =7l-d3S H�JWH31 :S:i=i :SipL;'a BONOME SEER�7EE City of Kane,Waabiageon Limited Tax General Obligation,1999 Principal due December 1 Period Ending Principal Coupon internal Debt Service 12/01/1999 - - 664,612.38 684,612.3R 12/01/2000 1.220,000 3.200% 911018.50 2,132,816.60 12/01/2001 1,250,000 3.550% 873.776.50 2,133,775.50 12/01/2002 1.305.000 3.750% 829,046.50 2,134,046.50 12/01/2003 1,360.000 3.850% 780.109.00 2,140,109.00 12/01/2004 1,405,000 3.950% 727.749.00 2,132,749.00 121012005 1,470.000 4.000% 672,231.50 2,142,251.50 12/012006 1,525.000 4.100% 613.451.60 2.136.451.50 12/012007 1,150,000 4.200% 550,920.50 1,700,926.50 12/01/2008 1095,000 4.250% 502,640.50 1,697,626.50 12/01/2009 1,245,000 4.350% 451,839.00 1,696,839.00 12/01/2010 655,000 4.450% 397,861.50 1,052,681.50 12/012011 680,000 4.550% 368,534.00 1,046,534.00 12/012012 715,000 4.650% 337,594.00 1,052,594.00 12/012013 745,000 4.750% 304,346.50 1,049,346,50 12/012014 780,000 4.830% 288,959,00 1,048,959.00 12/01/2015 820,000 5.100% 231,285.00 1,051,285.00 12/012016 860,000 5.100% 189.485.00 1,049,465.00 12/012017 905,000 5.100% 145,005.00 1,050,005.00 12/012018 950,000 5.1000/6 99.450.00 1,049,450.00 121012019 1,000,000 5.100% 51,000.00 1,051,000.00 21,245,000 9,993,124.88 31,238,124.88 Jan 14, 1999 11:07 am Prepared by Lehman Brothers (42042 Kent:199912) CGJ2d '%S�•^ i ib=� 0S? £S� = =�1dt735 5�3H10�3 NhWH37 2£:£1 69/tT/?2 191i21i=o i:a� �CrfWh rJi iNE �y acr> _; �5� c60 2541 N0.817 P001 I: LEHMAN-BROTHERS WMORANDUM Post4t*Fax Note 7671 ��" 1 2 ► Toj From To: May Miller coMept, Co. FROM: Richard B.King f�� Fes,.R 8 s9—Y/6 o Fx r Fazr Zs;- - � Fax DATE: January 21, 1998 SUBJECT: Reimbursement Financings As we discussed this morning, May, there are several requirements to qualify the repayment of previous capital expenditures with bond proceeds to be eligible for tax exempt financing: 1. The City must declare "official intent" to reimburse the expenditure with bond proceeds, which declaration must be publicly available and "reasonable"--consistent with budgetary I and financial circumstances And the City must reasonably expect to make the reimbursement. The City, in other words, specifically may not pass official intent resolutions for every expenditure and then selectively issue bonds to reimburse itself. ... 2. The expenditure to be reimbursed must be a true capital expenditure; the City may not reimburse itself for working capital expenditures. 1 3. The City must issue the reimbursement bonds and make the reimbursement allocation (i) within 18 months after the expenditure initially was made or(ii), if later than 18 months after the initial expenditure, within 18 months after the date on which property acquired/resulting from the expenditure was placed in service, but (iii) in any case not later than three years after the initial expenditure. I hope this is helpful. Please call me with any questions. I I 1 i CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 1999 -2004 FORECAST AMOUNTS IN 000's 19" 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Adj Budget Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Revenues Sales Tax 4,789 4,999 5,200 5,409 5,626 5,852 Real Estate Excise Tax- 1st Qtr Percent 955 997 1,037 1,079 1,122 1,167 Merest 75 80 135 124 140 192 Total Revenues 5,819 6,076 6,372 6,612 6,888 7,211 Expenditures Capital Projects Analyst 71 73 75 77 79 81 1,944 1,813 1,805 1,597 1,589 1,586 Debt Service-Existing Debt Service-1999 Issue 685 1,969 1,970 1,970 1,976 1,969 Debt Service-2001 Issue (Municipal Court) 234 234 234 Debt Service-2002 Issue (EH Mtc Facility) 1,084 1,084 Total Expenditures 2,700 3,855 3,850 3,878 3,878 3,870 Net Available for Capital Projects 3,119 2,221 2,522 2,734 3,010 3,341 Capital Projects Public Safety-Fire Breathing Apparatus Cylinder Replacement Program 25 25 Emergency Coordinauon Center Operation Equipment 90 90 Fire Equipment Replacement Fund 400 400 400 400 400 400 Breathing Apparatus Replacement Program 45 47 49 51 53 56 Replacement Radio Equipment 61 64 67 70 73 77 Vehicles 72) Computer Equipment 18 Other Equipment 59 Total Public Safety-Fire 770 626 516 521 526 533 Public Safety-Police Additional Detective Vehicles 27 26 Crime Scene Van 75 CAD and ACCESS System Printers 25 Fund Enhancement for Patrol Vehicles 30 Video Surveillance Equipment 65 2nd Vehicle for Training Staff 26 Van for Community Ed Unit 35 Reverse 911 45 Space Need/Cost Analysis for CKCF 25 Pursuit Intervention Program 25 BL FORECAST SPEC REV 7.sls 1/27199 Page I of 3 Pages CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 1"9- 2004 FORECAST AMOUNTS IN 000's 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Adj Budget Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Vehicle/Equipment for New Officers 46 Computer Equipment 12 Other Equipment 40 Vehicles 23 Total Public Safety-Police 298 91 101 35 Parks and Recreation Land Acquisition 100 100 100 100 100 100 Playground Safety Improvements 40 40 40 25 25 25 Risk Reduction Ba Improvements-Community Parks 75 75 75 73 73 73 Risk Reduction&Improvements-Neighborhood Parks 50 75 75 75 75 75 Master Plans 115 60 40 40 40 40 Sign Replacement-Community Parks 22 10 10 10 10 10 Sign Replacement-Neighborhood Parks 10 10 10 10 10 10 Light Pole Replacement 45 50 75 75 75 Grant Matching Funds 150 150 150 150 150 150 `+.✓ Tennis Court Re-surfacing 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trails/Parking Improvements 25 50 50 50 50 50 Architect/Engmeenng-Community Parks 15 15 17 17 17 Architect/Engineering -Neighborhood Parks 20 20 25 25 25 25 Neelv House Furniture 15 Performing Arts Center(staff/consulting services) 50 Computer Equipment 5 Other Equipment 73 Vehicles 143 Salt Air Vista (from 1998) 222 Total Parks and Recreation 1,179 700 692 700 700 683 General Government-Facilities Emergency Facility Repairs 100 100 100 100 100 100 Computerized Maintenance Management Software 30 HVAC Repairs and Controls Installations 65 50 40 35 30 30 Golf Complex Upgrades 45 Exhaust Extraction Systems 58 Miscellaneous Furniture 70 40 40 40 40 40 Sealcoat Parking Lots 53 55 58 61 64 67 Safety Restraints 32 ADA Modifications 10 10 10 10 10 10 Architectural Services for Parks Nursery Property 25 35 Floor Covering Replacements 79 83 87 91 96 100 BL FORECAST SPEC REV 7.xis 1/27/99 Page 2 of 3 Pages CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 19"-2004 FORECAST AMOUNTS IN 000's 19" 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Adj Budget Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Facility Painting 79 83 87 91 % 100 Roof Repairs 75 40 30 30 65 30 Correction Renovations-Holding Cells/Lights/Fire Panel 45 Training Center Tenant Improvements(Police) 15 Police HQ Tenant Improvements 75 Radio Repair Shop 35 Fire Stations 45 Other Equipment 10 Vehicles 20 Total General Government-Facilities 921 541 452 458 501 477 General Government-Other Downtown Gateways #1 58 58 57 58 57 57 100 100 ]00 100 100 100 Miscellaneous Projects Technology Plan 300 300 Budget Analyst-Performance Measures (1/4 position) 7 18 19 19 20 20 Performance Measures-Program Start 30 Performance Measures-Citizen Survey 20 Industrial Land Study 25 25 Citywide Organizational Study 100 100 Convention Center Studv 30 Traffic Studv 1 '0 Development Rights Acquisition 50 Computer Equipment 38 Other Equipment 120 Vehicles 20 Total General Government-Other 928 601 176 177 177 177 Total Capital Projects 4,095 2,559 1,937 1,891 1,904 1,870 Increase(Decrease)in Fund Balance (976) (338) 585 843 1,106 1,471 Beginning Fund Balance 2,339 1,363 1,025 1,611 2,454 3,560 Ending Fund Balance Designated for Capital Expenditures 724 631 568 672 673 669 Undesignated Unreserved 639 394 1,042 1,782 2,897 4.361 Ending Fund Balance 1,363 1,025 1,611 2,454 3,560 5,031 ..e Bt.FOREC,VST SPEC REV 7.\,Is 127'99 Page 3 of 3 Pages .. ....... ...... ....... .... W ................... .. _ 'I Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CPA-98-3/ZCA-98-5 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on October 26, 1998, regarding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code relating to multi-family residential development in the GC zoning district . The Board recommended no changes to the Plan and Zoning Code . This item was referred to the City Council Public Works and Planning Committee, who considered it on January 20, 1999, and who recommend that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code be amended with regard to multi-family residential development in the GC zone . 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, memo from Kevin O'Neill to the Land Use and Planning Board dated October 26, 1998, minutes from the October 26, 1998 Land Use and Planning Board public hearing 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, uncilmember lXi�'� seconds to �modify/r1o� the L nd Use and Planning Board' s recommendation to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code with regard to multi-family residential development in the GC zone, as modified by the recommendation of the Public Works/Planning Committee, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance . DISCUSSION: n� ACTION: mc- Ej/ WYY►� � I a wl v'-v"7 ay ' Council Agenda v Item No. 7B CITY or JETAB White, Mayor � TA Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253)850-2533 James P.Harris,Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (253) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 2, 1999 MEMO TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Summary On October 26, 1998, the Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing to consider comprehensive plan and zoning amendments relating to mixed use development. After receiving public testimony and discussion, the Board voted to recommend no changes to plan and zoning designations pertaining to mixed use development in the General Commercial (GC) zone. On December 8, 1998, this item was considered by the City Council. At the meeting, the Council decided to refer the matter to the Planning and Public Works Committee for consideration. The Committee considered this item at their meeting on January 20, 1999, and recommended that the comprehensive plan and zoning code be amended as recommended in the staff report from the Planning Department to the Land Use and Planning Board dated October 26, 1998. These amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning code would require residential development in the mixed use overlay in the GC zone to be combined with commercial development, and would revise some development standards in the mixed use overlay in the GC zone to be consistent with the development standards in the mixed use overlay in the Community Commercial and Office zoning districts. Back_rQ ound The comprehensive plan, adopted in 1995, designates certain areas in the city for mixed use development, meaning development which would combine residential and commercial uses. The Land Use Plan Map in the comprehensive plan designates specific areas on West Meeker Street, North Central Avenue, and 104th Avenue SE as mixed use. The plan also contains several goals and policies which support mixed use development. In order to implement these policies, the Planning Department, together with assistance from a consultant developed `�-"' recommendations for amendments to the zoning code for the General Commercial (GC), Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments Relating to Mixed Use Development #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 February 2, 1999 Page 2 Community Commercial (CC), and Office (0) zoning districts. After review by the Land Use and Planning Board and City Council Planning Committee, the Council adopted these amendments in 1997. The amendments established a mixed use overlay in portions of the GC, CC, and O zones. Within the mixed use overlay in the GC zone, stand-alone multi-family residential development is permitted. In the CC and O mixed use overlay areas, residential uses must be combined with commercial uses. In July 1998, the Mayor and City Council asked the Land Use and Planning Board to consider amendments to the mixed use zoning code amendments with regard to allowing stand-alone multi-family residential development in the GC zoning district. After discussion of the issue in workshops in August and September, the Board considered plan and zoning amendments proposed by the Planning Department at the October 26 hearing (minutes attached). The Planning Department staff report is attached for your review. Staff recommended changing the plan and zoning designations and permitted uses in the GC zone to be similar to the CC and O zones, meaning that any multi-family residential development would need to be combined with commercial development. Following the public hearing, the Land Use and Planning Board voted to recommend no changes be made to the mixed use zoning regulations in the GC zone. The Public Works and Planning Committee considered this item on January 20, 1999, after being referred to the committee by the full City Council. At the January 20 meeting, the Committee voted to recommend to the full City Council that the comprehensive plan and zoning code be amended as outlined in the October 26, 1998 staff report to the Land Use and Planning Board. These amendments would require residential development in the GC zone mixed use overlay to be combined with commercial development. Staff will be available at the February 2nd City Council meeting to present this issue and answer questions. If you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at 850-4799. KO\mw\P APUBLICUvNCCMEM.DOC cc: James P. Harris,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager CITY Of Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544 James P.Harris,Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM OCTOBER 26, 1998 MEMO TO: BRAD BELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION The 1995 Kent Comprehensive Plan designates certain areas in the city for mixed use development, meaning development which would combine residential and commercial uses. The Land Use Plan Map (which is attached) in the comprehensive plan designates specific areas on West Meeker Street, North Central Avenue, and 104th Avenue SE as mixed use. The plan also contains several goals and policies which support mixed use development. In order to implement these policies, in 1996 the Planning Department, with assistance from a consultant, developed recommendations for amendments to the zoning code for the General Commercial (GC), Community Commercial (CC), and Office (0) zoning districts. Staff also recommended that these be implemented through the establishment of a mixed use overlay in these three zoning districts. These proposed the Land Use and Planning Board considered amendments in several workshops, then in public hearing held in October and November of 1996. The Board's recommendation was then considered by the City Council Planning Committee and then the full Council in early 1997. On May 7, 1997, the Council adopted Ordinances No. 3345 and 3346, which amended the permitted uses and development standards in the GC, CC, and O zones, and established a mixed use overlay. The comprehensive plan makes a distinction between the mixed use areas located in the valley (along West Meeker and North Central Avenue) and the mixed use area on East Hill (along 104th Avenue SE). The plan states that in the mixed use areas in the valley, multi-family residential uses be permitted, while on East Hill, residential uses be allowed only in conjunction -011h AVENUE SOLTH / KENT.WASHING"TON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)859-3300 Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments October 26, 1998 Page 2 with a mixed use development. Therefore, the proposed amendments and the subsequent ordinances 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 Planning Department and the Land Use and Planning Board have been asked by the Mayor and City Council to consider amendments to the mixed use zoning code amendments with regard to multi-family residential development in the GC zoning district. This issue was discussed at workshops with the Board on August 10 and September 28. As was discussed at the September 28 workshop, in order to amend the zoning code provisions, the comprehensive plan must also be amended, since the Growth Management Act requires that zoning regulations be consistent with and implement comprehensive plan policies. On September 1, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1513 (attached) declaring an emergency in order for the Land Use and Planning Board to concurrently consider amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning code regarding mixed use development in the GC zone. At the September 28 workshop, the Land Use Board voted to hold a public hearing to consider plan and zoning amendments for mixed use development on October 26. This memorandum will outline the history of the existing goals and policies in the comprehensive plan and the adopted zoning amendments with regard to mixed use development. The memo will also propose potential amendments to both the zoning code and comprehensive plan with regard to multi- family residential development in the mixed use overlay in the GC zoning district. These issues will be presented and discussed for the Board's consideration at the October 26 public hearing. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES As stated, the Land Use Plan Map designates the areas outlined on the attached maps for mixed use development. There are also several policies in the Land Use Element which support mixed use development, and the establishment of mixed use activity centers. Among these goals and policies are the ones outlined below. Goal LU-6 - Designate activity centers in portions of the city and in the annexation area. Allow in these areas a mix of retail, office, and residential development. Policy LU-6.1 - Locate activity centers in areas which currently contain concentrations of commercial development with surrounding medium-density housing. Intensify these areas to support transit and to curtail additional sprawling development patterns. Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments October 26, 1998 Page 3 Policy LU-6.2 - Allow residential uses in activity centers. Develop residential uses as part of a commercial area in a mixed use development or on a stand- alone basis in designated areas. (emphasis added) The decision to allow for mixed use development in the comprehensive plan was driven by several factors. In the public participation process used during the formation of the plan, citizens at community forums expressed support for the concept of mixed use development. Furthermore, when the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the plan was done, citizens were asked to evaluate three land use alternatives: continuation of the existing plan, a plan which focussed a large percentage of future growth in the downtown area, and a plan which focussed new growth in several mixed use centers, including the downtown and the areas shown on the attached map. The mixed use plan alternative was strongly favored over the other two. Mixed use development locates residential and commercial uses in closer proximity to one another, therefore creating more vibrant areas and promoting transit. In addition, one of the biggest challenges that the City faced during the comprehensive planning process was finding ways to accommodate its projected housing target. Many of the residentially-zoned areas within the city are already developed, and there was a real resistance on the part of the community and the City Council to create more housing opportunities by zoning single-family areas to multi-family, which is how growth was accommodated in the 1980's in Kent. Therefore, the plan outlines several strategies for accommodating more housing without significantly changing the zoning in single-family areas. Mixed use development is one of these strategies, along with allowing smaller single-family lot sizes, more flexible development standards for single-family development, and accessory dwelling units. (A report regarding housing supply issues in King County as a whole is attached for your review.) On the land use plan map, there is a distinction between mixed use areas in the valley and on East Hill. The distinction between the two is described in the Land Use Element of the plan on page 4-28: "There are two mixed use designations: one allows multifamily residential as a permitted use, along with retail and office uses; the other allows multifamily residential uses only if they are part of a mixed use development." The amendments to the zoning code for mixed use adopted in 1997 were done in order to be consistent with these plan policies. If the Land Use and Planning Board elects to require that residential development in the mixed use areas in the valley be combined with commercial uses, the land use plan map and above- referenced policies need to be amended to reflect this policy change. MIXED USE ZONING PROVISIONS As stated previously, the process to implement the applicable goals and policies of the comprehensive plan for mixed use development began in 1996. With the help of an urban design/architecture consultant, Mark Hinshaw, staff developed several alternative ways to implement changes to the zoning map and zoning code, including changing the permitted uses Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments October 26, 1998 Page 4 for the GC, CC, and O zones outright, rezoning the mixed use areas to a new zoning district, or creating a mixed use overlay,whereby code amendments would be targeted to specific areas. As stated, the ordinances adopted by the City Council established a mixed use overlay within portions of the GC, CC, and O zoning districts. Within the overlay, residential uses may be developed on a stand-alone basis in the valley, which is generally zoned GC, and in a mixed use development on East Hill, which is zoned CC or O. As amended by Ordinance No. 3345, mixed use development is defined as follows: "Mixed use development shall mean two (2) or more permitted uses or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one another on the same site. Provided that the aforementioned requirements are met, a mixed use development may include two (2) or more separate buildings. Provided further that at least twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area, as defined in Kent City Code 15.02.170 be a permitted commercial use. The residential component of any mixed use development cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the permitting and/or occupancy of the commercial component." (Section 15.02.260, Kent Zoning Code) In addition to establishing an overlay and amending permitted uses, Ordinance #3345 also amended development standards within the overlay, and requires design review for projects with a residential component. The amended development standards within the GC mixed use overlay area are identical to the development standards for the CC and O mixed use overlays, with the exception of site coverage and off-street parking (see attached mixed use overlay development standards in Section 15.04.200). Generally, the amended development standards were intended to provide common ways to regulate both commercial and residential development through the concept of floor area ratio, and to provide incentives to undertake mixed use development. As stated, the differences in the mixed use overlay between the GC zone in the valley and the CC and O zones on East Hill were based on the distinctions made in the comprehensive plan. If the Land Use and Planning Board seeks to require that any residential development in the mixed use areas be combined with commercial use, then it would be appropriate to amend the provisions of the GC zone so they are similar to the CC and O zones. This would be applicable to both permitted uses and development standards. ANALYSIS During the discussions of the mixed use zoning amendments, there was a discussion about "horizontal" mixed use and "vertical" mixed use. Horizontal mixed use refers to mixed uses within the same building (such as commercial use on the ground floor with residential development above), while vertical mixed use refers to a mix of uses located side by side, as opposed to in the same building. The adopted zoning allowed residential uses in either configuration, with the proviso that in the mixed use overlay on East Hill, residential uses had to be combined with commercial uses in the same development. The rationale for allowing stand- alone residential uses in the valley was to promote the concept of vertical mixed uses (allow Subject: #CPA-9873/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments �. October 26, 1998 Page 5 housing in areas with commercial uses) and given the area's proximity to downtown. However, if the ultimate goal of mixed use development is to combine commercial and residential uses, then it is reasonable to require that each mixed use development on its own provide a combination of uses, whether those uses be combined in a single building or in several different buildings on the same site. In addition, if permitted uses are to be standardized in the GC, CC, and O mixed use areas, then development standards should also be standardized to be consistent throughout the three zoning districts. It is also important to note that requiring residential development in mixed use areas to be combined with commercial development does not eliminate the ability to construct residential development. In fact, the development standards in the mixed use overlay still reward mixed use projects, and residential projects in particular. Therefore, the overall comprehensive plan goal of providing adequate capacity to meet housing supply needs, which was discussed earlier, can still be met under the amended proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In order to require that residential development within the mixed use overlay be done only in conjunction with commercial uses, thus mandating that each development is of a mixed use .✓ nature, the staff recommends the following comprehensive plan and zoning amendments. Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. Amend the land use plan map in the Land Use Element to designate the areas in the valley adjacent to downtown from "Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use — Limited Multi-family", as shown on the map attached as Attachment B. 2. Amend the description of the mixed use designation on Page 4-28 of the Land Use Element as follows: "The mixed use designation allows retail, office, and multifamily residential uses together in the same area. T n.� afti PA,e Mixed 1;se design tiers_ ene alle .... ......l fi .flil y residential as a permitted use, sle with etail a f- oses; ,. ether. alle The mixed use designation allows multifamily residential uses only if they are part of a mixed use development." 3. Amend Policy LU-6.2 of the Land Use Element to read as follows: "Allow residential uses in activity centers. Develop residential uses as part of a commercial area in a mixed use development . Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments October 26, 1998 Page 6 Zoning Code Amendments 1. Amend the list of permitted uses in the General Commercial zone outlined in Section 15.04.020 and Section 15.04.030 (attached) to allow multi-family residential uses in the mixed use overlay only when constructed in conjunction with a mixed use development. 2. Amend the mixed use overlay development standards in the GC-MU zone outlined in Section 15.04.200 to be consistent with the development standards for the CC-MU and 0-MU zoning districts. As noted earlier, mixed use development is defined as requiring at least 25 percent of the gross floor area of a mixed use development to be commercial use, and also requires that the commercial component of a project be approved prior to the approval of the residential component. CONCLUSION Staff will be presenting the items outlined in this memo at the October 26 meeting of the Land Use and Planning Board, and will be available to answer questions. If you have any questions v prior to the meeting, please contact me at 850-4799. KON:pm MUAMLUPH.DOC cc: James P. Harris,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Attachments: Land Use Plan Map Resolution No. 1513 Sections 15.04.020 and 15.04.030 of the zoning code(permitted uses) Section 15.04.200 of the zoning code(mixed use overlay) King County's Housing Supply Crisis—The Effects on Human Services Sec. 15.04.020. Residential Land Uses. Zmn Oistriem lac P a PffCooly PeltrNoed Uses e Special Use Us C C•CalWiyonal Uses . A a Attoess/,y uses N a a 49 0 One wgt#4&*y dwekq pe W P P P P P P P P P P I ( (N11 IN 1)1 A(1)1'u11I Sugle,mwy awesmgs P P P I I I I I I I I I One&0"per U P I ! I I I I I I I I MOOW&hones P P P P P P P P P P ? I I I I I I I I I I I °uae`es I I P P P I I I I I I I I I I I MulafanWy owMings I I P P P I I I(P Pm P P I 1 10) MiY6 *dW°W11gs 1"s" oozm I I I I I 1 In P P I I I P(A M I I I I I I I MoWe fangs arW mxwNcwrea fames I IP I I I I I I ( I I 'tbw bans parks P P P P P (q (131 (13) (q Grarp nanea das I-A I P I P I P P P P P I P P P P P P I P P I P I C C ( C I C P Gmuo naves dos I-a I I I P P P P I I P P P I P C C C I C I P I I I I I GMW haves daa9 l-C c c P I P I P P I P I c c l c CIPI I I I I Gmuoa Clan II-A I I I I I CIC CICI Icic I c CIC C: CICICI I I ! ! I I G=o ram=11-s I I I I I cIc cicl Icic cicicicicicl71 rvlmIt am'IL I i l l c C C cl Icic C C C c C C cl I I I ! ! I Gvw now c Iff I I I I I I I I I ICIC CICIC c C C I CI ROmWameesory uses-or emuM ftjWg: I I I I I I I I I PIS)I PM I PIM I P'6)1 I P(M I P'bl I NM I%6)I P(5)I''6)I n P'S1 I I 1i'" omw f mo q I ! ! ! I ! I I I I PM I PM I I I I I i Guw=nm am mouses I A I A I A Rmnnq ana boat"ot not mesa man wee I A A A A A A A A A + I I I I I I pe17 u I I{ 1 Fam,raker adanarmaaaes ! A I A A 1I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I A(9)1 i l l l l AOXMW Wes arts 111ieegS mwwnaty A I A I A A A A A A I A I A I A I A A A I A A A A I A I I A I I A A maataae to a arI use �Aaclwokqum N,o11 o11A(, 1 1C11A(10fIA(1 , 1*1 � 1 1 I , IA(1 to>I I 1 I I Aoorar/W"wetars I I I I 1 I F(14 1(1 1 14, 14 14014 1 14 4(14. 14 14�A(14*14*141 Home O=WN aK �41 IA4111�411 111 111IA(I I*111141111A(,1 11*1111 1 I 1 1 i 1 1 11 sou I I I I I I I I I I A I I I I I I I I I I I I wa"Wftm an satraps a lama, I I I I A vomm daed+ec gala taktlec Oman C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C(t C C C c C C I C nNrsnarp fans aanarsoan loofa ana oarw"fambes www mnaolitaoon awmc*m.4Gaaiides far 4 Sec. 15.04.030. Residential Land Use Development Conditions. 1. Dwelling units, limited to not more than one(1) per establishment, for security or ..� maintenance personnel and their families, when located on the premises where they are employed in such capacity. No other residential use shall be permitted. ?. Multifamily residential use shall be permitted only in the mixed-use overlay when included within a mixed use development. 3. Multifamily residential use shall be permitted only in the mixed-use overlay. 4. Multifamily residential uses, when established in buildings with commercial or office uses, and not located on the ground door. 5. Multifamily residential uses, when not combined with commercial or office uses. 6. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences. 7. Transitional housing facilities, limited to a maximum of twenty(20) residents at any one (1) time and four(4) resident staff. S. Guesthouses not rented or otherwise conducted as a business. 9. Farm dwellings appurtenant to a principal agricultural use for the housing of farm owners, operators or employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 10. Accessory dwelling units shall not be included in calculating the maximum density. Accessor; dwelling units are allowed subject to the provisions of Section 15.08.350. 11. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section I 15.08.040. 12. Except for transitional housing with a maximum of twenty(20) residents and four (4) staff. 13. Subject to the combining district requirements of the Mobile Home Park Code, KCC 12.05. 14. Accessory living quarters are allowed per the provisions of Section 15.08.359. i I �� Section t5.04.200 LMixed Use overlay development standards. OVERLAY DISTRICTS �✓ GC-MU 0-MU CC-MU Floor area ratio .40 for commuc1al ham' .40 tot coatnaeW Mass. •+0 for commercial Uses. SO for eanmetaial uses combined So for conueroial uses combined .SO for commercial uses combined with residential hues:provided that with residential uses:provided that with residential uses:provided that. commercial loot area may be commercial floor aces may be commaeul floor area may be increased by one square foot Cot each increased by one WAR foot for each increased by one square foot for each square foot of residential floor area square foot of reskbsdal floor arm square foot of residential ttoor area provided up to a maximum provided up to a magnum provided up to a maximum commercial FAR uf.S. conuresIa[FAR of J. commercial FAR of.S. 1.0 for residential uses,provided that 1.0 for residential ass,provided that 1.0 for residential uses,provided that residential FAR may be increased by residential FAR may be increased by residential FAR may be increased by .S if parking is provided below grade. .5 if parkins is provided below grade. S if parking is provided below Bade. Up to a maximum of 1.5 up to a maximum of l.S. up to a maximum of I.S. Forty(40)percent for commercial Forty(40)percent to commercial Forty(40)patent for commercial Site coverage Uses. uses. uses. Seventy-five(75)percent for Sixty(60)percent for commercial uses Sixty(60)percent for commercial uses commercial uses with residential uses, with residential uses.provided that with residential uses,provided that provided that rwenry-rive(25)percent avenry-five(2S)percent of the gross twenty-five(25)percent of the gross of the gross floor area is residential floor area is residential use. floor uses is residential use. use. Height rwenty-rive(2S)feet provided that Twenty-five(2S)feet provided Nu Twenty-rive(2S)reef provided that basic heights may be increased up to basic heights may be increased up to basic heights may be increased up to the maximum height of fifty(50)feet the maximum height of forty(40)feet the maximum height of forty(10)feet a1 tlt m Front yard Zero(0)feet:provided that some Zero(0)feet:provided that some Zero(0)feet.provided that some setback may be required in the front setback may be required in the front setback may be required in the front yard to accommodate a sidewalk yard to accommodate a sidewalk yard to accommodate a sidewalk which shall be at least ten(10)feet in which shall be at least ten(10)feet in which shall be at least ten(10)feet in width. width. width. Rear and side Zero(0)rite[:provided Nat setbacks of Zero(0)feet:provided Nat setbacks of Zero(0)feet provided that setbacks of at least twenty(20)feet will be at least twenty(20)feet will be a least twenty(20)feet will be yard required in any rear or side yards that required in any rear or side yards that required in any rear or side yards that are adjacent to a residential zoning am adjacent to a residential zoning arc adjacent to a residential zoning district. district distritt Off-street parkin; Rcrail/office uses:Three and one-half Retaclloifca uses: Four(4)spaces per Remiuomce uses: Four(4)spaces pit: QJ)spaces per thousand(1.000) thousand(1,000)square feet of floor thousand(I,000)square fr_:of floor square feet of floor area aces'=' Residential uses "h Residential uses"' Residential uses � 5g (. The following height modifications shall apply: a. Five-foot increases for developments containing residential uses, provided that twenty-five(25) percent of gross floor area is in residential use. b. Five-foot increases for parking under the building. C. Five-foot increases for using a pitched roof form. d. Five-foot increase for stepping back from the top floor(minimum of five feet). 2. The first three hundred(300) square feet of retail or office space that is a part of an individual residential unit is exempt. 3. The following parking requirements shall apply: a. Studio: .75 per dwelling unit (du) without commercial uses; .50/du with commercial uses, provided that twenty-five (25) per cent of overall gross floor area is in commercial uses. b. One-bedroom: 1.5/du without commercial uses; 1.0/du with commercial uses, provided that twenty-five (25) percent of overall gross floor area is in commercial uses. C. Two-bedroom: 2.0/du without commercial uses; 1 25/du with commercial uses, provided that twenty-five (25) percent of overall gross floor area is in commercial uses. Sec. 15.04.210. Development Standard Conditions. 1. Minimum lot of record or five thousand (5.000) square feet, whichever is less. 2. None, except as required by landscaping, or it off-street parking is provided on site. � See the downtown design review criteria outlined in section 15.09.043. 3. No minimum setback is required. If a rear and/or side yard abuts a residential district, a twenty-foot rear and/or side yard setback may be required. See the downtown design review criteria outlined in section 15.09.048. 4. For properties abutting on West Valley Highway, the frontage on West Valley Highway shall be considered the front yard. 5. The minimum front yard setback shall be related to the classification of the adjacent 59 CITY or JSI�1iV Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX(253)850-2544 James P. Harris,Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing October 26, 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, October 26, 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. Hams, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Linda Phillips, Planner Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board member Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to approve the May 26, 1998 minutes. MOTION carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director, Jim Harris announced that upcoming elections for the Land Use and Planning Board Chair and Vice Chair would be held at the November 23 public hearing meeting. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None 220 4th AVENUE SOUTH I KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)859-3300 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 2 #CpA ya-si#ZCA 98 5 ems.tNpmE,N T gEL+TINE To MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Senior Planner Kevin ONeill stated that mixed-use zoning has been discussed at the Land Use and Planning Board workshops in July and September. He said that the City Council adopted a comprehensive plan under the provisions of the Growth Management Act in 1995. Mr. ONeill explained that the comprehensive plan supports mixed-use development both in the land use plan and the goals and policies of the land use element. He defined mixed use as development where commercial and residential uses can be combined in the same zoning district. Mr. ONeill indicated the areas within Kent that are currently designated as mixed-use. Mr. O'Neill explained that staff, along with a consultant, prepared zoning code amendments to implement the comprehensive plan and policies relating to mixed-use development. He stated that the City Council adopted the ordinances after hearings held by the Land Use and Planning Board in November 1996 which did the following: • established mixed-use overlay, and • amended the permitted uses and development standards within that overlay. He explained that the City Council adopted an overlay provision whereby the zoning code amendments would apply only to certain areas within the areas designated as mixed-use in the comprehensive plan. Mr. O'Neill explained this as a new concept of allowing residential development to existing commercial areas. Mr. O'Neill spoke at length on the criteria that the Board and the Council looked at in determining where the mixed-use overlay areas should be applied and how the permitted uses were changed within those overlay areas. Mr. O'Neill explained that development standards were developed to establish a way in which commercial and residential development can be regulated in a common manner. Mr. ONeill explained that the Mayor and City Council asked the Land Use and Planning Board and planning staff to consider amendments to zoning as it relates to the way mixed-use development is regulated in the(GC)General Commercial zoning district, .and to consider if multifamily residential development in the GC zone should be required to be combined with a commercial use, similar to the way it is regulated on East Hill. Mr. O'Neill explained that the Mayoes request would also necessitate amending the comprehensive plan map and policies. Mr. ONeill explained that mixed-use is used as a strategy to pinpoint areas that could accommodate future housing development with the benefit of combining residential and commercial uses in close proximity to each other permitting closer access to services, employment and transportation alternatives. He stated that every city in the county is obligated to accommodate a certain number of future housing units over a 20-year time frame as indicated in the comprehensive plan. Mr. O'Neill said staff is requesting consideration of amendments to the comprehensive plan and the zoning code in order to standardize the mixed-use classification as opposed to having two separate and distinct classifications. He spoke at length on how staff would work to amend the zoning regulations. Mr. ONeill stated that it is staffs recommendation to standardize development within the three mixed-use overlay zones. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 �. Page 3 Mr. O'Neill described how development standards differed within the three mixed-use zones of General Commercial,Office and Community Commercial. He explained that development standards include floor area ratios, site coverage,building height, setbacks and off street parking. Mr. O'Neill explained that mixed-use overlay provides incentives for mixed-use development as it increases commercial site coverage, for example, from 40% for stand-alone commercial to: • 60% in(0) Office and(CC) Community Commercial zones, and 75% in(GC) General Commercial zones. Board member Terry Zimmerman asked Mr. ONeill to estimate how many housing units have been developed since the adoption of the comprehensive plan and mixed-use overlay in the Valley and on East Hill. Mr. O'Neill stated that he is aware of only one 160-unit housing project developed on North Central Avenue. Mr. O'Neill responded to Ms. Zimmerman's concerns about developers being deterred from developing property based on requiring an office or other type of commercial component combined with a housing complex by stating that he felt development that combines uses is a challenge but not detrimental. Board member Steve Dowell asked Mr. O'Neill whether a building currently under construction would become a legal nonconforming use if the proposed amendments were approved. Mr. ONeill stated that if the project was an existing stand-alone residential project in the GC zone, the development is and would continue to be legal but nonconforming, if the proposed amendments were adopted. Mr. Dowell asked that if a property owner wanted to improve or add to their units within a General Commercial zone would he need to comply with current development standards as they are approved or with the development standards in place at the time of the original request? Mr. O'Neill responded that any expansion needs to comply with new standards. The only way to allow expansion of a non-conforming use is through a conditional use permit, as allowed by the zoning code. Mr. Dowell voiced concern that financing for these projects would prompt additional scrutiny as a legal nonconforming use than these projects would if they were permitted outright. Mr. Dowell stated that developers would confront difficulty in obtaining financing for future improvements or additions. They would also experience difficulty in complying with the code requirements of the GC zone as they were before mixed-use zoning was in effect. Ms. Zimmerman requested clarification of her understanding that the Growth Management Act requires the City of Kent and all municipalities to make room for the growth of more residential units within the city limits. She questioned if the effect of the zoning change is to diminish the number of multifamily residential units built in Kent and will it have an effect on the city's ability to accommodate growth. Mr. O'Neill concurred that this was an important question and explained that the intent of applying mixed-use in the first place was, in part, to increase the potential housing supply of the city. Mr. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 4 O'Neill said that when analyzing the city's zoning capacity,the total number of units that the city can accommodate is compared to the total land area the city has. Mr. O'Neill stated that accommodating the city's targets would be difficult without incorporating mixed-use development. Mr. ONeill said that the City Council was compelled to look at mixed use as a means to accommodate growth as well as combining residential and commercial uses to create a more lively urban fabric. Mr. ONeill emphasized that the proposed amendment still allows for residential construction within a mixed-use configuration. Ron Harmon MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to open the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously Manuela Ginnett, 1215 Central Avenue South,Suite 209,Kent,WA 98032 stated that she works with the South King County Multi-Service Center which provides emergency shelter, transitional housing and low-income housing apartments for homeless individuals and families. She voiced concern that affordable, low income housing options would diminish as a result of developers being required to develop housing with a commercial component. Ms. Ginnett stated that she believes the homeless situation in Kent could escalate. Pat Crockett, 10326 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, WA stated that she owns the creamery building located at the corner of First and Meeker Street in Kent. She questioned staff if the intention of the proposal was to create a community where manufacturing, business, schools and housing would be combined within the same locality. Ms. Crockett asked what methods are used to rent both residential and commercial property simultaneously. Board member Terry Zimmerman read a letter from Catholic Community Services which was entered into the record as Exhibit 1. The letter communicated concern that the amendment to the City's comprehensive plan could mean less affordable housing within Kent. Ron Harmon MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Dowell stated that focusing on growth in the valley makes sense for businesses and for the rail use. He stated his believe that approving the amendments before the Board relating to mixed-use would mean that the city would be downzoning. Board member Ron Hannon questioned Steve Dowell's definition of downzoning. He stated that his understanding was that mixed-use intent is to combine commercial and residential development and that currently the city does allow for stand-alone development. Mr. Dowell explained that under current zoning you have stand-alone, commercial or a combination of both types of development. He explained that under the requested amended plan you lose the stand -alone portion for residential development and would be required to combine commercial and residential development. Mr. Dowell stated that in effect you have less space on your property for residential development. This form of development would be financially unfeasible. Mr. Dowell expressed downzoning as a method of restricting what can be developed. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 �✓ Page 5 Planning Director James Harris concurred with Mr. Dowell's definition of downzoning. He elaborated upon Mr. Dowell's definition saying if a developer came into the Planning Department they currently have options in the General Commercial versus Mixed-Use zoning districts. Ms. Zimmerman concurred with Mr. Dowell's statements. She explained that she represents the Land Use and Planning Board on the Technical Advisory Committee for the Kent Rail Station. Ms. Zimmerman stated that it is significant for the City to support the new rail station as it emerges in Kent by working towards making downtown vital and connected to the new rail station by promoting mixed-use in the downtown area of the valley. Board member Harmon concurred with establishing mixed-use in the downtown area. Board member Jon Johnson stated that he concurs with and supports Mr. Dowell's motion to encourage more housing in the valley, with the intention of drawing people closer to their center of work and alternate transit facilities. Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to recommend to the Council to leave the mixed-use zoning as it currently exists without changes. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom requested clarification from Chair Bell that since the Board has made a determination to recommend to the City Council that there not be changes in the zoning for mixed-use, that the Board would concurrently reflect no change to the comprehensive plan. Chair Bell stated that they concurred with this request. #ZCA-984 RETAIL USE IN fDCE) DISTRICT Chair Bell described this as a request to clarify permitted uses in the pedestrian overlay of the Downtown Commercial (DC) district and extend the pedestrian overlay to portions of the Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) district. Chair Bell presented a memo from City Attorney Roger Lubovich addressing a conflict of interest that Chair Bell is experiencing with this issue. It was entered into the record as Exhibit 2. Chair Bell stated that he has a conflict of interest with this issue and could personally benefit depending on the ruling of the board. He stated that Assistant City Attorney, Laurie Evezich has advised him that according to the RCW's this does not preclude him from running the meeting, but does preclude him from voting or being involved in deliberations. Assistant City Attorney Ms. Evezich clarified that the Land Use and Planning Board's Bylaws addresses that the Vice Chair can act when the Chair is absent from a meeting. Ms. Evezich stated that the specific statute in question is RCW 35, Chapter 35: 22, Subsection 030. Ms. Evezich defined this statute as indicating that "if there is a conflict of interest, the appointing authority of the municipality may appoint an alternate in place of the person who needs to excuse themselves". Ms. Evezich said for this purpose Leona Orr, President of the Council and Mayor Pro Tern has authorized such an appointment as needed. i✓ Chair Bell recommended Vice Chair Woodford as designate to reside over the meeting. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 6 Planner Linda Phillips said that planning staff received a request from the Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP) to: • review the pedestrian use overlay that exists in the city's zoning code, • to review and clarify the permitted uses in that overlay, • to review the uses that are not permitted • to extend the commercial use overlay into the(DCE)Downtown Commercial Enterprise zone on streets directly adjacent to the Downtown Commercial zone. Ms. Phillips described the relationship between Downtown Commercial and Downtown Commercial Enterprise zoning. She stated that both zones were established as a result of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, as areas where mixed use would be allowed with few restrictions on development. Ms. Phillips explained that "enterprise" is meant to encourage a variety of mixed-use including residential, office, retail and service oriented uses. Ms. Phillips stated that this proposal addresses a special overlay district. There are several streets within the (DC) Downtown Commercial zone that are considered appropriate for a special limited mix of uses intended to encourage intense pedestrian use and offer interesting activities intended to entice people from their cars. Ms. Phillips stated that the intent of this proposal is to extend the pedestrian overlay to an area along Fourth Avenue north of Harrison Street, continuing east along Smith Street to the east side of Railroad Avenue. She said the overlay would continue from Railroad Avenue and extend to Titus Street; including the side streets of Meeker to Central and from Railroad to Central. The overlay would include the side streets from the Burlington Northern Railroad on Gowe Street to Railroad Avenue. Ms. Phillips stated that this proposal is consistent with the design review that addresses development standards relating to design as well as the design overlay along Railroad Avenue and the adjoining side street. Ms. Phillips stated the proposal remains consistent along Fourth Avenue with very intense pedestrian streets but not along Smith Street from Fourth Avenue to Railroad. Ms. Phillips explained that the proposal is intended to increase retail space and generate tax revenue within the DC and DCE areas. She stated that the language within the zoning code would remain the same with the exception of"residential" as it applies to retail use. Ms. Phillips referred to the Draft Revision of Chapter 15.04 District Regulations in outlining the substance of the proposal including deletions and additions to the text. Ms. Phillips stated that mortuaries and stand-alone residential multifamily housing would be eliminated within the DC zone. Ms. Phillips said that the KDP proposal was reviewed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan policies and goals and found to be consistent. She said that one of the policies: • promotes and encourages retail uses that serve the residential population in and adjacent to the downtown area, and • promotes orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen those districts, Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 �.. Page 7 • to minimize cost associated with extension of facilities, and • to allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one another. Ms Phillips stated that these points are important in that retail and service uses attract a similar customer base. A synergy develops so that retail use becomes stronger and more viable where retail and service uses are found together. Ms. Phillips said that staff recommends approval of#ZCA-98-4 regulatory review request with the exception of the area located along Fourth Street north of Harrison and Smith Street from Fourth Avenue, east to Railroad Avenue. These streets are high traffic arterials that might not attract the same kind of pedestrian retail and service uses that the other proposed streets would. Vice Chair Sharon Woodford questioned why the north side of Harrison Street is not included as part of the proposal. Ms. Woodford stated that the north side of Harrison Street is more suitably designed for pedestrian usage than Smith Street. Ms. Phillips stated that Harrison Street is definitely related to the DC pedestrian use overlay area. She stated that staff would not object to the inclusion of Harrison Street. Ms.Zimmerman stated that she understood that the proposed changes indicated that buildings within the downtown commercial district must maintain the first floor area for retail uses and that the second floor levels and higher would be utilized for other types of office use. Ms. Phillips explained that KDP's proposal does not disallow residential or office usage on the same floor of a one or more story building, as long as there is useable space that will provide for pedestrian retail or a service business adjacent to the street and the sidewalk. Ron Harmon MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Bruce Anderson, Post Office Box 3821, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that he is a property owner in the downtown core. He said that he recently built the Meeker Street Law Building located at Fourth and Meeker. This building was designed to house two law firms with retail space provided on the ground level. He stated that he aware of the process and problems encountered in creating a pedestrian oriented retail building with service use. Mr. Anderson stated that a pedestrian oriented building creates a synergism and value that property owners look for in a downtown core. Mr. Anderson said that he has service oriented and retail tenants coexisting in most of his projects with 80% retail, 10% office and 10% industrial. Mr. Anderson stated that the Kent Planning Department had told him that a law firm would not be considered a pedestrian oriented retail use. Mr. Anderson stated that he felt that this information was an anomaly because in developing a downtown core you are attempting to create a synergism in the downtown area. He said in the normal development of economics in a robust core you need to bring people into downtown and retail will follow. Mr. Anderson said that office could take over ground floor levels during initial stages of a downtown core's development. During the natural progression of development in downtown cores, office personnel and clientele will generate more retail business. ti..� Retail tenants will move in and displace the office space moving them up a floor or two. Mr. Anderson said that if Kent attempts to limit development to some selective retail uses in the downtown floor areas of these buildings it would impose a tremendous risk on developers.. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Anderson spoke at length on the logistics and cost factors involved in developing business in Kent under the current Planning department standards. He stated that by forcing retail tenants into the core and forcing developers to build out retail space he does not believe that there is enough synergism in Kenfs market place to warrant the rental rates necessary to break even on the development of new construction in the downtown area. Mr. Anderson expressed his desire to see the city open its market place to less restrictive uses in the downtown area. Alan Gray, 112 Railroad Avenue South,Kent,WA stated that he is a Certified Public Accountant by profession with his business located in downtown Kent. As a property owner he disagrees with the aspect of excluding professional, administrative and financial offices from the ground floor levels. Mr. Gray stated that he currently works within an area that houses a mix of service and retail oriented businesses that coexist well together. Mr. Gray said that restricting the use of buildings along Railroad Avenue would be prohibitive as it would: 1) eliminate the possibility of selling his building to an owner who would want to turn it into a retail establishment 2) necessitate that a new owner compensate for the additional cost to turn the business from an office setup to a retail establishment and 3)create the potential for more vacant retail space in downtown Kent. This is reflected by the Dragness Office Supply store, which has been vacant for one and one-half years at the comer of Meeker and Railroad. Mr. Gray stated that if this proposal is accepted, a grandfather clause needs to be implemented to protect established businesses. Bill Stewart, 28203 160th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that he is a property owner in downtown Kent. Mr. Stewart concurred with the first two speakers whereby restricting uses in downtown would be detrimental to the vitality of downtown and limit the opportunities for landowners to rent their properties. Pat Williams, 21205 110th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that she has owned a retail business in Kent for 22 years. She voiced her concerns over maintaining downtown as a pedestrian friendly area. She expressed appreciation for the new retail building on the corner of Fourth and Meeker. Ms. Williams said that the one drawback to the building is that it creates a wall along Meeker Street without an accessible entrance to the building, limiting pedestrian appeal with the exception of Starbucks. Ms. Williams voiced her concern that if businesses are not accessible at the ground level, this will destroy the vitality of businesses within the downtown area. Linda Johnson, 16605 264th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that she represents the Kent Downtown'Partnership and facilitated the proposal under discussion. Ms. Johnson explained that the proposal was generated as a result of the dead spaces occurring in the core area of downtown. Ms. Johnson symbolically compared downtown Kent to a shopping center such as South Center but owned by many property owners. She stated that the value of downtown is probably triple what the value of South Center is in infrastructure, streets, the actual businesses and residences as well as the activity generated in Kent. However, in a shopping center there is no dead space. There are people who manage the facilities for the right tenant mix to attract people. Ms. Johnson explained that the intent of KDP's proposal is to enable pedestrians to effectively utilize the entire district in the downtown area. Ms. Johnson addressed Ms. Woodford's concern about the deletion of Harrison Street. She stated that Harrison Street was inadvertently left off the proposal Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 �-' Page 9 and she concurs that Harrison Street should be included as part of the proposal. Ms.Johnson concurs with Planning staff that Smith Street is a high traffic arterial and may not attract pedestrian retail and pedestrian service uses. Ms. Johnson said that it has been difficult to fill the downtown area with vital business but has observed that Kent is engaging better quality business each time there is a turnover. She voiced concerned about the need to have businesses grandfathered to allow a merchant to remain in the existing business. Ms. Phillips responded to Ms. Johnson's concerns by ensuring that if a business remains in its location and remain current on renewing their leases, they will be allowed to stay. Ms. Johnson reiterated that the proposal recognizes that service and office oriented uses are very important to the downtown area.. Jim Bitondo, 106 East Titus Street, Kent,WA stated that he is a property owner and has operated a business in Kent for 18 years. He concurs with the facts that the other property owners have brought forth. Mr. Bitondo said that he is in favor of the Kent Downtown Partnership proposal as presented by planning staff and Linda Johnson. Mr. Bitondo explained that Kent was fairly derelict 18 years ago until the City Planning department stepped in and esthetically changed the image of downtown with the use of landscape trees, street design contouring and street lights. Mr. Bitondo related how these improvements fostered more pedestrian traffic. He said that the grandfather clause has given him the opportunity to be in business. Mr. Bitondo expressed his believe that Kent is experiencing change with the inclusion of the Regional Justice Center and the rail station implementation. He stated that the property values of Kent are experiencing an upswing. Mr. Bitondo stated that part of the nature of Kent centers around a downtown that has remained unmarred by high-rises. Mr. Bitondo voiced his opinion that future development in Kent will occur in the form of renovation of existing buildings to create more revenue and not in the construction of new buildings. Mr. Bitondo said that he supports the implementation of the proposal to extend the pedestrian overlay. Morgan Llewellyn, Post Office Box 902, Kent, WA stated that he has been a life long resident of Kent and has been employed in Kent for 18 years. He said that as a graduate of the University of Washington College of Architecture and Urban Planning he brings sensitivity to this issue. Mr. Llewellyn stated that he has been active in the sale, development, management, ownership and brokering of downtown Kent real estate markets since 1983. He stated that he has worked for property owners as well as businesses arriving in this market. Mr. Llewellyn expressed confidence in having a sense for where the market is and stated that he currently manages 160,000 square feet in the downtown core consisting of; offices,mixed use,retail, residential and retail space exclusively. Mr. Llewellyn stated that he is opposed to extending the pedestrian overlay into portions of the downtown area, as it would create a negative impact for the downtown area by restricting uses arriving in this market. He expressed concern that this proposal �✓ would not be good for the vitality of the community nor for people working downtown. Mr. Llewellyn stated that restricting use restricts revenue. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Llewellyn said that an office could be determined to be a pedestrian oriented use. People come into town for the purpose of using those businesses. He stated that he has leased 22,000 square feet in the past 90 days of which 16,000 square feet has been for office use. Mr.Llewellyn explained that more revenue is generated from leasing space for offices enabling property owners to maintain upkeep on their buildings as well as receive a fair return on their investments. Mr. Llewellyn reminded the Board and staff that recently constructed buildings in Kent have included the Centennial Center,the Meeker Law Building and the Phoenix Plaza which have been built for office use. He urged the Board to vote against extending the pedestrian overlay areas. Sharon Senn,402 West Meeker Street, Kent,WA stated that she resides on East Hill and runs a business at 402 West Meeker Street. She explained that she moved her business from East Hill to downtown Kent four and one-half years ago. Ms. Senn said that she has noticed a tremendous improvement in the appearance of downtown over the last few years. She stated that the volume of people shopping in Kent has increased due to its small town feeling and variety of unique shops. Ms. Senn stated that it is necessary to retain retail space in the downtown core to attract a repetitive customer base. Ms. Senn said that the more retail businesses that are generated, the more synergism is created. Ms. Senn stated that she supports extending the pedestrian overlay into portions of the downtown area. Sharon Woodford MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Mr. Dowell questioned why offices would want to locate in the downtown core area rather then in an established office zone with other offices. Mr. Harris deferred to Bruce Anderson stating he was not an authority in this area. Mr. Satterstrom responded to Mr. Dowell,s question by describing the zones throughout the city that allow for office usage. Mr. Satterstrom stated that much of this proposal clarifies a policy already in place and said that existing policy state that retail and pedestrian service uses must be located on the first floor. Mr. Satterstrom said that in enumerating the kind of uses that are pedestrian oriented and those that are not, the KDP recommends in their proposal that the first floor retail extend into other areas of the Downtown Commercial Enterprise district. Mr. Satterstrom stated that in reference to the extension along new street frontages, this is a new policy proposal. Terry Zimmerman asked planning staff to provide her with a list of the business names, locations and professions that exist along the proposed overlay area along Railroad Avenue for her to make an adequate decision. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she did not see the significance of including Fourth Avenue north of Harrison and Smith Street up to Railroad Avenue as part of the downtown commercial zone. She voiced her concern over the certified public accountant located on Railroad Avenue who could be in danger of losing his business by converting the downtown zoning to retail use. Linda Phillips stated that the accountant located on Railroad Avenue could sell or transfer his business to another accountant as long as that business is not abandoned for longer then six months. Business operations can continue as a nonconforming use. Linda Phillips stated that she would provide a list of nonconforming businesses within the proposed overlay area at a later date. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Harmon requested that this item be continued to the next workshop meeting of November 9.Mr. Satterstrom asked the Board what additional information staff could provide in addition to the requested information on the kinds of uses allowed in the areas where the policy is being extended. Mr. Dowell asked Mr. Satterstrom about the feasibility of scheduling a tour of the areas in question. Mr. Satterstrom encouraged the Board to tour the area during the workshop with Planning staff' providing photographs of the area. Ms. Evezich stated that she needed to clarify procedural issues. She stated that when an issue is under discussion during a public hearing, it is not permissible to continue discussion or deliberation of this issue outside the public forum at a workshop. Ms. Evezich reiterated that this item needs to be continued at a public hearing. Ms. Evezich further stated that the Board has the right to; • request clarification of the information they are seeking on the issue of nonconforming uses, and whether or not a sale can be executed within a six months limitation period , and • request the number and identity of businesses along Fourth Avenue and Harrison. Tent'Zimmerman asked Planning staff to explain why it would be advantageous to include Harrison Street as part of the DC zone when the recommendation excludes Fourth Avenue and Smith Street. �✓ Mr. Hams stated that a motion has been made to continue discussion of this issue to a workshop. He questioned Ms. Evezich as to why she stated it is not permissible to continue the discussion to a workshop. Mr. Hams stated that the Council sends items of discussion back to committees to be discussed outside of public hearings and that the Board has the right to determine where this issue will be heard. Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to continue the hearing of #ZCA-98-4 Retail Use in (DCE) District to the next regularly scheduled meeting of November 23. Motion carried. Ron Harmon MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, jecret P. Hams ary . Kent City Council Meeting Date February 2 1999 '- Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS CPA-98-2 (A-L) /CPA-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 LUPB meetings (11-23-98, 11-30-98 , 12-14-98) , Memo to LUPB from Kevin O'Neill (12-14-98) 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use & Planning Board (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : i 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds i to approve/modify/deny the Land Use & Planning Board' s I recommendations on the proposed 1998 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance . i 3 DISCUSSION: 1 ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7C CITY OF Jim White, Mayor �. Planning Department (253) 859-3390/Far (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 132od 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. 2204ih AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895 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 282°d 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 88& Avenue South and South 218te 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' 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 135t° 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 U 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'b Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road. (Mower/Hebert#CPA-98-2(1)/#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, Planner May Miller, Finance Director Barbara Engstrom, CFP Analyst z�jm AM � 1 toot mom ,Ellowilil= 4,�I�Wiyllrj MINE&, ffs-loni W -1 ftel L p ��i MUS, fir I Pim ME I Ad 10 City of Kent - planning Department 70 4 APPLICATION NAME: Shulman NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (B) DATE: January 1-91 1999 AW REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application boundary Recommendation: No Change �+•� Land use boundary errowwTv. City limits City of Kent - Planning Department 0 V, 0 old. - a ... .0 t73 0 C=1 C 0- 0 UI ., p - .Q V L r I APPLICATION NAME: Shulman NUMBER: #CPZ-98-2 DATE: January 19 1999 AM VQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning N Application boundary Recommendation: No Change Zoning boundary City limits City of Kent- planning Department \% cl c:0, SE 280 'ST (FR I M ...... 77 T— ul LI I r j c:Zijc?4On U ca 0 APPLICATION NAME: Burridge NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (C) DATE: January 19, 1999 AM REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment N Application boundary Recommendation: No Change -ow-MOMM-M" Land use boundary rrrrrvvr City limits City of Kent - Planning Department a b q i a RSE 28U•"ST• (P .l �� j ;i/!I , , _ 1 u C1 9 a I. •1. Li L-i Li U L1 APPLICATION NAME: Burridge NUMBER: #CPZ-98-3 DATE: January 19, 1999 QUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning Application boundary Recommendation: No Change zoning boundary City limits Ming aW--.wm z a Igo MTAIN IHll�1�n�. �� ',•fo�l� .t1e ■ �I City of Kent - Planning Department i� •-- � � � 1'i.•r'its" '� =� " Or IQ eY o a ' '_�-—__--—-- ` 'i;:.� �� i ' \'Yi'• ail ••�. � ' i ' • it / '�,1•� •. v 'i /I�il}!�1 t tU ` .�\��\� .- i ,a .'it �'__ .! !1 :.ill f�^,�''�'1`. :i`:`1 , .- • aY• '.?, ,'•�,:1 � C�' -�__ •.�il.//�-;li�lit',!��ri;'I�j. 'tF.;�@t'tj��;�`'. j ,l� •'� F� ' tv. 'I�JIi 1S tt(�•\`I4•` a . 1. tl 11;j�'1.�-1�1-, •'.i�/ - .; ��//!��%',, �11 ttiyt t�j . dz�Kl i , • I',%,NA cj 7.1 ' 3h APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Tonelli NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (E) DATE: January 19, 1999 REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment `J ® Application boundary recommendation: Industrial to Low Density Multifamily Land use boundary rFVVWWV*, city limits City of Kent - Planning Department J. 0IZD Cal r -: 1 1 � �/�!' :..lei FI ; '��`;1,1��).,,' •f \;�� .-- + Imo.\` f' ,, .! �� `..• 1 \ �•'\ !�'i:II. I.r'I •I ' ••\`.'_ ,.� -,y'jj ill r 1 11'• ,tIl�f .: __ '� )ri: _ l fr,;a.l'j7. ram•- _ r ' 1r.I i M R G ` A .. � • 'f I I 1 \`. 'Il:f.l j .. II• ,r, •l,ir"•.....l3Ml aro. ' .••I I • I 'n1 I t - - 1 , '`t •� I i 1 i i cc APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Tonelli NUMBER: #CPZ-98-5 . DATE: January 19, 1999 RFOLEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning A �... - Application boundary commendation: Commercial Manufacturing 1 to MRG zoning boundary City limi[s City of Kent - Planning Department I El. - -- -- -- - - - - - - 0 if 01- IZ5 too It, It O �- lc��,n 01 —77 APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Nguyen NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (F) DATE: January 19, 1999 A.M., REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment OW Application boundary Recommendation: No Change pwrommm Land use boundary rrrrrrrr City limits City of Kent - Planning Department A. ---- - - - - -- - - - C-, C- X 2: U") 2 9p 8 APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Nguyen NUMBER: #CPZ-98-6 DATE: January 19, 1999 R�QUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Application boundary Recommendation: No Change Zoning boundary City limits City of Kent - planning Department --7— \4 C=�P E5�9 ��S 45:2 OU g! Q1910 6. Zoe a, r D-- H LC� E- n Li 02 Lj APPLICATION NAME: Gusa DATE: January 19, 1999 NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (G) ,ItEQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment N Application boundary Recommendation: Mobile Home Park to Commercial ■Land use boundary City limits City of Kent- Planning Department .4C 1 110, A. _j q- S;p DD VC cc ED L 0. OL _ I .4 APPLICATION NAME: Gusa NUMBER: #CPZ-98-7 DATE: January 19, 1999 REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning Appli*bound&T recommendation: MHP to Community Commercial -momomwl Zoning boundary rrrrrrr-r City limits m NMI all m loggis, m 115mmam Mao. IxtrArno iL oft y y ® ® ■ •` ► Vol �' s/` '• ^till - �^rVE LIN— me �l• a �Y Ir�r W ICE ��►' *. +m�Q��rnrt a,� �.. .: 1� �■ • ■ , ` City of Kent - Planning Department ° - , o, 000000 --- i-a _ 1 C MD !" `f 1-2 71 tr� it S 26�S-fi-' w 09F L o APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Hebert NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (I) DATE: January 199 1999 . REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment N Application boundary Land use boundary Recommendation: No Change ""'`' �� City limits City of Kent - Planning Department El 0 0 C=3 Cj C] ! 00000 � MA L V JNJL U FLI 5 266--S-i ------- U1 > [RG F V,.-- =nL= A 11 rl APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Hebert NUMBER: #CPZ-98-9 DATE: January 19, 1999 REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning ► N Application boundary Recommendation: No Change Zoning boundary City limits ■ / �� ■ • ox QI �i ray - ■ u.EM r� r ILOWU ® 0l Norm Mor �.., MEN- a �.... yy waif � ■ ' I CITY OF Jim White, Mayor PlVignartment (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 256 Street and 132nd Avenue SE. (Brutsche) 220 Jth AVENUE SOUTH / KENT,WASHING TON 99032-5895 Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 2 �... 