No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 09/21/1999 City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda CITY OF d�P�IIC�S�� Mayor Jim White Counci/members Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly Tom IBrotherton Judy Woods Tim Clark Rico Yingling September 21 , 1999 Office of the City Clerk CITY or IET31204T SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 21, 1999 Council Chambers _.__ �BYICTA 7 : 0 0 p.m. Mayor Jim White 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. Introduction of Appointee B. Proclamation - Day of Concern for the Hungry C. Proclamation - Hunting and Fishing Day 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Horseshoe Acres Annexation - Initial Zoning and Area Comprehensive Plan Amendments 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B. Approval of Bills C. Mower/Hebert and Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment - Ordinances D. Diversity Board Appointment - Confirm E. Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance Revision - Ordinance '. ..; F. Year 2000 Criminal Justice Funding Application - Authorize G. Bureau of Justice Assistance Block Grant Application - Authorize 7 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center, Appeal of Hearing Examiner' s Decision 8 . BIDS A. Neely House Renovation 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Ijabor N.egotiatigns n 13 . kJOURNME NT 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 Clerk's Office in advance at(253)856-5725. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B) FROM THE PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) Introduction of Appointee B) Proclamation - Day of Concern for the Hungry C) Proclamation - Hunting and Fishing Day 0 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 21 , 1999 Category Public Hearings 1 . SUBJECT: HORSESHOE ACRES ANNEXATION - INITIAL ZONING AND AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AZ-99-1 AND CPA-99-1 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On August 23 , 1999, the Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on both the annexation zoning map amendments and the comprehensive plan amendments for the Horseshoe Acres annexation area. Tonight' s meeting is the first of two public hearings to be held by the City Council pursuant to state law; the second hearing is scheduled for November 2 , 1999 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo dated 9/21/99; maps; staff report dated 8/23/99; and minutes dated 8/23/99 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 : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: (i(�o-0 A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember C-66� seconds 0-� to -&14)-� the public hearing. (/Yt G B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds r DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A CITY OF Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX (253) 856-6454 James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM September 21, 1999 MEMO TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED HORSESHOE ACRES ANNEXATION AREA INITIAL ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, #AZ-99-1, AND #CPA-99-1 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION Attached is the Land Use & Planning Board's recommendation on initial zoning and potential Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Horseshoe Acres annexation area. The Land Use & Planning Board conducted a public hearing on zoning and land use for the Horseshoe Acres area on August 23, 1999, and made their recommendation at the conclusion of that hearing (see attached minutes). At the August 23rd public hearing the Planning Board received public testimony and was asked to consider two zoning and land use plan map alternatives for the annexation area. Each zoning and land use alternative is mapped and described in the staff report to the Planning Board dated August 23, 1999, which is attached to this memo. After considering the public testimony, and additional information and questions of staff, the Planning Board is recommending zoning and land use plan map Alternatives 2, with one clarification. The clarification involves the title of the land use alternative maps. The title for land use alternative one was accidentally attached to the map showing alternative two. The second map was in error in kind. This mistake has been corrected on the maps attached to this memo. By City ordinance, the City Council must hold two hearings on the proposed zoning, which also includes consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The first hearing is scheduled for September 21, 1999, and the second is scheduled for November 2, 1999. By State law, the hearings must be held at least 30 days apart from each other. Planning Department staff will be available at the September 21" hearing to further explain the recommended zoning and land use plan designations for the Horseshoe Acres annexation area. W/p/publ ic/az99-I mem3.doc Attachments cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator 220 4th AVE.SO.. /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)956-5200 1_ - • LIM 1711 � ILI �iu�='•i 1111 ■Ls� 1 10 I ma IN. lot' .• it rim_ _ IN 0 MERU tl *� ■ CITY OF fxvrcTt► Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454 James P. Hams,Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (253) 856-5454 STAFF REPORT August 23, 1999 MEMO TO: RON HARMON, CHAIR AND LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: MATTHEWS JACKSON, PLANNER/GIS COORDINATOR SUBJECT: #AZ-99-1, #CPA-99-1 —HORSESHOE ACRES ANNEXATION ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Introduction On June 15, 1999, the Kent City Council passed Ordinance No. 3462 approving the annexation of 63 acres of land known as the Horseshoe Acres Annexation Area to the City of Kent. The site is located in the south part of Kent between the Green River and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad tracks and between South 259" Street and the Green River. The Horseshoe Acres Annexation Area officially became a part of the.City of Kent on July 1, 1999. Upon annexation, the area was given an interim zoning of SR-2, Single Family Residential, with a 2.18 units per acre maximum density. All lands annexed to the City are given an interim zoning of SR-2 per the Kent Zoning Code. The City has six months after an annexation becomes effective to establish zoning designations through a public hearing process. The first public hearing on zoning and a comprehensive plan amendment for the Horseshoe Acres annexation area will be held in front of the Land Use & Planning Board on August 23rd. Following the Board's hearing, their recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Two hearings will be held by the City Council, and by state law, these hearings must be held 30 days apart from one another. The first Council hearing will likely occur in mid-September,while the second hearing will likely occur in mid to late October. The City of Kent adopted its Comprehensive Plan under the provisions of the Growth Management Act(GMA) in April 1995. As mentioned above, the plan includes a potential annexation area(PAA) for the city. The Land Use Element of the plan includes a Land Use Plan Map that designates land uses for the entire PAA, including the Horseshoe Acres annexation area. The land uses designated 220 4th AVE SO.. /KENT.WASH[NGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 #AZ-99-1/#CPA-99-1 Horseshoe Acres Annexation Zoning&Comprehensive Plan Amendment August 23, 1999 Page 2 in the PAA for the Horseshoe Acres annexation area reflect the designations that King County had established to implement its 1994 Comprehensive Plan. The GMA requires that all development regulations adopted by a jurisdiction must implement, and be consistent with, the comprehensive plan(RCW'36.70A.120). This means that the zoning for the Horseshoe Acres annexation area must be consistent with the Land Use Plan Map in the comprehensive plan. Therefore, it may be necessary to amend the Land Use Plan Map land use designations so that they are consistent with new zoning. Existine Land and Shoreline Use Existing land uses in the Horseshoe Acres annexation area can be characterized as either residential or industrial. Although a majority of lots contain residential uses,more than half of the total 63 acres of land is either developed or under development for industrial uses. Opus Northwest is currently developing the southern portion of the annexation area with a warehouse/distribution industrial park. Businesses in the area include Jac Inc., Industrial Repair Service, Inc., and Donovan. Salm Construction Company appears to be vacant. The recently completed census indicates there are 18 housing units located in the Horseshoe Acres annexation area. Five of these units are mobile/manufactured homes. Seventeen of the eighteen housing units are occupied. A population of 41 people calls this area home. Under City of Kent Shoreline Master Use Program, residential uses require an one hundred foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of the Green River. Industrial uses require two hundred feet from the ordinary high water mark. In order to develop many properties in the annexation area, shoreline variances will be required. Although it is more likely for proposed industrial uses to require shoreline variances, any new industrial project will likely result in the aggregation of several lots for adequate size. The King County Land Use Atlas classifies the entire Horseshoe Acres annexation area as Industrial. Likewise, the existing Kent Land Use Plan Map designates the entire site as Industrial. Previous Kine County Zoning All but four lots in the annexation area were zoned Industrial in King County. The four lots which did not have industrial zoning were zoned R-1,Residential, one dwelling unit per acre. One of these four lots is a portion of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. This zoning reveals an area, which has been, and was intended to undergo a transition from residential use to industrial. Analysis of Two Alternatives Upon the completion of the August 9, 1999 Land Use and Planning Board workshop, staff has been reviewing two final alternatives for annexation zoning. The first alternative would be to zone the four parcels with R-1, Residential zoning under King County as SR-1, Residential Agricultural, one #AZ-99-1/#CPA-99-1 Horseshoe Acres Annexation Zoning&Comprehensive Plan Amendment August 23, 1999 Page 3 dwelling unit per acre. The remaining area would be zoned MI, Industrial Park. This alternative would be the closest match to preexisting conditions. The Kent Land Use Plan Map would have to be amended in order to implement this alternative. The lots zoned M1 would retain their Industrial land use designation, but the lots zoned SR-1 would be reclassified as SF-1, Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per acre, on the Kent Land Use Plan Map. This would insure consistency between zoning and land use plans as required under GMA. The second alternative would be to zone the entire Horseshoe Acres annexation area as M l. A gradual transition to new industrial uses in the area would likely result in new investment and improvements in an area which contains a significant amount of junked vehicles, appliances, and debris. All existing residential uses would be able to remain or be rebuilt under either zoning alternative. The potential for shoreline use variances would be present under any zoning alternative; however, industrial uses would have a greater setback requirement. Staff feels that this is consistent with previous policy as represented under the King County Comprehensive Plan. The Kent Land Use Plan Map would not have to be amended under this alternative because it already designates the entire site as Industrial. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Land Use & Planning Board take the following actions: 1. Recommend to the City Council adoption of Zoning Alternative 2 as an amendment to the City's Official Zoning Map, rezoning the entire annexation area to M1 (Industrial Park); 2. Recommend no change be made to the Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map. If there are any questions prior to the hearing, please contact me at 856-5454. MJ/pm p:/public/az99-lmem2.doc cc: James P.Hams,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Kevin ONeill, Senior Planner �. l\\ MW ggg INc AR \"PRE I llml I'MINNIME, ON\;\\ \ M®RME :\ \M, \ \ . • • ui !� • • \� Lm • %�\ Il ' " i• kco:ao .nr rr r 017 EM I El ED � i LLI f -r 1L3- CIO LLI .. j' of LM 0 Ltu S �• ply•` , ' ' fi :J � � '�� ■ Cf C J � CICV - V i • • ♦1 • •Lm \ Lm • (I) N >1 a gal t ., �r uj -� •'� J .. i �i � 1. �'El ' Uiou ctj OWN 4 7o ui 1 No� L 0 L___j EL A CA f =Z 613. '� • o u) ui .. CIO mr • now LU C - • 1 • I� J ' No 23 1 •� �, Of. uj CD CID LU 0 C TL� 0 "4=--J g u ui _ '1► a I � ® iiii LLJ LLI —� LU co Uj lie < CV 0 Lf) Cl wl a , ■ j • �'r •5 • • • \� m J �. 1 UI 'tP ui dog o ' ,•' i . 14 uj . m . I _ s Li ON gc:l ► OD110 M o 1 � 1 0 a I - E,, • • 1 • ol � LLi era .1 i9 i�- �� ' �� ui ■ ■ FG OH„ 9■ _ • rt Ji 10 LLJ Lm �ti ■ — /c • o cn ui ' 1 r CITY OF � WIT txVICTt► Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454 James P. Harris,Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing August 23, 1999 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Ron Harmon at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 23, 1999 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT James P. Harris, Planning Director Ron Harmon, Chair Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Terry Zimmerman, Vice Chair Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Brad Bell Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Jon Johnson Tom Brubaker, City Attorney Sharon Woodford Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Steve Dowell, Excused David Malik, Unexcused APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jon Johnson MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to approve the minutes of,June 28, 1999 as read. Motion Carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA #ZCA-99-2 Off-Premise Signs Zoning Code Amendment update. COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None #AZ-99-1/CPA-99-1 HORSESHOE ACRES ANNEXATION Planner Matthews Jackson presented staff s recommendation for the 63 acre Horseshoe Acres annexation. The annexation site is located south of south 259', east of the Green River, west of the railroad tracks and north of the Green River in the horseshoe bend on the south side of the city. Mr. Jackson stated that the Horseshoe Acres annexation area was approved by the City Council June 15 and officially became part of the City of Kent on July 1, 1999 with an interim zoning of SR-2. 220 4th AVE.SO.. /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 23, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Jackson stated that SR-2 zoning is given to all newly annexed areas until at which time public hearings are established to set annexation zoning and complete any comprehensive plan amendments required as a result of zoning changes. Mr. Jackson stated that this meeting is the first of a minimum of three public hearings that this annexation process will undergo. He stated that City Council is required to hold two public hearings with a minimum of thirty days apart for annexation zonings. Mr. Jackson stated that staff has evaluated two zoning and land use alternatives. He stated that King County's land use designation for this site has been Industrial. Mr. Jackson said that this site was designated in the City of Kent's 1995 Comprehensive Plan land use map as part of the potential annexation area of the City of Kent and given an Industrial designation by the City Council at that time. Mr. Jackson stated that under King County's jurisdiction,two zoning designations were present with the majority of the site zoned Industrial and three lots zoned R-1. He stated that even though three lots had a land use designation of Industrial they had a zoning designation of R-1, Residential-One Dwelling Unit per acre. Mr. Jackson stated that Alternative One would match the City of Kent designations to the previous King County designations by retaining the(1) Industrial land use designation with one dwelling unit per acre to maintain consistency with the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan. The three other lots would be designated as SF-1 in order to maintain zoning consistency. Mr. Jackson stated that Kent is looking at two zoning designations for the majority of the site consistent with the (I) Industrial land use designation. Staff recommends�(M-1) Industrial Park zoning which is the least intensive industrial use typically consisting of warehouse distribution type operations. Mr. Jackson stated that on the three lots with the County's R-1 designation, the City would apply SR-1 (Single Family Residential/One Dwelling Unit per Acre density). Mr. Jackson stated that SR-1 is actually a residential agricultural designation allowing for similar type uses as King County's previous zoning. Mr. Jackson stated that staff recommends this zoning as Alternative One. Mr. Jackson stated that Land use Alternative Two proposes changing the site to (I) Industrial and the zoning to M-1. Mr. Jackson stated that staff recommends that the Board consider Zoning and Land Use Alternative 2 to amend the Kent Zoning Code for the Horseshoe Acres annexation area to M-1. He stated that this would not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jackson stated that even though most of the site is zoned for industrial use the majority of the individual lots are currently used as residential use. Mr. Jackson said that this is an area transitioning to industrial uses with a large warehouse distribution project in progress on the southern portion of the site. Mr. Jackson stated that it is not staffs intention with this recommendation to force Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 23, 1999 Page 3 conversion to industrial use but rather to maintain consistency with policy established in this area over the last few years. Sharon Woodford MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Sharon Ellis, 26524 79'h Avenue south stated that she owns the lot north of the industrial area currently zoned residential and would like to see it remain residential. Mr. Jackson stated that the County zoned Ms. Ellis's lot residential. Mr. Harris stated that Alternative Two recommends zoning the site 100% Industrial. Chair Ron Harmon addressed Ms. Ellis's concerns that her property be retained as single family residential. He stated that the Board would weigh all information presented to them along with her testimony. Board member Brad Bell asked Ms. Ellis if she understood that she could continue to live in her residence as single family with an Industrial zoning designation. Ms. Ellis voiced concern that a change to Industrial zoning could affect her tax rate, creating a financial hardship as she is on a fixed income. Kevin Phelps,Triple A Auto Wrecking,26311 78'Avenue S. stated that he wanted clarification that the annexation area does not include the 78'Avenue site. Mr. Harris concurred with Mr.Phelps by stating that the annexation area is located on the East Side of the river and Triple A Auto Wrecking is located on the west side of the river and will remain in the county. Jon Johnson MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Board member Terry Zimmerman asked Matt Jackson to explain what the potential tax impact would be to Ms. Ellis's property if her parcel were to be rezoned from residential. Mr. Jackson stated that all the lots are currently being used as single family residents and are zoned Industrial with Industrial land use designation. Mr. Jackson stated that it is staff's understanding that the County is assessing properties based on what they are being used for and said that he believed Ms. Ellis's taxes would not increase based on a change in zoning. Mr. Jackson stated that if Ms. Ellis's property were to be zoned single family and the land use was designated single family, this would require completion of a comp plan and zoning amendment. Planning Director, Mr. Harris stated that property can only be assessed based on use and not on speculative use of property. He stated that either a state law or Supreme Court case set the method on how land value is assessed. Board member Sharon Woodford stated that she would like to be assured that if Ms. Ellis's property was rezoned to Industrial that it would not change her taxes. Mr. Harmon voiced his concern as well Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 23, 1999 Page 4 and stated that even though the law stipulates that property value will be assessed based on value, there is no assurance that legislature will not change the law in the future. He stated that he would like to see Ms. Ellis's property remain zoned as single family. Mr. Jackson stated that there are 41 residents residing in the annexation area living on single family lots with Industrial zoning with the exception of the three parcels noted. Mr. Jackson stated that he observed no other citizens at the hearing objecting to their tax rates. Board member,Brad Bell asked Mr. Jackson if the Planning Department would have a problem with comping this site at M-1 and leaving the zoning Residential. Mr. Jackson stated that State law through the comp plan requires the City of Kent to be consistent between the land use plan and the zoning. Mr. Harris stated that the City could be challenged if an applicant requested a land use comprehensive plan designation, which differed from the zoning designation. Mr. Harris deferred to Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker. Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker said that he concurs with Mr. Harris and Mr. Jackson's statement that the City must maintain consistency between the zoning map and the comprehensive plan designations. Board member Jon Johnson stated that land use has progressively changed in the Valley over the years. He stated that since the County has designated this area as industrial it should remain industrial for consistency. Terry Zimmerman stated that she supports Alternative 1 and does not favor Alternative 2 as she believes that the Board can not assure her that Ms. Ellis's property taxes would remain the same if the City changes the zoning on her property. Sharon Woodford stated that although she sympathizes with Ms. Ellis, her.neighbors are predominately zoned Industrial. Ms. Woodford stated that based on the knowledge that property taxes should not increase with a zoning change, she voted in favor of Alternative 2. Ron Harmon voiced his opposition to Alternative 2 as he felt that he could not be reassured that Ms. Ellis's taxes would remain the same if the annexation site was changed to M-1. Ron Harmon voted in favor of Alternative 2. Brad Bell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to accept staff s recommendation for Alternative Two to zone the entire #AZ-99-1/CPA-99-1 Horseshoe Acres Annexation area to M-1 Industrial. Motion carried three to two with Brad Bell, Jon Johnson and Sharon Woodford voting in favor of the motion. Motion Carried. Terry Zimmerman asked staff when the City Council meeting would be scheduled for the Horseshoe Acres Annexation. Matthews Jackson stated that the City Council hearing would be scheduled for September 21, 1999. Mr. Jackson stated that he would be glad to research the tax issue in Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 23, 1999 Page 5 conjunction with the other lots that are already zoned single family. He stated that staff could not guarantee that tax levels would remain the same but believes that land values have not decreased in this area for many years. Mr. Jackson stated that if taxes were to increase, there would be factors that determine that beyond the City's zoning. Mr. Jackson noted that any parties of interest would be notified of the two upcoming Council hearings. ADDED ITEM #ZCA-99-2 Off-Premise Signs Zoning Code Amendment Mr. Harris stated that at the request of Council President, Leona Orr, the #ZCA-99-2 Off-Premise Sign Amendment should be revisited by the Land Use&Planning Board(LUPB) for further review as a decision was not reached at the Public Works/Planning Committee. Mr. Harris stated that this item has been heard at the April 12, 1999 LUPB public hearing meeting and then sent on to Council. Mr. Harris stated that under the Council's new rules of operation, the Board's recommendation moved directly to the Public Works/Planning Committee and not on to the Council as a Whole. Mr. Harris said that he recalled the LUPB's consensus was that they stood by their original recommendation of"no net gain". _ Tom Brubaker stated that he attended the last Public Works/Planning Committee workshop where discussion ensued on billboards. He said that a couple citizens from the Northpark area of Kent expressed their desire to have billboards removed entirely from the City. Tom Brubaker stated that Council member Rico Yingling expressed his discontent that the Public Works/Planning Committee had previously voted for the business community to hold a meeting with the citizens and the staff in attempts to work out an alternative solution. Mr. Brubaker stated that the Public Works/Planning Committee Chair Tim Clark wishes to set the date for another public hearing on#ZCA-99-2 Billboard Regulations/Off-Premise Signs amendment Ordinance at their next meeting on Wednesday the 8d'of September. Mr. Brubaker stated that at the conclusion of that hearing, he could not predict the outcome. He stated that further action could occur in the form of a changed recommendation, a changed ordinance or possible approval or denial of the same ordinance. Ms. Zimmerman inquired that as a point of procedure, would it be appropriate for the City Council to consider this issue and than turn it back to the Public Works/Planning Committee. Mr. Brubaker stated that a Council procedure has not been established with regard to this issue and that the Off- Premise Sign Amendment occurred at a time when procedural changes took place and this item was caught in the cross current. Mr. Brubaker reiterated that that Planning staffs' understanding was that the off-premise sign amendment ordinance would return to the Full City Council after reconsideration by the Land Use and Planning Board as requested by City Council President Leona Orr. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 23, 1999 Page 6 , Mr. Brubaker said that it is his understanding that this item will return to the Public Works/Planning Committee and it has not been heard before the City Council. Brad Bell stated that he was privileged to watch a televised Council meeting concerning#ZCA-99-2 Off Premise Sign issue. He stated that he felt Tom Brubaker did an excellent job of expressing the LUPB's point of view as well as bringing a sense of reason to this issue. Mr. Bell said that Tim Clark apologized to the LUPB members, as he is aware of the confusion that has been created over this issue. He expressed his appreciation to Tom Brubaker for accurately conveying the opinion of the LUPB over this matter. Chair Ron Harmon stated that the purpose of the Board is to receive and process public testimony than forward the Board's recommendations on to the City Council for their decision. Mr. Harmon stated that the Land Use and Planning Board members volunteer their time to attend workshops and receive public testimony at LUPB hearings each month. He stated that if the labors of the Board are being directed to the Public Works/Planning Committee than let them hold the public hearings. Mr. Harmon stated that it looks as if the PW/PC is moving in that direction. Chair Harmon stated that on behalf of the Land Use and Planning Board he is requesting that the Board receive a letter from the City Council providing them with directives on how the Board should proceed with their recommendations as well as clarifying where the recommendations should move forward to after being heard by the Land Use and Planning Board. Planning Director, Jim Harris stated that the Council decided at retreat to have all Human Service Commission and Land Use and Planning Board deliberations, public meetings or hearings proceed to an appropriate committee. Mr. Harris stated that one glitch with the off-premise sign issue is that it continues to be passed back and forth between the Land Use and Planning Board and the Public Works/Planning Committee. Mr. Harris stated that overall; the Planning department understands that public hearing items held by the LUPB goes to the PW/PC and he concurs with the Board that they should receive a letter of clarification from the Council. Ron Harmon suggested allowing the City Attorney's office or the Planning Committee to generate this letter on behalf of the Board under his signature. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Hannon if he understood that as Chair of the Board that he is permitted to write a letter or memo addressed directly to City Council President Leona Orr requesting that the Council respond to the LUPB. Brad Bell shared that at the retreat, Tim Clark stated that as the Chair of the PW/PC he has the power to reopen public hearings. Brad Bell stated that current procedures dilute what the LUPB tries to accomplish and this makes the Board feel less important. Brad Bell stated that as a citizen, if he _ wanted to speak on a City issue, he would not want to attend ten different meetings on the same issue. He stated that he sees this occurring with the billboard issue as citizens have been given Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 23, 1999 Page 7 numerous opportunities to share their input. Brad Bell expressed his view that if the Public Works/Planning Committee wants to take over the LUPB responsibilities that he has better ways in which he could use his time every other Monday night. Ron Harmon stated that the Land Use and Planning Board's public hearing is held in the evening and is conducive to those who get off work at 5 or 6:00 p.m.to be able to attend a public hearing and present testimony. He stated that as he recalls the Public Works/Planning Committee meeting is held between 3 and 4:00 p.m. making it difficult for citizens to give their input if they are at work. Mr. Harmon stated that the Board would like to inform Leona Orr of their concern and would appreciate receiving a written response. Brad Bell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED to close the meeting. Motion Carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ®retary arris CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through G be approved. Discussion Action 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of September 7, 1999 . 6B. Approval of Bills . No information available due to cancellation of the September 7, 1999 Operations Committee meeting. Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B Kent, Washington September 7, 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, Deputy City Attorney Brubaker, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Planning Director Harris and Employee Services Director Viseth. Approximately 50 people were at the meeting. CHANGES TO Operations Director McFall requested the addition THE AGENDA of a brief executive session regarding labor negotiations . Pamela Dunn, 712 2nd Avenue North, requested that the billboard issue be added to the agenda, and stated that she would like to see the moratorium extended long enough to be able to give notice to the citizens of a public hearing on the issue. Mayor White explained that public hearings have been held by the Land Use and Planning Board twice and that they have made recommendations both times . Council President Orr agreed to bring the issue back to Council with additional information, especially regarding the placement and changing of signs . She said that upon receipt of the addi- tional information from staff, the issue will be scheduled for a Council meeting, probably in mid- November. Upon Dunn' s question, Orr stated that the moratorium will most likely be extended in advance of the November meeting. PUBLIC Chamber of Conmterce Volunteer of the Month COMMUNICATIONS Presentation. John Ryan, President of the Kent Chamber of Commerce, explained that most of the Chamber' s work is done by volunteers, and pre- sented the August Award to Government Affairs Manager Dena Laurent . He noted that Ms . Laurent is being honored for her work as Co-Chair on the Communications Task Force, and expressed his appreciation. Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced that Officer Steve Holt of the Police Department has been selected as Employee of the Month for September. He noted that Officer Holt has 1 Kent City Council Minutes September 7, 1999 PUBLIC performed many different responsibilities includ- COMMUNICATIONS ing working as a Patrol Officer, a D.A.R.E . Officer, and a Bicycle Officer, as well as serving as the Head Advisor of Explorer Post 298 . Holt was presented with the Employee of the Month plaque. Police Chief Crawford expressed thanks and congratulations on behalf of the Police Department and Explorer Scouts . Constitution Week. Mayor White read a proclama- tion declaring the week of September 17-23 , 1999 as Constitution Week in the City of Kent . He noted that the two hundred twelfth anniversary of the signing of the Constitution provides an historic opportunity for all Americans to remember the achievements of the framers of the Constitution and the rights, privileges and responsibilities it affords, and encouraged all citizens to reflect on the many benefits of the Constitution. He presented the proclamation to Sally Arnold-Daniels of the Lakota Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Sound Transit Train Speed Limit Presentation. Bob White, Executive Director, presented a slide show and reviewed some of the steps that Sound Transit is currently taking to assure that the operation of sound or commuter rail service is done in a way that will provide fast and reliable service to the customers and will contribute to a safe environment . Mr. White referred to a recent City of Kent resolution opposing the speed limit increases until such time as speed and safety improvements have been made, and asked that the resolution be modified by supporting the speed improvements when the speed and safety improvements have been made. He suggested enumerating what the improvements ought to be. Upon Clark' s question, Mr. White agreed to look into the noise issue and provide some information on it . He noted for Brotherton that the reason for having crossing bars on only one side is to avoid trapping someone on the 2 �- Kent City Council Minutes September 7, 1999 PUBLIC tracks, and agreed to re-evaluate the situation COMMUNICATIONS with City staff . CONSENT ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through I CALENDAR be approved. Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of August 17, 1999 STREET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5B) VACATIONS Street Vacation, SE 272nd Near 132nd SE. Resolution No. 1548 established September 7, 1999, as the public hearing date for the application by William Fraser, to vacate a portion of S .E . 272nd Street, a dedicated, unopened street, lying generally west of that street ' s intersection with Kent Kangley Road and 132nd Avenue S .E. A staff report recommending approval was included in the Council ' s packet . Planning Director Harris noted that there are six conditions and requested that Conditions 1, 3 and 4 be modified to read as follows : 1 . That unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Director only the westerly 325 feet be vacated rather than the approximately 700 feet requested by the applicant . 3 . Kent shall retain all easement rights over, upon, and under the vacated right-of-way for public utilities that presently exist and may in the future, from time to time, be constructed and/or installed therein. 4 . Kent shall retain all easement rights for private utilities that presently exist within the proposed vacation right-of-way. Further, the City shall retain the right to grant private utilities any necessary easements in the vacated right-of-way. 3 Kent City Council Minutes September 7, 1999 STREET Upon Clark' s question, Wickstrom explained that VACATIONS the fence along SR516 will not change and that there is a bus cut-out in the area. Mayor White opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience and ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. CLARK MOVED to approve the Planning Director' s recommendation as modified tonight of approval of the application to vacate a portion of S .E. 272nd Street, a dedicated, unopened street, lying generally west of that street ' s intersection with Kent Kangley Road and 132nd Avenue S .E. , as referenced in Resolution No. 548; and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordi- nance upon compliance with the conditions of approval . (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5C) Street Vacation, Hawley Road. Resolution No. 1549 established September 7, 1999, as the public hearing date for the application by Ronald L. Wagers, to vacate a portion of Hawley Road (Willis Street) , a dedicated, unopened street, lying south of Willis Street (SR 516) , north of the Green River and west of Washington Avenue (West Valley Highway) . A staff report recommending approval is included in the Council ' s packet . Harris pointed out that when the last increment of Signature Pointe Apartments was built, a Declaration of Non-Significance was issued, and that one of the conditions regarded improvements . He said that the improvements have been made and that approximately one-third of this street vaca- tion will be in those improvements . He stated that Condition No. 4 of the staff recommendation relates to the improvements . The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience . CLARK MOVED to approve the Planning Director' s recommendation of approval of the application to vacate a portion of 4 Kent City Council Minutes September 7, 1999 STREET Hawley Road (Willis Street) , a dedicated, unopened VACATIONS street, lying south of Willis Street (SR 516) , north of the Green River and west of Washington Avenue (West Valley Highway) , as referenced in Resolution No. 1549; and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon compliance with the conditions of approval . TRANSPORTATION (BIDS - ITEM 8A) S. 272nd/277th St. Corridor, Fish Habitat Enhancement. The bid opening for this project was held on September 1st with 11 bids received. The apparent low bid was submitted by Scoccolo Construction Inc. in the amount of $193 , 160 . 00 . The Engineer' s estimate was $203 , 796 . 00 The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Scoccolo Construction Inc . CLARK MOVED that the S . 272nd/277th Street Corridor, _ Fish Habitat Enhancement contract be awarded to Scoccolo Construction, inc. , for the bid amount of $193 , 160 . 00 . Brotherton seconded and the motion carried. LIMITED STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) LICENSE Level 3Com Limited Street License. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to execute a Limited Street License with Level 3 Communications, L.L.C. , subject to review and approval of final terms by the City Attorney. Level 3Com is installing a fiber optic telecommunication system along the Union Pacific Railroad mainline right-of-way. This license allows Level 3Com to cross City streets that intersect the UPRR mainline . LIGHT RAIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) Citv Of Tukwila, Light Rail Resolution. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1553 supporting the alignment of light rail consistent with State and Regional Growth Management Policies, as recommended by the Public Works/Planning Committee. 5 Kent City Council Minutes September 7, 1999 COMMUNITY (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5A) DEVELOPMENT Community Development Block Grant Year 2000 BLOCK GRANT Funding. This date has been set for a public hearing to consider the Year 2000 Proposed Community Development Block Grant program. Carolyn Sundvall of the Planning Department presented the proposed program as follows : Capital Applications Proposed City of Kent Home Repair Program $253, 916 City of Kent Parks & Recreation: Kiwanis Tot 67, 946 Lot #2 ADA Community Psychiatric Center: Transitional 0 Housing Catholic Community Services: Housing for 35,000 Homeless Women King County Housing Authority: Nike Manor 10, 000 Kent Youth & Family Services: Facility 0 Rehabilitation Habitat for Humanity: Kent Site Acquisition & 0 Development Transitional Resources: Avalon Housing 0 Construction Total Capital $366,862 Public (Human) Service Applications Proposed Kent Community Health & Natural Medicine $38,520 Services Kent Emergency Feeding Program 18,324 YWCA Domestic Violence Transitional Housing 38,723 Federal Way Family Center: At Appian Way 0 Apartments ANEW: On the Road to a Family Wage Job 0 Elderhealth Northwest: Connection Adult Day 0 Care Total Public (Human) Services 1 $95,567 Planning & Administration 1 $87,987 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONTINGENCY PLAN PUBLIC (HUMAN) SERVICES If the City of Kent receives an increase in public service dollars, the increase will be divided equally between the funded agencies. If the City of Kent receives a decrease in public services dollars, the decrease will be split proportionately between funded agencies. 6 Kent City Council Minutes September 7, 1999 COMMUNITY CAPITAL REQUESTS DEVELOPMENT If there is an increase in the Capital estimate, the BLOCK GRANT increase will be split evenly between Catholic Community Services Transitional Housing for Homeless Women and King County Housing Authority Nike Manor Emergency & Transitional Housing Rehabilitation. If there is a decrease in the Capital estimate, the decrease will be as follows: 1) the Home Repair Program will be reduced by the amount of potential carry-over from the 1999 Home Repair Program. 2) The remaining decrease of funds will be to the Parks & Recreation Kiwanis Tot Lot #2. Mayor White opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience, and ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. CLARK MOVED to approve the proposed Year 2000 Community Development Block Grant Program, including the contingency plan. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Orr commended the Human Services Commission for their efforts . COMPREHENSIVE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) PLAN Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ADOPTION AMENDMENTS of Resolution No. 1554 referring incorporation of Kent and Federal Way School Districts Capital Facilities Plans into the City' s Comprehensive Plan to the Land Use & Planning Board for a public hearing. The City must amend its Comprehensive Plan annually to incorporate the Kent and Federal Way School Districts' Capital Facilities Plans as part of the school impact fee program. The City has received these plans from the Districts for the 1999 calendar year and now needs to incorporate them into the City' s Comprehensive Plan. This resolution refers this matter to the Land Use and Planning Board for a public hearing. Because these plans affect the imposition of school impact fees, the resolution also declares an emergency so that the comprehensive plan amendment can occur as soon as possible, rather than through the annual comprehensive plan amendment process . 7 Kent City Council Minutes September 7, 1999 COMPREHENSIVE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) PLAN Mower/Hebert Comprehensive Plan Amendment AMENDMENTS CPA-98-2 (I) /CPZ-98-9 . The Land Use and Planning Board (LU&PB) heard this item on November 30, 1998 as part of the annual deliberations on the 1998 comprehensive plan amendments . The City Council discussed the Planning Board' s recommendation on February 2 , 1999 and decided to table this and one other proposed plan amendment until the matter of townhouse zoning was completed. Recently, the City Council adopted an ordinance implementing a townhouse zoning district, which requires new multifamily developments to be condominiums. Following adoption of the townhouse ordinance, the Council President requested that the Mower/Hebert plan amendment come back to the City Council for action. Kevin O'Neill of the Planning Department explained the site, the project and the process, and dis- played a map of the area. He noted for Clark that this is currently a mixed use zone, which was created in 1997, in order to provide for businesses operating in the same locale. Hugh Leiper, 815 Reitan Road, thanked the Council for looking at the difference between condominiums and apartments . He explained his project noting that it is compatible, livable, and an asset to the community. He requested zoning for condo- miniums only, a secured entrance off of 260th, and MR-T16 zoning. He responded to Yingling' s questions regarding the secured entrance and pedestrians . CLARK MOVED to modify the Land Use & Planning Board' s recommendation and approve #CPA-98-2 (I) and CPZ-98-9 concerning the proposed 1998 compre- hensive plan and zoning map amendments with a Comprehensive Plan designation of low density multi-family residential and a zoning designation of MR-T16 and to direct the City Attorney to -- prepare the necessary ordinance . Orr seconded. Clark noted that this development meets some needs and provides an opportunity to put the townhouse 8 Kent City Council Minutes September 7, 1999 COMPREHENSIVE ordinance into effect . Orr said she is com- PLAN fortable with the density on the project and AMENDMENTS thanked Mr. Leiper for his patience . Amodt, Woods and Brotherton spoke in favor of the project . Clark' s motion then carried. ANNEXATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) ZONING Horseshoe Acres Annexation Zoning. SET September 21, and November 2 , 1999, as the dates for public hearings on Horseshoe Acres Annexation Zoning. INTER- (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) GOVERNMENTAL Intergovernmental Affairs Consulting Contract. SERVICES APPROVAL of the Intergovernmental Affairs Consulting contract with Doug Levy. Kent ' s size, population, and service demands will grow signi- ficantly in the coming years, making Kent a player at all levels of government . It also means actions and issues considered at all levels of government can have a significant impact on the ability to deliver service and on the fiscal base from which the City fund that level of service. To be proactive on these issues and to offer comprehen- sive briefings and action options to our elected officials, staff proposes contracting with Doug Levy for intergovernmental consulting services . This item was reviewed and approved by the Council ' s Operations Committee at their August 3 meeting. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) RECREATION King County Deed Of Conveyance For Four Properties. ACCEPTANCE of the four open space areas remaining from the 1996 Meridian area annexation, as approved by the Parks Committee on August 17, 1999, as follows : Kentridge Estates, Division #3 , Tract A; Park Meridian, Tract B; Rainier View Estates, Tract A; Sun Meadows, Division #2 . 9 Kent City Council Minutes September 7, 1999 POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) Corrections Facility Medical Services Contract. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign a contract with Occupational Health Services for medical services at the Kent Corrections Facility, as approved by the Public Safety Committee. The State and Federal Constitutions require Corrections Facilities to provide medical services to jail inmates . The Kent Corrections Facility currently contracts with Occupational Health Services (OHS) for inmate medical care for the period ending December 31, 2000 . Under the current contract, one nurse provides all services to inmates . It has been determined that addi- tional medical services are necessary to maintain the appropriate level of health care. This new contract reflects the addition of 40 hours nursing and physician assistant services with an increase cost to the City of $121, 505 . 00 over the period of the contract . FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through August 16 and paid on August 16, 1999, after auditing by the Operations Committee on August 17 , 1999 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 8/16/99 221568-221837 $ 814, 126 .27 8/16/99 221838-222375 $3 , 053 , 855 . 87 $3 , 867, 982 . 14 Approval of checks issued for payroll for July 16 through July 31, 1999, and paid on August 5, 1999 : Date Check Numbers Amount 8/5/99 Checks 237502-237882 $ 307, 005 . 73 8/5/99 Advices 82891-83509 828 , 170 . 15 $1, 135, 175 . 88 10 Kent City Council Minutes September 7, 1999 REPORTS Council President. Orr reminded Councilmembers of the Suburban Cities dinner on September 8th. Operations Committee. Woods reported that the next meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 21, at 3 :30 p.m. Public Safety Committee. Epperly noted that the next meeting will be held at 5 : 00 on Tuesday, September 14 . Public Works and Planning Committee. Clark announced that because of the action taken earlier in this meeting, the Committee meeting of September 8th is cancelled and the next meeting will be on September 20th at 4 : 00 p.m. Parks Committee. Woods noted that the Committee will meet at 4 :30 p.m. on September 21st . EXECUTIVE At 8 : 02 p.m. , the meeting recessed to Executive SESSION Session for approximately ten minutes to discuss labor negotiations . ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened and adjourned at 8 : 25 p.m. Brenda Jacob r, CMC City Clerk 11 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 21, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: MOWER/HEBERT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING AMENDMENT - ORDINANCES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance Nos . and which amend the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan' s land use map designation from Mixed Use to Low Density Multifamily Residential for a 4 . 8 acre property located generally at the northwest corner of the intersection of South 260th Street and 108th Avenue SE, south of Kent-Kangley Road. The second ordinance amends the City of Kent zoning map designation of the property from Office-Mixed Use (O-MU) to Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MR-T16) . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinances 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council and Land Use and Planning Board (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the City of Kent Zoning Map to change the zoning designation from Office-Mixed Use(O-MU)to Multi-Family Residential-Townhouse(MR- T16) for a 4.8 acres property located generally at the northwest corner of the intersection of South 260`h Street and 108ffi Avenue SE, south of Kent-Kangley Road (CPZ- 98-9). WHEREAS, pursuant to the Washington Growth Management Act ("GMA"),the City of Kent accepts applications for comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments once each year; and WHEREAS, among the applications received by the City was a valid application requesting comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments involving a 4.8 acre property located generally at the northwest corner of the intersection of South 260t' Street and 108t' Avenue SE, south of Kent-Kangley Road; and WHEREAS, this proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment was considered by the Land Use and Planning.Board and City Council as part of the 1998 proposed comprehensive plan amendments; and WHEREAS, the Kent Land Use &Planning Board held public hearings on the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments on November 23, November 30, and December 14, 1998; and 1 MowerBebert Zoning A m en dm ent WHEREAS,the Kent Land Use&Planning Board reviewed the proposed amendments, took public testimony, and moved to recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendments CPA-98-2(1) and CPZ-98-9 to the full City Council; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 1999, the Kent City Council voted to take final action and tabled this comprehensive plan and zoning amendment application for further deliberation because: 1. The applicants had proposed to develop condominiums on the site; 2. The City Council and Mayor had expressed interest in the idea of developing a zoning designation that would encourage condominium developments in the City; and 3. The City Council tabled this application until such time a new condominium zoning designation was established; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 1999, after meetings and public hearings with the Public Works and Planning Committee and the Land Use and Planning Board, the City Council voted to adopt two new Multifamily Residential-Townhouse zoning districts that require condominium development, designated as the MR-T12 and MR-T16 zones; and WHEREAS, on August 17, 1999, the City Council approved the creation of an ordinance for the MR-T12 and MR-T16 zoning districts which would permit the development of townhouse condominium units at 12 units per acre and 16 units per acre, respectively; and WHEREAS,on September 7, 1999, after a public hearing and concurrence from the applicant, the City Council voted to amend the comprehensive plan designation of the subject 4.8 acres property from Mixed Use to Low Density Multifamily Residential and to amend the zoning map designation from Office-Mixed Use(O-MU)to Multifamily 2 Mower/Hebert Zoning Amendment Residential Townhouse (MR-T16); NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Kent zoning map is hereby amended to establish a new zoning map designation for the 4.8 acre property located at the northwest corner of south 26e Street and 108`h Avenue SE, and south of Kent-Kangley Road,Kent, Washington from a zoning designation of Office-Mixed Use (O-MU) to Multi-Family Residential-Townhouse(MR-T16) as depicted in the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference (CPZ-98-9). SECTION 2. -Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. -Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after the date of passage and publication as provided by law. i JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 Mower/Hebert Zoning Amendment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 1999. APPROVED: day of , 1999. 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 P:\Civil\Ordinance\Mower-HebectCortWPlan.doe I 4 Mower/Hebert Zoning Amendment 0 e"' Z cv CD a .0 z Cl) L3 C2. O cr) o o aoaao � a Li 0 o C,) Mr o Q a a a Q j Ld W CL 4t 0 / co W J 7 2 Z W to H O N � L cn..r f �O ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan to change the plan's land use map designation from Mixed Use (MU) to Low Density Multi- Family Residential for a 4.8 acres property located generally at the northwest corner of the intersection of South 260t' Street and 108`h Avenue SE, south of Kent- Kangley Road(CPA-98-2(n). WHEREAS, the Washington Growth Management Act ("GMA") requires internal consistency among comprehensive plan elements in the zoning map; and WHEREAS, to assure that comprehensive plans remain relevant and up-to-date, the GMA requires each jurisdiction to establish procedures whereby amendments to the plan are considered by the City Council (RCW 36.70A.130(2)), and limits amendment to once each year unless an emergency exists; and 1 WHEREAS, the City of Kent has established a procedure for amending the comprehensive plan set forth in Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code which sets a deadline of September 1 of each year for acceptance of comprehensive plan amendments; and WHEREAS, by September 1, 1998, the City received nine (9) -applications to amend the comprehensive plan's land use plan map designation and 1 Mower/Hebert Comprehensive Plan Amendment one of those applications involves a 4.8 acre property located generally at the northwest corner of the intersection of South 260th Street and 108`h Avenue SE, south of Kent Kangley Road; and WHEREAS City staff presented the requested comprehensive plan amendment for consideration by the Land Use and Planning Board and City Council as part of the 1998 proposed comprehensive plan amendments; and WHEREAS, the Kent Land Use &Planning Board held public hearings on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment on November 23, November 30, and December 14, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Kent Land Use & Planning Board reviewed the proposed amendments, took public testimony, and moved to recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendments CPA-98-2(I) and CPZ-98-9 to the full City Council; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 1999, the Kent City Council voted to table this comprehensive plan and zoning amendment application for further deliberation because: 1. The applicants had proposed to develop condominiums on the site; 2. The City Council and Mayor had expressed interest in the idea of developing a zoning designation that would encourage condominium developments in the City; and 3. The City Council tabled this application until such time a new condominium zoning ordinance was established; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 1999, after meetings and public hearings with the Public Works and Planning Committee and the Land Use and Planning Board, the City Council voted to adopt two new Multifamily Residential-Townhouse 2 Mower/Hebert Comprehensive Plan Amendment — zoning districts that require condominium development, designated as the MR-T 12 and MR-T 16 zones; and WHEREAS, on August 17, 1999, the City Council approved the creation of an ordinance for the MR-T12 and MR-T16 zoning districts which would permit the development of townhouse condominium units at 12 units per acre and 16 units per acre, respectively; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 1999, the City Council voted to amend the comprehensive plan designation of the subject 4.8 acres property from Mixed Use to Low Density Multi-Family Residential, which is a comprehensive plan designation that would allow for condominium zoning;NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Kent comprehensive plan is hereby amended to establish a new comprehensive plan designation for the 4.8 acre property located generally at the northwest corner of the intersection of south 260`h Street and 108`h Avenue SE, south of Kent-Kangley Road, Kent, Washington from a comprehensive plan designation of Mixed Use (O-MU) to Low Density Multi-Family Residential as depicted in the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference (CPA-98-2(I)). SECTION 2. - Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 3 Mower/Hebert Comprehensive Plan Amendment SECTION 3. -Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after the date of passage and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 1999. APPROVED: day of , 1999. 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 P:\Civil\Ordinancc\Mower-HeberrCompPlan.doc 4 Mower/Hebert Comprehensive Plan Amendment Q� �� ■ • • r a • Kent City Council Meeting Date September 21 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: DIVERSITY BOARD APPOINTMENT - CONFIRM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment of Gerald Washington to serve as a member of the Kent Diversity Advisory Board. Mr. Washington is employed at The Boeing Company where he has worked for 19 years as a Tool Engineer. He has been a Kent resident for five years and lived in Seattle for more than 18 years . His daughter graduated from Kent- Meridian High School and his son attends junior high. Mr. Washington and his wife serve as youth Directors/Counselors at their church. Mr. Washington will replace Doug Easter, who resigned, and his term will continue until 9/30/2002 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (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. 