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 282' 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-Kangley 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 218' Street. (Mower/Tonelli) 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 272nd 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 corresponding 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. Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 3 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. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Proposal A- Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning for property located at southwest corner of SE 256t° 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 comer of SE 256'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, east and west are single family residential. Analysis The applicant states that this proposal would promote the public health, safety and general welfare Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 4 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"comer 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 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 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 132nd Avenue SE and SE 272nd Street and 132`d � 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. 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 Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 5 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 comer 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 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 Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 6 ..� 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, 1996. 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. Analysis This site is adjacent to an area,which was part of the 1997 comprehensive plan amendment process. The Clasen/Dinsdale 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 Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 7 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 Background `*a✓ 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 Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 8 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. 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 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 116' 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 Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 9 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 redesignation 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-turn 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 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 corner of 1161 Avenue SE and Kent Kangley Road. If the rezone of this parcel is not executed, than this parcel would remain 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 Kent Kangley Road makes any discussion of integrating development at the site and designing a project to protect adjoining single-family uses speculative ..........._ Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 10 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 88m Avenue South and South 218' Street South Applicant: Dana Mower—DBM Consulting(Mower/Tonelh) Existing Plan Designation: Industrial Proposed Plan Designation: LDMF, Low Density Multifamily Existing Zoning: CM-1 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 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. 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-1 zoning would generate as much traffic as multifamily, the flow and direction are likely different. Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 11 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 Background 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. Analysis Kent-Kangley Road between 128'b Avenue SE and 132n6 Avenue SE is under study presently by the Washington State 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 128t°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 corner. 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. Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 12 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 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 bent 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 zones,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 requirements 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 commercial 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 concurrency 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 Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 13 `✓ Proposal G- A change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for the property located at 15386 South 272id Street Applicant: Byron Gusa(Gusa) Existing Plan Designation: MHP, Mobile Home Park Proposed Plan Designation: Commercial Existing Zoning: MHP, Mobile Home Park Proposed Zoning: GC, General Commercial Background 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 u 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. Analysis 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 272' 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. Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 14 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 currently 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. 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. Proposal H - A change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for the property located at 25840135th Lane SE. Applicant: Les Houle—Kensington Development(Houle) ...y 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. Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 15 Analysis 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 135t' 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 RS9600 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. 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 Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 16 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 corner 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 corner 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 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 0 zones that Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 17 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, the 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 in 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. Existing Zoning: The policy is proposed to address single family zones, specifically the Existing SR-6 and SR-8 Single Family Residential zoning districts. Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 18 Background 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. Analysis 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. Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 19 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. 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. Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 20 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 Fifth 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." w 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. Analysis 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 4' 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 Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 21 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. RECOMMENDATION 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. 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 N1.001 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. Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 23, 1998 Page 22 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/pubhc/cpa98-2.mm3 Attachments cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Kevin ONeill,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. 1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,�MFNDMENTS 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 Place 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. W.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. W. 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 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 116'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 comer 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. .......... y 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 277th 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 Roadfor 20 ears and� ration as part of this proposal. Ms.Rehkop said that she has owned this property y 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. r Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 7 Donna Returner, 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 Ord Street,Renton,WA stated that he represented property owner Mr. John Titus last year when he was granted a conditional rezone on his corner 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. 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 comer 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(M/CPZ-9" 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-25840135 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 256d'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 v, 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 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 2"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. r Land Use and Planning Board Minutes .v 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. CPA 98 2(AUCEL98-1 BRUTSCHE AMENDMZNT 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 1321 Avenue Southeast and Southeast 256'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'A and 250h. 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 132nd 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 DeHart, 13121 Southeast 258' Street,Kent,WA stated that he resides in an adjoining neighborhood with the youngest children. Mr.DeHart said that he supports staff s 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 259* Street,Keat,WA stated that his property is adjacent to Mr. .W. Brutsche's property and he supports staffs 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 mule 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 2(B)&PZ-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. 1 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 219m 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. Mr. 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 43r4 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 cant'. 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 9&2fEl/# PZ 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 218ih 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 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 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. `r✓ Ms. Evezich concurred. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 16 CPA-98-2(C)/CPZ-98-2 BERRIDGE 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 135'h 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 concurred. Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to recommend denial of this amendment. Motion carried. CPA-98-2(D)/CPZ-984 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(ID/#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 Residential/8 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. 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 per 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' and 132""Avenue South. Steve Dowell MOVED and Tent' Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to recommend denial of ECPA-98-2(A)/#CPZ-98-1 Brutsche Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. #CPA-98-2(B1/#CPZ-98-2 SHUL AN 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 AMZNDMMNT 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 Toneili 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 Hannon 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. Tent'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 Tent'Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respec y Submitted, J es P arris ' S CITY OF Jim White, Mayor 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-984 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 staff s 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. 220 41h AVENUE SOUTH / KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE (253)859-3300 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 30, 1998 Page 2 CPA 98 2 (FI/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 turn 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 (GVCPZ-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 propery 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 (I)/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. O'Neill stated that the property consists of three parcels; one of which extends from Kent Kangley Road to Southeast 260ie Street Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 30, 1998 Page 4 with the other two parcels located at the corner of 108'Avenue Southeast and 261P. W. O'Neill stated that there is 200 feet of frontage along Kent Kangley Road. Mr.ONeill 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.ONeill 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 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. Y 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,25854108th 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 0 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 t.✓ 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,9623 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 Bill 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 (IO 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 Hams 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 shared 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 Hannon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. CPA-98 2 (F)/CPZ-98-6 MOWER/NGUYEN 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 Residential/16 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 staff s 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. Terry 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 staff's 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. 146� 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 staffs 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 2fi1/CPZ-98-9 MOWER/$EBERT ANMNDMENI 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 frontage 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 staff s recommendation to deny CPA-98-2 (I)/CPZ-98-9 Mower/Hebert Amendment. Motion carried four to three. �✓ CPA-98-2 (J)/RUTH 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. Hams 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 staff s 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.Hams 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 N 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 PLANNING DEPAR I l NNT 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. Tent'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. Hams 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. Hams 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. Respectfully Submitted, Jar es P. arris Secretary CITY or SyeSV L Jim White, I lay, Planning Department (253)359-33901FAX(253) 850-2544 James P. Harris,Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING 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)/#CPZ-98-4 APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BY 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 corner of 1161h 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 :-'I)41h AVENUE s0VTH KENT. -rf:LEPHOVF. 12331 X3U.33Ih1 CITY OF JET112 �V Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253)859-33901FAX(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 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 THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Director, James Hams announced that a workshop will be held Monday,January 11 and the public hearing will be held on L&gdaL January 26, 1999. #CPA 98-2 (D)/CPZ-98 4 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. 2204th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-58951 TELEPHONE (253)959-3300 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 116th 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. G Gills spoke at length on trip generation. He stated that if the property were developed as residential, Gary po g P g � 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 TTE 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 116th 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 staff s 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. 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. C 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 corner 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. Terry 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. Terry 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. .r 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 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. 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. 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 ti✓ 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 February 2 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (CPA-98-4/SMP-98-1) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 . This item was referred to the Public Works/Planning Committee, who considered the item on February 1, 1999 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, memo from Kevin O'Neill to the Land Use and Planning Board dated December 14 , 1998 , Draft Shoreline Master Program dated December 14 , 1998 & Minutes from the December 14 , 1998 Land Use and Planning Board public hearing. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve/modify/deny the Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation regarding revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program as modified by the recommendation of the Public Works/Planning Committee, and as approved, submit the revised Shoreline Master Program to the State Department of Ecology. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7D CITY Of LQ AIMI Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2533 James P.Hams,Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (253) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 2, 1999 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-I 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 SW with amendments, which will be discussed below. The minutes of the December 14 public hearing are attached for your reference. At the January 19 City Council meeting, this item was referred by the City Council to the Public Works and Planning Committee for action at the Committee's February 1 meeting. At the February 2°a City Council meeting, staff and committee members will report to the full City Council on what occurred at the committee meeting. 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 r✓' 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 2Il4ih %%J7\I:F.S0t'I'li / KGVI'. W'.\SHIN(JON IM3,2-5895 Shoreline Master Program memo #CPA-98-4/SMP-98-1 February 2, 1999 Page 2 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 SW (found in Section 4 of the document), this revision will also result in an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan, and has been advertised as such. 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. 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 SW 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 (0 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 (0,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 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 Shoreline Master Program memo #CPA-98-4/SNIP-98-1 February 2, 1999 Page 3 "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 SMP 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: In 1993 the City adouted a wetlands management ordinance pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.060 as adoRted in the Growth Mwwgment Act (GMA) In so doing the City established a new Chapter 1105 which ondines delineation metbodologies for wetlands and regulations to protect them The defisidoa of"wetland" in Section 11 05 020 is consistent with the definition of wetland found In the CMA (RC W 36 70A 030(20)). For purposes of shoreline management the definition of "wetland" found in WAC 173-22- 030(19) is consistent with the GMA def Mdon Therefore the City's definition of "wetlands" and regulations found in Chapter 11.05 are consistent witb the definitions of wetlands in the SMA and AGMA. will be used to manage and regulate wetlands in the sboreline jurisdiction as well as the rest of the city. CONCLUSION In conclusion, what is currently being proposed to the City Council is the draft revised shoreline master program dated December 14, 1998, with the amendments outlined below as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board and, in the case of wetlands, Planning Department staff. If the Public Works and Planning Committee offers any additional �..✓ amendments or changes on February 15L, these will be discussed at the February 2"d City Council meeting as well. Shoreline Master Program memo #CPA-98-4/SMP-98-1 February 2, 1999 Page 4 .� • 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 February 2nd City Council meeting to present the revised SMP, outline what occurred at the February I" Public Works and Planning Committee meeting, and answer questions. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please call me at (253) 850-4799. KO\mw\PAPUBLIC\.SMPCCMEM.DOC cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Nancy Eklund,Berryman and Henigar CITY OF v.d Jim White, Mayor hFVTC A 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-984/#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. __(I lilt E SOUTH / KENT.WASHINGTON Y%Il32.58'15 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 SMP, but will instead incorporate Springbrook in a subsequent update to the document. The draft revised shoreline master program consists of the following sections: 1.0 Introduction: This section outlines the purpose of the SMP, and describes the water bodies that are regulated under the SMP 2.0 Definitions This section defines terms which are used throughout the SNIP. 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\nw\PAPUBLICISMPLUBME.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. X' 5C 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 Pro;ram in Habitat Protection i&Aaavosmeoes3 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 Rum! Envir-emn@W 9 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 .......................................... t 4,-4 Economic Development€,lerttpw .......................................................................................4 4.22 Public Access Element ........................................................................................................6 4.43 Circulation€lerttetrt.............................................................................................................7 4.4 Recreation Pipmen .............................................................................................................9 4.5 Slief:e1 i ne4;se lale.m.ent 4.6 Conservation€let t .......................................................................................................11 4.7 Historical/Cultural Element ....................:.........................................................................14 4.8 Flood Control€ler en ......................................................................................................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 SMP: Table of Contents I 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 5.5 Environmentally Sensitive Areas ........................................................................................5 5.6 mffshes, Elegs ead SwamWs Wetl ...............................................................................6 57 Salmon and Steelhead Habitat ......................8 5.$-7 Public Access ....................................................................................................................12 5.2S View Protection ................................................................................................................13 5.JQ8 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 6.34 Commercial Development ..................................................................................................3 6.45 Dredging .............................................................................................................................4 6.3� Industrial Facilities ..............................................................................................................5. 6.6.7 Landfill .................................................................:..............................................................5 6.7 Morin— 6.8 Mining ............:............................................................................................. .......................1 69 Overwater Structures Pier Docks Floats,Buoys 7 6.4n Parking Facilities ..............................................................................................................0 6.11 Recreational Facilities .....................18 6.12 Residential Development 0 6.13 Choreline S abili2ation 7 6.14 Signs ""•27 6.16 Transportation Facilities ...................................................................................................29 6.136 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 ..........................................................................................I I 7.9 Amendments to The Master Program ...............................................................................11 7.10 Severability .......................................................................................................................11 DRAFT—Kent SMP. Table of Contents 1?114/58 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 DRAFT—Kent smp. Table of Contents °f 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program This page is intentionally blank. iv DRAFT-Kent SMP: Table of Contents 12114198 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 (SMP). 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-Pr-egfat ,9h0. 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 process for developers and local goverment by introducing varioL measures aimed at regulatory reform. As apart of that effort. the Legislature amended RCW 36 70A.480 to require that the goals and policies of local SMPs be integrated into local CrMA comprehensive plans. including Critical Area Ordinances (CAOs) In addition regulations for these various documents should be reviewed along with goals and policies to ensure that th= are consistent with one another. The clarification of these local regulations coupled with the consolidating of various permit processes into one single review process. is intended to improve the time required for pelmit pro siniz. the consistency f the review. and all parties' understanding of the regulations and their res ecp five pu�oses. Kent Shoreline Jurisdiction As defined in the Shoreline Management Act the Kent SMP governs streams with a mean annual flow of 70 cubic feet per second or more: likes gre=than 20 acres in size_ all shoreland_s; all associated wetlands within the City of Kent and its 1Lrban growth area. The area of shoreline jurisdiction extends landward two hundred (200) feet in all directions of the ordinary high water mark or floodway which ever is ;neater. of the water body. DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 1.0 -Introduction 1 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program �th Rush 121-M and In Aition the Shoreline Management Act recogmizes cert in larger water bodies as having rs_ .Milicance to the entire state and places a higher standard on their man$gement. Lakes ex^_owi g,1-000 acres in size and rivers (in western Washington) exceeding 1 000 cubic per Mr^ d in mean armuskI flow are considered "shorelines of statewide siggificance" Flow Ants far the Ckew River show that the Green River in Kent exceeds this threshold. gua iWng it 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;objeetives and policies that apply to all activities within the shoreline jurisdiction. General Performance Standards are contained in Section 5.0 mg&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 inehiderr-describes the enforcement process. 1.3 SHORELINE RESOURCES IN KENT The City of Kent has three "shorelines of the state"that are,=tected under the Shoreline Management Act: the Green River, which is also desigWed as a"shoreline of statewide sianificance, Lake Meridian annexed in 1996: and a small segment of Big Soos Creek downstream from Kent-Kanaley Road (State Route 516). These shorelines represent a sip i fiicant recreational and aesthetic resource for the City- as well as provide a rich natural environment and habitat area. Kent's shorelinesjurisdiction is depicted in the maps 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. I]= 2 DRAFT—Kent SMP.Section 1.0 -Introduction 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program C;reen River is re innatfy_csiigWfic nt due to its fimclion L a gowning stream and habitat for Chinook coho and chUM salmon and sea-run cutthMat god steelhead trout. The fRiver 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,with peak flows exceeding 12.000 cfs, . . s. in the siammef, depending upon regulation of the Howard Hanson Reservoir upstream. Summer low flows averagf leas d= 1,700 cfs,with flows as low as 81 cfs. depending Leon the regulation of the Cily of Tacorns,bodsmAs facility.1 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. i.ake Meridian Lake Meridian a 150 acre lake- is a valuable water M a-gi=for fish and wildlife It has been developed as a plimarily residential lakefront comrnLty i ke Median Park is located at the southeast end of the Lake,ke long with a boat launch apooMW by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife The lake offers active recreational gZ rnities anlh as_nle9Cure boating- water- skiing. swimming- and fishing, as well as providing a location for float planes to land and t?ke Bis Soos Creek The section of Big Soos Creek that is regUllated under the Shoreline Management Act based on its flow characteristics is located south of Kent-Kangiley Roar insoutheast Kent This short span of creek is flanked by residential lots Y The Big Soos is also habitat for , uses on relatively�S Chinook and coho salmon and steelhe&d and cutthroat trout The portion of Big Soos Creek to the north of the shoreline se;rtent functions as a linear park Soos Creek is the eastern boundary of Kent's Potential Annexation Area_(PAA). 1.4 THE ROLE OF THE SHORELINE MASTERPROGRAM iN HABITAT PROTECTION It is important to recognize that the one of the main 12U=ger of the Shoreline Management Prop-ram is to protect. =serveand restore fish and wildlife habitats in and adjacent to stream& rivers, and lakes within the City of Kent. In addition. it is Cgually impo_ ant to recognize that the c uatic resources protected by the master program- and their rip ri nfringes-are at the receiving end of the watersheds within which ticy are located. To ensure the=tection of habitat for salmon- steelhead_ and other aguatic Species,policies and regulations gUiding the management of the shoreline areas must be consistent and complimentary to other watershed-based management practices. 1 Water Resources Data Washinmon Water Year 1996 US Geological Survey Water Data Report WA-96-1•USGS Tacoma. �./ Wash. 1997. DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 1.0 -Introduction 3 12114198 1 1 , ,,e ,,. • 1..w y .Ili :.•:1 3 ,. ., -. 11 n,: • , , - 1 PoT.Tisra a , • 1 • l 1.1 • 1.'. • •1,,, •.i • r i a a 1 1 - 1 1 • , .1 . 1 a 1 11 1 1 t•,1 • • 1 1 < •, 1 ,I 11 1 alp 11 11 +.1 y11 .: /1 1 1 r • rr 1 1 • , • • 1 1.' 1. ./ IY d Il yl 1 l � dF 1 1 Ir • .: • • , 1 • 11 1 • r (p 1 • e 11432 1 1.• . I II 4 r �.r1 4 1 1 M 71r 4 a , _ .Ill 11II 4 1 1 1 1• -// ',1 : 1 a 1 - a 1 1 � 1 / 1 k • 1 - t d -7f a la r 1 1 : 1 1 - 1 1 • 1 - . a 1 a 1 yr - tit • , r f-5.7,16MMM1 '� 11.E 1 r- .d 1 1 .• 1 a ' -l• • J 1 t 1 1 1 � 11 : i • r -/ � •..-.r1 a+.• f '1: 4 1 1 -/1 • 1 • / • 11 11 1 � a l l ,• -:a .I 1 Y Il 11 r a 1l h V - 1 • 1 : .• 1 1 1( • , q . 1 - , • i - 1 Il r - l i i l 1 - ,l e M : l n •Il. a l l, l/ moo l • i • • 1 1 1 - Q •.1 - 1 • 1 1 Y 1 / 1 Ir.. 11 r - • 11 - 1 - 1 \ la 11 1 ' • - i • 1 ' I • / 1 1 - 11 r -1 1 1 1. 1 1 , 1 1 W a 1 , • 1 11 1 _a 11 •. 1 M. e 1 I 1 1 1 1 -,' 11 r • rr,1 • •. ..1 • ��/ - • , - - • 11 a• 1 �!1 1 1 1 1 •.l 1 7T . : . • "tir.' n r -a een . u 4, -1 •n 1.�q1 • . u,e 1 - • •,• • ' 1 11 1 � - 1 -, .' • . � rt 1 1. a :,1. a _ynl., it • .1 Fi -)11 a ..tl , • .1 1 ► 1 11 1• r : l 1 I / • 1 ; a 1 •ti r," n + 4 1 .-1 e • 1 • , Y i l • 11 • e - :J , 1 - 1 , ..1 1 1 - 11 r 1 11 - el 1 :q1 , 1 , • ��I r • r , 11 • • � . 1 WTViT4F 1,• rM • , • NiTlokok 1 - - ' • 1 < 11 4 1 / • 11 1 • e 1 1 - 11 , • lea 4 - 1 - 1 - �a • 1 - 1a - ffM U F773 • •J 11 _ _ _ _ e ow- . . _ _ 11111, PIT . . _ . . . . . . . .. r. . .. :_ . 1 . . . . . .. O .._, r . . . .. -. __ . . . - . i ► i \ 1 )WIN I EIR 1 . 1 • 61 1 6111 1 jgi�j�� t - . • I t1 t 1 1 . tM Mr4llIJ It �1 : • ' .1 ♦ 1 1 1 1 - U ' . '.t< 11 11 . • 1 1 &TIMM .. ' . 1 M 1 I . . MV@ . 11 1 1 - 1 - • �11 • 11 . - t - 1 - ' 1 1 1 1 \ t 1/ c' 1 0 \ 1 Lei III I I 1 1- 6 5"s . 1 ._1 1 - 1 ♦ 1 • 1 1 ' • 1 11 - el • 1 1.•. 1 . . 111 - 1 Oil 1 • • 1 Il. • 1 . I t - \ tl! tl • . " !11 • It _ 1 - 1 ' - • 1 /1 - 1 • di 11"144191441101111f 1 or. . • •_1 1 . 11 • 1 - • . . . - • 1 1 . - / 111 1 t 11 •.. ..• 1 1 -. . 71 1 • • 111 1 1 1 - -t - 11 1 • 1 ♦ 1 1• 1 - 11 •. - . • .. 11 I t • 1 - • • 1 1 • - 1 -.. -.1/ 1 . 1 ._• . ! 1 • R • 11 ! 1 - 1 . 1 - . . . Mel -. 11 - . - e.11 - •. ltll ' 1 . 1 . 1 1 • - - • 1 1• • - QI : Itl • .• • 1 1 - . 6 • -1 � 1 1 + 11 ' • 1 / ' • � 1l.- ! . IMI . ' •.11 . 1 • 1 t - 11 - 1 • • 1 1 ' • 1 .1 . 1 1 •. 1 - 111 1 " , r • • - . . _ .1 1 1 . 11 1 - 11 ' • .. 1 1 1 ... • • 1 - 1 1 - !rl • • • 1 111 t - • 1 - \ 1 • - 1 - : t 11 1 • 1. . 1 1111 1 - . . . .. 1 • 1 . 11 - • 1 •. 11 . 1 1 11 1 - . . • 1 - • 1 - 1 ' • 1 - t l l t • 1 • 1 I 0 • . •. 1 1 - 1 • . 1 • I 1 1 1 t 11 ' 1 1 . . ' 1 • /I •.1 t 11 ! - - 1 1 - \ • . 1 1 • - 1 - 1/ •. - ' • 9 11 1 1t 11 - 1 rl .. - - • 1 U ' • L •.11 Kent Shoreline Master Program This page is intentionally blank. 6 DRAFT—Kent SUP: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_, tructure Any structure or portion of a structure or use incidental and subordinate to a primary use or development. Accessory Dw tin L1nit An accessory dwelling unit( IZ D ir a habitable dwelling unit added to created within or detached from and on the came Igt with a single family dwelling that provides basic requirements for living sleeping eating. cookirigrand sanitation. Accretion The growth of a beach by the addition of material =&QXjgjW by windand/or water. Included are such shoreforms as barrier beaches_points- spits,hooks and tombolos. Act The Shoreline Management Act of 1971. as amended(Chapter 90.58 RCW). Ad6acent Lands Lands adjacent to the shorelines of the state (outside of shoreline jurisdiction), The SMA directs �✓ local governments to develop land use controls_(i_e.. zoning, comprehensive planning)for such lands consistent with the policies of the SMA_ related rules and the local shoreline master prog;am (see Chapter 90,58.340 RCW), Administrator The Kent Planning Director, or his/her designee charged with the responsibility of administering the shoreline master progyrarn. Agriculture , shall nat inelude the eeffffnemial feeding ef gmbage eF F6060�e swine er-etheF animals. [Replaced by Section 15.02.010 of the Kent City Code.] Agricultural use means land 12rim&dly devoted to the commercial production of horticultural_, vitcultural. floricultural, dairy. api Lgetable. or animal products or of berries, grain,hay. straw, turf seed. Christmas trees not subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84,33,100 through 84 33 140 fin fish in =land hatcheries or livestock and that has been in long-term DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 2.0—Definitions 1 12114198 ul-i-TT • 11 11 dl '4/ 1 • 1 .• 'a1 ( . • • • f • 1 . eP,l .. .) • 1 11 d / • 'JY.11 • 11 I1a • • 1 • 1 • It 1 1 • 11 ! 1 -11 / 1l'r KI 1 t • 1 • : 1 1 I I I I 11 i I • - 1 11 • I. . 1 1 1,1,11 1 1 -'. 1 d '+.:••I 1 p 1 : ( • 1 1 1 - ! • - 1 /1 • 1 - 1 . 1 do 1 1 y1( 11 • 1.II: " • • - • 1 1 � .'�. i 1 III 1.•ty -• 1 1: t11,1 �11 • /// �11 • i • 11 C 1 =1f • • 1 �1 t 1 1 •: ,. �. : f • , :41 • x: •.11 1 ' • I 1 •. d 11� 1. � Id 1 - •- ! 1! � a • a f 1 �/1 t -lJ 1 1 : 1 • /il •...,x ifl..lr tF 1 1, :Y f1 •� 1;- , 11 1 1 .!. =11 .^ 1� tJ.• 1 • yxi .'.1. I1111t., 11 / l / '.II 11 i ' , 1 1 / •.T 10 1 \. • 1 11 -�1 1 1\ 1 4 Y P 1:•M. i 1,1,+:, I;o 1 • 1 :. bll -11 • / 1 1 • 1 - • 11 11 • 1 : _ • • • 1 1 : 1 1 f • 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 • • 11 11 1 • 1 1 11 1FICT.7r, 1 1 WATP I 1 o1• 10 . 1 1 - / . . . 11 \ • 11 - 1 -1 1 i -11 - • 1 i - 1 :•.1 . • . n 1 � U • - 11 - t •• • 11 • • 1 ' 1 \ 1 • 1 1 - L 1 =11 / 1 • 1 !! - - ! - 1 1 - ell • _ 1 • • 1 •JI ! 1 1 • 111 y ( 1 • i 1 • 1 1 ' . • i 1 WTr i l l 1 1 , ' 11 i 1 i I t 1 t • e • , • • 1 1 1 . d. .I 1 I t •�r,t : 1 • 1 • - 1. ' - 1 Y• • • . t , 1 • C I1, 11 • 11 , t • - • „ - " • • .J • • 1 11 • • It • ,- • • 1 �. , P • ,Lt+• • • 1 I 'J t.1 : / � 1 • 11 . - 11 1 • 1 its) e t / 1 - • 1 - •1 • • al - - , . ,e yl t 1 t 1 t �e 11 - 1 1 � 1 1 1 • 1 ! lFrOT&IRTRIM • • 1 ' at : i e 1.. • yr all l ' • 1 1 - - - • ..,• - , • 11 1 1 - • 1 1• yl • t 1 t r . ! Ei dl t;M,r 11 t -• 11 al • y�� • t • 1 ' 1 1 _ _ _ ' • • - • 1 1 / $$ 1 imillill PROM,ir- 1 . eh1 r� 11 - A 1 11 11 •.. 1 - 1 . 1 _ • 1 < 1 1 e e 11 • : • e 1 • W.r@M. y/l t.t /,r • T • y 11 - / t 1 • t t • !! 1 • • 1 .i • 1 • - • -:- 1• : 1 s M"IMP Uri Mr7r,7741 •Mob 0 e • . • _ - 1 • 1 • � •. � • ell e •11 . a • its . , 1 • - • el . ,• i 1 1 • I 1 - - 1 • •. ! lell 1 L . 1 - • 1 - 1 1 - t! 1 • ! ' et 1 ' • _ e l • ,.l 1 • 1 • , - e • ! { • • , - _ - • • 1 , e e • • . , t . , 1 1 • 11 e t l 1 - - • 1 : 1 � :• 1 e •11 •. 1 1 •.1 , - , 1 • 11 a ,• i •11 " • 11 " 1 Kent Shoreline Master Program Buoys,are floating devices anchored to a lake or river bottom used for navigiWonsil lumoses or moorage, (see also Mooring Bnov) Channel An oRen conduit for water either naturally or artificially created but doer not include artificiall 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. Clearing Thedestruction or removal of veg"on ground cover a zWn 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 pz=t 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 is intended for the cf+mmon use of the residents of a particular subdivision or community It is not intended to serve as a pLblic facility. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive plan means the document including maps,adgWe_d_b, the i co unc�.it which outlines the City'goals and policies relating to management of growth- and prepared m accordance with Ch. 36.70A RCW. The term also includes, adopted subarea pi 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)) .6, designatien fer-areas with valuable aa4;ar-ai, eukar-al, er-hislef4eal r-eseuFses (see Mien 3.9). Corridor A circulation right-of-way and the area immediately adjacent to it. 4 DRAFr-Kent SMP.Section 2.0-Definitions 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program \.,r ng sc�To down in desirability or salabilil3; to impair in re=ct to some physical_property 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(RCW 90 58 03Q(3d11 See also Substantial Development, Dike An embankment to prevent flooding by a stream or other waterbody. DM Determination ofNonsignificance under SEPA. Dock . A dock is a floe 'ng landing and moorage facili for commercial and 111ca=watercraft which abuts the shoreline and does not include recreational decks storage facilities or other.apni=ances See pier. Downdrift `. The direction of movement of beach materials. Dredge Spoil or Dredge Material The material removed by dredgin& 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. Dup One detached residential building containing two (2) dwelling u its totally scparated from each other by a one hour(1) fire wall or floor designed for occupancy by not more than two (2 families. Dwelling. Single-family See Single-family Residence. Dwelling, Multiple-family ^=ncltiple family dewlling means a residential building designed for or occupied by three(31 or more families with the number of families in Tesidence not exceeding the numbe 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. EIS Fnvironmental impact Statement. Elements Major aspects of land and water use for which goals are written as part of a Shoreline Master Program. Emergency An unanticipated and imminent threat to public health of U or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full conndisme with the master Vmgmm Emergency construction is construed narrowly as that w ich is neccu=to ron test ro�nerty from the elements (RCW 90.58.030( eiii) 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 deg other existing fi=tionc Enhancements are to be distinguished from resource creation or restoration projects. Environments Designations given specific shoreline areas based on the existing development pattern, 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 TPI _ .e effth fnater-ia, �_�-�-�� ^" .An�,rers�n-made cut cavity trench or depression in the earth's surface formed by earth removal. (WAC 296-155-6501 Exemption Certain apecific developments as listed in WAC 173-27-040 are exempt from the definition of substantial developments are therefore exempt from the substantial development wit-process of the SMA. An activity that is exempt from the substantial development provisions of the SMA_ must still be carried out in compliance with policies and standards of the Act and the local master program Conditional use and/or variance permits may also still be required even though the activity does not need a substantial development permit (RCW 90.58.030(3e). .J g DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 2.0-Definitions 12114198 .f . -111 • ! 1 1 1 •. .1.1..Ia mlo,FIT, 0 I, 0JI 1.n<. •-a '...J IJ H.�11 II 11 -.a 1 1 lei 9111. • • 1 - • t1 1 4 • i - - -1 - . -1111• • ! 11 f. •AF 1 a• a. 9lllf 1 1 1 q• 11 1 - 1 -111 • ! l 1 q• 11 1 .- i 1 • - - �• a 11 yll •,.q•r11 f;\•, - 1 51 IF 1 -111 • I 1 act 1! 1 11 • • 1 ./ 1 1 - 1 1 1,,•: 11 • .•i 4lf °+Y'Yr " 4,011.•101 s • :• l II -A • •. 1 • ! -1 •,-r- - t.r . ,A 1 n.sl..y 1. : 11. ' ri- .• 1 . y -fl 1 1 - •• - , • 1 1 / 1 • / : Ile • - it <..:� -r rl 11,'xt"rl 1.1 11.- 1 a 1 \0 1.: ' -111 -10 • • L . 11 • 1 1 7 -,1 11 • 1 1 .•;1 f e r.1' ..-1111 a dl 1 • 1 ! - 1 1 • 11 -11 • - • •� I.f a51. l- ,r�r1 '�Y.i 1..y t. s;•;11,-^i ♦,d11/ ♦�/ 11 • •IAII - I • i IP r.J..-1 1 �, LV-7• Lr, f.11 e•� .) I 1 r 1 111 dt • 1 �. 11 1 � • /11 • , - , 1.• l1 • P 11 "1 milla11 yfln yl • 1 • 1 • . IV 1 - • • . • • • • / • 1 - I - I • - 1 • 6,MMN or • • - - 1 1 11 1 • -YIIIfigats !1 1 • HI • IU. T • 1 . •• I ' . 1 • . l • . •• •.1 ,1 1 - - • • 11� 1 1• L 1 1 - , all • 1 • ! 1 =11 • .•- 1 ! •-1111 ",• -•from 1 - -11 - • • 1 11 41 . 03 HN 1 • • " 11 11 iv11 11 • < 1.• 1 • I 1 I • 1 • 1 - •.Il•.P 1 -.III • �,1 • - - 1 r 11 -0 •. 1 1 1 I ' -� - •!1.' ! a-!• - ._, 1 • , ., - • JPRW• ••1 - � 11 11 •. ' • •.. 1 - - • • 11 •. 1 1 '. 1 = • It"M OI • 1 !• woo • • I - • • ! / 1 ' •IIK • / •, 1 1 ' g •-, - 1 I ' - • • 11 - 1 Ia• II .• l • 1 1 1 f , • 1 - • • ..•.• 11 •. " / • -I • 11 _ \ - 1 , 1 •Il . •, .. 11 emu 1 1 • " 1 -,. 1 . 1 • Me m vI - 11T /. - - • 1 " •1 • !! 1. • 1! 1 • 1 •.. 11 - •. 1 1. - • 1 1 1 1• • - ..11 1 1 11 . 1 - • •_1 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. F000dplain 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. Flo dws "�Fllo y"means the channel of a river or other watercoutae and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. G:ab*ons Structures omn�osed of maim of rocks rubble or m n=held tightly together usually by wire 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. in T physical manipulation of the earth's surface and/or drainage pattern in preparation for an intended use or activity. Grassy Swale A vegetated drainage channel that is designed to remove various nollutan_ts from storm water runoff through biofiltration. Groin A barrier-type structure extending from the backshore or stream bank into 4he A-water hgdy The purpose of a groin is to interrupt sediment movement along the shore. A groin is also referred to as a spur dike or rock weir. Habitst The place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows. Hearing Examiner (Land Use/ A person appointed by the City Administrator to conduct public hearings o_ n aonlications outlined in the City ordinance creating the Hearing Examiner. and who prepares a record. findings of fact and conclusions on such applications. Heoph The distance measured from the average grade level to the highest mint of a structure:_nrovided. that television antennas. chimneys and similar gourtenances shall not be used in calculating height. except where 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 adjoining such shorelines(or the waster nrovsam=vides aftmdse):provided further that temporary construction gpuil2ment is excludcd in Ibis calculation(WAC 173-27-030(9). See also 'w,r,r Building Height. HPA- Hydraulic Project Approval The permit issued by the Was ington State Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to the State Hydraulic Code Chapter 7520 100-140 RCW, Hydric Soil H dric soil means soil that forma ceder conditions of saturation flooding or ponding lone enough during the growing season to develop an ic conditions in the upper part. thereby influencing the growth of plants. In-kind Replacement To replace wetlands biota or other organisms with sLstitMC flora or fauna whose characteristics closely match those destroyed displaced or degraded by an activity. Lam A bodyof tanding,eater in a depression of land or eYpnded part of a river. including reservoirs. of twenty (20) acres or greater in total area A lake is boLnaed by the or in ry h igh water mark or where a stream enters a lake the extension of the elevation of the lake's ordinary high water mark within the stream (RCW 90 58 030(ld); WAC 173-22-030(911 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 large dike or embankment often having an assess road along the top which is designed as part of a system to protect land from floods. Littoral Living on or occurring on, the shore. Littoral Drift The mud sand or gravel 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 Marshes,begs and swewps [This section has been replaced by "Wetlands"J ,-., , 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 BSH 90.5 g. Mining The removal of naturally occurring materials from the earth for commercial, industrial, or construction use. Mitigation The process of avoiding-reducing- or com=satina for the m 'ropmental impact(s)of a proposal, 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(such as a docks or buoys). Moorage Piles Structural members that are driven into the lake bed to serve as a stationary moorage point Thev are typically used for moorage of small boats in the absence of or instead of a dock or pier. In some cases moorage piles may be associated with a dock or Hier. Mooring Buoy A floating object anchored to the bottom of a water body that provides tie tin capabilities for %, Multi-family or Multiple-family See Dwelling. Multiple-family Multiple-Use The combining of compatible uses within one development. 10 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 2.0-Definitions 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program Native Plants These are plants that occur naturally, and that distribute and reproduce without aid. Native �✓ plants in western Washington are those that existed lWor to intensive settlement that began in th 11 5-QL Natural Riparian Habitat Corridor The streamc_ide envi_mn_mCat desjgpAd and main ainW-may for fisheries and wildlife habitat. water Qualily improvements and secondarily for flood control works. while allowing controlled public access to avoid damage to the resource. Non-conforming StrsaetwfeUse or Development A shoreline use or structure or portion thereof which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Management Act or local shoreline master lusle provision. or amendments.but wkieii-no longer conforms to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Non-water-Oriented Use A use which has little or no relationship to the shoreline. Examples include professional offices, multifamily residential development, and mini-storage facilities. Normal Maintenance Those usual acts to prevent a decline. lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition (WAC 173-27-040(2b)). See also Normal Repair. `.✓ Normal Protective Bulkhead A bulkhead. common to single-family residences. constructed at or near the ordinary high water mark to protect an existing single-family residence. and which sole 12 =pose is for protecting land from erosion, not for the purpose of creating new land (WAC 173-27-040(2c1. Normal Repair To restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction except where repair involves total replacement which is not common practice or causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment (WAC 173-27-040(2b) (the full definition of normal repair is listed in section 7.3 of this SMP). See also Normal Maintenance. Off-site Compensation To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental reources away from the site on which a resource has been impacted by a regulated activity. On-site Compensation To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental reosurces at or adjacent to the site on which a resource has been impacted by a regulated activity. 1 One-hundred-year Flood The maximum flood expected to occur during a one-hundred-year period. DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 2.0—Definitions 11 12114198 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 change thereafter: in accordance with permits issued by a local government or demrtment. The following criteria clarify his mark on those waters within the City of KMt ear WA . 173-22-030(11)- specifically, lakes. and streams: 1. Lakes, Where the ordinary high water marls cannot be found it shall be the line of mean high water: and 2. Streams Where the ori>inary lei¢+ water maw "not be fQmd it shall be the line of mean high water. For braided streams the gnju=high water mark is found on the banks 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 to piers_ docks floats 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 aU combination thereof. authorized by the Act. (WAC 173-27-030(13)) . Pier A fixed, or. fleatiag-Riles supported platform (,structure) 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 DRAFT-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 c.Mded out after taking into consideration short-term and long-term cost_options of nni ect scale and phasing. ex,igtina tec nology and logistics in light of overall project 12=oses. 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 community at large in the ffa airs of , •_. -__ h s o_liabilities are affected such as an effect on Bove ent. or some=-=----- -""`-`�� '-'-" rights - ' public pmp=or on health. safety, or general welfare resulting from a use or development, iWA . 173-27-030(14)1 Railroad A surface linear passageway with tracks for train traffic. RCW Revised Code of Washin on. 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 prim W y devoted to or designed for use as a dwelling(sl. Restoration T revitalize or reestablish characteristics a_nd process s of a wetland or habitat diminished or lost by past alterations activities or catastrophic events. Retrieval Lines A system by which a float or other floating object 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 scamembankment- or chore stnctilre agar erosion by waves of currents The principal features of a revetment are: 1)heave armor laver_ 2) filter laver_ and 3)toe protection. RwArin Of. on, or pertaining to the banks of a river. Riprap A layer, facing, or protective mound ofBrekei-stone placed 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 riverfront 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 control sediment movement, water flow, or both A rock weir adjacent to a shoreline is typically formed by placing rock in a line outward from the share with the top of the rock embankment below the water level to restrict current movements parallel to the chore without completelyblocking flow. Runoff Water that is not absorbed into the soil but rather flows along the ground sw:face following the t000graohy. 14 DRAFF-Kent SMP:Section 2.0-Definitions 12114198 1.. 1 I N - 1 1 11. \ 1 / 1 tiF ... • :..• : U! 1 y/C. 11. • - F 1 1 1 1 - ..• I • 1 1 • IJ � . 1,. � 1 •. .,.• 1 • 1 . . 1 . - 1 - 1 • 1! 9 list ' 1 p yp • 1 • 1l 111• it ..11 y, :/ . l .' / 1 • �q1 1 ' 1 � - i. ' - 1111 1 1 I 11 I 1 - MM-7 UMMMMo . s71, 71 1 • , II !! /.. • 1 1 1 • I �I I • i 11. 1 1)1 - y 'J . 1 . • . • • 1 !! 1. ! • p • • •• . 11 1 - 1 1 - .1i • • 1111 yi - 1 1 1 - ♦ 1 1 - 1. 1 1 1 1 I I 11 , ! • - 1 • - , - ! • 1 � 1 1 1 • �. • 1 1 • - 1 I11 .•:9 1 / (,y • / Ir • • 1 1•! • 1 ► c.l 1 • 11 1 • 1 • M o"Or T - W11 M q W 1 P •U 77 1 Me ETT 77 F. 1 .I F. 1 P • 1 1•I 1ITIIllr,;!L,dl 1117,111111 .1111111 •.1 , ._1 1 - 1 1. 1 1 • • - • 1 1 - - 1 1 • - . i - . • . 1 . 1 1 r.1 - 1 - . 11 - 1 • - . - LI - 1 I ' : 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • � 1 • ! • I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I T 1 � 1 I i t 1 1 I I 1 • 1 1 1 ..• - '1 ITIM M720 rmm' ITr11 \/ ' •• 1! 1 �1• 1 • 1 ' . - llll - 11 • 11 1 11 ' 1.' - 11 - 1 1/ . • LK.11 11 • - • - ••'1 1 • • ,1 - r 1 - 1 awams 1 - U : • 4 • 1 . -1 1 / 1 1 . - . • 1 - •' •! 1 1 " 1. . : 1 . r • 1 1 I' ' - • 1 Ic 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 ham.wbirh bears ApMIs 4 any nggrieved party on the issuance of a shoreline p,__..it enforcement 9=11y and aMeals b_v, local government on Ecology annroval_ of master nroara*ns.rules re!la�ssonidelines or designations under the SMA 180* and WAC 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 een River is the only waterway that qualifies as a afe-shorelines of statewide significance. Sign means any structure device letter figure character.Ugster_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. However, a sign shall not include the followin2: 1 Official notices authorized by a court,public body or public officer. 2. Direction warning or information sign authorized by federal. state, or municipal authority, 3 The official flag emblem or insignia of a government. school or religious group or agency. 4 A memorial 121aque or tablet. or cornerstones indicating the name of a buildin„ and date of construction when cut or carved into any m s nry surface or when made of bronze or other incombustible parr_ of the building or structure. Sigas. AdveFfisio im W , a business, �:... . ...e.. - e, e 16 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 2.0—Definitions 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program ing fa ily Residence(SM A detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family iminding those structures and developments within a contigmous ownershillwhich are a normal appurtenance(WAC 173-27- 040(2g1�. 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. Sian "Shall" indicates a mandate: the particular action must be done. SMA see Shoreline Management Act SMP see Shoreline Master Program Soil Bioengineering An applied science that combines structure biological and ecological_ concepts to construct ]iving 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 putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes, including garbage, rubbish. ashes. industrial wastes. wood wastes and sort_yard wastes associated with commercial logging activities swill demolition and construction wastes abandoned vehicles and parts of vehicles household appliances and other discarded commodities. Solid waste does not include sewage dredge material or agricultural or other commercial logging wastes not specifically listed above. State Environmental Policy. Act . (SEPA1 PA requires state agencies local governments and other lead agencies to consider environmental factors when making most types of permit de Ily for development proposals of a significant scale As part of the SEPA process. EISs may be req ire .•to be prepared and public comments solicited. %..+ DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 2.0-Definitions 17 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program Stream A naturally occurring body of periodic or continuously flaming water where* al the mean annual flow is greater than twenty cubic feet lam+ second and b)*he water is=n Ained within a channel_. See also Channel. Structure That which is built or constructed; an nermanent or tempowLedifice 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. Subdivision A parcel of land divided into two or more parcels for the pumose of sale lease or conveyance. Substantial Development Any development of which the total cost or fair market value.whichever is higher. exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars(52500), 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 exertions are listed in Section 7.3 of Chanter 7• Administration See also Development anti Exemption. Truck Maneuvering Area An area of a site used by trucks for turning and backing or for access to loading/unloading areas. W 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 aTe 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 • Urban - River Resource (Green River). • Urban - Lake Residential(Lake Meridian),and • Urban - Stream Corridor (]dig Soos Creek) A shoreline designation under the Shoreline Management Act for areas of high intensity land use, including residential, commercial and industrial development. In the Cityof Kent. the shoreline environments include Urban - River Resource (Green River)`I lrhan - Lake Residential (Lake Meridian and Urban - Stream Corridor(Big Soos Creek) and reflect the City's 18 DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 2.0-Definitions 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program designation as"Urban"under the Growth Management Act (see Chapter 3 Shorelin Environments). 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 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-orienyd 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 project"means a public or private ptpject authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: l. A projeSt that involves less than ten (10)miles of streamreach in which less than twenty- fiv� .) bi yards of sand. ;avel or soil is removed imported disturbed or discharged. and in which no existing ve2dtation is removed except as m>_n_imally necessa~to facilitate additional plantings: DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 2.0—Definitions 19 12114198 • . 1 N • 1 t •.•' 1 I'1 1 67, d •,1 �1 , �A;" , .�^1=''e1 r;'ll 1 till 1 :• 1 r • 1 • - • . •a-11 '• 1..,-yl 1 1. 1MS. 11 .i • (•, y , . I • 1 1 1 L. 4. • 1 - r 1 11 ./ 1 1 Is 11.: • -111 r 1 • 1 y 1 ' 1 I , •11 ! .• 1 IN 1 - dN - � r l• i r l 11 l 1 .!.Y 'YI -.1 1 t1., l) 1 t -=1 , ,p ".�i f 1`J t-.+11 • • (�1 11r�1 1/ -11 • 11 vY./ • , • , :.1 • AI1 : 1 1. 1 � I,�f, (..,• 1( : , - . - 1 - - 1 • 1174717M. (• / 1 L,1 I : 1 YII I l •: A.-+ t I • I r ' • -1l 1. Il.• 11 1 - • al 1 IT01.I1 -s Owlll I I w", - 1/1 1 =i 1 i •.. I , • �• ..r.• 1 • N li • 1 1 . •. d 11h • 1 1 . a I K • I , 1 Ii.!: 1+ : . : 1 1 -1 J:+..., •I �.,<,,1I-,1 . ,, t.y• (111 yl • 1 I / 1 1 - � y• . N11 =11 • .., IV 1. � yc : Vn.-'11 • ♦ " lir'. � ... , t .-n 1 ra-i•: llll dl t s •.1 r•I 1.•Mril Il r: 1 i • ./ I 1 7o1F&M—MIT 1 1 9 • 1!Il • 1 , • • 1 .�1\ • t t Y+• y , ,.l• / r _ ..,...Y Nl•,,'Ae -!, I! it , y11 -11 : A • 1 11 (`R- • • I. • 1 - , !�,-7C 1 • I i (� , •11 l- y(..: 1 , 1 • .,i.,. 'I „ul -�/ r I V MT 77 t Y• I r, kt I - 1 • - • • J • Y,( r 11 YI r 11 •JII �/ • 1. 1 '..• t-•: • -jF.1 -, 1 1 t I -- • ( - • I 41494 MWINVOt - I • • ,* l t ,j1MFTM - 1 • 111 il. : I 1 11 • 11 • -i - • • • I • I I / - ..I ITS • • 1 • I • - I• ._� . II 1 1• • I : - - r 1 • 11 1 . 1 II - 1 1 1 • If 11 - t • p • . . I . I • 1 L• •. - 1 1 - y ., 1 I( - I - 111 • • 1 , I 1 1 1 • . - II - I • - •.1 1 - 1 1 - 1 • 1 . -• - • 1 ' • 1 Il • 1 • • • I ti l • ( I • II 1 • - I • - , l - ..( • 1 ' 1 • I - . 1 . 111 . 1 - • I • • 11 - I - . I • I • - . I • 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 en 'mnmant d Wgnations is to distinguish between the types of shorelines or segments of shorelines so that the various shoreline policies. allowed uses and use regulations can be tailored to fit the g jfic jgal shoreline conditions. Any development in the shoreline must be consistent with the environmental designation in which it is located. The origin State regulations for shoreline ma=program development recommendcd a classification system composed of four distinct environments: Natural, Conservancy, Rural, and Urban. More recently,State guid ins suggest that thr.e catgories may be too broad, and that more •specific subcategories can be adapted to tailor the environment designation to specific shorelines In addition the designations should more aQ =ly reflect the shoreline's desienation under local growth management planning-particularly with regard to whether the area is designated "Urban" or"Rural." The Kent Master program was originally developed and adgMe t in 1972- and the shoreline environment designations were amended in 1978 and 1980 Following the original_ state guidelines Kent designated shoreline environments of Conservancy-Rural and Urban. In light of the recent legislative efforts to bridge the regulatoly gap between the Shorei_ine Management Act and the Growth Management Act (GMA), e City of Kent. as an urban area under the GMA has re-evaluated its shoreline designations, If n79 aFid t non in aesefa cc with . . t - t :a .: .. Ya,�ft� at'ivrciixic-rrcI-ASS iiOd G8fx6@ ", R ! a fid T rb i f50e FROP---r a e\ 3.1 GONSE V A NCV ENVIRONMENT Note? This section has been deleted in its entirety 3.2 RI UIR A i 7`N ARONMENT Note This section has been deleted in its entirety. `4%.e DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 3-Shoreline Environments 1 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 2 2 TTDR AX R4AZTRQNA4E TT Urbann Environment WAC 173-16-040(4)(b)(iv)of the Shoreline Mauagement Act provides ineludes the following guidance regarding the Urban Environment: The objective of the urban environment is to enure 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 Creek shorelines are located within an urban area as defined under the Growth Management Act and Kent's Comprehensive Plan- However, the biophysical nature of the shorelines and the surrounding development pattern of each are significantly different, In order to establish shoreline environments which reflect the overall urban setting while acknowledging the different shoreline chsl=eristira Kent has classified the Green River shoreline as Urban River Resource the Lake Meridian shoreline as Urban - Lake Residential and the Big Coos Creek shoreline as Urban Stream Corridor The Kent shoreline Jurisdiction is shown on maps ApFendix A. 2 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 3-Shoreline Environments 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program `✓' 3.1 URBAN- RIVER RESOURCE Pose: The Green River shoreline is an important binloaical_ph)WC l and aesthetic public resource. Under the Shoreline M napement Act_ the Green River is also classified as a "Shoreline of Statewide Significance."-, The RWVWe of the Urban-River Rgg=e environment is to r ccoanize the river corridor as a focal lWint for public recnation�while at the same time preservingnnen space,preserving and enhancing f>gh and wildlife hiL_ meserving historic and cultural sites and providing for water-dependent or water-related uses. Designation Criteria: Areas to be designated I Jrban - 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 physical public access to the shoreline should be required for any new development within the shoreline ? Aesthetic considerations should be actively promoted by means such as sign control. .✓ development siting, screening and rchitectural standards and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. 3 Acquisition 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 Purpose The Lake Meridian shoreline lies within an estahlishcd,pnriarllysingle-family residential neighborhood The pose of the Urban - Lake Residential designation is to maintain the character of the existing residential neighborhood while preserving-and enhancing fish and wildlife habitat and continuing to public access to the Lake. Designation Criteria: Areas to be designated Urban - Lake Residential meet the following cnteria: A The shoreline is located along Lake Meridian within the Cijy of Kent. DRAFT—Kent SMP.Section 3-Shoreline Environments 3 12114198 : :� - 1 • 1 81 � [I 1 I 1. - I- 1. .", t 7 . � , I ..`[ 1 I•_;1 1 1 • - I 1 11 91 I • [ _1 - • • 11 To . - • 1 Y _1t .I 1 t 1; -v -i 1 • t 1 r 1 - 1 • 1 • 1 r.Ilttl I,I,t • I 1 1 1..t I • 1 . x .. tD 1 I . _t \ -►. -� • -11 •�1 • 1 11) r l�,r [_,r 1 tJH / r .• el re,a 1 •;r..! . 1 1 ' t - 1 • 1 " . - • 11 • 1 -1 .1 11 1 < Y 1 •I 1 t - 1.' 1 t� dl I'6b! !1 dl ' • - • 1 •- 1 • 11 � 1 -111 a1 • 1 1 / l• 111 �1 1 1 11 • 1 \ 1 [ 1 1 . 1 • •1 • •• '1- r • - 1 - % 1 11 7@ t . / 1 • . •J : I I I 1 11 1 1 ..t•• - • 1 - a• 1 !1'.' 11 1 [/ 1 t dl / V+p 1e .,1{ 1 •1l+ . i r it 'J 1 1 1 - _ - 11 I • 1 - -11 • 1 el -11 ! / 1 ' t• ./ 1 i ! ! e r d• ' •.+i IIN _ • 1 - 1. 1 r' -11 [• 1 !1 -!1 Lt rt 1 tTMI I • 1 1 1 - r Iln - 1 - al - •_1 • . -,1 1 - I • 1 dl. 1 `itl • t '.^t• •'1 1 It Iy all 1 1 I I : • 1 • VI • I . 1 a 11 • Ip1 • 11 -1 i [ • 1 ' IT \- / - a • 11 - 1 1 1 11 r - 11 I N 1 1 1 1 1 11 - 1 1 • 1 - � - 1 . 1 . • 74MWiTalWiTs MTV I tql.Wonn 1 r,77M o MM 1-L"AFTCOWT, I • enl r dl • 1 - 1 1 1 1 • 1/ 1 1 1 • t 1 1 t 1 ' • :. 1 • 11 . 1 1 • 1 I. ' • • r •. t1 I I 1 1 • C ! 1,1. ,> •.. opt: ,I 11P 1 a 1 • [a • 1 a 1 ' 1 1 1 1 r � -111 ! I - 1 1 11 yl -1 t,- •. .;1 '.1 1 - 41 - 1 / 1 p 1 , 1 - • t / 1 e •J 1 al 1 •.1 1 • - 1 C.: . tl 1 t y1 . 1 1 . • t I _ 1 - , 1 • , 1 I - t • I 1 - • t 1 . - . 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 t.program:(a)-Shoreline Use;(b) Economic Development;(e)Public Access;(}Recreation;(e)Circulation;(0 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 addressiog flood protection along the Green River. As a result of regrul^ ory reform legislation the goals and;g icier of the shoreline matter progt rn are to be integrated into the local corm+rehmive plan. This chanter of the master program will.therefore become the"Shoreline Element"of the Kent Comn rehensive Plan _ Currently. that plan contains the five "elements"originally mQuT by the Growth Management Act (L=d Use.Housing. Capital Facilities, TranapgrLtion and Utilities) and four optional elements (Community Design,Human Services Parks and Economic Development). _ OVERALL SHORELINE GOAL: To protect sad enhance tea shorelines of the City of Kent and its Urban Growth Area. 4.1 SHORELINE USE (Note: This was previously Section 4.5) This is-an-element€er-considersing: 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 . Uses hRFeBOB a OF whieh may adversely ^free. the shoreline, should be mimmized-a The Green River is designated a"Shoreliim 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 Incas 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 long-term over short-terms bendit: d. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines: e. Increase nn lic access to Mbliicly 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. Allo• only use and activities within the Grp RiM shoreline that are watc*-dependent. water cujoy ent water-oriented.v&-re`:-or othww^m r&=atible with the natural environment and the"Urban -River Resource"deli nation. (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 of previous Objective 3 and Policies I and 2) 4. Discourage uUses 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 ecological value and fimction as a result ofpast activities or catastrophic events. 6. Support applications for current use taxation for those agricultural and open space uses along the shoreline through Chapter 84.34 RCW. Avionsad .a.Awd h_ e__ _to _el,._.to (Previous Objective 4_ Poliev 1) (Previous Objective 4) 2 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Eiernents 12114188 Kent Shoreline Master Program GOAL 2 : Uses allowed within the LakLhjCddjARAweHae govironment shall b resMential. recreational and canUkaftle with the n2tur2l Pironment 2nd the"Urban :,0.;. : t design2tio I • 1 Locate and • .. 71 new and in fill 1 ill iA /,'11 - . /ill dt. • maintain the character and nature of the existing residential neighborhood, 2. New residential . • Irt t but not including individual single-familydwellingL should Inovide joint use community or public T • the shoreline where- - possible, 3. Discouran usesand• 1 uniQue or fiagile areasunlessmeasures can • - satisfactorily undertaken to mitigate all related adverse i - wAL 4. Encourage restoration of shoreline areas that have be=da"ed or diminished in ecological va - and 1 I • 1 as a result •f past activitiesor cataawpWcevents 5. Maintain 1 1 t • physical public access to the lake shoreline, GOAL 3: Uses allowed witkin the Bea Soos Creek iharAine shall be low densi residentiaL recreational, and open space uses 1 I I N 1 1 with the natural environment and the UrbanStream Corridor 1 ' 1 1 1 1 • 1 I Locate, desian and maintain new residential development to promote a stable residential 1 " • 1 •• 1 • I New residential development should provide, where possible- joint-use community or public access • the shoreline if compatible1 the natural 1 • 1 11 1 3. Discourage uses and activities in uniQue or fragrile areas unlessmeasures t 1satisfactorily undertaken to mitigate all related adverse impacts, 4. Encourage restoration of shoreline areas that have been de"ed or diminished in ecological value and function as a result of past activities or catastrophic event 5. Maintain visual and physical access to the shoreline, GOAL 4Agrecultural uses,whHeregardedunder 1 1 • I Management AcL are supported 1the • 1 Kent plan 11 the1 1 1 master program 1 1 maintaini"is land where applicable, DRAFr—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements Kent Shoreline Master Program Policies: (moved from existing section 6.1) 1 Agricultural lands should be protected from incompatible patterns of development. 2 The scenic beauty of natural shorelines as well as the historic value of mmy rural 'gricultural la_nda;mor should be protected in agdcultn-rai development 3. The creation of new agricultural lands by dildng. draining of wetlands should be prohibited. 4.2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Previously Section 4.1) Economic development refers to develo ent that provides a service Produces a good retails a commodity. or en—— other use or activity for the gumose o�g financial gain. For the City of Kent Economic Development applies only to the t^reen River shoreline. GOAL 1: Development of the Green River shoreline should be limited to uses ox activities which are water-depsndant,water-enjoym u - water-oriented,dad afe 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 any development along lhis shoreline. 1). Ensure that planning,yo�j�and non rGg 1L alm Marams_govening lands within and adjacent to the shoreline allow environmentally sensitive recreational open apace uses alone the shoreline. 3. Support environmentally sensitive agricultural uses along the shoreline in applicable zones. 4 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline S wWts 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program GOAL 2: Permit development of the Green River 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 Shereline-shoreline developments should be-designed-to enhance scenic views. 2. import shoreline enhancement and restoration in areas of new development and redevelopment. 3. Locate w-Water-dependent and water-related economic development should 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. elustef the water- dependent peftiens of develermwA along the Sher-eliffe. These P814iB that are not Water- dependent should be 196fited apiand. 65. Design a_Al_1_ economic development should be 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 (including land division) with the exception of the following: a. One- and two-family (duplex) dwelling units; or b. Agricultural/ranching activities: or c Where deemed inappropriate due to health safety and environmental concerns. Administratively off-site public access should be substituted for on-site public access only where water-dependent uses and sensitive areas make public access elements physically infeasible. ! 7.. Permit over-water structures only when in the public interest and when such a structure includes public access. DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 5 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program (Previous Objective 2, Policy 1) 9$. 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 provide a con rd Bated aystm of diverse physical and visual public access to the City shorelines. Policies: 1. Along the Green River. the City and/or other government agencies whom€easibe should acquire and develop property to provide public access to the water's edge at a minimum interval 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 watees edge where feasible and where compatible with the natural shoreline environment, 4. Public access to and along the water's edge should be compatible with the natural shoreline environment. 5. Design and screen aAccess points to create the minimum objectionable impact on the adjoining property. 6. Adequately maintain all public access areas and facilities. 7. Preserve and enhance views of the shoreline and water from public areas 8. The profile of water-ftendant or water related structures should be as low as feasible in order to minimize visual impact on the shoreline .r 8 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 9. Site buildings and structures along the shoreline in such a manner that visual_ access is preserved. 10. The i should minimize public access to uniQue or fragile aces. 11. Design and landscape ga&inu and/or recrea*+on facilities for shoreline activities to provide adeQu_ate Vmic dan siccesg to the shoreline and to minimize adverse impacts to adjacent properties and the nafi�ral environment. 12. Encourage new residential development mQuiring a Substantial Development Permit(i.e._ including subdivisions but excluding individual sing -f mi y homes) to nmvide common shoreline Men space. 13. The CiJy should actively sup= 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: Design development adjacent to private property skeuldbe-des}gRed-so as to screen and protect against intrusions from the public activities. (Previously Objective 4) Policy: w 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 an element for-assessg5i*g the location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals and other public facilities and seffelatin correlates those facilities with the shoreline use elements. GOAL 1: Provide safe. reasonable and adequate circuLtion systems to shorelines where such systems will have the least gMible adverse effect on the natural environment and recreational opportunities. DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0.Shoreline Elements 7 12/14/98 Kent Shoreline Master Program Policies: 1. The City should encourage public transportation to access shoreline recreation areas. (Combination ofprevious Objective 1 and Policy 1) 2. Restrict m?Aotor_vehicle traffic sheold he resuiete&to existing two-lane roadways, except for limited bridge crossings for major freeways-across Lhe *MC River: 3. Along the Green River, plan and design shoreline roadways sheoid be piamed and developed as scenic boulevards for slow-moving traffic and w ich provide fist F public access to the shoreline. 4. In order to reduce unnnecessM traffic the shoreline mlan for, or require. .a4lternative access routes located on the upland side of a nonwater-oriented, along-the Mkerekne: . 5. Along the Green River,plan design. and reroute through traffic sMuld-be-plated; 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 minimise imYnacts 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. Sgpgrate the The-trail system sheuid-be separated from the roadway. 3. Connect the The-trail system sheuid have ewmee6eas to other trails in the region. 4. j inLaAccess points to and along the shorelines sheeld be lamed by a system of trails. 