6D MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHITE DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT DIVERSITY ADVISORY BOARD I have appointed Gerald Washington to serve as a member of the Kent Diversity Advisory Board. Mr. Washington is employed at The Boeing Company where he has worked for 19 years as a Tool Engineer. He has been a Kent resident for five years and lived in Seattle for more than 18 years. His .-. daughter graduated from Kent-Meridian High School and his son attends junior high. Mr. Washington and His wife serve as youth Directors/Counselors at their church. Mr. Washington will replace Doug Easter,who resigned, and his term will continue until 9/30/2002. 1 submit this for your confirmation. JW.jb ?1� � F Kent City Council Meeting Date September 21, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION ORDINANCE REVISION - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. which repeals in its entirety Chapter 6 . 12 of the Kent City Code and enacts a new chapter 6 . 12 entitled "Commute Trip reduction" ( "CTR" ) pursuant to, and in conformity with, RCW 70 . 94 . 521-551, RCW 70 . 94 . 527 and the state Growth Management Act, RCW 36 . 70A. 070 (6) (E) . This ordinance replaces the City' s existing Commute Trip Reduction regulations with new regulations that comply with current law. The Commute Trip Reduction program will enable the City to work with affected employees to establish programs designed to reduce the vehicle miles traveled by employees, and is also intended to reduce the proportion of single-occupant- vehicle trips during peak traffic periods within the city limits and the South King County CTR zone. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 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. 6E DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS May 10, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Ordinance — Revisions A number of legislative and administrative changes to the CTR program have taken place over the past year. Many of these changes require corresponding changes in local CTR ordinances and/or CTR Plans. RCW 70.94.524(4) requires local CTR plans and ordinances to be consistent with the state law and the guidelines established by the CTR Task Force. Said changes are reflected in the attachment titled "Commute Trip Reduction Check List for Revisions to Ordinance and Plan". Intergovernmental agreements recently negotiated between the Washington State Dept of Transportation and each county require each county to develop an inter local agreement with each CTR-affected jurisdiction within the county. While the Citv presently has such an agreement the updating thereof is necessary and the County has only started on same. One of the requirements of that update will be that our CTR ordinance be in conformance with the changes in the program. Since the County has indicated that they can not continue to reimburse the City for our CTR expenses after July 1 S` unless our program is in conformance we are bringing this issue forward. While our billings to the county per our program lag behind (bill for July in October) we are taking a cautious approach. As such, we are requesting committee approval on the adoption of an ordinance as developed by the City Attorney's office, which brings the City's CTR program in alignment with the Model Ordinance. MOTION: Recommend adopting the CTR Ordinance as developed by the City Attorney's office which brings*the City's CTR program in alignment with Model ordinance. Mp5599-1 PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES May 17, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tim Clark, Tom Brotherton, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Tom Brubaker, Brent McFall, Don Wickstrom, Gary Gill, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: John Santana, Liz Marshall The meeting was called to order by Chair Tim Clark. There was one added item: Agreement with TCI. Approval of Minutes Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved to approve the minutes of May 3, 1999. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Rico Yingling and carried 3-0. Street Vacation —32"d Ave. South Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said a valid petition had been received from Highline Water District to vacate a portion of 32"d Ave. South. A public hearing must be held in accordance with State law. Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to the Council adoption of a Resolution setting a hearing date for the 32"d Avenue South street vacation. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and carried 3-0. X Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Ordinance Don Wickstrom said a number of legislative and administrative changes to the CTR program have taken place and require corresponding changes in local CTR ordinances as they must be consistent with the State law. The County will not continue to reimburse the City for CTR expenses after July 1 s'unless the City program is in conformance. Rico Yingling moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to the Council adoption of the CTR Ordinance as developed by the City Attorney's office which brings the City's CTR program in alignment with the Model Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and carried 3-0. Agreement with TCI Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker said the City has been working with TCI for a number of years to get fulfillment of certain franchise obligations. Among those obligations is a commitment to construct a Public Access Studio for the City of Kent. The time of compliance for that matter is July 1, 1999. Staff has been in intensive negotiations with TCI to develop an acceptable proposal to the City that would provide a public access studio. Two issues have come up in the negotiations. First, City staff, along with staff from other South County cities, concur that the facility would best serve all the cities if it were constructed as a regional facility. The second issue is the concept of a community access facility which would serve both local community needs and educational needs as well as free speech public access needs. Rather than have one studio that might be dark a considerable amount of time, the proposal would explore cooperation with a local Community College or school system to take advantage of the studio when it's not in use by the public. The proposal also contemplates two channels so the public access channel could continue and be available for 24 hour use, and a second educational channel would also be available. The motion extends the time for performance on the public access studio element in the franchise to September 1, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, repealing the City's Commute Trip Reduction Code, Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code, in its entirety and enacting a new Chapter 6.12 entitled Commute Trip Reduction Code to bring the City's code into conformity with recent changes to state law. WHEREAS,the sections of Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code as currently enacted have been superceded by changes made to the state Commute Trip Reduction ("CTR") law, RCW 70.94.521-551; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent recognizes the importance of increasing individual citizen's awareness of air quality, energy consumption, and traffic congestion, and the contribution individual actions can make toward addressing these issues; and WHEREAS, traffic congestion in the City of Kent imposes significant costs on City business, government and individuals, including lost working hours and delays in the delivery of goods and services, and may adversely affect the City's desirability as a place to live,work, visit and do business; and WHEREAS, motor vehicle emissions pollute the air, and air pollution causes significant harm to public health and degrades the quality of the environment; and 1 Commute Trip Reduction WHEREAS, reducing the number of vehicles using City streets may postpone or eliminate the need and cost of increasing the capacity of existing roadways; and WHEREAS, employers have significant opportunities to encourage and facilitate the reduction of single occupant vehicle commuting by their employees; and WHEREAS, State policy, as set forth in RCW 70.94.521-551 and the CTR Task Force Guidelines, requires the City of Kent to develop and implement a plan to reduce single-occupant vehicle commute trips; and WHEREAS, the plan should require affected employers to implement programs to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled per employee and the number of single occupant vehicles used for commuting purposes by their employees; and WHEREAS, a transportation demand management element, such as a CTR plan, is required as part of the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070(6e); NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code entitled"Commute Trip Reduction"is hereby repealed in its entirety. 2 Commute Trip Reduction SECTION 2. A new Chapter 6.12, entitled "Commute Trip Reduction" is hereby added to the Kent City Code as follows: CHAPTER 6.12. COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION Sec. 6.12.010. Short title. This Ordinance shall be known as the Commute Trip Reduction(CTR) Ordinance, and may be cited as such. Sec. 6.12.020. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this ordinance: A. Affected employee means a full-time employee who is scheduled to begin his or her regular work day at a single worksite between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m._(inclusive) on two or more weekdays for at least twelve continuous months. B. Affected employer means an employer that employs, at a single worksite, one hundred(100)or more full-time employees who are scheduled to begin their regular work day between 6:00 a.m. and 9;00 a.m. (inclusive) on two or more weekdays for at least twelve continuous months. The individual employees may vary during the year. Construction worksites, when the expected duration of the construction is less than two years, are excluded from this definition. C. Alternative mode means any type of commute transportation other than that in which the single-occupant motor vehicle is the dominant mode, including telecommuting and compressed work weeks if they result in reducing commute trips. D. Alternative work schedules means programs such as compressed work weeks, flex time, or working on Saturday and/or Sunday, that eliminate peak period work trips for affected employees. E. Base year means the period on which goals for vehicle miles traveled(VMT)per employee and proportion of single-occupant vehicle(SOV)trips shall be based. 3 Commute Trip Reduction F. City means the City of Kent. G. Commute trips means trips made from a worker's home to a worksite with a regularly scheduled arrival time of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (inclusive) on any weekday. H. CTR plan means the City of Kent's plan as set forth in this ordinance to regulate and administer the CTR programs of affected employers within its jurisdiction. I. CTR program means an employer's strategies to reduce affected employees' SOV use and VMT per employee. J. CTR zone means an area, such as a census tract or combination of census tracts, within the City characterized by similar employment density, level of transit service, parking availability, access to high occupancy vehicle facilities, and other factors that are determined to affect the level of SOV commuting. K. Compressed work week means an alternative work schedule, in accordance with employer policy, that regularly allows a full-time employee to eliminate at least one work day every two weeks by working longer hours during the remaining days, resulting in fewer commute trips by the employee. This definition is primarily intended to include weekly and bi-weekly arrangements,the most typical being four 10-hour days or 80 hours in nine days,but may also include other arrangements. Compressed work weeks must be an ongoing arrangement. L. Dominant mode means the mode of travel used for the greatest distance of a commute trip. M. Employee means anyone who receives financial or other remuneration in exchange for work provided to an employer, including owners or partners of the employer. N. Employer means a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, unincorporated association, cooperative,joint venture, agency, department, district,or other individual or entity, whether public, non-profit, or private, that employs workers. O. Exemption means a waiver from any or all CTR program requirements granted to an employer by the City based on unique conditions that apply to the employer or employment site. P. Flex time means an employer policy allowing individual employees some 4 Commute Trip Reduction flexibility in choosing the time,but not the number,of their working hours to facilitate the use of alternative modes. Q. Full-time employee means a person, other than an independent contractor, scheduled to be employed on a continuous basis for 52 weeks for an average of at least 35 hours per week. R. Good faith effort means that an employer has met the minimum requirements identified in RCW 70.94.531, as now enacted or subsequently amended, and this ordinance, and is also working collaboratively with the City to continue its existing CTR program or is developing and implementing program modifications likely to result in improvements to its CTR program over an agreed-upon length of time. S. Implementation means active pursuit by an employer of the CTR goals of RCW 70.94.521-551, as now enacted or subsequently amended, and this ordinance as evidenced by appointment of a transportation coordinator, distribution of information to employees regarding alternatives to SOV commuting,or commencement of other measures according to its approved CTR program and schedule. T. Mode means the type of transportation used by employees, such as single-occupant motor vehicle, rideshare vehicle(carpool,vanpool),transit,bicycle,walking, compressed work week schedule and telecommuting. U. Peak period means the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (inclusive), Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. V. Peakperiod trip means any employee trip that delivers the employee to begin his or her regular workday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (inclusive), Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. W. Proportion of single-occupant vehicle trip or SOY Rate means the number of commute trips over a set period made by affected employees in SOVs divided by the number of potential trips taken by affected employees working during that period. X. Single-occupant vehicle (SOV) means a motor vehicle occupied by one (1) employee for commute purposes, including a motorcycle. 5 Commute Trip Reduction Y. Single-occupant vehicle (SOP) Trips means commute trips made by affected employees in SOVs. Z. Single worksite means a building or group of buildings on physically contiguous parcels of land or on parcels separated solely by private or public roadways or rights-of- way occupied by one or more affected employers. AA. Telecommuting means the use of telephones, computers, or other similar technology to permit an employee to work from home, eliminating a commute trip, or to work from a work place closer to home,reducing the distance traveled in a commute trip by at least half. BB. Transportation demand management(TDM)means a broad range of strategies that are primarily intended to reduce and reshape demand on the transportation system. CC. Transportation management organization (TWO) means a group of employers or an association representing a group of employers in a defined geographic area. A TMO may represent employers within specific city limits or may have a sphere of influence that extends beyond city limits. DD. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Per Employee means the sum of the individual vehicle commute trip lengths in miles made by affected employees over a set period divided by the number of affected employees during that period. EE. Week means a seven-day calendar period starting on Monday and continuing through Sunday. FF. Weekday means any day of the week except Saturday or Sunday. Sec. 6.12.030. Responsible agent. A. The Director of Public Works, or his/her designate, shall have general charge of, and supervision over, the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. B. The Director of Public Works shall establish Administrative Regulations consistent with this ordinance for the purpose of enforcing and carrying out its provisions. 6 Commute Trip Reduction Sec. 6.12.040 Designation of CTR zone and base year values. All employers within the City's boundaries, including the City's potential annexation area boundaries, are located in the Commute Trip Reduction Zone known as the "South King County Zone". The 1992 base year value for the South King County Zone's proportion of single- occupant-vehicle SOV trips shall be 85 percent. The 1992 base year value for the South King County Zone's vehicle miles traveled per employee shall be set at 9.3 miles. Commute trip reduction goals for affected employers shall be calculated from these 1992 South King County Zone values or from values determined through a baseline survey of each worksite at the time the worksite first becomes CTR affected. Therefore, affected employers shall establish a program designed to result in the base year values for each CTR-affected worksite to be reduced by the amounts and dates specified in the Commute Trip Reduction Goals listed in Sec. 6.12.050 of this ordinance. Sec. 6.12.050. Commute trip reduction goals. Affected employers shall achieve the following reductions in vehicle miles traveled per employee as well as in the proportion of single-occupant-vehicle trips as determined by the 1992 base year values for South King County CTR Zone, if the employer met the"affected employer"definition in 1992, or through the employer's initial baseline survey conducted at the worksite. A 15 percent reduction after two years. B. 20 percent reduction after four years. C. 25 percent reduction after six years. D. 35 percent reduction after twelve years. Sec. 6.12.060 Applicability. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to any affected employer at any single worksite within the corporate limits of the City of Kent. Employees will only be counted at their primary worksite. The following classifications of employees are excluded from the counts of employees: 7 Commute Trip Reduction 1. Seasonal agricultural employees, including seasonal employees of processors of agricultural products; and 2. Employees of construction worksites when the expected duration of the construction is less than two years. A. Notification of applicability. 1. The City will use its best efforts to provide written notification to known affected employers located within the City that they are subject to this ordinance within 30 days after passage of this CTR Ordinance. Such notice shall be addressed to the company's chief executive officer, senior official, or CTR manager at the worksite. 2. If affected employers do not receive notice within 30 days of passage of the ordinance,the City may grant an extension of up to 180 days within which to develop and submit a CTR program. 3. If an affected employer has not been identified or does not identify itself within 180 days of the effective date of this ordinance or if the affected employer does not submit a CTR program within 180 days from the effective date of this ordinance, that employer is in violation of this ordinance. 4. Any existing employer of 75 or more employees who obtains a business license in the City shall be required to complete an Employer Assessment Form,provided to the employer by the City, to determine whether or not that employer will be deemed affected, or non-affected, in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. B. New affected employers. 1. Notice to City. Employers that meet the definition of"affected employer" in this ordinance must identify themselves to the City within 180 days of either moving into the boundaries of the City of Kent or growing in employment at a worksite to one hundred (100) or more affected employees. These employers shall be given 180 days to develop and submit a CTR program. 2. Violation. Employers that do not identify themselves within 180 days shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance. 8 Commute Trip Reduction 3. Reduction Goals. Newly affected employers shall have two years to meet the first CTR goal of a 15 percent(15%)reduction in proportion of single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per person; four years to meet the second goal of a 20 percent (20%) reduction; six years to meet the third goal of a 25 percent (25%)reduction, and twelve years to meet the fourth goal of a 35 percent(35%)reduction, from the time they submit an approved CTR program. C. Change in status of an affected employer. 1. If an employer initially designated as an affected employer no longer employs one hundred (100) or more affected employees and expects not to employ one hundred(100)or more affected employees for the next twelve(12)months,that employer is no longer an affected employer. 2. If the same employer returns to the level of one hundred (100) or more affected employees within the same twelve (12)months,that employer will be considered an affected employer for the entire 12 months and will be subject to the same program requirements as other affected employers. 3. If the same employer returns to the level of one hundred (100) or more affected employees twelve(12)or more months after its change in status to a non-affected employer,that employer shall be treated as a new affected employer and will be subject to the same program requirements as other new affected employers. It is the responsibility of the employer to notify the City of changes in its status as an affected employer. Sec. 6.12.070. Affected employer's requirements and reporting. An affected employer is required to make a good faith effort to develop and implement a CTR program that will encourage its employees to reduce VMT per employee and SOV commute trips. The affected employer shall submit a description of its program to the City and shall provide an annual progress report to the City on employee commuting and progress toward meeting its SOV goals. The CTR program must include the following mandatory elements described below: 9 Commute Trip Reduction A. Mandatory program elements. CTR programs submitted by affected employers shall, at a minimum, include the following mandatory elements: 1. Transportation coordinator. The affected employer shall designate a transportation coordinator to administer the CTR program. The coordinator's name, location, and work telephone number must be prominently displayed at each affected worksite. The coordinator shall oversee all elements of the employer's CTR program and act as liaison between the employer and the City. An affected employer with multiple sites may have one transportation coordinator for all sites. 2. Information distribution. Information about alternatives to SOV commuting shall be provided to employees at least once a year. This shall include,but not be limited to, a summary of the employer's program and the name and phone number of the transportation coordinator. Affected employers must also provide a summary of their program to all new employees at the time of hire. Each employer's program description and annual report must report the information to be distributed and the method of distribution. 3. Annual progress report. The CTR program must include an annual review of employee commuting and progress in the form of an "annual progress report." This report must demonstrate good faith efforts toward meeting the SOV and VMT reduction goals. Affected employers shall file an annual progress report with the City in accordance with the format established by this ordinance and consistent with the CTR Task Force Guidelines. The report shall describe each of the CTR measures that were in effect for the previous year, the results of any commuter surveys undertaken during the year, and the number of employees participating in CTR programs. Survey information or approved alternative information must be provided in the reports submitted in the second, fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth, and twelfth years after implementation begins. The employer should contact the City for the format of the report. 4. Additional program elements. In addition to the program elements described above, affected employer's CTR programs shall include a set of additional measures designed to meet CTR goals. These additional measures must receive prior 10 Commute Trip Reduction written approval from the City. A list of suggested additional elements are described in RCW 70.94.531 and are available from the City. Sec. 6.12.080. Record keeping. Affected employers shall maintain all records of their CTR program for a period of at least four(4)years or until authorized by the City to dispose of such records. All records shall be made available to the City upon reasonable request for the purposes of reviewing program progress and/or compiling summary reports and analysis. Sec. 6.12.090. Schedule and process for CTR program submittal, review and implementation. A. CTR program submittal. Affected employers shall develop a CTR program and submit a description of that program to the City of Kent for approval within 180 days from the date the employer qualifies as an affected employer. B. CTR annual progress reports. Upon review of an affected employer's initial CTR program,the City shall establish that employer's annual reporting date,which shall not be less than 12 months from the day the program is submitted. Each year on that employer's annual reporting date, the employer shall submit its annual CTR report to the City. C. CTR program review. The City shall provide the employer with written notification if the City determines that a CTR program is unacceptable. The notification must give cause for any rejection. If the employer receives no written notification of extension of the review period of its CTR program, or receives no comment on the CTR program or annual report within 90 days of the employer's submission, the affected employer's program or annual report is deemed accepted. The City of Kent may extend review periods up to an additional 90 days. The implementation date for the employer's CTR program will be extended an equivalent number of days. Sec. 6.12.100 Modifications of CTR requirements. Any affected employer may submit a request to the City for modification of its CTR program elements, other than the 11 Commute Trip Reduction mandatory elements,including record keeping requirements. The City may, at its option, grant this modification request if one of the following conditions exists: A.1 Exemptions. Affected employers may request an exemption from any or all CTR program elements at a particular worksite. The Public Works Director may grant an exemption if the affected employer can demonstrate it faces an extraordinary circumstance and is unable to implement measures that could reduce the portion of SOV trips and VMT per employee. The City shall annually review all employer exemptions, and shall determine whether the exemptions will continue to be in effect during the following program year. A.2 Employee Exemptions. The City may exempt specific employees or groups of employees who are required to drive alone to work as a condition of employment from a worksite's CTR program. The City may also grant exemptions for employees who work variable shifts throughout the year and who do not rotate as a group to identical shifts. The City of will use the criteria identified in the CTR Task Force Guidelines to assess the validity of employee exemption requests. The City of Kent shall review annually all employee exemption requests and shall determine whether the exemption will be in effect during the following program year. B. Goal modification. An affected employer may request a modification of its CTR program goals. These requests shall be filed in writing at least 60 days prior to the date the worksite is required to submit its program description or annual report. The modification request must clearly explain why the affected employer is unable to achieve the applicable goal. The affected employer should also demonstrate that it has implemented all of the elements contained in its approved CTR program. The City will review, grant, or deny requests for goal modifications in accordance with procedures and criteria identified in the CTR Task Force Guidelines. An affected employer may not request a modification of the applicable goals until one year after the City approves its initial program description or annual report. C. Program Modification. The following criteria for achieving goals for VMT per employee and proportion of SOV trips shall be applied to determine requirements for CTR 12 Commute Trip Reduction program modifications: 1. If an affected employer meets either or both goals, the employer has satisfied the objectives of the CTR plan and will not be required to modify its CTR program. 2. If an employer makes a good faith effort,but has not met or is not likely to meet the applicable SOV or VMT goal, the City shall work collaboratively with the employer to make modifications to its CTR program. After agreeing on modifications,the employer shall submit a revised CTR program description to the City for approval within 30 days of reaching agreement. 3. If an employer fails to make a good faith and fails to meet the applicable SOV or VMT reduction goal, the City shall work collaboratively with the employer to identify modifications to the CTR program and shall direct the employer to revise its program within 30 days to incorporate the modifications. In response to the recommended modifications, the employer shall submit a revised CTR program description, including the requested modifications or equivalent measures, within 30 days of receiving written notice to revise its program. The City shall review the revisions and notify the employer of acceptance or rejection of the modified program. If a modified program is not accepted, the City will notify the employer within 30 days and, if necessary, require the employer to meet with City program review staff for the purpose of reaching a consensus on the required program. A final decision on the required program will be issued in writing by the City within 14 calendar days after the conference. D. Modification of CTR program elements. Any affected employer may request modification of an approved CTR program element. Requests may be granted under the following conditions: 1. The affected employer demonstrates that it is unable to implement one or more program element(s) for reasons beyond its control; 2. The affected employer demonstrates that implementation of a program element would cause undue hardship; or 3. The affected employer demonstrates that a substitute element would be as 13 Commute Trip Reduction effective or more effective than the previously approved program element. E. Extensions. An affected employer may request additional time to submit a CTR program or CTR annual progress report, or to implement or modify a program. The employer must submit its request in writing before the due date of the program, modification or annual report. Extensions not to exceed 90 days shall be considered for reasonable causes. Employers will be limited to a total of 90 extension days per year. Extensions shall not exempt an employer from any responsibility to meet program goals. Extensions granted due to delays or difficulties with any program element(s) shall not be cause for discontinuing or failing to implement other program elements. However, an employer's annual reporting date shall not be adjusted permanently as a result of these extensions. An employer's annual reporting date may be extended at the discretion of the City. Sec. 6.12.110. Credits. A. Credit for programs implemented prior to the base year. Affected employers with successful Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs in effect prior to the employer's worksite base year may be eligible to apply for program exemption credit, which may exempt them from most program requirements. Affected employers wishing to receive credit for existing TDM efforts may do so by applying to the City's Public Works Director. Application for credit should include data from a survey of employees or equivalent to establish the applicant's VMT per employee and proportion of SOV trips. The survey or equivalent data shall conform to all applicable standards established by the CTR Task Force Guidelines. The employer shall be considered to have met the first measurement goals if their VMT per employee and proportion of SOV trips are equivalent to a 12 percent (12%) or greater reduction from the final base year South King County CTR Zone values. This three percentage point credit(12%, rather than 15%goal) applies only to the first measurement goals. B. Credit for alternate work schedules, telecommuting, bicycling and walking by affected employees. In the calculation of SOV rate and VMT per employee, commute trips 14 Commute Trip Reduction eliminated through alternative work schedules,telecommuting,bicycling and walking will count as 1.2 vehicle trips eliminated. Sec. 6.12.120. Enforcement. A. Compliance. Compliance means submitting required reports and documentation at prescribed times and fully implementing in good faith all provisions in an accepted CTR program or otherwise meeting or exceeding VMT and SOV goals of this ordinance. B. Civil violations. The following shall constitute a civil violation of this ordinance: 1. Failure to submit a complete CTR program within the specified deadlines. 2. Failure to implement an approved CTR program. 3. Failure to submit an annual CTR report. 4. Failure to make a good faith effort. 5. Submission of fraudulent data. 6. Failure to revise or modify a CTR program found to be unacceptable by the City. C. Penalties. 1. No affected employer with an approved CTR program which has made a good faith effort may be held liable for failure to reach the applicable SOV or VMT goal. 2. The penalty for violations in (B) above shall be assessed by the Public Works Director in an amount not to exceed$250 per day and shall be considered a Class 1 civil infraction pursuant to RCW 7.80.120. 3. Affected employers shall not be liable for monetary penalties if failure to implement an element of a CTR program was the result of an inability to reach agreement with a certified collective bargaining unit under applicable laws, if the issue was raised by the employer and pursued in good faith. Unionized employers shall be presumed to act in good faith compliance if they: a. Propose to a recognized union any provision of the employer's CTR program that is subject to bargaining as defined by the National Labor Relations Act; and b. Advise the union of the existence of the statute and the mandates 15 Commute Trip Reduction of the CTR program approved by the City of Kent and advise the union that the proposal ` being made is necessary for compliance with state law. D. Collection. All penalties due and unpaid under this ordinance may be collected by civil action,which remedy shall be in addition to any and all other existing remedies and penalties. Sec. 6.12.130. Appeal of administrative decisions. A. Affected employers shall be notified in writing of the City's decision regarding unacceptable programs, exemptions,modification of goals,modification of CTR program elements, and violations. B. Employers shall have 30 days following notification by the City to file an appeal of these decisions with the Kent Hearing Examiner. C. Hearings before the Hearing Examiner shall be held according to the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.32 of the Kent City Code. The Hearing Examiner's decision shall represent final action by the City,unless an appeal is made to the Superior Court of King County within ten(10)working days after issuance of such decisions. SECTION 3. -Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. -Savin s. The existing Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code, which is repealed and replaced by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. 16 Commute Trip Reduction SECTION S: -.Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 1999. APPROVED: day of , 1999. 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 P-\CiviAOrdirm c\CormuteTripRed=iomdoc 17 Commute Trip Reduction Kent City Council Meeting Date September 21 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: YEAR 2000 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUNDING APPLICATION - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to apply for grant funding and establish budget documents, as required, for CY2000 Criminal Justice Funding. Proposed funding list for the 2000 MVET Criminal Justice Funding application is based on a per capita basis as in past years . The application will be submitted using the maximum per capita amounts, totaling $146, 120 . The projected funding amount, based on the number of agencies applying and the actual motor vehicle excise tax revenue is projected at $132 , 969 . The result of the I-695 vote will have a significant impact on this funding. The application deadline is September 24 , 1999 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum to Public Safety Committee dated 9/3/99 and memorandum to Mayor White from Debra LeRoy dated 9/2/99 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety 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. 