5. To assist in developing a trails system, offer incentives to property owners in exchange for larger setbacks, easements or other benefits to a trail system. 8 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 6. Include the 44e 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. Design nPrivate roads and developments sheald-be desi o avoid conflict with, or adverse impacts on, the trail system. 9. Design the 44wtrail system slue 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 public access to the Big Soos Creek shoreline where compatible with the natural environment. Policies: 1. Support extension of the non-motorized Big Soos Creek Trail system. 2. Require new development a 'scent to Big Soos Creek to=vide common open 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. DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 9 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 32. npci a„ and locate rPcecreational facilities to facilitate access by public transportation. 91. provide5ishing areas ske>dd be-pmyide&through City or State acquisition of property. 91 The Cily encouragm he 4ke 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 City encourages the:Awuse of shoreline street ends and publicly owned lands for public access and development of recreational opportunities when suitable parking facilities are available . 11. The City encourrageearguisitio s. for open gpme that Fr mially sensitive „rei provide wildlife habitat and offer, S%Ka it'es for education and interpretation s44ts- -- within the shoreline jurisdiction. GOAL-12: Public recreation opportunities along the Gran River should be maximized by development of a regional riverfront pad syggm and greenbelt/Wen space systems. 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. Fns=that designated sections of the riverfront sheo414)e-Kgavailable to the public for recreation. This may include City, County, State and privately-owned recreational facilities open to the public. 3. Design sAny public development adjacent to private property should be designed-to protect the rights and privacy of the private property owners. 4. Provide aA trail system should be pFevi along the entire shoreline. 5. Acquire and dedicate as public recreation sites theT-he areas between the waterline and setback levee , 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. 10 DAAFr—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program GOAL 32: Maintain and enhance the existing Lake Meridian Park. r✓ Policy: 1. Provide diverse recreational =ortunities compatible with the natural environment GOAL 4.3: 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 along Lake Meridian, 3. Ensure proper use and adequate maintenance of all boat launches. GOAL 54: Along the Green River. ISencourage private water-oriented recreational development which is open to the public in areas located outside the public park areas. Policy: 1. Encourage nNonmotorized recreational boating facilities, should be epeeufaged as long as they are compatible with other uses and the natural environment. GOAL 65. Provide recreational opportunities along Big Coos Creek. Policy: 1. Include a public non motorized trail connecting any public access points in rRecreational facilities developed in the shoreline jurisdiction 4.6 CONSERVATION This is an element for the preservation of the natural shoreline resources, md-considering 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 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program GOAL 1: Identify, prewxye md restore the sutural resources of the " shoreline su& m wild ilfahety arc wetlands. aches. natural vet to _u- and other fradk siaateute- (Combination of previous Goal and Objective 1) Policies: 1. Protect and restore aAauatic habitats, spawning grounds,wildlife habitats and wetlands. . (Combination ofprevious Policies 1,2, and 3) 2. Avoid or minimize s8tream or lake bed disturbance,should be " aidod " zed 3. Along the Green River, slope any proposed new addk4omkkiverbank protection (wet side) sheald be sleped-to allow escapement of fish after high water. 4. Prohibit development in unique or fragile areas. GOAL 2: Preserve 1hrafeaaescenic 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. Wevent the eutting e preserve existing trees and natural vegetation along the Green River or Big Soos Creek unless necessary for public safety or public access,-BRd-levee maintenance. 5. Discourage the use of building materials which have sis+ificant adverse nhys_^cal or chemical effects on water quality_vegetation. fish and wildlife in or near the water. 12 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elerr ants 12114198 • • - ! JI • ! Ir < 1 . 11 , , INC1 t t—,'D Wfflfflflole 1 • '� . . 1 1 - it i 1 11e• . 711 IT/ •. i I, a 17717 1111 .l;I �e+ • .• 1.: , - • i - 11 / . - 1 • , :) e • 1e a •a : e 1 y I -� • r • I 777oTM, 11 • 1 !NOT-11MMI, WIGUaror.Mewrownrl, 11 • 1 .,1 • - 1 •�44 • ell - 1 • li 1 1.: - 1 • 11 / :, • 1 11 / , . 11 11.•1 If ..11 1 - 1 - _ e • 1 - • y1. ArJ :.. e 1 11 / 1 + 1.• a 11 - 1 11 - 1 • 1 1 f ♦ e 1 - : Ile • .•.. • 1 4 1 - =1F 1 - ♦ .1 1 J • 1 - • I - ► - I - p / - F :• a e..yl • 1 -.=11 1 f. f ' e . el e e 1 • ,. m 1 e 1 - R MTMIM• - i •. I • r 1 . e e - 1 e - ll. • 1 • • • e 1 - - r- • • < 11• 1 IM5,11IFTOT.7rorro 1. 1 - 1 • - , - • /♦e r e - • . 1 . .. 4511,111. • rll - - 11 - 1 - 11 • - 1 - • • ot-mor.tol 1 • e r • 177 rl - 1 1 • •• , 1. �1 - - I • 1 . UMM7TIMs , 1 - - I • - • 1 • • e I I - _ 1 - - .e e - 1 .. • - 1 - e - - • / -lI11RT • 1 -alsollols,a• • lzw I - - e1 - - 1 1 - I • . • -• . r. 1 • i - 111 - 1 - • .. 1• • ! 1. • 1 1 • 1 1 - - • - • • 1 1 • �• 11 1 ell - 1 •- B • 1 • • , ! 1 � - •.! 1 - -• 1 - - •.1 1. 11 L e • 1 Kent Shoreline Master Program 10 The City of Kent encourager ^^teei bon ^f shoreline restoration and remediation incentive Marama 4 rjb=g=s couW identif�+if in a L*rac and under certain circumstances the aet Wk10=,hire' in his 1L---�'x jam==owncould be reduced In exchange for developer agreements to provide restoration of the shoreline. 4.7 HISTORICAL/CULTURAL GOAL 1: sigaillemnee developmat and lawa kurul. and educational sites, (Combination of previous Goal, Objectives 1 and 2) Policies: 1. Designate acai*i,ire- a =.and restore s9horeline areas having archaeological,historical, cultural, educational or scientific value , ,r-estafed. 2. Provide a,4ccess to historic and cultural sites to the general public, when consistent with the protection of the sites. 3. Encourage nPublic and private cooperation sheold be BReBUFaged in site preservation and protection. 4. Provide ilnfonnation on historic and cultural cites in the form of signs or other interpretation of historic and cultural features should-be pfe* when consistent with the protection of the features. $. Encourage educational prQje tc s and programs that foster a ; a_e ter appreciation of the importance of shoreline management environmental conservation, and shoreline history GOAL 2: Prevent the destruction of features of potential archaeological, historical, cultural and educational significance. Policies: 1. The City may restrict the development of suspected significant sites and newly discovered sites€oF up te-twe fnepAhs for a period of time so that their significance can be determined. 2. To ensure their preservation and protection, significant sites should be a high priority for acquisition by the city or oilier auprophate entity. 14 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program r✓ 4.8 FLOOD CONTROL This is an element for the location and design of flood control works along the Green River shoreline. GOAL 1: Ensure future flood control works are in the public benefit. Policies: 1. Ensure that all A-flood control project proposals in Kent e-mg-based on a thorough analysis of the potential impacts on the shoreline;and an examination of alternative measures, for example,t) g_control or reduction of surface water runoff. 2. Require that flood control works are designed for multiple uses. 3. The City shall acgl ii•re nPublic access to the flood control works sheald be eequimd-prior to construction. 4. Desiga5lood control projects shetild-bedesigned-to maximize open space elements which are not subject to extensive flood damage, such as parks and agriculture. �.✓ 5. Desj$n_fFlood control projects should be designed-to provide diverse public recreational opportunities, such as fishing, swimming, boating, birdwatching, viewing, etc. 6. Design and manage Blood control works to avoid or minimize-negative impacts, and enhance and restore the natural environment and wildlife habitat. 7. Design, landscape and plant Mood control projects should be designed, landseaped an Ito maximize a natural shoreline appearance, fish and wildlife habitat values, public access, and public recreation. 8. Provide dike setbacks at favorable locations that promote bank stabilization, restoration of natural habitat and larger river level access parks. (from Recreation, Objective 2, Policy 2) GOAL 2: Ensure that shoreline stabilization activities conducted for flood control and/or habitat restoration urnoses are in the public benefit and protective of the overall river corridor environment. 1. Shoreline stabilization shall not be used to create new lands. DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 15 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program �. Permit shoreline stabilization only when it has been drreenstrated that Shoreline .. abili7ati^^ ^a-ssary for the protection of legally estab is-hed structures and public 1�•ovements. . Regyge that all Sbgrefine moaifi a+ion activities be in gMEM of a permitted shoreline use that is in conformance with the provisions of this master=szrmn unless it can hc demonstrated that such activities are necessary and in IbLoublic interest 4Place shoreline bill t' solutions develcgmd to EspI a exi 'ng shoreline stabilization alongthe me al=^�-merit as thi,shorehne stabilization beingreplaced. ui�ua - however these maybe placed watenvard directly huttina the old structure. in cases where removal of the old structure would result in canstnirtion problems or severe emiroILmental imparts as determined by the ility of Kgnt. 5. Shoreline Stabilization shall not sigp ificantly interfere with normal surface and/or subsurface drainage into the water body. 6. Design shoreline stabilization so lbal it does not constitute a hazard to navigation no substantially interfere with visual access to the water. 7. Desien shoreline stabilization to not create a need for shoreline stabilization elsewhere, $, RReQuire professional design of shoreline stabilization works as approved by the City. 16 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 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 and Environment Designations 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*&descending 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 Green River shoreline, 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, biology.eseafiegmphy, 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 diversily of vegetation 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 SMP:Section 5.0-General Performance 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 ..s 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 limi J to bank substrate. soils t+,=a h &ands and eravel bars should be left undisturbed by_shoreline develop, 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 shenline-eFeas the Green River, providing linear access along the river shoreline_ and to develo ed upland Aug. 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: e..r' 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 l. 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 im constituting an emergency as defined in R W 90,58,030 necessitate rapid action to retrieve or preserve arrt;fanrc_ nr data ;ri,N,r;ae,; above. the ---._.nroe may be ex empted from the permit requirement of these regulations, The City shall notify the State Derlartment of Ecology the State Attorney Cal s Office. and the State Historic Preservation Offic a waiver in a timely manner DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section S.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 I Jrbm -Riva JL=urce wd I Jrb n - Stream Corridor environments, clearina and.g<ging within dC8+w W setback areasis prahibited unless 111 ei�• associated with M blic recreation activities restorafign and enhancement of natural v_e,getation or wildlife and anunbc Abitat_i tility con_•trunfion or required landscaping, 2. unless exempted by the S , 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. RolsanW Q= 6211 be main wined such that within three-years the vegetation is fully mestaWtl);shed 3. No cutting, damage, or removal of trees over few(4) ixx_ f61 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 mms4--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 gJWLprovide for the replacement and maintenance of any trees removed. The developer may be required to replace trees at a ratio greater than 1:1 feEie 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 significant placement of materials from off-site (other than surcharge or pre-load) or substantial Fe -ekaisine of dry upland shell be considered landfill and shall also comply with the landfill provisions container) in this 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 12114 98 Kent Shoreline Master Program 3. The release of oil, chemicals. or ontn 12M or into the water is prohibited. Equigment used in association with snob materials shall be mAiW&ined in safe `- wd leak-proof condition. If there is evide=of ledow the _further use of such cQui=ent shall be sus=ded until the deficiency has been satisfactorily corrected. 4. All shoreline uses and activities shall use Best Ma agement Practices (BMPs)to minimize any increase in surface 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 single-family lots. the application of fertilizers,herbicides and pesticides shall be prohibited within one hundred(100) feet landward of the dOr inary High Water Mack (OHWM). Fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides shall not be applied or allowed to directly enter water bodies or wetlands unless a=ved for such use b aV ppmpriate agencies (U.S. Departmot of Agriculture.tuire. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington joartment of Ecology). 7. All shoreline uses and activities shall be located, designed_ constructed and managed to minimize interference with beneficial shoreline processes such as water circulation. sand and travel 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. �. Development located in, or dual adversely affecting sensitive areas, including marches, be , wetlands fish and wildlife habitats, migratory routes, spawning areas, seeHie :;tas, 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 ■1 - • 1 - 11 1 1 1 I .'11 1 .r.. 1 ., I;E• 1. •11 ..•Ertl1..11 1 li• 1 1 1 - , q : 1.1 1 1 1 .' �. .,HI • . 1.- .,13 1. ".1 -tll ( • -r• : 1 1 1 11 • 1 IY ql 1 1 :.1 .11 / � 1 1 • . •. ..r_ r �� •. I 1 -�11 • . I . . (oil klwlllwi�1 . 1IRM. 1 1 . n .. c ♦�1 1 MT" r.T.TrTM � - rer-MoMMMi1 I • : 1 : _ I a WTOVATTAR 1 11 V -./ •.- 1 . . 1 11 111 S Y �. Kent Shoreline Master Program a✓ wellamb, 19991 1 values efthe wetlands! lsed. will,Iii addWea te mapping the wetleads wid edges,the edges shall be fawked in in the €er—wetletidsi N... €eFiilizem. 9. knpieFaentatien of mitigatien plans. City staff sheW talEe any steps nesessaFy te efistife that InitigWie"Plans afe flaNy ifnpiemented. Sush steps fney ifiehide, bu! aFe net limited to, wity that will ensure implemm—watieffl; e-fake mitigation pj&aj9 , plan approval, eta+ DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 5.0-General Performance Standards 7 1214198 u 1 ► . ► 1 ;I 1 . . � I I 1 \ 11 e 1 V 1.eFiMI.7.^.e ' 9,1, . 1 -frir it 1 = /11 .,/ . 11 \ / a 1 ..Z! 11 • 1 - lil .�- I .: / 11 • 1 e. a • 11 It 51 -•,i�tV,.�. 7 ' 1 • 1 to • 1 • 11 1 1 1 e e U n • - n eol e 1 '. a 1 i a �e IrYI n e I e ••,-ll : • e e / e TM,. - c L.a -fI I ' ' • - IM. 11 • 1 e I e ./ 1 1 ;1 e t 1 1 . dl 1 I. L1: e,e 1 • 11 �e 1 11 .-e • e . II 1 ' , t- • ..ef. el . 1 e d % he ; -. e • I -f..e. I ' . 1 e l It, •1 1 -e • 1• 1 e 1 1 • y1F t 1 1 la.:lll .11 a y: ..e e1 'J f' ell • /• • • 1• a -11 e - 1 e • • 1 I • • I • 1 1 1 Ye.-. �e : 1 • • 1 ' e -llye • e • / e - 11 • 1 e 1 . e 1 " - • 11 . I • h.=n , 1 e e 1 - e•• I • : -i i '. 1 e • - 1 ' . 1 • 1 1 1 l • • 1+• 1. i • C 1 R : - e l• a•. 11 • / - ► • ♦ 1 \/ • e 1 1 I•• • .. I e 1 / rK I � ' .• F l 1 - - 1 � • � • + 11 1 � 1 • • 1 • - 1 4 1 1 1 � 1 I • 1 11 I •Mn is 1 .• •MININT• 1 • -1l a P. 1 % ! 11 - I / 1 le • 1 • 11e 1 - - 11 1eM T r 1 11 O ITI MEW IT• 1 1 1.1 ee ,/ e r r 7svTM I � _ e •11 U ie . 1 • 1 1 � -1 I1e 11 f e 1 • •f. • / . 1/MIM11141SYMPFINOWTOF 1 / d dell 1 e 1 e \/ e , !193LI 10 1 1 Ile 11 1 l e ll l • • 1 1 •,/ , Ii r n r f < u e • e 1 I/ • f / / .. /_ .1 % 1 / y 1 e I/ 1 ! ! I , u .. Ile : • 1 yl 1 eD % 1 e 1 11 11 • 1 • + •/I 1 1 - - I � . 1 1 1 - � 11 • 1 • -11 : ems. • 11 • 1 e - I " • a •_1 a 1� . . - . 1 1 • - t MA I 1 = . 1 : 1 e 1 1 e . IC• a - 1 • 1 - . I • " 1 1 •i• , I Mont 1 • 11 • 1 - 1 a .,L,r I , H-- tts e a, - 111 - , aaa fir.^,. H : Jt 1 • 1 • ,:r i. , . a Ilal a ya( - •• lT, e Y t 1 - ,`. . n t ,• r � • le Ce.: le • e It-..,1 : -3 1 e 1 11 " 11 a• C.. I J I ye:y • 11 • r e t1lVe e11 • 1 1 t laa-!1 � -1 � -1 f` 1 �.a Il e• • 1 • 1 • I . 1 -1 - • 1 -1 ye _ -!. + 9 1 :�1 , ".� 1 a : 1 11 1 1 - eY 1 • • 1 1 t ' 1 " " 7t t - y - t : i . i y 1 • • ail 17-11171.1764 1 a e 1 I ya �J IrM "• t : 1 11 1WTr. •.. • �!� + 11 atl Ce 1 aC e Mil 10211F.1 sit IT To r"IMIP 719:74173 Mors 7tl M", 411IM-1115METIMPIG 1 t . U �• • •_I _! - 1 1 ' I • a e / 1 a 1 t ,a.•, C -! i 1 • •. 1 1 1 - e ! a• : nn at r 1 „+ e W.IA r.I KM;/11e'r.1 to t 1 • l e - 1 ' 1 �7• .I 1 t: • a t a l 1 ' e 1 .•a , eaa �/i ♦ l /I II .� 1 : - ' • ! - p 111• 9 T.If M- . 1 - - 1 - I ..t iTM4 MMP MT-1 1/ - •- , 1 " 1 • 1 + 1 - MI �t • • , t t . 7V 1 e t.e•1 rl a.e u. • • e -1Cr.•.+ .•• " • ! r 1 1 • C 1 11 � t e9 11 rr 1 t,a tl t,l a t t 11 ./ 1 / 1 �. • 1_ . 11 -• 11 • • 1 • " 1 . • • • t I •. e e e - I • e a 1/ • I !!.. - ,1• 1 , t - • - • ! 11a1 • 1 •. . e1 MIPMM • e• 1 - 1 e • e - 1 • - . ! ! e 1! • ! e !! a . • ! x K - . I . . ! . �.. - I . • 1 - . - .. 11 11 9 • 1 • or.1411 1 • �• . flip Ms. 1 . 141 -• <.le le 1 • ! C • - 1 • 11 . 1 • Ie - - a . • 1 - 1 1 - y • 1 . ' � 1 e 11 1 • ,t - 1 • _ 1 a 11 • 1 e • 11 aR e 1 • N e • f, • . 1 "• 1 •_le l ' el . 1 1 " t + eJ I Rol I on, 1 ele me 1 • e111 1 • • ' 11 • ! 1 • 1 - • • 1 ' • 1 t • ! - Ir - 1 - . 1 • e • - a - 1 • 1 - . - - . . 1 �I - + • - 1 • - 1 • + aF - i � II.UI 1 'te : .// 1 ' 1 - 1 1 - • N ,/ I yl«.: V4.11.11 1 1 I - • x i.. '..I aT, N 1 • 1 1 ' 1 1 111 : i 11 .1 I Iyt.9 / • / • 1 ! 1..�:. il,a! Y 1 / 1. Ill• . l/1 - - 1 1 1 1-11 aIr al 11 / 1 / I 1 • • 1 • • 1 •UTT 1 - 4Y " • r l 1 e 1 • . .�F. : I • I •„ 11 •. 1 - �1 -• 1 11 I1. - • 1n ,.11a 1 :. el , n 1111 . • • ' " • el 1 e • 9 II : 1 - 1 W + a1 -.+ \/1 - • a • 1 ' 11 C .I 1 1 - • e -r 1 ' • 1 • • 1 • e. 1 • • 1 . • .7, • a 1 11 II 7 I 1.e : le • 1 - 1.1 1 0,1 • e :. 1 . 1 1 • 1 1 Lei i •i 19 - 11 t 11 '. ui,•1 7 / •1 .• • �: al 1 - Ill 15,/ , 1 'Tk,i 64 el--Ksl 0lily, • 1 ' 1 -� / IT,(aslll • l le e 1 it so 1• al 11 . . . i 1 1 r + -,.i a1' '1 • ♦ al : 1 11 • 1 c.i - 11 1 • - 1 l 1 11 1.-.• 11 % a1 • 1 1 1 1 1 . 11 • -1• 1 . 1 • t1 • 1 1 } - 1 1. 1 - 211 1 . 11 - 1 • 1 -! 11 =11 1 - + - 1 + 1 • • 1 - • 0101 M no W I 14 Nv NIM_1 .11 1 • 1 . : • • 11 1 a1 • . . 1 1 • 1 1 . 1 . e • 1 - 11 1 . 11 - 1 1 • 111 . 11 - 1 -i a I—vim a 9TWIZITZI • r k• • - 1 - e I 6=11 we T. 1 MY I M 1 .• 1 I 1 611 1 - le sell 1 1 ' • 1 ' • .• • 1 1 . • • 1.+ • r �I 11 • 1 . - 1 - - • 1 - 1 1 ' Ile 1 • - 1 II attffl ► - 1 - \ + 11 + 1 11 • e - • . -,+ 1 Ie 11 1 1 + • N + - • 1 e • •11 - 1 Kent Shoreline Master Program a. An alternative atimment is not feasible: b. TheprrQiect is located and desimed to minmmzZ&its imnactc on the environment: C. Adverse impacts caused by the Froi,ect are miggliately mitigated- and d. Any landfill is located landward of the ordLaaygh watermark. e. Notwithstanding Reggl_Won F of this sectiog when n�1ingy in-water utilities. the installer should reestablish the W=stnw6on elevation and contour of Lhe lake or strewn bed. Placement of All materials sba11 be conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts on the environment and f. The facilily is in the public interest. 8. Dredging which will adversely affect habitat used bysaimonidg for migration corridors. readng, feeding and refuge shall be allowed only w m the proponent obtains a conditional use pea—wit and demonstrates that all of the following conditions are met: a. The dredging is for a water-dependent use: b. An altemative to dredging or au alternative dredging location is not feasible: %%We, C. The dredging activities are designed to minimize impacts on the environment: d. The dredging project is in the public interest: and e. If the project will create significant unavoidable adverse impacts on habitat, the impacts are mitigated by creating in-kind replacement habitat near the prpiect. Where in kind mitigation is not feasible rehabilitation of degraded habitat may be required as a substitute 9. Dredging and removal of bed materials below the OHWM is prohibited within salmonid �pawnings r�ra� 10. Permanent lake bed or stream channel modifications and realignments are prohibited within salmonid habitats except when the proposed modifications or realignments are part of a fish habitat restoration or enhancement Miiect which has been reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife=United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Army Corps of Engineers. 1 l. The removal of aQuatic and riparian vegetation within or adjacent to sa lmonid habitat shall be minimized Areas of disturbed earth shall be revegetated as soon as possible DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 5.0-General Performance Standards l i 1214198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 12. constructed to mi mize scouring or other disturbance of s llmonid ap Wrying beds. 5.8 PUBLIC ACCESS 1. For all shoreline subgUtial_development within the Urban -River Resource Green endren_ment if a.F„t,t;c access easement h�not akaadv_hem amrated for the 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 enviromn 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 die i lrban -River Resource environment 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. w 4. In review of all shoreline permits within the Lirban 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 SMP.Section 5.0-General Performance Standards 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 5. Within the Urban -Lake Residential and i Trbw - S am Corridor environments. shoreline substantial develop permi mon open mace or public access along 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 profile 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. 'w 5.919 OTHER STANDARDS 1. Within the Urban - River Resource environment loading docks shall not be located on river-facing sides of buildings unless a minimum fi$^(50) foot buffer of native vegetation is provided to screen the loading docks from the shoreline. In no case shall staging of trucks or trailers or outdoor storms or di=la y occur on the river-facing- side of a building Other design and landscaping requirements may be imposed by the Administrator in order to meet the goals 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 Performance Standards 13 1214198 Kent Shoreline Master Program of Ihe shemiinsl• 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. apt for nierrs docks floats and moorages in the Lkban -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 c'^`L'*'g -rmitted only in the Urban - River Resource and Urban Stream Corridor environments,where a need for an ev@F water such a crossing has been demonstrated,and such crossing shall (a)provide or allow for a safe pedestrian access der:the-br-idSe-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 SMP: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 means land primarily devoted to the GMm®r W production of horticultural- vegetable or animal products or of berries- gram. hay, vitculmral floricultural aairy �,' �.,••�y straw, turf seed. Christmas trees not subject to the excise tax i_mp used by R W 94-33,100 through 84 33 140 or livestock and that has been in long-term commercial significance for agricultural,production. The-following Policies have been moved to section 4.1._goa14. D ✓I 3. a ' Performance Standards: 1. Erosion control measures shall conform to guidelines and standards established by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture the Storm:ater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin and applicable local regulations and standards. 2. Pesticides shall be used,handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable 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), as amended,to prevent contamination and sanitation problems. 3. Livestock waste shall be disposed of in a manner that will prevent surface or groundwater contamination and in compliance with local regulations and standards. 4. Manure lagoons shall maintain a minimum one hundred foot u001 setback from any water body, river, creek, wellan$, 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 i€pessible, adequately covered. DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 1 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 5. Manure spreading shall be set back from the shoreline a sufficient distance, no less than t ty-4*6+W fifty(59)_feet from the floodway boundary, edge of a marei% beg eF �--' swmV Wgland-or eWirArsy-1 `ff m ''`ordi m higb water mark,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 beg er. wetland, or floodway edge,whichever is greater. 6.2 AQUACULTURE Aquaculture includes the farming or culturing of food fish, shellfish or other aquatic plants or animals. There are no known aQuac■ltural activities existing or anticipated within the three shoreline environments of Kent. Performance Standard: 1. All aquaculture shall be permitted only as a conditional use. 6.3 BOATING FACIi.ITIES (MARINAS) (previously Section 6.7J fer-ten i1m , mer-e Boating facilities include marinas boat launch ramps covered moorage boat houses. mooring buoys, and marine travel lifts for ten (10) or more boat For regyulato -purposes, l_arg community moorage facilities camp or resort marinas would also be reviewed as marinas Accessoly uses found in marinas may include fuel docks. and storage, boatinBgguipment sales and rental, repair services public launching parking, groceries and dry_goods, Uses and activities which are associated with boating facilities which are identified as separate uses in this master program(i.e.. Piers and Docks. presented in section 6.9. OVERWATER STRUCTURES) are subject to the regulations established for those uses. Currently. 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 compatible with adjacent development in any of the shoreline environments of the City in addition marinas affect wildlife and fish habitats. although the degree of impact doends on such factors as the type constriction and design, ety 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 12114 98 Kent Shoreline Master Program If environmental or other circumstances along the river ch=9C making this J= of development `�✓ Teacible and ecologiaWly sound_ and development of such &&ilWes is considered in the future, revelations will be established by mnendment to this master tnogo= Boating facilities shall be prohibited in the Kent shoreline jurisdiction n o menee Standards. . 1 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 PARKING FACILITIES (section 6.10). 3. 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 Policies and Performance Standards 3 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program d. Provisions for public visual and physical access to the shoreline; e. For mixed-use proposals,peesm Saigtin&altwnative 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. 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 _Wjg1ffid. DMdainy material is diawsed of on land or into water bodies and may be intended for the UUMM of creating new or additional lands for other uses_, Dredge WQil varies from clean river sW_to organic sludge. While some of this materials is doosited on land. a significant portion is dumped. intentionally or unintentionally-back into the water or immediately adjacent to the water. Of all activities on shorelines dredging poses one of the :ratest threats to water quality and aquatic life. In most cases dredging occurs in shallow areas and may disturb the annatir environment in the following ways: (1) temporary reduction of water clarity from suspended sediments- (2) loss o aquatic lants and animals by direct removal or from the sedimentation of suspended materials (3) alteration of the nutrient and oxygen levels of the water column and (4) suspension of toxic materials from the sediments into the water column. All dredging activities shall comply with other state and federal regulations- as discussed in the Performance Standards portion of section 5.7 of this master program. Performance Standards: 1. Dredging to obtain bottom materials for the purposes of landfilling is prohibited. 2. Dredging operations shall be scheduled so as to not materially interfere with the fae-vementrs—life cycle requirements of fish. 4 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Pertonnance Standards 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 3. Dredge material disposal in water bodies shall be prohibited. except for habitat improvement pumoses. 4. Dredaing and ge material di_ffial fib2 l hC loomed and conducted in a manner that minimizes damage to existing ecological v_slues and natural resources of the area to be dredgad and of the dt=sal site. 25. A plan for deposit of dredged materials must be approved by the Administrator. 6.96 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES Industrial facilities include facilities for processing,manufacturing, fabrication,or storage of goods. Performance Standards: 1. 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. Addihal O licable devel_onment standards are provided in Section 5.10(OTHER STANDARDS)of the general performance standard. ,.✓ 24. Only water- dependent —And*O-Ater. ivlmed indeastAo-s- shell be peFmiaed in the shoreline jur-isdietieff, 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 shoreline in order to raise the elevation. Landfill is usually considered in locations where the water is shallow and where rooted vegetation often occurs. In their natural condition. these same ar=nmvide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife feeding, breeding. and shelter, Biologically- the shallow vegetation areas tend to be highly productive portions of the Green River, Lake Meridian. and Big Soos Creek, For DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0.Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 5 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program these reasons governmental acrencies and scientific CX =have generalLy taken a stand against landfill, A small landfill occurring on dry bwA landward of the ncdb=16*gb water mark- ach A-5 a garden or a sand gx which d=not exceed a cost of two thanswA five hundred (&2-50) dollars_ does not refire a shoreline substsintipi devel_gROWN =ft_ m noted elsewhere in this Master Program- Landfill develgg=t- however,must conmly with all Other applicable Policies and regulations as defined it this master=2ra±n ?Mill activibes not to compliance with this master program 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 beg, or-swainp-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 ordinary high water mark shall be Permitted only: a. In conjunction with a water dC2endent or public use permitted by this master program. and for which there is no practical alternative: 6 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 12/14/98 Kent Shoreline Master Program b. In co ' ncti n with a bridge for which hwe is a demo strated public need wd .✓ where no feasible upland sites- design solutions- or routes exist: C. For fisheries or wildlife enhangc=1 Miects_ and d. As part of an ap=yed beach_restoration=jest, 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. 36. Any placement or removal of materials landward of the orci:inn=high water mark shall comply with the general performance standards in section_5.3 (Clearing and Gradin¢l_ [This section has been merged into the new section on BOATING FACILITIES.] .✓ 6.8 MINING 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 shoreline jUdsdiction._If such uses are proposed in the future- regulations will be established by amendment to this master program. Mining is a prohibited use activity min all environments of the Kent shoreline 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 Performance Standards 7 12114198 .. • • • Ir171,• 1 - 11 . 1 ..1 . . I . r �,• . • rQ ml — sOMITUMSM -J1 • -11 ♦ . 1WIN/ ♦ 1 1 Y.I 1111 1 , . • � I • • - • • i 1 • C • . 1 1 ..• : 1 , - 1 l •1 ! I 1 r.�11 . 1 • 1 • 1 -'-1• • / . . , 1 - ,1 • - I • 1 . 11 1 .1 1 • • a -,•@IItoil)r. . :•• • - • • - i •. 1 • 1 - 1 11 - • • - • 1 =1 • • 1. II -.1 • 1 11 . II• - • IMF II •• . r - 1 • 1 - - • - �, Il 1 - • - -11 • 1 1 1 • - 1 - 1 . - 1 1 Il. • 1 • • r 1 • -.� 11 -11 1 • • 1 -1 • 1 • -./ 11 -f1 II } I . I• - . • - . � - � • . 1 • • - r• - n . -.e I1 . 1 . • • • . Ir•.ir ' -able)1 $1 • 1 valmr-PirrTin Furerol • • • - 1 . • 1 r 1 • • • 1 • 1 - 1 - II •• l . ! • 1 • 1 11 • • l \ • 1 Ir 11 • 1 ' 1 1/ a♦ � 1 r _ • 1 • l 1 1 ' • Ir 1.• - / . • .a 1 1 1 1 • 1 . 1 • 1 - 1 1 _ ! . - 111 11 i. •r*NWM . 1• 1 ' 1 11 •,• r: • •. dt r' 1 i • 1.1. 1 • 1 t• - C.. 1 • 0 . • .. • - 9I -• • 1l i • 1 • olio I - Y• 1 • 1111 . 1 • 1 ' - 11 I • 1 • It Rns 13MoRMZriPR4WTiRof • 1 ' - 1 1 1 11 .. 1 • 1 I�Id • 1 F [ 1 • 1 - }I • 1 • 1I 1 " - • N - 1 • 1 1 1 / .: 1 1 • . 11 -fl Ia 111 • h - 1 • � � II 1 1111ITNTIMIRM,warTKIN V.: 1 Txwrp-,w.m I 17TA ME I go • IIla1 1 • .• 136MIMMMIrl • . • a1 I " I - I • I• 41TW761111NIMMI GrOTF.Wmin . 1 WIWI - • 111 - I I - ♦11 Kent Shoreline Master Program b. In coajunrtion with a bridge for which there is a demonstrated public need and where no feasible Land sites desiatt solutions. or routes exist: C. For fisheries or wildlife enhancement=j!&Lso Md d. As part of an aonroved beach restoration nroiect. 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. 4f. Where existing public access is reduced, equivalent public access shall be provided as part of the project. -56. Any placement or removal of materials landward of the ordinary high water mark shall comply with the generalperformance_gtand r& in section S (Clearing and grading). Viz M A 9N A C [This section has been merged into the new section on BOATING FACILITIES.] �.✓ 6.8 MINING Mining is the removal of naturally occurring rock, sand, gravel and minerals from the earth. There are no mining activities exists or anticipated within the shoreline jurisdiction If such uses are proposed in the future.regulations will be established by amendment to this master proms Mining is a prohibited use activity whin all environments of the K=1_shoreline i risdL_ iction. 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. r.r.' DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 7 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 2. The p=osal is suitably located and designed and IhM all potential impacts have been recolr►ized and mitt lw-Ald u 3. The proposal is consistent with the intent policies and regulations of the Act- RCW 90.58.10(12)- and this master V+QStSBL Performance Standards: 1. Overwater structures are prohibited in the I Jrhan—River Resource environment and the Urban— Stream Corridor environment except as nrovide_d for in Section 5.10. }piers-etd 2. Overwater structures may be permitted in the Urban—Residential Lake environment- provided: a. Overwater structures which are not accessory to a residential use require a conditional use permit. b. No residence dweLina„unit may be constructed on a aim dock or other mooragg facility C. The design, location and construction of piers and docks shall minimize adverse �..o' 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 , ook WOOPOOP 93000 o --ahap�e CiW AfK Ant i.W.. MA,..e_ FgM ..r._rr ha ffl..t:..L4toi Wen- .r.. t n_...:.. . [replaced by...] L No pier. dock, moorage float. or launching facility or structure authorized by this master program mgl!be located nor extend further waterward of the ordinaa high water mark than ape-fourth (l/4!a) the total distance from the shoreline associated with the structure to the 000asite shoreline. This total distance skgff he treasured from the point where the authorized structure abuts the ardineyhijgh water mark to the nearest panosite ordinary k4h wager mark as measured a1mg a straight line: puyided when the structure does not abut the ordinary high water mark. the distance from one ordinary high water mark to the opposite DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0- Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 9 12/14/98 Kent Shoreline Master Program commences **h the st H. that such sauciures ma ahairs':"Mwa• �""� th[COmman usea&cen Of r erOD.rsMj ti__r xd. awd 1400 by thempaV f lWi Rlers may bgFermttted un to tw+. dM[ •rrfaM aMa allowed by this title. iL device shall be(rider than ft ne'rceW(50%) of the lot with which it is WmdawdL iv. All pkM docks moorages harts or "swh sgmctures shall float at all times on the surface of the wwtw or ssh�aU he of on,�ms% con srru &M ArirYid��so 1V.gWM 4CAw An*Os a Akt shaL during the coursetithe normal fluctufidm MOW elf edmefthe water body, rotr_ude more than &Z/S► (W above the ordin=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 Dent, 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 DHplex and Multiple Family Residential appear on page 15]. 10 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program f. Covered Moorage No cowndida Ak rld m0raff& covered float or other covered structure is permitted waterward of the ordinary hegh 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 "k. Overwater Structures Accessory to Single Family Residential Development" because moorages would only be allowed accessory to single family development (p. 1 S). In addition, subsection f. under section 1. 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]l;oorag • Sukm=4 b'e nstanding mechanical boat jj� ss��iated with sis,gl%�f wily res d ntial piers and recreational watercraN n�av be covered with a canonv. provided: i. No canp,RY shall be more than 2S feet in length or wider than 15 feet: ii No.portion gf the cangAy shall exceed a height of 10 feet above the ordinaxhigh water mark: iii. The canepy shall at no time have any side partly or whol/v enclosed: iv. The highest portion of the canggy shall be located below the tepographical grade of existing homes on Surrounding pro en roes; V. Cangpies shall be made out of canvas or other such nontoxic materials: via Canopies shall be qfa solid color and should be ofa shade i hkii that is nonobtrusive: vii. The canopy shall be included in the square footage calculations for piers as enumerated in section "r above: Md viii. OnIX one boat Uft canonv per sisgk-f UMjjX residence shall be allowed. DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards l i 12114198 _ 1 �\. d 'iIl •. 1 /-f ',1 L .• e rilr .1 Y.. la '. 1 i .;• 1 : 11 ,• 11 • 1 1 • 1 . 1 o I t 1 .1 • 1 - • M\. '1 Ir R1 1 • - -II • 1 y• . -! • r• it • IPA I JT4 row"AI T9 • 1 1 • J .,1 1 • "1�. y Il 1 :.1.: I, I : 11 -! / 1.•y1 • • 1 - • • • • 1 • • 1 : 1 :, .fl Ill• I.�r • .'1 •.•! j - � • . • • 1 d Il NI l-n / • r- . 11 N w/ 1 < a 1 1 • • - 1 - - • • • - • .� 1 1 art 1 - l 1 Y 1 1 / • 1. 1 1 . -- ... 1 • • . •.• • 11 ..• 11 • 1.;•„• 1 . a: • 1 1 • 1 •. 1 1 - .,• w • 1• . • 1M l • • I�.Iw ITO 11 1O(Ow.I ImpSTMOM1 il IWO LOJUO1 1 - 11 •• r 11 • • 1 I • Mall r - • �, ! I 1 - • 1 Ia • 1 1 1 • 1 - �1 -. 1 91 1 • •.1 Mr 1 1 • 1 tl • • 1 • - 1 1 .. • • 1 all 1 • 1 • 1 - • • - 1 .,• 1 • 1 1 ,1 . t • " - �- p - 1 • . r 1 . . - • 1 Ir • 1 . 1 • . 1 1 1 • 1 - 1 • fill • 1 - - 1 • 1 11 - 1 • 1 - � Ir t- . r • 1 • . Ir : • 1 � • . u 1 Kent Shorehne Master Progmm z No more then age(1) Via fgr each residence is permitte& 3. On lots .. r tit I - a I " f / only 11. RyedrKhmuam.lf. " l Where Il oth lots jgjM&estabUshed piers an docks, I . L less individual Ala • •'... Izarr_r ( f a,. i.l 1 &d or the I I , I • , I I wier me& whichever ` / 1 UgfffiaI Illf,e f, •x 1 all • ylt shomfine Myironment& is mm�a•.Idu > vrp .0 uuia>% i�sh2mdommmaal f4ge# bolam,u•ui rdim:am Isigh wa ae !♦.9 1L>•/ -la xl>a111 f1mvI. POP eLTtl.am>•».]� C. Launching rat, I 1 1 1 • rails, and Uft stationsare limited I the-following conditions: d xuO i�lift an bP %.oAM ff. vie..i.r�%..fisof j�cQnsolidated as follows: 1 - 11x 11 /1 wal=ard intrusion / anyIds • 1 • 1 1 1 1 ' IPa ismclung 1 • lstationshall 60 feet, or • thepoint 1e - 1 - water • -f• .1 - ' 1 Kent Shoreline Master Program feet below fhC ordin=high water mark_ whichever is fe 2. Launching rails shall be&=bored to the ;round with the pew of tie z=CgvAUUG iQn- nhalt Or CO Crete ramps Or other rams which sph&cover the water body bottom are not 3. No more than one(1) launching rail per single-family residence is permitted d may be permitted as SU W-A—Mry to residential deyelonment-„rider the followine conditions: 1. [rewritten and expanded as follows:l 2. Floats may be located nn to a Ma ;mum waterward distance of eighty (19) feet.or at the point where the water Tenth is t 'lleen (13) feet below the ordillSry_high water mark whichever is reached first. 3. Retrieval lines shall not,Aoat at or near the surface of the water. 4. Area No float shall have more than one hundred and lihv(15gj sa uar ,&&itfs�urfaee area. 5. Height, Floats must be built so that the deck surface is one (1) foot above the water's surface and they must have reflectors for nighttime visibility. e. Excavated hsooraize Slips- Frwuted moorage dips are 12mhibited in all Kent shoreIinC-cnyjmnmentc, hi-who-ad 6.10 the 14 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program ] A4-ma mom l.- .,L-l/Lam. . -•La _L'. L. ..d....d i �. saber .. . ..i:.. > f Total Surface re? The testa!ssrface area of Viers mooragem f.nnie n..�'/nr L�aClnh • or an)!combination thereof shall not exceed sLy hundred(600) square feet of rurfaee area. g. If covered moorages are allowed, section g on page I would be placed here. 1. Overa ater Structures Accessory to Duplex. MUNfamiLL and Planned Unit Devel_ oT ent i. Piers mooragn,,floats or AbdUOU max be permitted accessoa to a duplex and mulaamUx residence provided: a. Piers an-d Docks 1. No more than one(1)pja for each one hundred-CM fe_t gCshorgfinC&*f&&gjM associated with the duplex and muldfami&d elopment subdivision, short subdivision or planned unit development is permitted. 2. The total number gf moorage spaces shall be limited to one (1) moorage space for every two ( ) dwelling units in the duplex and multifam*d v ! pment subdivision, short subdivision or planned unit development provided no more than twenty(20) mooragg•spaces shall be permitted. b. Length and Dimensions i. The maximum waterw=rd ix&usion nfa=portion ofg= pier shall be dghty(8#1 f" MAMMA FFIS 99roer fen NI -- .- i1N(eet or the point where the water depth is thirteen (13�P�t below the ordinary high water mark. whichever is reached first. ii. The minimum width of each Vier shall be five a) feet. DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 15 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Progmm rr : with a pier a . c�. r l.i' g. unboodkJA she Awbei mom Me dr&n� . r / Launching r=vA. 121inehingrails- • r I f stadansare 11 • I ghe_fo&hdMgr <.'I N.' r . a .♦ - .-wing-Rip- T1 " maxiMu11 . d\. 1i(1 intnision of any_11 l • 1 of= 1 reached first I I I tgg raUsheanchored / the / . I • with [ use gCdg=We construction, .40halt or concrete • u. I / other raMIM which sgU&cover the water body bottom 3. No more than two (2) common use launching raMpsju launching far each one hundred l feet it shorelines i2fthe state amcigged with the dUplcx an mu&jfamffy develgizavent. short subdivision, subdiyWon or-planned unitdgyAkAmentlZermitted. / Common/ / l / • 11 • hc p=itted ar an • r to dUplcx and multifamily / 1 tial deyclopment. jindcrthe • • . 1 • • 1 • • 1 1. One float I per dxnkz and mathifamib ' =r I I rr r subdivision. short sathdivision. or planned un da / / u e !. aumiftedt I 16 D- r -Specific Shoreline use Policies and Performance Standards Kent Shoreline Master Program [rewritten and awnded as follows j 2. Floats may be located up to a maximum waterward distance of eighty(80)jeet.or at thy.,..oW where the water rlenth is thirteen(13) fed below the ordinary hieh water IDflT$.whichever ie rr�rt first. - 3, Refrkva/l;ror skull nut Moat at or negr the sr:_r_fa_ce o_fthe water(included in single family regs). 4, Area No Et-ems/shall ham more than one hundred and Rfty(150)square fed gisulface area, s, Heiaht Floats mu_at be built so that the deck surface is one (1) foot above the water's surface and they must have reflectors for nighttime visibility. e. Excavated mooragg d4p sha_i!not be permitted accessory to dMpleuy and multifamily&tisapMent or as common use facilities accessoly to subdivisions short subdivisions, or planned unit developments, f. Covered Moorage. No covered pier covered float, or other covered structure accecsory to duplex and multi amity deEdapm ents subdivision, shoig subdivision, or plannedunit development is permitted waterward of the ordinary high water m8c1,:._ 6.9n PARKING FACILITIES Parking facilities are areas for the temporary storage of motor vehicles. The followine provisions apply only to parking that is acce tted shoreline use. Parking as a prima t�se and parking which serves a use not permitted in the shoreline jurisdiction is prohibited. Performance Standards: 1. Parking facilities shall be allowed only to serve another permitted use. 3. 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) feet inland from the centerline of a dike, whichever is greater. DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 17 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 3. Parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impacts=n adjacent shoreline and abutting 1LpzWes and to enhance water quality,wildlife habitat, scenic values, and public access. A minimum SO-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 horeline Master Program. 4. FXIfrriQL-1)$Ih• i-l�fa i�facilities r_ - i •�_.._ __sidenti i uses hall be isindsscaned with vegetation in i1 cucn a manner that plantings�,,t . ^ M*+v screening within three(3) years molest completion, 45.. Parking facilities shall provide adequate facilities to control surface water runoff AndAQ 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_40- WERS AND 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 annlies to both public and private noncommercial shoreline recreational facilities (excluding private residences) in Kent. Policies moved to Section 4 "A R a--vrtcicT Moved to 4.5. goal 1: Deleted entire] L 1 � Moved to 4.5. goal 1: t-re��e�iee: 18 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program Deleted here in Goal 2 n£.4_linkages sheitid yekieles: Moved to 4.5. goal 1: TM Tw tiSe AfAkAFAUASNa L i__a.. for. Lli TL !"♦ '1 yli:C L L'♦ a .i ..nC 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 SiXty `✓ (60) feet from the right-of-way of a scenic and recreational drive, or rev , -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 PARKING FACILITIES. 32. 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 minimum public access intervals are required in the Urban—Residential Lake environment (T.ake Meridian) or the Urban— Stream Corridor environment (Big Coos Creek). 4. in the Urban River Resource environment (green River),nlzublic 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 make adea gat provisions for: DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 19 12/14/98 • 1 1 aIl-t-'f l.' . 1 • :.1 ...0 r 1.,. .,,1 1., . 1 11• 11 L,1 . , • . . 1 • - 11 . 1dl 11 . N 1I •+1 1 LI 11 1 I 1 . . • • 07n, Ir., I I I12 A1.1,t.1 I I17 T i1. . -11111 1 'I III ellaw, yl)Mil tell . . I . I 1 ..• 1 • -,. : , • 1 - -11 , t . , • : i " I1 • 1 I - 1111 a1 1 • 11 � • -11 I � . • • �Illl • 11 - . 40 1 - - 1111 - 1 /1 < 1 1 dl 1 1 • -p: . l I,yt ►'. . 1 • 1 1 l life 1 • 1 1 - al r q/ 1 • U •.1: 1 1 ' If - so It 1• i • 1 I 1 1 1 '. • • - \. •. Il 1 • 1 Il • 1 1 1 - 1 : -. I + 1 . 1 1/1' 1 • 1 1 • 1 1 1 • 11 • I • . I / • � 1 • 1 I , • I , - \ 11vaq11.0• to)IT - 1 1 1 • f 1 �11 11 1 1 • 1 - 1 it 1 1 1 • ' ,.I• Il 1 • •11 - , *Me . • - • - 1 -11 •, �/ ,,1 , I • 1 + • 1 \ 1 1 - 11 � 1 I , / 1 • 11 • • 1111 1 ' •.•• 1 - I J. + 1 -. - • ,. , 1 - - • 1 If - 1 . - /PI 1 1 �1 -,/ • • 1,Jl • i . 1 1 t • 1 I .. • 1 a 1 ..11 Mrs . - - , • 1 II • 1 1 • 1 • •11 ' •./P l l l II 1 11 + 1 \. • 1 • III • 1 11 IN 'a � 11 i - - • / tl - 1 1 �• 1 1 •. - • \ • 1 ' 1 1 • 11 I 1 • H 1 • 1 " • ' ll l 1 ' - •. 11 1 1 - 1 • 11 /1 1 +11N -�1 . 11t I -.• 1 1 1 • 1 - I • • oNWITNT ZW;TM77orM. 74 • , 1 IM t • - rM43 rill 11 Kent Shoreline Master Program a. Sinalc family v 1 mom- duplex d v lgMent_ or multifamily development is permkted in the imde ftno zone cla.eific>f+n_ and b Accessoel units are^-^^JUW as jdkMMd in the,mderlving zoning- the shoreline dwelling but require a shoreline V=it gh• Residential dmmJg=ent including floe ng homes shiall be prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark.[This provision is part of the King County SMPJ send-Wmwl 11se: [replaced by..] 2. Structures or other development accessory to residential uses are permitted in the shoreline jurisdiction subie^t to the provisions of the Citv's zoning code. Bulk Regulations for Development 3. Parking facilities associated with residential development are subject to the Specific performance standards set forth in the section on F RiCi IG FACIL.ITIES. 4. Residential structures shall not be located on wetlands or in other sensitive areas Where �,. develoelo^mPnts contain such areas. they shall he used only for ft V=ose of parks, o_j= space or recreational activity which is consistent with the=nervation of the sensitive area, and local regulations. set f •h in the seetion en D A RYANG FACILITIES CIi ITIES fr•eplaced by ...] 6. Urban n - River Resource Environment and Urban Stream Corridor a. Residential development shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred (1001 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(7)feet inland from the centerline of a dike whichever is greater. DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 21 12114198 - .. 1 . 1 : Ial l i • Inal . 1 �;11 l I I 1161111i-:. '.1 1. :.a r.' IY•i¢1 • ..i1 d • 1 1 d 11 iff IT 1 11 I �,.) 1 :1 1� 11./.1.'-Yaa Y... 1� ...K. L pf ., ri f1 }m I ° 1 IN y/ 1 1 • 1� I (-:ti • .'s 1 r;l•;I,tiaA Yi'.Y._i�A 1 U.• 11 1 11 11 1 „ M-4 i 177ITT .,+1 \ 1 A4• n r1/11 ri\ 1 `n >1 /1h , .;. � ..1 1 i -1 l�r a �• I X. ,n Y' MI Y. � 1 .'� • 1 1 ,♦ WAWA Me i l d 4• : a.-,1 111 N I i-1 •1c1 1 14 r.1 1 1 4 11 1 • ' • : 11 11 1 1 • l E � •." Is .. -..bl• it • 1 Ir I•. r • r1 I • v . • r.• . • r r r ' • r r1 rrr r •r Ir ' r r • r . r � �• l . r a' r r 'r - , : . , . 1 . 1 -!1 1 .., I / .),". 11 1 _, 1 •a`1i i •.Ili - • • 1 - 1 • 1 1 � y1• 1 r: 1 1 1+ 1 la 1 r; -1 1 1 • T 1 I - 1 : . 11 , 1 • • - I , 11 .,1 •y 1�1-1a ' - -11 • l • a 1.1 -ir.s' 1 1 " • l .�. Il 1 • . 1 1 - 1 1 • 11 1. 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 11 1 - 11 LIJI 1 :.1 P 1 -41 • 1. 11 1 1 ' • 1 • l 11 / l If .. a 1 ' 1 111, 11 1 1.1 • 1 • • . - Y1 • • . 1 1 • 1 -n i 1 11 : 111 1 1 • 1 a as - • - ! • 111 a• II 1 • 1 • U • - • • 11 11 • - 1 • 1 ♦ - , • • • - 1 ' 1 - - 11 ' 11 1 11 I " II r,1 ,• 1 1 1 : a i • i •• 1• - , - , , • .• I AI - 11 •.1 -_r / 1 / _ 11 . a-.: 111/ 1 1111 - 1 1• 1 - Kent Shoreline Master Program Bulkheads Uses and activities related to bin kbCA&wbich are idluUdd m separate use activities in this 12roogm such as LANDFILL and RFRIDENTLAL. DWV U,GPMFNT are sLbi tec to the =gUlations for those uses in addition to the sLndar+b for b flkhzads established in this section c Rock Weirs. Jetties, and Groins These J=es of structures obstruct sand and sediment carried by the littoralddft action along shorelines. Trapping sand will effect plant and animal life to some degr .e. In areas of significant sand migration along the shoreline "ad a��,�natic life while the conseQuential effects in other areas may be vim,+ small- Se Mol changes in wind direction. the locations of sources of beach parent material- and the Quantity of sand and sediment trapped by such structures affect the degree of impacts c they may have. Exemptions The following,lses and activities related to shoreline stabilization are exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial development permit but must otherwise cg ly with annlicable provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and thin local master=gram. These exemptions, along with additional exemptions. are discussed in Chapter 7 (Administration)of this Master Programl. Normal Protective Bulkhead. `. Emergency Construction Necessary To Protect Propca From Damage By The Elements, Dikes Ditches and Drains -Operation and Maintenance Watershed Restoration Projects Performance Standards: eresiAn 3�. Such works shall provide for escapement of fish after high water. DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 23 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program by the rip 6- , the landivard flidefliepe efthe dikes and levees shall he works, ineluding dgies> eet3st"ieFiei} [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 proiect�ll provide evidence of all efforts to avoid adverse impacts to the environment, minimize all adverse impacts. and mitigate all adverse impacts as required by the City. 3. If public funds are used in the construction of a_horpline stabilization and protection projects. including dikes, levees_, and flood walls, public rights-of-access to such works aIe required prior to construction. if compatible with protection of shoreline resources. [previously #7 above] 4. Beach Restoration and Enhancement a. Beach enhancement may be permitted when the api2licant has demonstrated that the 12Wject will not detrimentally interrupt littoral processes. redirect waves, current. or sediment to other shorelines, or adversely affect a 'scent pnerties or habitat. b. Natural Beach Restoration/Enhancement i. Desi¢n Standards. Natural beach restoration/enhancement shall not: a. Extend waterward more than the minimum amount necessary to achieve the desired stabilization: b. Disturb si_enificant amounts of valuable shallow water fish/wildlife habitat without appropriate mitigation of the impacts. 24 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 12114198 I wd F Ws .717 r�t r,rIf I r #- I• -.• is as • . , a • i i • , • • � U a • as a • • . • - : • 1 • r . : 1 • • , . � • ,: a , a . � .n . . • • a . . • , • , . , r as . , a va . a„ • , • . - • , : Mr r7t • . , . . y• . , .•froru .. . rlr7rsr-KTl , •a • , . , . : . , , • • , o Mrs • • • • . , . • . , . , of • , , ,, . i • M - • • . � n , , • • M . ,rd , . ,. • • ._, • • MiTtleMeTMFrors • • • •• • • • • � . , • , a , • , a � , - I m1promr—ImmiRworms MIRMIMUTMn • • � � , • � i • s ' : M • •. • ivy - a �• • y .. • WM- nFiFTITIRS WMa , . • I - , • , • � 'JI • 1 - • • .�• .,a 1/1 1 1 t 1, .• ••.• •�. a V . a • 1 1 a • 1 • 1 1 I .5111 .• A a 1�. 1 . • 1 1 - : 11 • 1 -11 � I . a ► a l • � I,• I I + 1 1 �I • 1 , a -1Y • 1 � 1 � 1 I . 1 -=1 it 1 n I a / I 11 1 � 1 • - 1 1 .I I I � � I I .Jp 11 • c (y: 1 ( • 1 111 1 a • : r - • I I I • I / I • I I - : 1 1 .p 'JI : 1 1 • I 1 11 -11 1 • 1 I 111 • I 1 - •.IJI . lira �. • . (111 �11 • 1 : rI / 1 - I -1.1 a '. 1 1 .p •JI • • 1 - : a • : 1 - . . a - IN 1 - I • 1 1 -. V all '. 1 1 • - 1 - a 1 • 1 • - 1 • I 1- • 1 r . ( 1 I 1 - . a 1 . 1 I a„ . �1 . � -J�. . I 1 - • . 1 � 1 11 1 : Ia I �/1 I • - 1 . 1 - 1 • • 1 . 1.-.:,1. : . .. tit 1 I 1 1( . 1 • III 0 . 0 r rIq 1 • • 1 rl • . 1 . ,mo $ I r ' • 1 1 • 1 1 11 r 1 1 1 . 1 . I 1 • 1 ! 1 • to 1 •• 1 1 - 4LWI 1 • 1 1 - ._r - 1 • I 11 • 1 II ProMa 1 WGIF - r I 1 - I • .. r • / • 1 - • I 1 � • 1 1 . � 11 11 1 ° . . r • - • • II 1 11 1 � . 1 • .. , V • 1 1 � 1 - 1 • 1 I �I - 11 • . 11 11 1 - • 1 • 1 - • • .• 1 • 1 1 1 . - 1 • 111 1 . 1 • : - I . - rr ' 1 • 1 - . / rr , I - • - • Il rl - - PMOMMITUO frorl 1 . 1 1 ' • 11 11 . 1 - 1 - 1 ' a 1 ,• 1 - y• 1 - - =1• .. -111 1 1W.T.Tow. • ..1 a 1 I I 1 - I • r - - I • 1 • • r 1 - I r yl Kent Shoreline Master Program disroair that is located more than three(3) feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. ,enlacement of such bulkheads shall he located at the ordinary high water mark. e. New bulkheads shall be allowed only when evi once is presented that conclusively demonstrates that one(u of the following conditions exists: L-__._-- a_ established use or existing buil dine(sl i. Serious wave erosion' - on upland propgdyL-a ii. Bulkheads are ne.essaa to the operation and location of water-dependenand t water-relged activities consistent with this master program provided that all alternatives have proven infeasible(i.e.,use relocation. use design, nonstmailral ebore stabilization optional and that such bulkheads meet other policies and regulations of this-chatter* or iii. PL=sals for bulkheads have first demonstrated that use of natural materials and=cesses and nonstrucWrat solutions to bank stabilization are unworkable in protecting existing development. f. When a bulkhead is required at a public access site,=visions for cafe access to the water shall be inco rated into bulkhead design. g. Stairs or other permitted structures may be built into a bulkhead but shall not �-' extend waterward of it. h. Fill behind bulkheads shall be limited to an average of one (1) cubic yard per running foot of bulkhead. Any filling in excess of this amount shall be considered landfill and shall be subject to the policies and regulations nertaining toil landfill activities in this master program and reQuirern for obtaining a shorelme 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. Police: 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 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program Performance Standards: 1. Signs shall comply with the City's sign ordinance (CChanter 15.06 KCQ- except as follows: a. All signs shall be located and designed Ig minimize interference with vistas. vi pints and visual Access to the shoreline- b. Tc=orary or obsolete signs shall be remayad within ten (101 days of elections or termination of any other fimctionq F-xa=les of temporary signs include: real estate Rigor� directions to events- Ughtical advisements- event or holiday signs, and construction sib 2. Allowable Signs The following Ines ma be allowed in all shoreline environments: a. Water navicrational signs and highway signs necessm for operation, safety and direction. b. Public information signs directly Telating to a shoreline use or activity, or educational and interpretive si,iznq associated with an adiacent trail system,nark. or open space. C. Off premise freestanding signs for community identification- information. or directional p=os_es. d. *rational site and institutional flags or temporary decorations customary for special holidays and ;tmilar events of a public nature. ;. prohibited in the sherelin aign5. The following�iens ire prohibited in the shoreline environment: -�a. Off-premise signs and billboards; 312. Banners, streamers, pennants and balloons; 3-q. Animated, blinking or flashing signs. d. Signs placed on trees or other natural features. ?�. 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:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program 6.15 SOLID MIASTE DISPOSAL �✓ ' [Incorporated into the Utilities section] 6.4-615 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Transportation facilities are Those structures and develgpM"y that id in land_ air and water Surface movement of 12=le. ,goody and services. They include, ineluding but=not limited to,_8sek4eyiees-a&-roads dud highw-ays,,_bridges,bikeways, trails. and trestles, and associated development such as ramps or culverts. Performance Standards: 1. New rail lines are prohibited within lwKmLshoreline environments. 2. New road and bridge construction in the shoreline jurisdiction shall be minimized and allowed only when related to and necessary for the Support of permitted shoreline activities. 3. Expansion of existing roadways shall be allowed only when the prgponent obtains a conditional use permit and demonstrates that: a. No alternative route is feasible• and b. The roadway ;r, 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 interest. -24. Along the Green River shoreline: a. Roads extending along 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 alone 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 provide safe Pedestrian and ngBMWnrizW vehicular crossings where public access to the shoreline and trail sys ems *s intended. 7. gtreets within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be des;aed with the minimum pavement area red-----d. Gravel and more innovative materials shall be used where feasible for pathways and road shoulders to minimize the amount of impermeable surfaces and help to maintain a more natural appearance. 8. Transportation and Ilrimaa utility facilities shall be=guired to make Joint use of rights- of-way, and to consolidate crossings of water h aies to minimize adverse impacts to the shoreline, 9. All debris and other waste materials from roadNav construction shall be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry into any water body. 10. Any road expansion affecting streams and waterways shall be desis+ed to allow fish passage and minimum impact to habitat. 411. 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 codes and Federal_ Aviation Administration standards and requirements for fuel, oil spills. safety and fire fighting equipment noise and vehicle and pedestrian and swimmer separation. 13. Heliport facilities and services are prohibited in the Kent shoreline jurisdiction 6.4-715 UTILITIES Utilities are services or facilities which produce, transmit, or carry electric power, gas, sewage, communications, water and oil.. The Utilities category includes both " rim " and"accessory" utilities, Primary utilities serve an area beyond the immediate shoreline jurisdiction such as solid waste handling and di.gsal power generating-or trangfer facilities.gas distribution lines and storage facilities and high tee utility lines_. Accessary utilities provide service to shoreline uses such as power, telephone cable c and stormwater lines and systems. 30 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program Performance Standards: l. 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 area the location and design shall be chosen so as not to destroy or obstruct scenic views. Type of screening Muired shall be determined by the .i on a case-by-case basis. 5. Utility facilities shall be located and designed to avoid destruction of or daMaee to important wildlife areas and other uniQue and fragile areas. 6. 1 Jtifilyfacilities shall avoid disturbance of unique and fragile areas as well as wildlife spa vning, nesting and rearm areas If no alternative routing of Utilities is available. mitigation measures shall be required. 7. Solid waste disposal is prohibited within the shoreline. w 8. The location and construction of outfalls shall comely with all a0ropriate federal state county, and city regulations. DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 31 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program This page is intentiot>a>1_v blank. 32 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies 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 submit materials for a nrea0lica+ion conference as required Ua ter KCC 12.01.040 and 12,01,080. then shalLapply to the Administrator for a shoreline substantial development permit. Development is defined by RCW 90.58.03OWd) 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. 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 deesaet-exceeds $10.000, or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state, except for those developments listed in WAC ''', ,3 14-040 173-27-040. 7.3 EXEMPTIONS Certain developments are exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial development permit. Such developments way-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 inat RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) and WAC 471 14 040 173-27-040 and 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 dollars, if such devek=ent does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. For purposes of determining whether or not a permit is r Quired. the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is occurring n shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90,58,030 (2).(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 7.0—Administration 1 12114198 all . .. • - , - 11 . O n - • FrOVK4 o 1.• -1 ! r e • 1 �. . 1 ,,1 1.• _• 1 11 yl tool it 1 yi 1 • (y1 1 -t. +/ 1 Vry 1 1..., •� • .( t:•J11 yll 1 • 1 1 11 1 Is 1 C • .,1 yl M. _• . un yl jo •. r • f VAnq y1 . 1 -1t- ,1 , \••• �._U ••+, 11_ •'r 1!li « 1 +c +• . • • &-r 1 •) 1. ♦J•. • Y4 1 C 1 1 - • 0 11 .rl : 1 • 1. t^. :. •,n 11,�1t '1•i M' .. .--e n • ura !111 s.. f a • , - t f 'J 1 •. Il \ . 1 • •,IN wl. , _ a 1 ,. 1,• u... -• • f y 1.1 .. . 1 1 `J f- 1 t 1 • • 1 1 1 - ytJ ' < •J•: . +f 1,. , IJ 1 L-• ^11:Ri 1,1. / 1 'I • Yi 1 IIIr • =1F- • 1 If 1 • 1 • i 79 /11 . l• n 1 - • Lr: ! o.11 al •,1 .• Y 1 11 1 • Ill . 1 o I - l7n 11 1. .=• 1.• a. yllfl ._.,.n, +' ., �•, la. . 1•.• • NI! 1 1 4 11 J/1 yl yN t 1,?. yl .,. r.• .,il :•al ,M.-.. • f- • I Y1f -.• 11 1 1 • 1 • 'ite 1 1 a.y s,l+ 1,1; . xi. VAI. w+• • 1 1/1 yl 1 1 1 • 1 S.1 e..1.1 l-.,,, p.• • ,o!,. !+I ,n!a • 1 • -la• INI111 1 ' 1 a. Yo 1 ' •. .• / :111 -a r,• t 1111+y .-.r'.1' t, •. +r -,. :11 1 . 1 1 1 1 , �, � • t 1. 11 1 1 ) 1 -l. •.• •1 1/1,-•1 � •,l � 1 r:.l 1 : . • y/ • f -• 1 1.• 1 • 1 1 � 1 ' 1 .!. 11 4. 1 : 0.-:-71 -nY • ',.A',-.• . la, ail-:.-i, , 1 :.•lt VI • y • • 1 / • e 1 1...,1 1 t-yo .d lU...i .. '..'.N� ... • 11 1 Ma IFTI -.1INVI We) OR'. 1 ..t. . • • 1. • 1 1 .Y.. y 11 f, 1 1.•. f 's+1+r 1' +1 • •i l--,Will1 nyb,o yl/ 7• 1 Me 1\• o • n 11 � •.- •,1 :1 • y1-1 / • 1115 • V: - 1 •j ° +.-: o '.l, el 11 Y11 1 f - yll yl • 1 -31 I 1 1 a! F.1 yll yl 1+� . 1 yl 1 Ul• �.•f 1 1 -,yl • o 11 no • 1 �-1•. l 11 =11 • 1 - 1• � 11 a 1 • 1 it • 1 Ir. .• • • • 1• � • U •ly1\ 1(0 /1 , 11 .. - 1 1 ytl �11 II _ '�11 • 1 Il ,y/ 1/1 1!ay 1 • 1 • - 1 .I:e N rll • I+mil. •.y/11 1 yl 1 • I 1. 1. 1 - li•.1y- 1 C I 1 y n1 •/IhC L.y, • to M 1 -111 1 ly- ( a -,-lot no I 1 - .• 11 1 C• • 0 1 " 1 4 •.oje • o f - 11 , • ..•.•1( 1 y11 y - 1 1 1 • 1 •J 1 . 1. - 11 - 1 • J - 11 y �11 1 1 • 1 1 1 - fl 1 1 •. •.- yl, • -! • 1 oa9111 ,- - • , • 1 - t 11 • • 4Y 1! • 1 - , -1 yll y yl • 1 11 • 1 1 1' • 1 1 11 " 1 • t ton •� . �. t . , 11 - 1. 11 a • Py11 • - 1 - e 11 •.1 - •!./ 1 « / 0 11T497- • ! 1 - 1 To. no PIT@ IIII-Tatiblell I well 1 12 11 11 1 yl - 1 0 • 1 Il. • 1 . 1 GF7777MMN I • Irl • 1 n • • /11 1 • ff 1 • 1 1 1 Y 1; 1 1 1 Pro 1 'Jf 1 f �!� • .1 - 1.1 1 ... t 1 ',1+• l- : , 1 • 1 YIf 1 0 1 9 . 11 • rl 9f III f 77 1 . , 1 1 • 1 •1 1 t 1 1�1 11 1 yl.• 1 t If o I o 1 • 1 1 • 11 no • 1 " . • • , PA• 11 • 1 ' Mff,1 -. 10 of / • 1 • fill - 1 - 1 y f. • 1 • 1 - • 1 • • I,'. -1,• l 1+� • - 1 • 1 1 ' • I n 1 1 1 - 1 1 -4 µ• !1 1 • 111 •. • 1 1 " 1,• o,- ,• 1 • - ln• /:• UI • 1 .. 1 • 1 1 - 1 . • 11[• .� 1 .! . f . -,• M 1 . 1 . ::,y .. q41 1 i . • aC A 1 • 11 yla 1 • 1 • /l b.• 1 : 1 / 1 1 . a .=,� 1,.. ' n,.;1-� . 1 . : y ,: N • 1 71 :,/ eat 11 • t • ' ,1r , t. [ . 1 MR • . f . . / • 1 1 . [ 1 • . : I 1 .// M . ♦x a ![' 1 [ Ir • 1 ' 11 1 i rem 1 .19"MMIR916,74T M 1,. ul . 1 1 ') 1 MI . Iy.;. 1 • S:;• • tMll 1 • 1 - MI • . 1 ^+11 Il,yl 1 � / 1 ' 4 ! • • t 1 Ml-a • 1 :Il • 1 1• [ rt 1•t M 1 Mle al . 1 tl.� .. ., :. �/ n1�1 , P a 1 • N 1.• \ • t as • 1 • * .;, 1 • 1 • .• 11 11 1 4 •.f. .,. a•.-r�f '.t -.1 1 . - Lit Il •f[ 1 • 1 1 - • [ ofs)otem1111M - a 1 - • .1/ - N • f:411C: • [ 1 •.M • 1 ' - •. 11 • I a 11 1 . ra 11 • Mt M• �I Mn 1 f 1 .in). 1 IC 1 . MF 1 n • [, . 1 .�, a •.M- 1• .,�. Mt 1,. ,r . .,f - [. 1 1.1.1 • f . M MI .arp. Il 111 1 •. 1 • QP M �/. ... 1 •. ►. • 1 • 1 • 1 _ 1 11 [�/ 1�1 a / . F •. F J 1 1 1 !: [ • 11'x • 1 . 1 . a • • 1 yt[ t • 1 1 - / -• MI • r. Il • 1 1 . - • 1 1 - �• 1 y.' 1 1 . f - - . a It MI a t - • a - • /P - • 1 11 •.. 1 - 1 . 1 - a • a 11. • 1 • 1 . M\. •.0 1 M\ a F • a 1M - al • 1 - • [ 11 •..\ a 1.1 - . 11 1 ' - 1 y.M/l MF 1 a 1 ' l L./1 � • l a • • 1 m • -• JU - 1 a 1 . al 1 11 ' • a 1 a a . a l 1 1 11 • 1 • • f 1 f. p 1 • • 11 F • 1 • ./1 .1 . 1 a 1 MI 1 11 • 1 a •: 1• 91 e_1 1 M' - - 1 1.111 . • - • 1 " o • - • 1 M �P - al la 11 1 " 1 . 1 - • ._1 - 11 • • - / 1 - • Y 1 • a IM 1 - 49 RIM. 31 . • oF.MaTiTan el 1 • 11 1 ' • /1• . F , 1 • / • a : 1 1 1 - - • • • • 1 11 1 •1 - 1 . - • - - a . . M. . . 1 . 1 • 1 . a a • 1 • • - - •.11 - 1 1•N • 1 a• - •ixr�i�.-^..•=.�=•.:.�. •i� • MI U 9 a 9 - of • - a• 1 - ! - - 1 1 ' 1• all . . • - . Rio ' 0 MF a 1 - \ 1 - 1• 91 1 1 •• F - Il a . a l 1 - - 1 • 1 11 1 1 a 1 ' • 1• 11 -• • 1 1 1 • • - 1 . . M . 1 • , 7.t rl - 1 I \ 1 •�.-, 1.r 1 • 1 Ly 1., , . 1 all «1 4 I,r ,•.•.1 .• 11 M NO LIJ1 / 1 - 1 I \ 1 - 1 • 1 1 1 L r Ta)lit 111,14 1111W 1 • 1 • 1 - 1 l lw.y • a.,1 ,• 1 1 1 . 1 ." yMin". 47M 11 1 I \ 1 : • 1 -11 1 \ ..•11 '. r ..� 1 •N I .�! t ,'/ I 1,• one It . ti ( 1 • 1 1 ly r.• •-11 • /11 1 •�• 1,1 r r U I 1 1�1i w -l/ r-.•<I. . r 1 1 :'1 y ' (-:7r.r 1 '1 • \ • 1 •. ••��• � 1 • 1 • -71 11 1 ' 1 - \-•:,..•,a�e • ,Il-.d. YI 1 • • 1 • 1 • 1 nl • It 1 / \ Wejrr r �y • 1 - 1.-1r11 1-.• 6•'Il.wl • : y. jl 1 �1 - r U. . • fall.• / 1 • • IIN. 7 1T• • --r r 1 + _� / • 1 1 1 U 1 i, • 1 1 -rar y • • r 11. -Irl wl 11 U •.r : nll. • • �• • 1 its 1 C .• 11 U.dl.rMOM"; -r 1 1 - • -1r . It11.=11 • . .-1j a, !a • 1 - .r�7,: •!11 wl • ; - . % • 1. .I 1 • 1 d 7.: Willi l � a• 1 -.1 a-�Y� t: 1 • 1 . P - r 7 1 4r 1 -1 1 1.. \ • . -11 1 � a. / -l. 1 - • • • ,• 1 M K,1 -I1 ./ 4 1. Ls a r, if 1 -± '�lr '+77 I , A,.-d 1 • 11 1 / y • 1 1 , r -. • 1 • r ./ 1 1 •..e r 1 •11 ./ ri / r11\ 1 .11 / a •,: • 1 ' 11 ' i ' o � • • - / -l. 1 lam, w., . ::/ wll • 1 • 1 Ip 11 1 • • 1 �• - 11 . • 1 : -;. • -1• 1 ' 1 • • l•. - 1 ' l-• Y. • -111 • 1 • / • . -1 f• { -J - • • 1 rl• - �• 1 1 �. 1 . 1 • : r • • • 1 - • V - 1 - / 1 tl • r 16•.; • 1 1 • Il r • 1 1 • . • - rl - • • - 1.• 1 -,y1 1 • • '1 1 .Ia 1 ' 1 1 - Rio . l41 1 • 1 • 1 • / • 1 - - • • 1. 11 r N 11 - 1 • 1 1 + • • - Mr-1 r • 11 • a - 1 - 91 - 1 1 . �/ • • 11 • / 1 1 -11 . -.• • Pd • �I • • 1 -,• 1 • • • - . .• • • J M ye . a111 -11 ISDN 1 • 1• 01 No Likker. ' • •111 It I r.SX4 all 1 • 1 • 1 • • 1 -11 1 1 •. 1• - 1 - 11 ; a . U 4t: 11 rl - • • 11 11 1 1 11 - 1 • 9r11 1 • 1 1 11 11 . 11 < 1• • • • - • - 1 • 1 - . • . • •.• 1 -11 • . 1 • • 7.• 1 : -111 - • • 1 �I . V ::. 1; :. all di . • t . , a rTj •- - 1 - • • 1, • 1 a • 1 • - 1 1 : / 1 • M. / y1 . a111 .11 • • • 'a 1 -11 off - 11 - • • 1 1 1 - 1 , • - 1 1 : �1 / -1•: yll -11 • J • �� 1 •. 1 • 1 • 1 / 1 1 - . - 1 1.. 1 . • - dll r ./ 1 1 - . . 11 - u •. • vtrll 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 T449 MASTER PR9CRAA4 F.NT' ASTER PR = 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. 2. Shoreline substantial development permits are a Process II jolication and shall be processed and subject to the applicable regulations of Chapter 12.01 Kent City Code. Shoreline conditional use permits and variances are classified as Process III applications and shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 12.01 Kent City Code, 3. Public notice. instmet the appl-eant ie publish natiess ther-sef as lewA ones a week oil the some dfiYef 'high thp dA4,AIA Ad An Affidevit of publisatien shall be as shown by the rceeef:ds of the eeuaty aA least#wee handfod feet eft Ail sueh s' shall inelede a statement ♦l.s . .:♦1-:.. st:w..d.Ys efthe [:-...1 publies4:.... A notice of Mlication shall be issued for all shoreline permit applications as provided for in Kent City Code section 12,01,140. excepting that the public comment period for the notice of application for a shoreline DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 7.0—Administration 5 12/141Y8 Kent Shoreline Masbr Program R emit shall be not less than thj ly(3W da)s.per WAC 173-27-110(2)(e). The notice of a,nniication shskll be 9 s}ed on the site per Code 12 01 140(lyl. 4. Application review. The Administrator shall make decisions on applications for substantial development permits, 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 fQrty-five((45)galcudK days from the 6mellatc.the C& determines the application to be complete. 6. Public hearings. The Administrator shall schedule an ggen r c public hearing before the Kent Hearing Examiner on an application for a jhg=jj=conditionaI use Ugmaitor variance pit"nsr }�e pro.e�Lres ou lined__ V^ City Code 12 Ol 160 and KCC 1,U. Notices of the hearing shall date of appliestieR 48 the dale of the heagRg is 46 days-. be advertised and scheduled in accordance with the= isions of KCC 12.01.140(Hl. 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; a*d-(4) the comments and findings of the Administrator; and_(51 KCC-2, The Hearing Examiner will issue a written decision within€euneee-10 working days from the date of the hearing, in accordance with KCC 2.32. 8. State :ice Filing with Department of Ecology, developfRent All applications_ fora permit or permit revision shall be submitted to the D Ecology upon of Ecolo anon a finsil decision 6y the City. Final decision by the i shall mean the order, or ruling,whether it be an approval or denial, which is established AAPr all local skdministrative anneals related to the permit have concluded or the opportunily to initiate such appeals hac lapsed. When a substantial development permit and a conditional use or variance permit is required. the submittal shall be due concurrently, A complete submittal to the Department of Eulogy shall consist of the following: g 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 43.21 C RCW. deeisien--After local annroval of a conditional use or vex+ new Aermit.the City shall submit the permit to the Department of Ecology for the Dq ad' nent'c approval approval with conditions, or denial as provided in WAC 17 -27_200 The dcpartment shall transmit its final decision to local goverment and the applicantits; final ae,;,,; m within thirty(30) calendar days of the date of submittal b, local ocal goverment 9. days fiem the date ef filing !be appr-eved peFmif wish the DepaFtment of Eeejegy and days ef the date efsweh filing have been teffflinat Each permit issued by the city shall contain a provision that construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty-one(21) days from the date of filing with the Department of Ecology- per WAC 173-274-�-1 0. "Date of filing"of the City's final decision differs from date of filing for a conditional use permit or v ri a .e 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, or the use or activity_ shall commence eeffiPietien must begin within two Ulyears after approval of the permits. Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate within five (5) years after the effective date of a shoreline permit 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 U)-year 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 b final unless an anneal is made Decisions may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant, or a private or public organization or individ 4 • Appeal� shall be Vrx&j&W"n accordance with KGG d+t C4 rode Section 12-01.190. Such appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and the Administrator within ten fourteen (141 Hai 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 twenty-one(21) 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 ffleste> -Kent's Master Program, and where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the physical character or confi,guradgn of property such that the strict implementation of gF&ffiKent's Master Pinar M 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 begin,nor can construction be authorized, except as provided in RG 90.59.020WAC 173-27-190._In all instances, extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 2. Application. above Snoreline variances are classified as Process III an;lications and are subject to the requirements of the Kent City Code Chapter 1 2 01 W AC 173-27-180 and section 7.4 above. 8 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 7.0-Administration 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 f the bulk,dimensional, or performance standards set forth in Kent_s_69-master program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the mester.preffaniKent's 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 , and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. C. That the design of the project LqwilPm compatible with other pefmi4w authorized des ysmin the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive pl n and master V1Qgram_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 wetlands, as defined in ahi;F,a tee pFeg erxKent's Master Program, may be authorized only if the applicant can demonstrate items a through a of this section, and: i. That the strict application of the bulk dimensional, or performance standards set forth in - ' preclude all 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 shaleoW also remain consistent with the policies of C-l-r.