6F MEMORANDUM To: Council Public Safety Committee From: Debra LeRoy, R& D Analyst, Police Department Subject: CY 2000 Criminal Justice Funding Application Date: September 3, 1999 Attached you will find a proposed funding list for the 2000 MVET Criminal Justice Funding application. We are completing applications for program areas one, two and three again this year. The application deadline is September 24, 1999. Request Council Approval to apply for funding and establish budget documents, as required. KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Jim White FROM: Debra LeRoy, Research and Development Analyst CC: Ed Crawford, Chief of Police Roger Lubovich, City Attorney Public Safety Committee members DATE : September 2 , 1999 SUBJECT: CY 2000 Criminal Justice Funding Application Attached you will find a proposed funding list for the 2000 MVET Criminal Justice Funding application. We are completing applications for program areas one, two and three again this year. The allotted application guidelines are based on a per capita basis as in past years. — ❖ Program area one $1.00 per capita. ❖ Programs two and three $0 .50 per capita. The Kent program area allotments are based on projected available funds. The number of agencies applying and the actual motor vehicle excise tax revenue determine the final award amount. The result of the I-695 vote will have a significant impact on this funding. I will submit the 2000 application using the maximum per capita amounts. The preliminary estimates for each area are: Projected Per Capita ❖ Area one $54,795 $73, 060 ❖ Area two and three $39, 087 each $36,530 each The Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) warns that the actual amount of funding for (our) city will probably be less than the amount indicated. The state plans to announce preliminary award amounts in mid October. The application deadline is September 24, 1999. Copies of the completed application will be forwarded to Mary Ann Kern, May Miller, Katherin Johnson, Cheryl Fraser and the Accreditation File. Cc: Mary Ann Kern May Miller Katherin Johnson Cheryl Fraser Accreditation File CRIMINAL JUSTICE MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE TAX FUNDING Calendar Year 2000 **I-695Impact unknown** PURPOSE AREAS: Allocation Estimate S1/Capita Innovative Law Enforcement Programs $54,795 $73, 060 ♦ Lighthouse (salaries/benefits) ♦ Game of Life (supplies/equipment) ♦ CEU Personal Safety (equipment/OT/training $500 est . ) 5.50/Ca 'vita At-Risk Children $39, 087 $36,530 ♦ Parks Mobile Computer Bus Domestic Violence Prevention $39, 087 $36, 530 ♦ Lighthouse/Family Services (salaries/benefits/services/equipment) Total Estimated Allocation $132, 969 $146,120 Kent City Council Meeting Date Seevtember 21, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to apply for grant funding and establish budget documents, as required, for Bureau of Justice Assistance Block Grant . The Bureau of Justice Assistance Block Grant is designated to support two areas : The Family Violence Unit, and the purchase of equipment to investigate computer-related crimes and presentation equipment for training. The grant total is $81, 910 . The City' s required 10% match equals $8, 191 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum to Public Safety Committee dated 9/3/99; memorandum to Mayor White from Debra LeRoy dated 8/12/99; and memorandum to Capt . D. Everett from Sharon J. Hayden dated 8/12/99 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety 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. 6G MEMORANDUM To: Council Public Safety Committee From: Debra LeRoy, R& D Analyst, Police Department Subject: Bureau of Justice Assistance Block Grant Application Date: September 3, 1999 Attached you will find a grant application proposal designated to support two areas: the Family Violence Unit, and the purchase of equipment to investigate computer- related crimes and presentation equipment for training. The grant total is $81, 910. The City's required 10% match equals $8,191. Request Council Approval to apply for grant funding and establish budget documents, as required. KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Jim White FROM: Debra LeRoy, Research and Development Analyst CC: Ed Crawford, Chief of Police Roger Lubovich, City Attorney Public Safety Committee members Mary Ann Kern DATE: August 12, 1999 SUBJECT: Bureau of Justice Assistance Block Grant Application The Kent Police Department, on behalf of the City of Kent, is preparing a block grant application to the Bureau of Justice (BJA) . A new internet-based electronic application process was implemented this year. The jurisdiction award allocation is based on the state's average _ annual number of Part 1 violent crimes in comparison to the national average over the past three years. The City of Kent's - allocation for FY 1999 is $73 ,719 . The City' s required 10% match equals $8, 191. The grant total is $81, 910 . We have designated funds to two purpose areas . The majority of the funding will be applied to support the Family Violence Unit. (See attached memo for more detail on the Family Violence Unit funding. ) The balance of the funding will purchase equipment necessary to investigate computer-related crimes and presentation equipment for patrol officer training. (See attached copies of the grant application forms for the funding breakdown. ) Sharon Hayden is arranging the required public hearing in conjunction with the next Public Safety Committee Meeting. We also need to coordinate an Advisory board prior to obligation or expenditure of awarded funds . As in past years, a trust fund is required for receipt of federal award payments. This year' s award funds will be monitored by the City Attorney's Office. I have listed Lorna Rufener as the grant contact person. She will coordinate the expenditures with the City Attorney's . office. r Cl) Cl) rpa) cnm 00C- zm0 0 o r c co T o o = O <D cpO pco5c o < ? D m3oem 7C3 a � � 3OQm * 0 = W � m 0 Dn � T o < < a ^ * `3 2 3 C < Cn - 0 ° ocC � Am y7 '' o c L W, CO D o ' y pCD p < D Qr 0 i ?O D Q c < c G� o CD c i�i CDm o o X o CD o Cn CD 0 2. Cl) o c rn m o. y ° 3 ❑D, cc o C/) c n. _0 v M y a C0 C O O p C7 C -, to C tD n tD - - CD CD "O 0 CU N v C O C7 O < 3 O tD a tS CD a = 0O a ca n N. w 0 p O co C2 7 O Cfl O O O CDm r m 00 a � G) o_ c 0 ` c� Z n S co o O j * �R :5 o c of o� 0 o o m fA &9 fAO. k co W ;` W O w N , y N CO "­-v O A -1 w -�.. C4 0 N N A A O --k Cps -4 VOCn CO O -V Cn — W 04 C- 0 07 NOCn O D — to L" N a W O O w co O 0 o to w Cn 6 0 00 � oo 66iD66icbb a c000 Ca. CIO 0 � cmooa U+ 000cnoocnMa o Ca a c r CA w D CD Z pCj CA G j O O O O n CD o 3 < CD O 7 CD O C 7 C C� < .. m O O J N CD O Q CD W interoffice MEMORANDUM to: Capt. Dave Everett, KPD cc: R. Lubovich from: Sharon J. Hayden, Assist. City Attorney re: LLEBG Application date: August 12, 1999 It has been very rewarding to see the impact of the previous Block Grant funds on our new Family Violence program. I agree that a continuation of these programs, and the modification of others, will serve the citizens of our City well, and will make further inroads into the cycle of violence in which so many of our offenders are engaged. Our proposal this grant cycle includes three components: 1) Continuing the Family Violence Advocate/Investigator position in order to allow the City's Family Violence Advocate to: a) Obtain written, notarized statements from victims and witnesses in Domestic Violence cases for evidentiary purposes b) Obtain victims' medical reports directly from treatment providers c) Participate with patrol officers and detectives in investigation and victim contact in the field d) Continue to help coordinate assignments for overtime officers (see below) e) Continue to assist in obtaining physical evidence and witness statements that cannot be obtained by overtime officer 2) Continuing the Police Overtime Position, with a greater emphasis on detectives doing follow-up duty in order to more effectively: a) Obtain photos of crime victims' injuries _ 1 b) Obtain medical releases from crime victims c) Gather physical evidence d) Investigate the existence of and testimony of witnesses e) Transport crime victims to court or prosecutor's office f) Obtain confessions from suspects g) Assist the Family Violence Advocates in investigation h) Provide other services as requested by prosecutors and/or Family Violence Advocates 3) Begin contributing to a Domestic Violence Prosecutor whose sole focus is the prosecution of Family Violence cases. The proposed breakdown is as follows: Family Violence Advocate $44,151.00 Detective Overtime $8,425.00 Family Violence Prosecutor $15,000.00 2 UW Kent City Council Meeting Date September 21 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: LAKE MERIDIAN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE CENTER, APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER' S DECISION (CE-99-3) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is a closed record appeal hearing of the Hearing Examiner' s decision to approve a conditional use permit in favor of Brian Pounder. The appeal is brought by Daryl L. Dahlquist . The property is located on the south side of the 15300 block of SE 272nd Street (aka Kent Kangley Road) and is 1 . 128 acres in size. The conditional use permit was approved subject to conditions outlined in the Hearing Examiner' s decision dated July 12 , 1999 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter to parties of record dated 9/10/99; Findings, Conclusions and Decision dated 7/21/99; Order for Transcript and Appellant ' s statement ; Verbatim minutes of 7/7/99 hearing 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 a"- moves, Councilmember seconds 1 . to sustain the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner and affirm the decision . or 2 . to rev se he decision. (Can be reversed in whole or in part and r quires a modified decision and findings . ) or 3 . to rema ack to the Hearing Examiner. (Send back to Hearing xa iner for additional evidence, facts or informa ion. -rV DISCUSSION: ACTION: C Y 'C-1 Council Agenda Item No. 7A OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY" SUBJECT: Procedure on Closed Record Appeal of Hearin; Examiner's Decision Pursuant to City Resolution No. 896 FROM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH I. Staff Report, II. Presentation, A. Oral argument must be confined to the Hearing Examiner's record. B. Appellants have up to 30 minutes to present oral argument (may reserve time for rebuttal). C. Opponents have up to 30 minutes to present oral argument. III. Standard of Review. A. Council must base its decision on the record made before the hearing examiner. Council can Qn _v review the examiner's findings of fact and conclusions to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence. State v. Pierce County, 65 Wn.App. 6I4, 619 (1992). (Evidence is substantial if it would convince an unprejudiced thinking mind of the asserted position) Hansen v. Chelan Countv, 81 Wn.App. 133. 138. 913 P.2d 409 (1996). B. The Council reviews the hearing examiner's decision under the following standards: 1. Decision based on substantial error. ?. Procedural irregularities materially affecting the prior proceedings. 3. Decision unsupported by material and substantial evidence. 4. Decision is in conflict with the City's comprehensive plan (if applicable). 5. Insufficient evidence presented as to the impact on the surrounding area (if applicable). IV. Decision. A. The Council must decide the appeal after review of the written record and testimony at the hearing by taking one of the following; actions: 1. Sustain the findinus and conclusions of the hearing examiner and affirm (a-ree and concur with) the decision. 2. Reverse the decision in whole or in part (reject all or part of the decision and issue a modified decision and findings). 3. Remand back to the hearing.: examiner for a further hearing (send the matter back to the hearing examiner in order to obtain additional evidence, facts. or information for its reconsideration). CITY OF ). 0\.1�\, _'. Jim White, Mayor rD►VTc-r! Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454 James P. Harris, Planning Director September 10, 1999 RE: Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center#CE-99-3 Appeal To Whom It May Concern: This is to inform you that an appeal of the Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 is scheduled to be heard before the City Council on September 21, 1999 at 7:00 pm, Chambers West, Kent City Hall, 220 4`h Avenue S., Kent, WA 98032. The conditional use file is located in the Planning Department and is available for perusal. Please note that this a closed record appeal and no public testimony will be taken. Review will be based on the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Decision. MAILED to the following on 9/10/99: BRIAN POUNDER 11711 SE 8T11 STREET #310 BELLEVUE WA 98005 GERRY MCAULEY ARMSTRONG DESIGN LAWRENCE CAMPBELL 2715 AUBURN WAY N CAMPBELUNIXON ARCHITECTS AUBURN WA 998002-2499 10024 SE 240TH STREET KENT WA 98031 CALVN & BETTY WILSON 10602 SE 325TH ST DAVID ZERR AUBURN WA 98002 100 W 5TH CLE ELUM WA 98922 DARYL DAHLQUIST 15238 SE 272ND ST KENT WA 98042 CITY OF �Lt!2 rmViCTA Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER (253) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunter Hearing Examiner FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE NO: LAKE MERIDIAN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE CENTER #CE-99-3 APPLICANT: Brian Pounder REQUEST: A request for a conditional use permit to allow an automotive repair facility on property zoned CC, Community Commercial, as required per Kent Zoning Code Section 15.04.090. LOCATION: The property is located on the south side of the 15300 block of SE 272nd Street (aka Kent-Kangley Road). APPLICATION FILED: April 1, 1999 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNI'FICANCE ISSUED: May 21, 1999 MEETING DATE: July 7, 1999 DECISION ISSUED: July 21, 1999 DECISION: APPROVED with conditions STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Lawrence Campbell, agent for applicant Brian Pounder, applicant Other Daryl Dahlquist EXHIBITS: 1. Hearing Examiner file containing, Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, Notice of Public Hearing, application and staff report. Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision Lake Meridian Auto Service Center #CE-99-3 INTRODUCTION After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions and decision are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS The Applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 12,100 square foot multi- tenant auto repair facility in the Community Commercial zone, at 15323 SE 272"d Street. An open record hearing was held on July 7, 1999 to allow interested persons an opportunity to express comments, questions and concerns. The Kent Planning Department reviewed the CUP application and recommended approval with conditions in a written report presented at the hearing. The City of Kent, the Applicant, and other interested parties appeared at the hearing. FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requested a CUP to construct a 12,100 square foot multi-tenant auto repair facility in the Community Commercial zone. The subject property is located at 15323 SE 272nd Street, Kent, Washington. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,p. 1 do 2; Exhibit 1, Application. 2. The subject property is zoned Community Commercial (CC), which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. The purpose of the CC zone is to "provide areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods." K.C.C. 15.04.100. Adjacent property to the north is zoned CC, and adjacent property to the south is zoned Single Family Residential (SR-6). Exhibit 1, Staff Report,p. 2. 3. The minimum front yard setback in the CC zone is 15 feet. The minimum side yard setback is 10 feet. The minimum rear yard setback is 20 feet. K.C.C. 15.04.190. The proposed structure would satisfy all setback requirements. Exhibit 1, Site Plan. 4. The minimum lot size in the CC zone is 10,000 square feet, and the maximum lot coverage is 40%. The project site is 48,565 square feet, and the proposed facility would cover 25% of the site. K.C C. 15.04.190; Exhibit 1, Staff Report,p. 6. 5. The maximum building height in the CC zone is 40 feet, or three stories.K.C.C. 15.04.190. The proposed structure would be 27 feet high. Exhibit 1, MDNS/Environmental Review: Environmental Checklist. 2 Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision Lake Meridian Auto Service Center #CE-99-3 6. Properties south of the subject property are used for single-family residences. Adjacent property to the west is presently vacant. Adjacent property to the east is developed with a presently unused single-family residence that has been used for commercial purposes. Property to the north of the subject property (across SE 272nd Street) contains a muffler shop. Other developments along SE 272nd Street in the vicinity of the site include a retail strip mall, service station, grange hall, cemetery, two mobile home parks, and a recreational vehicle storage facility. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,p. 2. 7. The Applicant estimated that the proposal would generate between 240 and 300 vehicle trips per day, with peak volumes on weekday afternoons and on Saturdays. Exhibit 1, MDNS/Environmental Review:Environmental Checklist. The Washington State Department of Transportation reviewed the application and recommended that the Applicant perform a traffic study to analyze traffic impacts to state intersections caused by the proposal.Exhibit 1, Public Correspondence: WSDOT Comments. 8. Section 15.05.040 requires that auto repair facilities provide one parking space for each four hundred square feet of gross floor area. K.C.C. 15.05.040. The proposal includes 39 parking spaces.Exhibit 1, MDNS/Environmental Review:Environmental Checklist. 9. The majority of auto repairs performed on site would be completed within one day. Other repairs may require that vehicles be stored on site for up to 48 hours. Testimony of Mr. Campbell. 10. The proposed facility may generate noise from the use of air compressors, power tools, and other equipment used in auto repair activities. All repair activities,,however, would take place within the building. Exhibit 1, MDNS/Environmental Review: Environmental Checklist. The property owner residing directly across the street from the subject property raised concerns regarding the amount of noise that would be generated by the facility. His visits to other auto repair facilities in the area revealed that garage doors are often left open, and that radios, intercoms, and power tools are in operation all day. Testimony of Mr. Dahlquist. The Applicant responded that his intent is that all sound be contained within the building or at least on-site, and that the hours of operation be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. only. Although the CUP is for an auto repair facility, the actual use of the facility would depend on the tenant. It is possible that the tenant would be in the auto supply business, and there would be no repairs on site at all. Testimony of Mr. Pounder. 11. The landscaping requirements contained in Chapter 15.07 of the Kent City Code apply to this proposal. K.C.C. 15.04.190. Type III landscaping is required to provide a visual separation between uses and streets. Consequently, Planning Staff recommended a five foot Type III landscape buffer along the portion of the site fronting SE 272nd Street. Type I landscaping is required to provide a solid sight barrier between incompatible uses. Type I landscaping 3 Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision Lake Meridian Auto Service Center #CE-99-3 may include a combination of a sight-obscuring fence and dense vegetation. Planning Staff recommended ten feet of Type I landscaping and a wood fence along the rear and southeast portions of the site to provide a buffer between the proposed facility and residential uses. K.C.C. 15.07.050; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, p. 8; Testimony of Mr. Satterstrom. The recommendations of the Planning Department were incorporated into the Applicant's proposal, and are depicted on the site plan dated 1 l/11/98. Exhibit 1, Site Plan. 12. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA),the City of Kent was designated lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the proposal. The City reviewed the environmental checklist submitted by the Applicant and determined that with mitigating conditions, the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance(MDNS) on June 5, 1999. The MDNS contained nine conditions, including conditions requiring funding of road improvements to mitigate traffic impacts, transit improvements, lighting and stormwater drainage plans. Exhibit 1, MDNS; Testimony of Mr. Satterstrom. 13. Notice of the open record hearing was posted, published, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site in accordance with applicable City of Kent regulations.Exhibit 1, Public Notice. 14. Through their agent, owners of the property west of and adjacent to the subject property expressed support for the proposal, writing that it "will not only be a very beneficial asset to the surrounding community but to the city of Kent as a whole." Exhibit 2, Letter of Support from Gerry McAuley. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 10 above, the resident directly across from the subject property expressed opposition to the proposal. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearings Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this application pursuant to authority granted by the Legislature in Chapter 35A.63 of the Revised Code of Washington and authority granted by the City of Kent in Chapter 2.32 of the Kent City Code. Criteria for Review The City Council of Kent in K.C.C. 15.09.030(D) sets forth seven criteria that must be satisfied for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In order to approve a request for a CLIP, the Hearing Examiner must determine that: 4 Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision Lake Meridian Auto Service Center #CE-99-3 1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district. 2. The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use. 3. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity. 4. The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. 5. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topographic characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory effects. 6. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to function effectively. 7. The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements and other applicable provisions of this code. Each of the seven criteria must be satisfied in order to grant approval. If any one of the criteria for approval cannot be met, the Hearing Examiner must deny the application. Conclusions Based on Findings 1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district. The use would be complementary to existing commercial uses, such as the muffler shop and service station. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure that noise generated by the facility would not be a nuisance to nearby residents. These conditions include the requirement that all repairs take place indoors, and that all noise is contained on-site. Findings of Fact Nos. 6& 10. 2. The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use.Finding of Fact No. 4. 3. The traffic generated by the proposed use would not unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity. The MDNS issued for the proposal includes conditions designed to mitigate traffic impacts. Findings of Fact No. 7& 12. 5 Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision Lake Meridian Auto Service Center #CE-99-3 4. The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. The use would be compatible with surrounding commercial uses, but would not compatible with adjacent residential uses without conditions of approval limiting the hours of operation and the amount of noise generated. Conditions of approval limiting outdoor storage of vehicles and parts are necessary to reduce visual impacts to residential properties. Findings of Fact Nos. 9& 10. 5. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing,landscaping, or topographic characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory effects. A combination of fencing and landscaping would provide a visual barrier between the facility and adjacent residential properties. With conditions of approval related to noise containment, auditory impacts would be minimized. Findings of Fact Nos. 10& 11. 6. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to function effectively. Surrounding properties are developed with a mix of commercial and residential uses that would not interfere with the proposed use. Finding of Fact No. 6. 7. The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements and other applicable provisions of this code. The proposal satisfies all bulk,density and height requirements of the CC zone. Adequate parking would be provided. Landscaping would be provided in accordance with applicable regulations. Conditions of approval relating to driveway design are necessary to ensure there is adequate space for vehicles to maneuver. Findings of Fact Nos. I —5, 8, 11. DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 12,100 square foot multi-tenant auto repair facility at 15323 SE 272"d Street a 49,223, as depicted in the 11/11/98 site plan but excluding the landscaping islands along, the front of the building, is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The solid wood fence facing to the south and southeast shall be finished in a natural tone color. 2. No diagnostic services or repairs will be performed outside of the building. 3. Vehicles that are in the process of being repaired or are waiting for repairs shall not be stored outside of the building for longer than 48 hours. 6 Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision Lake Meridian Auto Service Center #CE-99-3 4. There shall be no outside storage of vehicle parts, subassemblies, tires, chemicals or lubricants. 5. The applicant/owner shall revise the architectural and civil plans to show the same radii for the driveway and the same landscape areas within or adjacent to the maneuvering areas. 6. The applicant/owner shall submit a vehicle maneuvering diagram (VMD) meeting the requirements of City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure (DAB) #6-4, Vehicle Maneuvering Diagrams, with the civil engineering plan set. This diagram will be used to determine the final driveway design for this project and to assess the adequacy of the circulation system to and from the trash dumpster and overhead doors. 7. The applicant/owner shall comply with conditions of the final SEPA determination for this development (#ENV-98-35). 8. All sounds generated by auto repair activities on site shall be contained within the proposed building or within the property boundaries. The applicant shall take all measures necessary _ to ensure that noises are not audible from neighboring properties. Dated this 21"day of July, 1999. 01-7htm�ko—A-4:4n� THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner Section 15.09.030 G: Kent Zoning Code provides that any conditional use permit granted by the Examiner shall remain effective only for one (1) year unless the use is begun within that time or construction has commenced. If not in use or construction has commenced within one year, the conditional use permit shall become invalid. 7 DISTRIBUTION OF HEARING EXAIVIINER MATERIAL THE FINDINGS OF LAKE MERIDIAN AUTO SERVICE CENTER #CE-99-3 WERE MAILED TO THE FOLLOWING ON JULY 21, 1999: Public Works Director; Jerry McCaughan, Frank Spanjer, Carol Storm, Marilyn Parker, Barbara Hill Parks Director; Lori Flemm Building Official Fire Marshal; Jackie Figgins City Clerk Routed in Planning Department Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner File Planning Department File South County Journal Kent School District Kent Reporter Sent to the following parties of record: BRIAN POUNDER DARYL DAHLQUIST 11711 SE 8TH STREET 4310 15238 SE 272"D ST BELLEVUE WA 98005 KENT WA 98042 LAWRENCE CAMPBELL GERRY MCAULEY CAMPBELL/NIXON ARCHITECTS ARMSTRONG DESIGN 10024 SE 240TH STREET 2715 AUBURN WAY N KENT WA 98031 AUBURN WA 998002-2499 DAVID ZERR CALVIN & BETTY WILSON 100 W 5TH 10602 SE 325TH ST CLE ELUM WA 98922 AUBURN WA 98002 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING FIRST DULY SWORN, ON OATH, STATES: THAT ON -9 1 AFFIANT DEPOSITED IN THE MAILS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROPERLY STAMPED AND ADDRESSED ENVELOPE CONTAINING A COPY OF THE HEARING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION/DECISION DIRECTED TO THE APELWANT/OWNER AND PARTIES OF RECORD ON WHICH THIS AFFIDAVIT APPEARS. SUBSCRIBED. ND � U�RN�OIyI :tE ME THIS DAY OF 19 �J 6• '.,yN00 O . ��6;iil..•SSp1� • NOTAO PUBIM F' R WASH_rVGTON RESI G AT (--/ My Commission Expires: 7 Office of the City Clerk 220 S . 4 th o�S.3-Y-56 S7Z-S City of Kent Order for Transcript for Appeal from Decision of Hearing Examiner Resolution 896 Ordinance 2233 r Date � �� �� Appeal filed Appellant ' s Name L / 'f �- • Address ���� �S'� /�•f� cS� �P�f✓ Y y ���CQ Phone Hearing Examiner ' s File No . Date of Hearing Examiner Public Hearing 7- Date of Hearing Examiner ' s Decision T Notice of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of the action taken by the Hearing Examiner and must be accompanied by a $25 filing fee. Treasurer ' s Receipt # ro6�o20 ate= Within 30 days of the- Hearing Examiner ' s decision, the appellant shall order from the City Clerk a full transcript of the hearing held before the Hearing Examiner and must post at the time of the order, security in the amount of $100 for each tape to be transcribed. If the actual cost incurred by the City exceeds the amount posted, the appellant shall be required to reimburse the City for the excess amount. If the cost is less tham the amount posted, any credit due will be returned to the appellant. Order for Transcript received 7-aS-'T2 ao Treasurer ' s Receipt # (100 . 00) On 7-22-99 1 received in the mail from the Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, signed by Theodore Paul Hunter, the seven (7) page "Approved with Conditions" findings, conclusion and decision dated 7-21-99 issued to Brian Pounder. Just prior to receiving the 7-21-99 page findings in the mail, I spoke with Bradley Hazeltine, who returned my phone call and said that I have ten (10) days to file my appeal with the City Clerk. So here go. THE defendant/petitioner/appellant, if you will, (as is noted on page 1 under the subheading, PUBLIC TESTIMONY: OTHER) Daryl Dahlquist, hereby submits in writing his "objections" to the "auto repair center" approval referred to as VCE-99-3". On page 4 under the subheading "Criteria for Review", the first sentence reads: The City of Kent, in K.C.C. 15.09.030(D) sets forth seven criteria that must be satisfied for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Then on page 5 at the end of the seventh criteria mentioned, the last two sentences reads as follows: Page 1 of 7 Each of the seven criteria must be satisfied in order to grant approval. If any one of the criteria for approval cannot be met, the Hearing Examiner must deny the application. THE FOLLOWING IS TO REBUT THE Conclusions Based on Findings in reference to the seven criteria they refer to. Addressing Criteria #1 "Conclusions Based on Findings" note on page 5, the first sentence reads as follows: The use would be complementary to existing commercial uses, such as the muffler shop and service station. A. We need to take a closer look at the muffler shop of which is an old garage that went with the house that was removed some time ago and leaving the two car garage of which is very small and inconspicuous. B. I dispute the statement that "the use would be complementary to the Chevron Station." See FINDINGS #11 , where the third sentence reads as follows: Consequently, Planning Staff recommended a five foot Type III landscape buffer along the portion of the site fronting SE 272nd Street. Page 2 of 7 Let's put this up around the Chevron Station and see how the people like it. I know I don't. And a ten foot fence is more than I can bear. The second sentence of criteria 1 reads as follows: Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure that noise generated by the facility would not be a nuisance to nearby residents. Great. Now I get to hear the noise as well as see the eyesore of the so- called visual separation between uses and streets noted in Findings #11. The third sentence of Criteria 1 reads as follows: These conditions include the requirement that all repairs take place indoors, and that all noise is contained on-site. Findings of fact Nos. 6 & 10. As testified by Dahlquist at the hearing, when I went to Les Schwab at 9:00 AM and sat in the parking lot, I could hear people talking, intercom, power tools, air tools, pounding, noise from the lifts, totally unacceptable behavior in a community commercial zone. Findings of Criteria No. 2, irrelevant. Findings of Fact for Criteria No. 3, irrelevant. Page 3 of 7 Now to address Conclusions Based on Findings #4 of page 6. The first half of the first sentence reads "The use would be compatible with surrounding commercial uses." Black's Law Dictionary defines comparative jurisprudence as "the study of the principles of legal science by comparison of various systems of law." Now if we take the statement, "The use would be compatible with surrounding commercial uses," I will address this statement in two parts as PART 1 and PART 2, of which PART 1 we'll address from the Bible, in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 22, verse 10, which reads as follows: "You must not plow with a bull and an ass together." The reasoning behind this is that the two (bull and ass) are not equal in strength and therefore are not compatible to be used side by side, meaning one does not necessarily complement and/or support the other. As for PART 2, we can address this hypothetically. Say there is a dog grooming shop at the Meridian Mail. Would this justify a dog kennel permit because someone says it would complement the dog grooming shop? With reference to PART 1, does the two car garage/muffler shop justify an eleven car garage, auto repair shop? Or with reference to PART Page 4 of 7 2 in regards to the Chevron Station, just because there is a dog grooming shop in the neighborhood, would it justify a permit for a dog kennel? The muffler shop, as it now sits, opens no doors for Mr. Pounder to satisfy the first half sentence, which reads, "The use would be compatible with surrounding commercial uses," and yet is contradicted by the second half of the first sentence, which reads, "but would not (be) compatible with adjacent residential uses." Yet this is overcome by throwing up the following statement which reads: "without conditions of approval limiting the hours of operation and the amount of noise generated." The proposal is no different than Les Schwab 1.4 miles up the road, and there is nothing that can make this "auto repair facility" any different than Les Schwab, which makes a lot of noise you can hear far, far away. Black's Law Dictionary defines jurisprudence (as) The philosophy of law, or the science which treats of the principles of positive law and legal relations. In the proper sense of the word, "jurisprudence" is the science of law, namely, that science which has for its function to ascertain the principles on which legal rules are based, so as not only to classify those rules in their proper order, and show the relation in which they stand to one another, but also to settle the manner in which new or doubtful cases should be brought under the appropriate rules. Jurisprudence is more a formal than a material science. It has no direct concern with questions of moral or political policy, for they fall under the province of - ethics and legislation; but, when a new or doubtful case arises to which two different rules seem, when taken literally, to be equally applicable, it may be, and often is, the function of Page 5 of 7 jurisprudence to consider the ultimate effect which would be produced if each rule were applied to an indefinite number of similar cases, and to choose that rule which, when so applied, will produce the greatest advantage to the community. Now addressing the examiners' response to Criteria No. 5 on page 6, with reference to Finding of Fact No. 11, the last thing I need to be looking at every day across the street from my property is a fence, or any such type I or III landscaping or, if you will, so called buffer. I know of no one along the highway of 272"d Street with a ten foot fence, or a five foot "buffer" fence in front of their business on the highway. At the last two sentences of Findings, in reference to Fact No. 10 on page 3, it in part reads: Although the CUP is for an auto repair facility, the actual use of the facility would depend on the tenant. It is possible that the tenant would be in the auto supply business, and there would be no repairs on the site at all. Or we could say it is possible that the tenant would be in the donut making business and yet we would still have the ten foot eyesore and the five foot buffer. This is totally unacceptable in a community commercial zone. Page 6 of 7 As for conclusions based on Findings No 6, page 6 offered for rebuttal purposes, it is to be known that when Zerr's Farm and Garden was present, it added to the overall harmony of the properties because its front was open and pleasantly visible like all the other businesses on the highway. Black's Law Dictionary defines harmony (as) "The phrase `in harmony with' is synonymous with `in agreement, conformity, or accordance with."' As for No. 7, no need to respond. Therefore, in harmony with the statement, "If any one of the criteria for approval cannot be met, the Hearing Examiner must deny the application." n$ Respectfully submitted thisXh day of July, 1999. Daryl L. Dahlquist sr' •�� 15238 SE 272"d Street yZ S%�7,1,- Kent, WA 98042 (253) 631-2906 fl:a�Q7 Page 7 of 7 LAKE MERIDIAN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE CENTER #CE-99-3 VERBATIM MINUTES FOR HEARING HELD ON fULY 7, 1999 DECISION ISSUED JULY 21, 1999 Hunter: Do each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth in the testimony that you present. Please answer I do. Witness have been sworn and we're ready to begin with the first application which is the Lake Meridian Auto Service Center, request for a conditional use permit. Mr. Fred Satterstrom is here on behalf of the City Planning Department. Satterstrom: Thank you. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow an automotive repair facility on property zoned Community Commercial or CC. Auto repair is a conditional use in the CC zone pursuant to Section 15.04.090, the Kent Zoning Code. The proposed use is proposed for approximately a 1.1 acre site located at approximately 153rd and SE 272nd in Kent. On Kent's East Hill. As a conditional use, the automotive repair facility which basically consists of about 12,000 plus square feet and forty parking stalls, has to meet several criteria by which the City judges the capability of the conditional use permit. Beginning on page 6 of the staff report is an analysis of the criteria for evaluating a conditional use permit and I would just like briefly go through those and talk about how the conditional use permit here, which we're recommending approval, meets the review criteria for a conditional use permit. The first criteria addresses the capability for the fact that the proposed use will not be detrimental to other uses that are legally - permitted in the zoning district. We would agree with a statement made by the applicant here, that the existing neighborhood is transitional in nature. It's primarily a residential area which has a growing commercial node at 152nd and the Kent-Kangley Road. Some of the old structures, some of the old commercial structures are being redeveloped. In this case, one actually been torn downed already in preparation for this use. Other, there are some new uses at the intersection and the residences in the area have been there for a considerable amount of time. But, some of those are in the area and, I think, the theme here is how to allow this conditional use and still maintain the residential character and quality of the neighbors that abut'or are within a short distance of the site. But we feel that this proposed use can be compatible given some conditions that we propose later on with the character of the development and the location in this area. Second one, is the size of the site is adequate for the proposed use. We believe that it is, 12,100 square feet of building are proposed along with 40 parking stalls and they seem to fit fairly well on this site together with the requisite landscaping and so forth. Third one is that the traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity. There are some conditions for this in the MDNS that was issued on this. One of the concerns that continues at this point is that the driveway entrance be designed appropriately to allow quick movement on and off.....quick and safe movement on and off the site and later on we will have a condition that relates to this. Fourth criteria is the other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. Here's where the residential use comes in to play. The proposed automotive use...I'll going to kind of analysis, I guess, both four and five Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 here...that kind of go together in terms of the criteria. The fifth one being adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topographic characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse affects of the proposed use including adverse visual or auditory impacts. Automotive service center can have visual as well as noise impacts and maybe in a commercial/industrial area that would be of less concern. But, the fact that they are abutting residential properties to the rear of this proposal we have some proposed standards later on that get at trying to screen the property from the automobiles that will necessarily gather there for repair as well as addressing the noise impacts. We feel that those are impacts of...that this use if they were not mitigated could have an adverse impact on the adjoining residential neighbors. Number six, the other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to function effectively. We don't feel that the uses in that area will have an adverse effect at all on the proposed use. And, finally, the proposed use complies with the performances standards, parking requirements and other applicable provisions of the Code basically giving it a pretty good look in terms of the site plan that's been submitted, knowing what we know about the proposed development, we feel that it has certainly has possibilities of meeting all of the City's standards. Several conditions here that the staff is recommending can be tied to some of those impacts that we are anticipating that this use will have. These are either criteria that I've just reviewed. The first and second conditions, the solid wood fence and the building's exterior being finished in a non-reflective neutral color and materials get at trying to control the adverse visual impacts that this use could have on the residences in the area. I realize that number 2 that whenever we get into that issue of color, and I think we've ventured into that arena before, it's always kind of a little mushy. If the Hearing Examiner wants better language or different language on this, we're certainly open to discuss that. The main thing here is that sometimes when you have a commercial use, the BP Green is not necessarily the most compatible color to have in a residential environment. So... Hunter: I disagree. I think so...here's the problem. Based on the eye of the beholder, correct? The word used here is neutral color. Does that have a standard definition that you're aware of? Satterstrom: Like I said we'd be open to better language on this. Hunter: I'm just curious what the Planning Department means by neutral colors. BP Green is apparently not a neutral color. Satterstrom: It's a...in my opinion a rather garish and a bold color. By more neutral, you know, you're into...I'm not a color expert...but lighter tones that are not as bright. Page 2 of 13 Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 Hunter: Grays, gray and brown and beige, things like that? Satterstrom: Beige, yeah. To name a few, to name a few, there's probably a very wide palate here would be acceptable to the Planning Department. There are some that probably wouldn't, you know, a bright florescent orange which is really meant to attract attention would not be what would be... Hunter: But, it's a business activity, don't we want to attract attention to a business activity? Satterstrom: On the business side of the street, that would be O.K., on the rear of the building facing a residential area is what we're talking about here. Hunter: O.K. Satterstrom: Number 3, gets at-trying to minimize the auditory impacts, no diagnostic services, repairs would be performed outside the building. Basically,just don't want the revving of engines to detract. Four, gets at visual impacts, the vehicles that are undergoing repairs, in the process of being repaired, will not be stored outside of the building. Number five, there shall be no outside storage of parts, this is sometimes a problem. Hunter: Let me ask about that because both four and five reference the word "storage". How long does that mean? Is that more than a day? Obviously, if you are delivering something it may sit on the site for a period of time. When is it enforceable as against this recommended condition, how long would it have to sit outside to become a storage? Satterstrom: Well, I think, that where the storage of vehicles begins to infringe on the parking. Parking...you've got a certain number of stalls for this facility where people come and frequent...we have parking stalls that are meant for the people who frequent the business. When the storage of automobiles takes up those stalls in such that they are not available. Hunter: So, it's more of a space concern then it is one of outside visual aesthetics. Satterstrom: Yeah, well it is...it's probably both. Because the storage of these vehicles may be in a great variety of repair, some are not very pleasing to look at. And, you know, it's not going to make a presence either to the street side or the residential side to have the, you know, site strewn with automobiles. It's a good question. I mean, at what point are they considered stored, overnight parking obviously is not what we are talking about. It's where cars are there on a long- term basis. Page 3 of 13 Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 Hunter: Vehicles undergoing repairs, do you mean inoperable vehicles? Because repair could be .... Satterstrom: I'm not assuming that they are not inoperable. They may be inoperable until they are repaired. But these would be vehicles that would have least some hope of being repaired. Hunter: So, if I'm in there for a tune-up and I had it parked in a parking stall for two days, is that violating this recommended condition 4? Satterstrom: Literally, yes. Hunter: O.K. ,Satterstrom: Unless some time period is put in, it, you know, unless they were stored inside the building, that would be in violation of this. I think the City is tolerant of a certain of this in terms of, you know, some vehicle being outside at some point. I mean I haven't been at a repair facility yet where that car is not outside at some point. It's where that vehicle becomes stored for a length of time, either before or after its repaired is of concern to us. There might be a better way of wording this. Hunter: I don't know, I'm just trying to get clarity on what the condition is designed to address. And I hear both space and visual. Satterstrom: Yes, it is. I think too as vehicles are stored outside, if that is a practice, there's more of a potential to violate number 3 as well where the diagnostic service is now done outside and perhaps even some of the repair work and we don't want that to happen. Hunter: O.K. Satterstrom: Six and seven get at the revising civil plans showing the radii for the driveway and the other one, number 7, dealing with the vehicle maneuvering diagram, meeting the requirements...our Public Works requirements that have been suggested to be placed on this permit. These would probably conditions of approval of any building permit any way. Number 8, refers to SEPA, complying with the conditions of the SEPA determination. I have here a letter too that has been submitted. I received it today, its from Jerry McCauley, Calvin Wilson and Betty Wilson. I would like to submit it into the record. Hunter: 1 have a copy of that here in front of me. Satterstrom: Basically, without reading it, it just supports the application. I have the original, would you like the original for the file? Page 4 of 13 Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 Hunter: . Need to hand that to Chris for the original file and I will keep the copy, it is a letter in support. Satterstrom: I would be happy to answer any other questions you might have. Hunter: I don't have any at this time. Thanks again. Applicant's representative, have anything to say about this. am bell: Yes, my name is Lawrence Campbell, and I, Campbell/Nix and Associates, we are architects and land planners and we are the architects for the project. Our address is 10024 SE 240th Street, Suite 102. In general this will be very easy, we support just about all of the conditions that....staff recommendations...we obviously support the conditional use. There are only two questions that we have and you briefly discussed them and those are in Articles 4 and 5. Probably about 90 percent of all services that are in an automotive center for repair, are daily in and out, like tune-ups, lubes and whatever, there are some cases where they might have to wait parts or, if a vehicle is dropped of in the afternoon for service on the following day due to work schedules and things of that nature. Those are probably the only areas that we would be in violation of the spirit of this and actually I don't think we would be in violation of the spirit of it, if it were done for that purpose. We aren't talking, certainly, about storing wrecked automobiles for any prolonged period of time or anything like this---48 hours was mentioned and that is probably a reasonable type of time frame and that would be for matters of scheduling. Just as a little sidelight, on the south side of this building, we've position the bioswale, all the retention facilities along with the required...this is in addition to the required buffering zone. The net effect is almost twice the amount of what would be a normal setback and landscape buffering between our project and the residential areas. And, all the other conditions we are in total agreement with. Number six and number seven, I think, have already been addressed. Hunter: How, so? Campbell: Pardon? Hunter: What do you mean number six and seven? Campbell: Well, number six was the... Hunter: Has do with maneuvering around... Campbell: The maneuvering and the radius of the driveway. We've already met individually with the various departments to resolve, to make sure that we have meet those requirements. Page 5 of 13 Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 Hunter: O.K. am bell: And if there's any discrepancy, we certainly have room to do it. Hunter: That doesn't take a revision to the site plan does it? am bell: No, I think that has already been completed. Hunter: Yeah, because, what we would do is reference the site plan and I wasn't certain on that recommended condition whether it related to the existing site plan, maneuvering characteristics or capabilities need to be shown on that, or it was.... am bell: Well, we submitted...yeah, we did submit documents showing the maneuvering and the revised radius and I don't know if they are include in this. Hunter: We have a comment here from the Engineering department. Spanjer: The problem was that we have civil plans that disagreed with the landscaping plan. Hunter: O.K., reconciling the two plans. SSpanier: And if they removed the island at the end ....just want to make sure that we are looking at the same site plan. So both of the conditions are... Campbell: Yeah, if that was the conflict, those have been reconciled, yes. O.K. Hunter: Do you know if they are reconciled on this site plan, this one is...I'm not sure of the date, maybe you can help. Campbell: Yeah, this is the original site plan. The one that has been reconciled Hunter: Is this the driveway plan... I do not have the revised. Campbell: Basically, it's basically this plan with these islands removed, that prevent the vehicles make a turn. The vehicles coming of the street, and trying to make the turn, kept running into these on the landscape plan they're not there. Hunter: O.K., we can reference these site plan with removal of islands. All right. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir, we have other comments on this application. Page 6of13 Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 Dahlquist: My name is Daryl Dahlquist, Martell's Trailer Park, and.... Hunter: I'm sorry, the last name is? Dahlquist: Dahlquist. Hunter: Dahlquist. Dahlquist: I live just across the street, to the left a little bit. And, I'm not interested in this auto shop at all. This morning I got up and I drove down to Les Schwab which is 1.4 miles down the road and I got down there at 9 a.m. They have a total of 9 garages and two of them were open. I could hear them talking over the intercom, asking for Mike Underwood and I could just hear it. I could hear people pounding, lifts, power tools, air tools. At 9:05, four of the doors were open and they were completely empty. They don't have any cars really parked out in the front. Hunter: Um hum. Dahlquist: Then I drove over to American Car Care Center here which is another 3, just .3 miles down the road and they have 9 garages and you hear music, people spitting, telephones ringing, you could hear hubcaps banging and they had one garage that was open. They've got cars parked everywhere and I think the reason why they didn't have any empty garages is because they just parked some of the cars in there. You guys are talking about fences, and colors and garbage, I don't want to look at, O.K. I lived here for 18 years, I'm going to oppose you all the way, even if I've got to take you to court because I ain't going to put up with this trash. I have to listen to this noise, power hoses, I ain't into that. You know enough it's tough enough we have a community neighborhood with 500, maybe 1000 people living around there. And all those other business are real quiet with the exception of the muffler shop. But that's only two cars garage and occasionally you hear a little bit of air grinder. Most of the time it's pretty quiet. Don't talk about this garbage of noise. I have to listen to it and so does everybody else. I just want to know I don't want it, I will do everything I can to stop it, O.K. Just want to let you know that. Hunter: May I ask you this, Mr. Dahlquist? Dahlquist: O.K. Hunter: It kind of sounds like you've done some research on your own.... Dahlquist: Right, done research. Page 7 of 13 Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 Hunter: Is there any garage operating that would operate in a way that might be compatible with residential. Do you see characteristics, you mentioned a muffler shop.... Dahlquist: Well, if the muffler shop wanted to expand, I would oppose that. But, they've been there for years and it's a little two-car garage. I've lived there for 18 years and I went down there and just what I've had to listen to for the little bit, I'm telling you, I ain't going to listen to it all week long, it's not going to happen in my neighborhood. I've been there 18 years, there's a lot of people there. The rest of the businesses are quiet. The Zerr's farm and garden was there prior to this coming in, was quiet. You don't have people's music playing, you don't have hubcaps banging, air hoses ringing, I have to listen to that every day. Hunter: Well, I think that everyone here, the applicant's representative and the City are suggesting that there might be ways to reduce the noise. Dahlquist: Well, I don't think so. I think its just best that they don't put it in, if you want my opinion. I'm going to oppose it all the way, O.K. I just want you to know that. I'm sure there are procedures that I can follow as a citizen to oppose these guys all the way to the bank. Am I correct? Hunter: There are appeal procedures. Dahlquist: I mean I have right for something. Hunter: I haven't made a decision. I haven't made a decision yet. Dahlquist: I appreciate that. Hunter: But here's what the City Council has asked that I do is look at any land use application, we have to see, is the application consistent with the criteria. That's what I heard the City... Dahlquist: Yeah, I don't think it is. If you go down to Les Schwab, there ain't no houses. You go down to the American Tire Center there's no houses. Hunter: I....the next thing I have to look at is there any way to make an application consistent with those criteria by putting conditions on... Dahlquist: And then you talk about.... Hunter: And that's what I heard this City came forward and said we want a condition the color.... Page8of13 Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 Dahlquist: You put up this fence, I've got to look at this fence. We don't have any fences like that on the highway. I don't want to be looking at no fence if I don't have to. It just a horrible thing to look at, I'm not into BP colors or whatever color. Hunter: Un huh. Dahlquist: You see I've lived there for 18 years, O.K., and so have a lot of other people. I have to look at this everyday that I come home. So, if I find I have an attitude or I'm more frustrated because of the noise and the extra color, then, you see, that's going to create a problem not just for me, not just for my tenants but for the whole neighborhood. Hunter: Is there anything on that site, you think, that would be compatible. Dahlquist: Outside, there's a lot of things that ought to be compatible, you know, but, not an auto shop. It's just not for the neighborhood. They could put a mall in there, a store, a lot of things. Hunter: But a store might have a fence or might have some colors... Dahlquist: There's no need for a fence, you know what I mean, there really is no need. Hunter: You prefer an open lot. Dahlquist: Right, where you can just see, it's look nice, you see what i mean. It just adds to the overall view. Any time you touch something up, it stops the whole view. Hunter: Um hum. Dahlquist: You know, and it is a nice neighborhood. And I'm sure they could find something else in there. I would be more than happy to not say a word. Hunter: Um hum. Dahlquist: Back down to the left, they are going to put in a mini-storage. And, at first, I was going to oppose it but when I went out and check out, they do have a need for it, I didn't say anything. Hunter: Um-hum. Page 9 of 13 Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 Dahlquist: It's not noise, you know what I'm saying, once they are done putting it in... Hunter: The primary thing is the noise. Dahlquist: Yeah, I've got to live with that, everyday and I can't,just telling you, it's just not happening. Hunter: Uh-huh. Dahlquist: And that's why I'm here today. Could I've also wanted to put a shop in my place and if I ever did, it would have to be noise free. There would be no power tools, there would be nothing. And if I wanted to pop a tire I would have to take it to a back room and close the door. Hunter: Well, what I'm hear the City suggesting.... Dahlquist: I really don't care what the City suggests, O.K. I could care less. Hunter: Nothing could be said here today that.... Dahlquist: Right, I could care less what the City has to say. Hunter: You've already made up your mind, no matter what. Dahlquist: I have to listen to this everyday. I live right across the street, been there 18 years, O.K. I want you to know. Hunter: I made a note of that 18 years. Dahlquist: I will oppose it all the way. Hunter: I got that part. Dahlquist: I appreciate that. Hunter: All right. Dahlquist: I just don't want to listen to garbage, that's all. Hunter: O.K., thanks Mr. Dahlquist. All right. Any other folks here that want to have comments on the applications. O.K., responses by applicants. Applicant, O.K. Voice: I just want a chance to answer Mr. Dahlquist. Page 10 of 13 Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 Pounder: My name is Brian Pounder. I live at 14641 SE 266th in Kent. About three blocks from this location,just right around the corner. I'm not a real good public speaker so you have to bear with me a little bit. I hear the concerns that Mr. Dahlquist has, I believe Dahlquist is his name, we don't want anything but a first rate retail facility at this location. At this point we are building the building speculatively, we don't have any, for sure, tenants lined up. I'm talking to Shucks, I'