-RCW 90.58,=AC-W-and sheer shall not pFeduee-cause substantial adverse effects er�ULthe shoreline environment. h Variances from the use regulations of Kent's Master Program are prohibited. 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 ofent'q Master Program in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.0201 pevided-th In 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 agsure consistency of f the nroiect with is Shoreline Management Act and Kent's Master Program. Uses which are specifically prohibited by the mostpro eF ft--kKent's Master Program may not be authorized use pursuant to either WAC 173-27-060 (1 j or(2 . 2. Application. n_.:a:.:.dal Usc Ramits ue a TL.--.S 18nn11CatlOn der Kent City Code Chan er 12.01, and section 7.4 above.: 3. Uses are classified as conditional uses if they are(1)designated as such elsewhere in ' or(2) consistent with dte tmdefbing use ,Sianal:ds-reQ{ir ents of this section and the mQuirements for conditional use contained in this *raster program per WAC 173-27-160(3). 4. Uses classified as conditional uses may be authorized provided that the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: a. That the proposed use will be is-consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the pelieies of tle-Kentjs 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 w4l is_compatible with other pelmitted-authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the rea under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program* d. That the proposed use will cause no orweaseael�}y-Sismificant adverse effects to the shoreline environment desigaation 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 10 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 7.0-Administration 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses ekeuWshalLalso remain consistent with the policies of C#RCW 90.58 R49-W and sheuid shanot produce substantial adverse effects ee->o-the shoreline environment. 6. Uses which are not classified or set forth in the masw ' may be authorized as conditional uses,provided the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria set forth in section 7.14 above, consistency with the reQuirenentc of this section and the rcauirements for conditional uses contained in this master program. 7. Uses ps which are specifically prohibited by this program may not be authorized. in gFamiag any ee"tieaA Paso f " (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 4: 1 14-055 173-27-080. 7.9 AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER PROGRAM Any provision of may be amended as provided for in chapter 90.58 RCW and chapter 1734-92.¢ WAC. Amendments or revisions to the Master Pr-egramKent's Master Program, 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 this Fflaster- eggs nt's Master Program, or its application to any person or legal entity or parcel of land or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of sheFAAAWF pfegraj iKent's Master Program, 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—Administration 11 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Progrem This page is intentionally blank. 12 DRAFT—Kent SMP.Section 7.0—Administration 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 I. 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.Section 8.0-Enforcement 1 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program r 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-Enfo►aemant 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. Convect 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 3 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 8.0-Enforcement 12114198 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 mariner 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-Entomement 12/14/98 Kent Shoreline Master Program 3 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(l.days 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(RQ days of receipt of the Administrator's decision regarding the remission or mitigation. 8.11 CIVIL PENALTY l. 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 (3M-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 Lladays after receipt of the DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 8.0-Enforcement 5 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program r 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 LU days 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 thotsand dollars ($25.00 -$1,000.00) or by imprisonment for not more than ninety QDJdays, 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 Attomey 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&0-Enforcement 12114198 Kent Shoreline Master Program APPENDIX A: Kent Shoreline Jurisdiction Maps u DRAFT-Kent SMP:Appendix A 1 12114198 / KENT GREEN RIVER SHORELINE . t ALL SHORELINES OF THE GREEN RIVER r } f� - — t �_,___ I •(,�H ARE DESIGNATED UaR•S.RR'£R RESOU`RCF — - -- �<. •,./ 'a. LEGEND yr • KENT CITY LIMITS 200' SHORE BUFFER GREEN RIVER _ t-i r I 1 i i • , i 1, C VI Y. T > �4 1-••I � 3 m 3 F O W HH a Y C i N Wr �y zr tp� • r V.Y}ut111 � 152 RY SE ' I � �`� gip' M- �I — O - (� 1� - �_• t�y'[L•�s, f�_.__•� 'nlba 35 At Ber = c;✓ ',_ I-T-� c,l. � �. �� ram . . - _ _ �_� __ � ;^ y -�� t' +•.,��n'V� FT -Aye' _ r� 1` .. as---I - v, �•9?If � ,. ��y�' �-fl�,rV�. rl � f�"�''AN '- __ _ ,`� av � ? y-n . �� °-,.I. ti'�i�y- y.1�{.iW l?Yf ' 7�tc�.j•-^. r-�'-L , rte r 14}Fv-�Se �AT33-c�L-�- - ti'' �' �•'� r "• Alf 35 IMF - /., ..,. y - nd Ohl r r, x � At GEf - r 3S '1•�,1q�.� 1 } IM1IYCI_r iT'ye - KI 4 35, 9EI 'n Idd -I ' I � / a 3d;CEI b At SEI eh �E I UI 1A� LE ,��, - 1✓ s . N v r 1 �s J W E- 6 o O W z W V j W �!� � J N � �,,• 0 En I x / i . . .y .� s- ba• -• ' irk n1 '' '�' • \ , -' , • '� _ -- LasTo 1 1 i •�.� . 1 .\ \\ `tea 1�{� , —`q g9 � Q'4 L.i! i \,�^ I. •y \ • /➢!!'.j1i O 114110��' 00 ;� C'!_ Jg- 13 ad Ind �' ' �,� i �.�� I \�`�� 1 i �•_{] • _ _. L1. 1 a>I iO �O doi A.._.. i binL3 I calG i '0 1 i c �r Gd ' a""...r:. \�•\ I �e p. d 'A °h°O ,I(t• opt �' - �'� _ 1.� .J \;q F.i, o, 1 �-_ 'V Uv - ooadOOOo =r;Q O� r ,-�_=:� ' - • - - - -�.�_� ;/,;7f. L� \ _- _ cj -77 !tea — /O'OO'-GOoO :P';�ll C' �V !%��1xSiyi`/ L •� 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. 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. CPA-984/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 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 ONeill 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 Green 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. Eckuund 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 not 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. ONeill 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 ONeill 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 Ekkuund 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. W.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,25866136'h 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 concern 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. ..s Steven Crowell, 26709 148"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 staff s 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 267"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 resident 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 SNP 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 `..r December 14, 1998 Page 9 Maribelle Lackey, 14410 Southeast 270t°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 resident 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,20607 101st 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 staff s 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 L.. December 14, 1998 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,26712 138th Place Southeast, Kent,WA said that she has resided on Lake Meridian for 13 years. Ms.Harris 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. Hams 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 SUR She said that the City of Kent would allow her to remodel but not rebuild her dock. Ms. Harris 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.Hams stated that she supports grandfathering for retainage of existing docks. Ms.Hams spoke of her concern over ecological damage to the lake from chemical run oft'from yards. She stated that a sewer system runs around the lake and questioned if the storm drains could run 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 relati ng 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 current proposal allows for docks to be built on a joint property line as long as both property owners are in agreement. Teary 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 of the environmental engineering program,which includes flood control and storm water management. Mr. O'Neill stated that since the 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.Wolinski 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. Ekklund stated that it was her understanding that there is a distinction between herbicides Land Use and Planning Board Minutes December 14, 1998 L✓ 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. Harris 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. Teary 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 obstruct 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 staff s recommendation of Section F for#CPA-98-4/SMP-98-1 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. ADJOURDDffN_T_ Ron Harmon MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ecre REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT C�4 B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 3 .3a rn C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE r E. PARKS COMMITTEE i r F. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS n� n V _ i i i f t i OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES January 5, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Wood, Chair, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Marty Mulholland, Joe Lorenz, Todd McQuage, May Miller, Brent McFall, Sue Viseth, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Merry Hayes, South County Journal The meeting was called to order by Chair Judy Wood at 3:34PM. The order of the agenda was changed to bring the last item first after the approval of the minutes. Approval of Minutes of December 1. 1998 Committee Member, Tim Clark, moved to approve the minutes of December 1, 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 2-0. November Financial Report Financial Director May Miller presented the November Financial Report showing the Cash and Investment Schedule difference of November, 1997 and November, 1998 at about$1,500,000. Ms. Miller said there is $1,000,000 extra in Capital Projects waiting to be spent and the General Fund has a$100,000 difference. Internal Service is down, but Debt Service is up because most of the debt payments are made December 1'`. The City is continuing to maintain a solid tax position although November revenue was below the forecast. Property Tax was collected early in October and showed an artificial high of 8.4%, but November was late and thus over budget. Revenue dropped back down to 5.6% in November. U.S. West gave a rebate that had been expected in October buy didn't come in until November. The General Fund expenditures remain on target at between 3-4%under budget. Sales Tax continued to drop in November, which is related to the one-time-only projects dropping off. Both the Service and Manufacturing areas are down as a result of the legislative manufacturing cuts exemptions. The Retail area is causing some alarm, as it looks like auto dealers sales and office supply sales were down. The Utility Tax reflects the U.S. West rebate. Building Permits are 3% over budget through November but the valuation is up 22%, which shows more expensive building projects. The Capital Improvement Fund is down about $89,000. Tim Clark asked about Expenditures/Cost Allocations comparing the 1997 budget with the 1999 budget which had increased $700,000. Ms. Miller said that the majority of the projected increase related to new staff hired. Mr. Clark asked about the Transfers in Police Operating Projects and Ms. Miller answered that they were grants received for the Police. Mr. Clark referred to the Cash Investments in the Youth/Teen Program which in 1997 was $451,000 and in November, 1998, $394,000. Ms. Miller said the amount difference was due to when the money was transferred out to Capital Projects. Approval of Combined Check-Detail Vouchers Dated 12/15/98 & 12/31/98 May Miller presented the Combined Check-Detail Vouchers to the Committee in the amounts of $2.752.932.06 for December 15, 1998 and $3,477,556.99 for December 31, 1998. Tim Clark moved to approve the Vouchers dated December 15, 1998 and December 31, 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 2-0. Electronic Mail Design & Implementation Contract Mary Mulholland, Information Services Director, told the Committee that the new e-mail system will allow communication with the outside world which has not been available with the current system. The estimate for the system is $201.600 with $47,600 for the design phase. Ms. Mulholland ... introduced Joe Lorenz,Network Manager, to cover the bid process. Through the Technology Plan, Microsoft Exchange Messaging was identified as the City's proposed e-mail system because of its integration with Microsoft Office. Five vendors responded to the department's RFP process and three were selected for interview by a panel: Excel Data Corporation, Sarcom/NovaQuest, and FOCI Technologies. The panel unanimously agreed on Sarcom/NovaQuest and graded them higher on presentation, overall implementation process, ability to meet the City's challenges with multiple operating systems for networking technologies, and to meet the timeline. A second interview was held and the City technical staff felt confident that the Sarcom/NovaQuest's technology staff would be able to meet the City's timeline and goals, and work with City staff so they would know Exchange components and be able to maintain the system on an ongoing self-sufficient basis. Tim Clark asked if this new system would be integrated with the Novell LAN. Joe Lorenz responded that there are two separate operating systems, the Microsoft Operating System, which is Windows NT, and the Novell Operating System, which is the Novell Network. Exchange runs on NT. Staff wants to integrate the managing of individual accounts through Novell's NDS which will allow a centralized administration of accounts. A user will not have to go to two different computers in order to do administrative tasks, but can sit at a standard workstation and manage accounts from a centralized location. The system will also have the ability to share files between departments and transfer documents electronically as opposed to putting information on a disk or sending it through the mail. It will speed up response and collaboration between departments. Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract, subject to City Attorney approval, with Sarcom/NovaQuest for consulting services for the Design and Implementation of Microsoft Exchange and Messaging. The motion was seconded and carried 2-0. Y2K Consultant Contract—Approval Marty Mulholland did a presentation for the Committee on the status of the City's Year 2000 Project. Ms. Mulholland discussed history, definitions, key dates, current status, and also covered the systems affected and their status. Additional elements of the presentation were the status of key suppliers, and the impacts on homes and small businesses. To ensure Y'K compliance as systems have been acquired. vendors have been asked to agree that their systems were compliant in the standpoints of Century Compliance, Leap Year Compliance, and Interface Compliance, and would accurately process data and perform calculations based on key dates. Dates that could create glitches and cause problems are April 9, 1999, the 99`t day of 1999. and Sept. 9. 1999 because 9999 has been used by some programmers as an error code. Jan. 1, 2000 and Feb. 29, 2000 (because the year 2000 is a leap year) are also concerns for year 2000 processing. In January 1998 a clerical employee was hired to work 2040 hours per week doing hardware and software inventory. product compliance research, and product and vendor compliance letters. In July 1998 the City hired a dedicated consultant to the process. Steve Schopfer of the Coda Consulting Group. He has done extensive work collaborating with other cities and utilities. continued compliance research, and extensive record keeping. He has been a municipal IS director in Washington State, and also was an IS director in Alaska for a telecommunications company. He is also assistin, several other cities and the AWC with their year 2000 efforts. Mr.Schopfer's billing rate is approximately $90 per hour and the full estimate is $120.000 for his services. This contract is an extension of the original contract, but the dollar figure is such that it requires Council approval. All records are to be kept on the City networks and PCs as part of the agreement with Mr. Shopfer, °✓ and it was established in his contract that he give Dent priority over other agencies. All operating systems. PCs, and PC based software systems have been upgraded, older non-compliant hardware is in the process of replacement, date adjustment issues have been identified, and the City is at minimal mission critical impact. The City has had heavy reliance on older minicomputer based systems and many of the systems were not and still are not compliant. Finance and payroll testing will be done in-house, hopefully in February and March. Police and Jail will also test in-house. The Parks system was not compliant and not supported, so a new system recently approved by Council has been purchased: Utility Billing is ready for testing. That particular supplier is working with another agency to do the testing and so staff will ascertain that their tests are acceptable and then will take on that software. The Utilities Management System and SCADA Systems (the controlling software for the pump stations in the utilities area), are compliant. The Business License and Fire Incidents Management Systems are not compliant. Staff has inventoried City network hardware and software, and the cable television hardware and software. Research is ongoing and staff expects to see a lot of patches and upgrades in 1999 for the Novell Operating System. Mr. Schopfer has expanded the compliance program into embedded chip inventory or"gizmos" that include security systems that are not traditional software systems but may have controlling devices. The embedded systems are HVAC heating and air conditioning control systems, security, elevators, and meter reading devices. Inventory is complete and many systems are compliant because of replacement or upgrading, but a few have been identified that are not compliant. The Police Security System is not compliant so a purchase order has been signed to upgrade a component to make it compliant. Ms. Mulholland said there has been much fear and press about"gizmos" failing, but she has spoken with a state expert and the numbers are coming back less fearful than have been stated in the press. The state believes less than 2% of embedded chips will fail. City vendors and suppliers have been inventoried, surveyed, and prioritized, and staff will continue to research those most important to the City and will determine their compliance. Contract language for purchases has been developed which will go into contracts approved by the City. A public awareness effort has been undertaken with an article in the Kent Reporter, outreach programs, and utility stuffers in conjunction with the efforts of Dena Laurent, Government Affairs Manager. Relationships have been established with the Association of Washington Cities and the Municipal Services Research Center to collaborate with other cities to simplify costs. Staff has tried to focus on the most "mission critical" systems and services. and are also looking at contingency planning issues in conjunction with the emergency management wine of the Fire Department. A tremendous amount of work has been done in record keeping with all records kept on the City's network system. Communication with key suppliers has been undertaken. Staff has had face to face meetings with Valley Communications that does the 911 dispatching. Valley Com is going to share their complete documents and test results, and Information Services is confident that they are well on their way to compliance. Puget Sound Energy is the regional supplier of electricity and natural gas to this region. Staff has met with them on three occasions. and are reading and following their disclosure statement. They have put together a comprehensive program and are planning to spend $12.000,000 on their year 2000 compliance program. PSE have contracted with a national engineering and accounting firm to audit their situation and has met with regional suppliers such as Bonneville Power. Information Services staff has met with US Bank and heard verbal confirmation from them that they are compliant. Information on US West comes from the state, and staff is hoping to have a face to rate is approximately $90 per hour and the full estimate is $120,000 for his services. This contract is an extension of the original contract, but the dollar figure is such that it requires Council approval. All records are to be kept on the City networks and PCs as part of the agreement with Mr. Shopfer, �✓ and it was established in his contract that he give Kent priority over other agencies. All operating systems, PCs, and PC based software systems have been upgraded, older non-compliant hardware is in the process of replacement, date adjustment issues have been identified, and the City is at minimal mission critical impact. The City has had heavy reliance on older minicomputer based systems and many of the systems were not and still are not compliant. Finance and payroll testing will be done in-house, hopefully in February and March. Police and Jail will also test in-house. The Parks system was not compliant and not supported, so a new system recently approved by Council has been purchased. Utility Billing is ready for testing. That particular supplier is working with another agency to do the testing and so staff will ascertain that their tests are acceptable and then will take on that software. The Utilities Management System and SCADA Systems (the controlling software for the pump stations in the utilities area), are compliant. The Business License and Fire Incidents Management Systems are not compliant. Staff has inventoried City network hardware and software, and the cable television hardware and software. Research is ongoing and staff expects to see a lot of patches and upgrades in 1999 for the Novell Operating System. Mr. Schopfer has expanded the compliance program into embedded chip inventory or"gizmos" that include security systems that are not traditional software systems but may have controlling devices. The embedded systems are HVAC heating and air conditioning control systems, security, elevators, and meter reading devices. Inventory is complete and many systems are compliant because of replacement or upgrading, but a few have been identified that are not compliant. The Police Security System is not compliant so a purchase order has been signed to upgrade a component to make it compliant. Ms. Mulholland said there has been much fear and press about"gizmos" failing, but she has spoken with a state expert and the numbers are coming back less fearful than have been stated in the press. The state believes less than 2% of embedded chips will fail. City vendors and suppliers have been inventoried, surveyed. and prioritized, and staff will continue to research those most important to the City and will determine their compliance. Contract language for purchases has been developed which will go into contracts approved by the City. A public awareness effort has been undertaken with an article in the Kent Reporter, outreach programs, and utility stuffers in conjunction with the efforts of Dena Laurent, Government Affairs Manager. Relationships have been established with the Association of Washington Cities and the Municipal Services Research Center to collaborate with other cities to simplify costs. Staff has tried to focus on the most "mission critical" systems and services. and are also looking at contingency planning issues in conjunction with the emergency management wing of the Fire Department. A tremendous amount of work has been done in record keeping with all records kept on the City's network system. Communication with key suppliers has been undertaken. Staff has had face to face meetings with Valley Communications that does the 911 dispatching. Valley Com is going to share their complete documents and test results, and Information Services is confident that they are well on their way to compliance. Puget Sound Energy is the regional supplier of electricity and natural gas to this region. Staff has met with them on three occasions, and are reading and following their disclosure statement. They have put together a comprehensive program and are planning to spend $12.000,000 on their year 2000 compliance program. PSE have contracted with a national engineering and accounting firm to audit their situation and has met with regional suppliers such as Bonneville Power. Information Services staff has met with US Bank and heard verbal confirmation from them that they are compliant. Information on US West comes from the state, and staff is hoping to have a face to face meeting with them. The state is comfortable with US West's position. With the exception of the fire vehicles, which have not had completed assessments, both the state and the City's fleet manager feel very good about the City's fleet vehicles in general as not being impacted much by the year 2000. Homes and Small Businesses have not been a key part of staff efforts because the focus has been on City systems, but state experts and other outside research are predicting very low impacts in the home. Record keeping and basic emergency preparedness is always a good idea, but general concerns about a number of devices in the home failing do not appear to be valid. Small businesses are paying attention and putting into place a year 2000 plan. Tun Clark asked if there was a potential trigger for transition problems in billing and other areas where future income would need to be predicted. Ms. Mulholland said that any system that would project to the future would be impacted, and gave an example where fire incident system inspection scheduling could not be completed into the year 2000 or for all of 1999. The Parks system also would not allow scheduling of classes into the year 2000. Tim Clark moved that the Operations committee recommend to the Council approval of a contract extension with Steve Schopfer through his company, Coda Consulting Group, for year 2000 project work, subject to City Attorney approval. The motion was seconded and carried 2-0. The meeting was adjourned at 4:18PM. PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES November 17, 1"8 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Woods, Chair, Connie Epperly, Leona Orr (Substituting for Rico Yingling) STAFF PRESENT: John Hodgson, Jim McDonald, Lori Flemm, Lori Hogan, Perry Brooks, Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order by Chair, Judy Woods, at 4:40PM. Approval of October 20, 1998 Minutes Committee Member. Connie Epperly, made the motion to approve the minutes of October 20, 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Accent 1999 City Art Plan and Five-Year City Art Plan Jim McDonald, Parks Department Cultural Program Manager, presented the 1999 Art Plan and the Five-Year Art Plan. The first project to be considered for 1999 is artwork for the new train station in Kent. The Arts Commission is in the process of working with Sound Transit on the artwork for that station. Sound Transit has a 1% art program which they are implementing, and the Arts Commission is interested in putting additional funds to their 1% and having all the money put into one pot to use throughout the whole site. The Arts Commission looks at this as a major element in the development of the City and wants to have an impact there. The amount that's been put forward is $45,000, with Sound Transit contributing $33,000, making a total of$78,000 in the project budget. The artwork will come through the City of Kent for approval because of Kent's financial contribution, and the design proposals will go through the normal channels of the Arts Commission, the Technical Advisory Committee, and then the City Council. Artist, Lydia Aldridge, is working on the project and has already presented conceptual designs for the station to the Kent Arts Commission. The Millennium Public Participation Art Project is a two-year project to be started in 1999 and also funded in 2000. This is a public participation project similar to the Japanese-American project, the one on the Green River, and the one on Lake Meridian that will get the community involved working with the theme of the millennium and its relationship to Kent and its citizens. A site has not been selected, but the Commission is looking at downtown Kent. The Reclamation Art Projects will be continued. These are successful youth art projects. one of which is at the West Hill Skate Park. Artist Ruth Tomlinson wants to bring in vounger artists as a go-between for the team and herself. One major artwork will be refurbished, possibly the earth sculpture on West Hill. The Commission feels the West Hill artwork is a significant piece and they want to invest the money into bringing it into a little different design that would be more applicable for maintenance and other issues. It is also one of the few major pieces on West Hill, so they wanted to keep it there. The Portable Collection Purchases will continue, especially since the purchase of the Centennial Center and more offices going in there. There is a great opportunity to enhance the building through portable artworks. The Commission would like to put money forward to bring in artists to work with the architect on the design of the Performing Arts Center. Mr. McDonald said the most successful work happens when the artist is working with the architect as early as possible. The value of the City's collection is at about $1,700.000. The rest of the 1999 budget is for staff salaries, maintenance, insurance, and office °`r'' supplies. Looking at the five-year plan, the millennium project continues in the year 2000. The Kent Commons entrance artwork is in need of repair. It has been there a long time and was repaired once about 10 years ago. The Commission feels they have put a significant effort into that artwork in the past and would now like to replace it. Reclamation Art Projects and Portable Collection purchases will continue. In the years 2001 and 2002 a significant amount of money goes to the Performing Arts Center Artwork. If that project goes forward,the Commission wants to have a major artistic impact there with the total amount in the proposed budget at about$150,000. The project would be equivalent to King County and Seattle's capital projects, and 1% would be a minimum to spend. The 132°d Park, which is an old nursery, has had an art studio for 3-4 years. Parks is working with the Arts Commission in keeping the studio, and the Commission wants to add an artwork there. In 2003, the Commission wants to investigate working with Public Works or Parks on some significant Capital Project Artwork. The budget is carry—over, so even though it looks like more will be spent in 1999 than will be brought in, expenditures will come from the carry-over reserve. Over a five-year period the balance is close to $25,000 and the Commission is looking to expend those funds. Connie Epperly moved to accept the 1999 City Art Plan and Five-Year City Art Plan for years 1999- 2003. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. A cceut Proposed Amendment To City Arts Commission Agreement Jim McDonald informed the Committee that over the last couple of years the Arts Commission has worked in fine tuning their own policies and procedures. This amendment would go back into the Ordinance under the membership term area with a language change that says to be qualified to serve as a member of the Kent Arts Commission, candidates must reside around property within the City or----, one of its utilities or Parks Department service areas, or alternatively work or own a business within the City's municipal boundaries. The Commission felt they wanted that local element, and the amendment received a unanimous vote. Council President, Leona Orr, moved to approve the amendment to the City Arts Commission Agreement, section 4.02.030, membership term. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. International Balloon Classic Discussion Lori Fiemm, Parks Planning/Development Superintendent, said the Balloon Classic has had a 13 year history in the community and is a mid-summer event that draws 30-35 thousand people annually. It has been extremely successful, but over the last 4-5 years some trends have developed that have caused concern. Pilot participation has declined because the Kent Valley is very difficult to fly in and increased development means fewer landing sites. Additionally, pilot costs have increased as the City has imposed necessary insurance requirements on the pilots to fly in the events, and other balloon rallies offer greater amounts of"show-up" and"glow" money and awards for participating. In order to really compete. Kent would need to increase the revenue side by about 35% or $8-10,000. Sponsorship is getting harder to find and several of the commercial balloon sponsors, such as Kodak and Remax who were substantial several thousand dollar sponsors, have altered how they are spending their marketing dollars and are redirecting their money in other areas. Staff has worked 7-8 months ahead to try and generate those sponsorships and haven't had the success hoped for this past year. Parking, which is a big piece of the revenue, and the logistics of the event cause concern. The driving range has been lost as a parking venue and the Russell Road Soccer site will be lost in 1999. There also are inherent risks and liabilities which create a concern. Event insurance has become more difficult to obtain and more expensive, as the City has to get a supplemental insurance policy, and the success of the event is weather dependent on such factors as wind, cloud ceiling, and rain. Kent has also been competing with itself because of its own special events, and this is really a ``•' regional festival that competes with other big events from Tacoma and Seattle. Given this combination of situations, the Parks Department is reconsidering the event and looking at other alternatives. The success at Lake Meridian with the Seattle Symphony over the Fourth of July places that as a viable event consideration for the community. Staff is recommending discontinuing the balloon classic and focussing on the Fourth of July event at the Lake with the Seattle Symphony as an annual visitor; then building around that with other performances, children's activities, food booths, and possibly a recreational athletic event. Parking would be a concern but the prospect is to use the shuttle parking that was offered this past summer and work with homeowners on solutions. This event will not draw 35,000 people and will not have the regional draw, but will conceivably have a greater community focus that should bring the community together. The event would not adversely impact the budget as the existing balloon classic budget would be used as a framework. John Hodgson added that they knew there would be a day the Balloon Classic event would come to a close. And although one never wants to take a successful program and drop it, a solution that would generate a new festival would be perfect. He said preliminary discussions with the Lions Club about their issues and concerns have taken place because the Classic is part of Cornucopia. However, the two are different programs and can run separate from each other. It has only been in the last 3-4 years that they have been a joint festival. Parks will be working with the Lions Club to add something new to Cornucopia for 1999. Leash Law/Poo n Scoop Ordinance John Hodgson, Parks Director, said that Kent currently has only a control law for animals. The department has gotten a number of complaints from people, especially with kids, who use the parks and would prefer that dogs be leashed. Also, there is nothing in place to force pet owners to clean up after their dogs or cats. The ordinance would require leashes and that people clean up after pets. At the same time, necessary materials would be provided to help people in cleaning up pet waste. Mr. Hodgson showed the Committee a sample pet clean-up bag that would be installed in containers along some of the City trails and in the larger City parks. Leona Orr asked if a leash free park had ever been considered, as Seattle has one with success and is looking to expand it. Mr. Hodgson said it had been considered. but a fairly large park would be needed. and he didn't know if Kent had one large enough for everyone to enjoy and still have an off- leash area. but that Parks would continue to pursue the idea. Connie Epperly moved to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amendin, Chapter 8.03.030 of the Kent Citv Code relatine to control of and cleaning up after pets in Kent.The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Neely House Update Lori Flemm introduced Perry Brooks. Park Planner. Mr. Brooks was hired in June and has already completed several projects including Meridian Glenn Play Equipment and Kent Memorial Park Play Equipment Safety Service. That project will be featured nationwide in the company sales catalog of the materials firm. `..+ Mr. Brooks updated the Committee on the Neely House renovation that started in 1997 with a state Grant from the Historical Societv for$75.000. Kent Parks matched the grant with $100,000 from the CIP fund. From a state list of qualified architects that specializes in historical preservation, Boyle Wagoner from Seattle was chosen to do the renovation work. On July 15`h the first public meeting was held with a turnout of 15-20 people from the neighborhood and surrounding areas. the King County Historical Society, and the Master Gardener Society of this area. That meeting produced information, opinions, needs. and concerns that Boyle Wagoner used to come up with three separate options he presented in September; one option then being chosen for pursuance. Another meeting �-- has been set for Nov. 24`s. Total project costs are over budget at $208,000, but plans are to divide the project into three separate phases and then look for additional funding sources. In order to preserve the house's historical sense, the garage and dining areas added in 1950 were eliminated because they were not proportional to the rest of the house and it was evident they were not historical pieces. A workshop was added off to the side where the garage had been. The house will be historical according to past pictures and photos with the eaves, molding cuts, and angle of the roof for the new workshop matching the original house. Areas will be used for a Master Gardener Society mud room. teen art projects, and other diverse activities. The bottom floor of the house will be used for a meeting space and an office, and the top floor can also be made into office spaces or lofts for artists. In the back yard a historical garden has been designed and completed. Seventeen more parking spaces will be created on the other side of the street. Mr. Brooks said construction should start in the spring. John Hodgson explained further that the first phase will allow use of the bottom floor. He added that there will be some historical significance to the house, however it will not be another museum but a working facility, and the master gardeners will be present on weekends to talk to people. The top floor will be the second phase and construction on that will start when grant money is received. The meeting was adjourned at 5:24PM. v Public Safety Committee Minutes November 24, 1998 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Connie Epperly, Sandy Amodt, Tom Brotherton STAFF PRESENT: Paul Petersen, Judi Mauhl, Curt Lutz, Jed Aldridge,Norm Angelo, Ed Crawford. Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order at 5:05PM. There were two added items: Heart Attack Survival, and Consolidated Food Management Contract. Approval of Minutes of October 27 1998 Council Member Tom Brotherton moved to approve the minutes of October 27, 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. National Night Out Paul Petersen, Crime Prevention Officer, informed the Committee about National Night Out. National Night Out is part of the Block Watch Program that the Police Department has participated in for 18 years. It is sponsored by the National Association of Town Watch and focuses on crime prevention at the neighborhood level. People agree to mark property that might be stolen, to improve the physical security of their homes, and to get acquainted with others in the neighborhood. This fosters a stronger sense of community and enables people to recognize suspicious activity when it occurs. National Night Out focuses on getting people together with their neighbors once a year for an event such as a barbecue, ice cream social, potluck, or picnic. National Association of Town Watch also sponsors a contest that compares cities with each other on how well they presented the program and how well their neighborhoods were strengthened in crime prevention methods. This year,the Kent Police Department was notified that it has been recognized as the number one city in Washington and the 17'' city in the Nation in the population category of 30.000 to 99,000 people. The association sent a plaque recognizing Kent. Officer Petersen noted that the City Council has adopted a focus area of strengthening neighborhoods, and he believes the Block Watch and National Night Out will go a long way in assisting the entire City in that effort. Judi Mauhl. Community Services Specialist, will have the responsibility of taking the program forward in the months and years to come. Connie Epperly, Committee Chair, asked if there was a reason for the specific date for National Night Out and stated that Council Members cannot participate because the Council Meeting coincides with that night. Officer Petersen said the National Association of Town Watch has chosen the first Tuesday in August of each vear to focus the entire nation with news events about the program. Tom Brotherton suggested changing the date or time of the first Council meeting in August, next year, so members can attend National Night Out. Committee Member Sandy Amodt asked how residents would find out about Block Watch. Officer Petersen answered that when people call the Police Department in response to crimes in their neighborhood. the Department recommends that they gather their neighbors together for a presentation of the program by the Police Department. He said the program is most often very well received. Ms. Amodt asked about the percentage of people involved in Block Watch in Kent. Officer Petersen said there are now about 120 formal block watches in the city involving approximately 2000 households. Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Safety Committee recommend to the full City Council that the first Council meeting in August be shifted in either time or date so that Council Members can attend the National Night Out. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Police Accreditation CALEA Lieutenant Glenn Woods of the Kent Police Department gave a presentation to the Committee on the Department's continuing nationally accredited status. He said that six years ago in 1996, the Police Department started its initial accreditation process to get the Department nationally accredited. Assessors came in December, 1995 and looked the 436 standards of the Police Department. The assessors talked to both employees and citizens and then held a Public Hearing. They found the Kent Police Department in compliance with all 436 standards. The Kent Department was recognized nationally as one of approximately 480 agencies in the nation that complied with such standards. Lieutenant Woods said the Department is at that level again and the assessors will come again the week of January 23-27, 1999. He said the Department has been working very hard the last three years to maintain its compliance with all the standards. With the support of other departments in the city and the employees of the Kent Police Department, Lieutenant Woods said he feels very confident that they will more than meet the expectations of the national assessors. The assessors will go through files, talk to employees, both in the Police Department and other departments in the city, and then hold a public forum where they will ask for citizen input on how the Police Department is performing. The open hearing will be January 25 h at 7:OOPM in the Council Chambers. Lieutenant Woods invited the Council and Committee Members to attend the forum. Tom Brotherton asked if a written report of recommendations for future improvement would be provided to the Department. Lieutenant Woods said a written report is sent to the national conference of 21 commissioners, comprised of executives from NOBLE, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement. and IACP, the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The commissioners read the report and make the decision of whether or not a department meets their standards and then sends the report back to the local department. Lieutenant Woods offered to bring the next report to the Public Safety Committee for presentation to the Committee members. Sandv Amodt asked for an example of one national standard. Lieutenant Woods said that an area where the standards have really helped is in increasing the level of professionalism in training, particularly in the use of force. He said very stringent national standards are spelled out concerning applying the use of force when taking someone into custody. The association looks very specifically at the standards and the Kent Department will have to show that for the past three years it has been living by those standards. Kent is one of only eight Police Departments in the State of Washington that is nationally accredited. Tovs for Jov Fire Chief, Norm Angelo, said the biggest pride in the Toys for Joy program is that it is not a Fire Department program, but is a program of the business community, citizens, local union firefighters. and all the members of the department joining in at one time. Donations are taken of new toys and the Department works with the Kent Food Bank and others in wrapping and delivering the toys. He said it would be a mistake to look at the program as just one of Christmas, although it is truly one of the spirit of being together as family and of giving. Chief Angelo said the program has been going on since he has been with the City. which is over 18 vears, and there is a great deal of pride involvement with the community. Assistant Chief Jed Aldridge gave a background on the Toys for Joy program, which he said was started in 1980. Kent Firefighters teamed with local food banks, service groups, and businesses �✓ throughout South King County to benefit families and children with food and toys. The program has grown every year. During Thanksgiving, at least 25 food baskets are delivered to local families, and the day after Thanksgiving the Toys for Joy program kicks off. The program is modeled after the Marine Toy for Tots program which is a very large South King County project. Kent's program concentrates on children in the Kent area but has sent toys as far south as Olympia and as far north as Seattle. Asst. Chief Aldridge said it is a community event, addressing local needs, and is a major program and labor of love for the Kent Fire Department. The first year 25 children were helped and last year 4000 presents were given out. The program is well organized, well supported, and well funded. and starts with an initial donation from Kent Local 1747 of$1,500 from their charity fund. Support is then received from the business community and local service groups. The day after Thanksgiving;the organization sets up at Station 75, issues public service announcements on Channel 28, and a-mails notifications to members of the city and the community. Because the program has grown so large, several wrapping days are utilized by the Fire Department family, the Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Brownies. If people wish to donate, they can take new, unwrapped toys to any Kent Fire Station. A storage container for the toys is filled and used throughout the year to supplement Kent families. Chief Angelo stressed that this program is not about charity or a show, but is from a genuine sense of love from the heart and allows the spirit of Santa Claus to exist. Chief Angelo invited the Committee and Council Members to participate. Heart Attack Survival Chief Angelo showed the Committee the Heart Attack Survival kit,which contains an aspirin, simple instructions, and is meant to hang in a prominent place in a facility. He said Dr. Mickey Eisenberg from the University of Washington asked the Kent Fire Department to do a pilot study. The purpose for the pilot was to determine the most effective methods of getting information to people on what to do in the event of a heart attack as one of the primary symptoms is denial and people hesitate to use 911. This program is designed to educate the public. Dr. Eisenberg found that there is a relatively short-term retention of information by seniors. He came up with the idea of having a uniformed fire fighter share the kit information face to face with the senior community to see if they would be more likely to retain and consider using the information. An interactive survev was conducted with 2000 seniors in the Kent area. A control group was sent kits in the mail and called on the phone. Another group was chosen for door to door canvassing by two special assignment fire fighters to set up appointments to talk with seniors about the program and to give out kits. The program was effective and the meetings were relaxed. Conversations opened up into other areas of emergency services and health care and the Department was able to give the seniors some very simple, straight-forward information. Later, Dr. Eisenberg and his staff contacted the seniors to see how much they remembered and how effective the program had been. They found that when the callers announced themselves as a research group they didn't get much interaction. But when the Kent Fire Department's name was mentioned, citizens would respond and take the time to give feedback. From the survey. it was learned there was a major difference from receiving information in the mail and direct contact in the consideration of using an aspirin for a suspected heart attack. This program encouraged people to call 911 at a proper time and to take positive action that could minimize the damage done by a heart attack and to get appropriate treatment on the way. Chief Angelo said everything has to do with time. which is measured in seconds in an emergency. The odds are significantly increased by a faster response time. Chief Angelo related that Dr. Eisenberg has submitted a request for a national grant to work with every fire department in King County and the King County fire chiefs. The intent would be to do a bigger study using control and interactive groups. The hope is that this will be under way by the middle of 1999, when perhaps the Department can come back to the Public Safety Committee with the announcement of a possible King County-wide program. Tom Brotherton asked Chief Angelo to provide an update on what is happening with the EMS levy and its funding. Chief Angelo said there aren't easy solutions for the funding for EMS without having significant impacts on other areas of service. Another meeting is scheduled on Dec. 101' with King County Executive Ron Sims' task force group which will be looking at several aspects beyond funding and making a decision on alternatives to present to the King County Council. Chief Angelo said he thought the list would not be finalized before February or March. He said everyone in the group feels there must be some modifications and supplemental opportunities to deal with the situation, and there is a wide variety of possibilities. Chief Angelo reflected that EMS is a system of cooperation and county-wide participation and is more than answering a major trauma call. It is a premier example of mutual and automatic aid cooperation between governmental entities and their interdependence. Consolidated Food Management Contract Curt Lutz, Correction Lieutenant, presented a memo from Captain Jim Miller and a letter from the contractor, Consolidated Food Management, asking to again renew the contract between CFM and the City of Kent Corrections Facility. Chair Connie Epperly asked how long the City had contracted with Consolidated Food Management. Mr. Lutz replied that it had been since 1990 and that the cost ..� for meals has been consistent since 1991. Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Safety Committee recommend to the Council that the contract with Consolidated Food Management, Inc. be extended. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Connie Epperly mentioned the cheer baskets for seniors which police volunteers and the Meridian Kiwanis are putting together. She asked Police Chief Ed Crawford to explain the project. Chief Crawrford said the basket could consist of just about anything - fruit. nuts, candy, or any small, inexpensive, uni-sex gift. People can contribute to the baskets by bringing donations to the Police Department. A box will be available 34 hours a day, seven days a week for accepting gifts, and monev may also be donated which the Department will use to purchase needed items for seniors that they can't afford to buy for themselves. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45PM. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 2, 1998 COMMITTEE MEMBRS PRESENT: Tim Clark, Chair, Tom Brotherton, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Roger Lubovich, Don Wickstrom, Fred Satterstrom PUBLIC PRESENT: Jim& Elsy Rust The meeting was called to order by Chair, Tim Clark, at 3:35PM. Approval of Minutes of October 19, 1"8 Committee member, Tom Brotherton, made the motion to approve the minutes from the October 19, 1998 Public Works/Planning Committee. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0. Tacoma Water Supply Project—Interim Funding Agreement Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director, informed the Committee that the contract for the Tacoma Water Supply Project was first executed in 1986, and implementation of the project has been in process since then. The project is now the only near-term new water supply project in King,Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. He said water rights are very difficult to achieve, either surface or ground water, and this project is probably the only new central source that has already been permitted. In 1995, the Council authorized spending $791,000 on preliminary design of the project to get it moving and to keep it on schedule. Right now the project is scheduled for operation in 2004. The work involves raising the summer time pool another 20,000 acre feet from the existing 25,000 acre feet at the Howard Hansen Dam. That water will then be used by the municipalities that are �✓ involved in the project for their water supply. Kent would store the water allowed in the winter behind the dam from Feb. 15'' until June 30d, and then start using it. During the balance of the year there would not be any water available. Project elements include dams, habitat work, a fish passage for the dam which is being sponsored and done by the Corp with Kent participating in a local match, pipeline, headworks, Muckleshoot mitigation, King County mitigation, and some "friends of the river" mitigation, all to a cost over $200,000,000. Kent's share is 1/9, which in 1996 was $22.000,000 and now is probably close to $28.000,000. Mr. Wickstrom said a letter was received from the Corp asking Tacoma to come up with local money to pay the Corp's costs for moving ahead towards the completion date. Kent's share would be $100,000 in the fiscal year 1999 and another $500.000 in the following fiscal year. Tacoma says thev've alreadv invested $22.000,000 in the project and they want Kent, Covington Water District, Lakehaven Water and Sewer District. and Seattle to fund the study costs. The costs are divided, with the Districts and Kent picking up a third. Seattle a third, and Tacoma a third. Tacoma is asking the other participants to front the money to proceed with the design, which would require boosting Kent's $791,000 limit up to a $975,160 limit. The Public Works Department is recommending an increase of the previous authorization to that amount. Tom Brotherton asked for a rough estimate on how long this project would supply Kent's water needs. Don Wickstrom said the City is running around 15 million gallons a day in demand now and the ultimate, maximum needs should be around 30,000.000 gallons per day at peak demand. This project and the construction of the impoundment at the 124`h St. property would give the City 32,000.000 gallons a day capability. Committee member, Rico Yingling, asked where the water would come from. Mr. Wickstrom said it would come from a new pipeline constructed at the headwaters of the Howard Hanson Dam. The line would go through the Auburn golf course, through the impoundment project, across the valley to Federal Way, and then down across the Tacoma flats and into Tacoma. Mr. Yingling asked for a breakdown of the cost. Mr. Wickstrom said the dam work is about$47,000,000, the pipeline $150.000,000, the mitigation from the Muckleshoot agreement about$25-26,000,000, the headworks $13.000,000, design work$700.000, and also other more minor expenses. Mr. Yingling asked about the timeline for the project. Mr. Wickstrom said the year 2004 was the projected time when everything should be operational. Tom Brotherton wanted to know if the $28,000,000 in costs would be flowed over the next six years. Mr. Wickstrom said that by the year 2004 the bulk of the money would be spent. He said the City has about $10,000,000 in cash that has been saved towards the project. Tacoma will be creating a separate entity to operate and work the facility and they will sell bonds. Kent will pay the debt service to them over a period of time. Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Works/Planning committee recommend to the Council to increase the previous authorization associated with the design work of the Tacoma Second Supply Project to $975,160. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0. Adult Retail Establishment Moratorium—Resolution City Attorney, Roger Lubovich, asked the Committee to recommend a moratorium on the application for location in the City of Kent of adult retail establishments such as bookstores, video stores, and adult novelty stores. The moratorium would be for the adult entertainment business license code as well as the zoning code. At present,the codes define these businesses as 20% stock in trade in adult entertainment material. The issue is the adequacy of the definition of adult retail use in regards to the zoning and location of these facilities. Kent's current zoning code on all adult entertainment facilities prohibits their location within 1000 feet of churches, schools, parks, libraries and residential zones. Mr. Lubovich said there has been great interest in the development of larger scale adult bookstore facilities in this region, and in talking to other jurisdictions that are having problems, he has become aware of the potential for problems in Kent. He said he thought it would be appropriate to take a look at Kent's zoning definition and setbacks, and make sure they adequately address the location of these facilities. One concern is for proper identification as adult entertainment facilities. Without proper identification, the businesses could locate anywhere. The moratorium that's requested would be in place for six months and subject to renewal for a six month period after that, or subsequent six month periods. There would need to be a hearing by law within 60 days of implementation of the moratorium. Tim Clark stated that there was already licensing for certain types of material distribution and asked if there was a way to actually make a clear delineation that would hold up in court. Mr. Lubovich said there were two things to look at. One is the definition of 20% stock in trade or the amount of material that's contained in the facilities. In some cases, he said, 50% had not been upheld in the courts and he did not know the magic number. The other issue is secondary effects and the need to establish that there is a secondary negative effect and impact in the community. Mr. Lubovich sited the court case in the early 1990s of Tukwila vs World Wide Video. World Wide Video went to court and had Tukwila*s regulation of 10% stock in trade struck down. The court said the definition was inadequate and not substantial enough. The issue in Tukwila was that they had not made a case of negative impact from the facility. There was no study that said these kinds of facilities have any kind of impact in the community and the argument was that if a video is rented and taken home, there is no negative impact. Mr. Lubovich said his concern is that if 10% stock in trade was not adequate enough, 20% may not be adequate enough. He said the studies should be looked at to see if Kent is adequately based. Tim Clark sited the danger of very graphic advertising,particularly in locales where there are large numbers of young people and asked if there was any type of restriction about on-premise advertising in terms of exposure to the outside. Roger Lubovich said there was a local case that had to do with an exotic dance studio where the regulation was against signs on the premises being viewed from the streets. The courts struck it down saying it was improper regulations, and the City threw out prohibition of certain signage. Mr. Clark said he knew that there were restrictions for liquor licenses of what was viewable from the street. He encouraged the law office to look into that. Rico Yingling asked for clarification on the intent to protect certain sensitive areas but to not try and make the businesses go away. Roger Lubovich said the City would not be trying to keep facilities from coming into the City. Constitutionally, he said, those facilities cannot be zoned out of the City and that's not the intent. Right now they are allowed and are regulated through the zoning process. The City wants to make sure, when and if others do come, they come in the appropriate location so they don't impact other uses that might be more sensitive to that kind of facility next door, such as a church, school, or library where there are a lot of young people around. Another concern is daycares. Currently, there are no business location requirements for adult retail establishments in regards to davcares as there are for schools and churches. Rico Yingling asked what the community impact was from the bookstores and video stores. Mr. Lubovich said he had read of an individual case testimony from California. The facility the man was �..+ patronizing was basically a staging area for pickups for sex. With a large scale operation that could happen. The concern is that such a place could have the impact of people hanging out, looking for a pickup because of the type of clientele. He said there is no indication that is happening in Kent as there aren't a lot of these facilities in the City. Another impact the studies have shown is these businesses may have trash laying around outside their facilities or in the dumpster that become readily available for pick up by kids walking by. Mr. Lubovich said studies show that solicitation, prostitution, and illegal drug use occurs in these facilities. He said it would be hard for Kent to have its own study, but the law office could look at other jurisdictions that have more of this type of facilityy. The moratorium would give the time to do that. His office is collecting materials and should soon have a number of studies available for the Council to look at in the Council office. Rico Yingling moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to the Council passage of the resolution imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for and the issuance of any business license or any building, land use, or development permit, and further setting November 17, 1998 as the hearing date. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0. Chair, Tim Clark, reminded the Committee that at the next meeting on November 16`h the Committee would immediately adjourn and then the members would take on the role of dealing with the LID 340 which is the $22,000.000 Local Improvement District issue. The meeting was adjourned at 4:06PM. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES December 7, 1998 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Clark. Chair. Tom Brotherton. Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Jim Harris, Don Wickstrom, Leona Orr, Tom Brubaker, Brenda Jacober, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Jim& Elsy Rust The meeting was called to order by Chair, Tim Clark, at 3:38PM. Approval of Minutes of November 2. 1998 Committee Member Tom Brotherton made the motion to approve the minutes of November 2, 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Proposed Interlocal Annexation Agreement Between Kent and Renton Jim Harris, Director of Planning, informed the Committee that this was the third interlocal agreement for the City of Kent, the City already having agreements with Auburn and Federal Way. Each agreement is similar and the basic tenets are the same except for four items of difference in this agreement listed under c, d, e, and f. Mr. Harris used a territorial map to show the subject area. He explained the differences to the Committee. C: Renton wants the Springbrook Springs water area protected and will talk with Kent within 18 months about how to mutually work that protection. D: Renton has recently acquired the Cleveland property located south of the Springbrook Trout �. Farm. Kent has park projects in Chestnut Ridge and Renton wants to talk about overlap in that area. E: Kent acknowledges Renton's need to have logical and reasonable service area boundaries and agrees to de-annex the approximately 31.63 acre area bounded by SR-167 (Valley Freeway) on the west. S 192nd St. on the north, 92"d Ave. S on the east, and S. 200`h St on the south, with the understanding that Renton will concurrently annex that area. F: Renton acknowledges that the City of Kent has identified the 196d' St. Corridor project in East Vallev as one of its concurrency projects. Most of this project occurs in Renton's PAA. In the past, Kent's potential annexation boundary went to 196`h. For giving up this strip of land, Renton agrees to allow Kent to move its PAA to 192"d (east of 92"d . which has eight properties. Mr. Clark questioned who would have jurisdiction if the corridor project extended into the de- annexed area. He made the point that if the area was de-annexed, the citizens of the neighborhood would be Renton citizens and asked if Fire and Safety would still have power of condemnation. Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works, responded that if Renton were to annex the piece of property, Kent would be subject to Renton's concurrence. Mr. Clark conjectured that this would put the huge corridor project significantly at risk. Committee Member Rico Yingling asked why it made more sense for Renton to own the strip of property. and Mr. Harris answered that Renton feels it would be easier for them to serve their area if their boundary went all the way to the Valley Freeway. Tim Clark asked Tom Brubaker. Assistant City Attorney, for input to understand the risks the City �✓ would take if the area was de-annexed, as the 196`h Street corridor project could become very controversial if the City did not get cooperation from Renton. Kent would have invested a large amount of time and effort leading into an area where it did not have jurisdiction. Tom Brubaker answered that Kent would not be able to condemn property to widen the road without the Cite of Renton's approval. Kent would also have to obtain permits from the City of Renton to do the work, and the project would be subject to all requirements that the City of Renton would feel appropriate. Mr. Brubaker conjectured that in the situation where the City of Kent would be funding the project in another jurisdiction, the City of Renton would probably focus heavily on the concerns or complaints of its residents affected by the corridor—as opposed to the City of Kent's need to construct a project under a certain budget or in a certain time period. Mr. Clark asked at what point the roadway would potentially cross Renton's watershed. Mr. Wickstrom answered that one of the proposed routes came along 200'h and that route didn't affect the watershed, but the goal was to try and tie to 192nd because it goes all the way across to 148`h. Mr. Clark made the assumption that the ground would be steep enough there to build bridges. Mr. Wickstrom concurred, but said that 200`s was the only clean route that wouldn't affect Renton's watershed or their jurisdiction. Rico Yingling asked if the road terminus was pertinent to the discussion of the Interlocal Agreement. Don Wickstrom said that the road would terminate at Benson Highway, but ideally, it would tie to 192"d and ease out to 148`h. Under this current agreement, the boundary east of Benson Highway would be 192"d and west of the Benson, it would drop down to 200`h. Tim Clark stated that there was no agreement on where the corridor would end and there were three potential ending points. Don Wickstrom listed two potential ending points, one at Benson and 2001h, and another at 192d and Benson. Jim Harris made the point that there was no current project east of East Valley Highway. Mr. Clark reminded Mr. Harris that the purpose of the funding for the corridor was to give access from the East Hill to Interstate 5. Tom Brotherton stipulated that the concern was that the de-annexation could foreclose the project for the future. Tim Clark reasoned that if the area was de-annexed, there would be only one way the corridor could go and that was up 200`h which would create a traffic jam at Benson and 200a'. Don Wickstrom said if Kent de-annexed the property,the City would have to deal with Renton on their Cleveland property because the corridor would have to cross that going to the �-• east hill and Kent would have to deal with a Renton Council concurrence allowing that. Mr. Yingling concluded that the problem was not one of terminus, but crossing the de-annexed strip. Tom Brotherton said he did not see how giving Renton the strip of property would benefit them as the area is wetland and there are no roads or buildings. Mr. Yingling asked what plans Renton had for utilizing the property. Mr. Harris did not know but concluded that it would probably be used for more park area, however Renton had said they want to control it because it controls their ability to serve their other properties. Mr. Brotherton questioned whether Renton would be willing to negotiate such that they would have ownership of the property, but Kent would have right of passage by road across the property should the City decide to build the corridor in the future. Mr. Hams said Renton is very concerned about the road and section F of the agreement stipulates joint discussions between Kent. Renton, and King County. Renton says the road will affect their watershed which they want to protect, and one way to do that is to controf the piece of property between the Valley Freeway and the existing eastern part of Renton's city boundary. Tom Brotherton requested that the involved parties find out what Renton meant about protecting their watershed. Rico Yingling moved to direct administration to coordinate between both Public Works and Planning a coordinated approach for the interlocal annexation agreement between Kent and Renton. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Interazencv Agreement Regarding 277`h Corridor Roadwav Tim Laporte, Design Engineering Supervisor, covered points in the Interagency Agreement between -r the City of Kent and the City of Auburn. For a decade the two cities have coordinated on a project to develop 277°' as a regional corridor and have cooperated in obtaining funding. Auburn is responsible for the portion from Auburn Way N. to SR 181 (West Valley Highway). The City of Kent's portion \ is partially funded by the Transportation Improvement Board, which has regarded the project as an overall corridor connecting SR 167 to the Kent Kangley Road. Recently the City of Auburn has been more successful in obtaining funding on their portion from Auburn Way to SR 167 and has now been forced to play a catch up role as they did little the first half of the decade in developing their part. Auburn has utilized outside consultants and are trying to coordinate so that the overall regional project will happen as early as possible. The railroad crossings have become much more significant because of the freight mobility issues and the need to provide grade separation at the crossings. Auburn's portion crosses both the Burlington Northern Railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad right- of-ways. The straight-forward connection of 10 years ago has grown in excess of the costs of the original portions with Kent's now about $27,000,000 and Auburn's about$40,000,000. The bulk of 277`h is either in the City of Auburn or in unincorporated King County, but Auburn is concerned about the right of way from Union Pacific where the Kent city limits meets 2770' St. Auburn has requested that Kent proceed with the Interagency Agreement and work with them to obtain right-of- way should they be unsuccessful in their negotiations. The Interagency Agreement clarifies the working relationship between the Public Works Departments of the two cities and provides that Kent would work with Auburn and condemn the right of way on 2771h Street if necessary. As part the funding package the City of Kent anticipated that the south lane curb gutter and sidewalk would be funded by scheduled development in the agricultural area to the north, but since that area is in another city, Kent has no means to require the developer to pay. Another part of the Interagency Agreement also provides that the City of Auburn would either pay directly, have an LID, or other mechanism to remunerate Kent for that portion. Tim Clark asked about the possible requirement of immediate annexation of that agricultural area. Tim Laporte answered that this agreement does not require annexation, but states that if Kent does annex, the boundary is stipulated to be on the north edge of the right-of-way, west of the future I Street. Mr. Clark questioned whether the two cities are still on the same timeline for construction. Mr. Laporte said that the City of Kent is on schedule, but the City of Auburn is not, as it has been delayed in receiving funding. Kent is already under construction and Auburn hopes to be under construction next year. In order to build that portion of 277`h, Auburn will need to close the street because of the two bridges. In the meantime traffic would be detoured. Tim Clark was concerned about the closure affecting traffic and conflicting with the opening of the RTA Station. Tom Brotherton questioned Item D8 that covers condemnation procedures: `concurrently sending Kent the notice that the final pre-condemnation offer has been rejected by the property owner, Auburn shall deliver the property owner a final offer which shall be less than the final pre- condemnation offer.' Assistant City Artomey. Tom Brubaker, informed the Committee that it was a typo and should say 'which shall not be less than the final pre-condemnation offer'. He said he would go through the agreement with Tim Laporte and then bring it to the Council in final form. Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to the Council authorization for the Mayor to sign an interagency agreement, with corrections, regarding the 277`h Corridor roadway, subject to approval of the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 4:23PM. EXECUTIVE SESSION A) Property Acquisition CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES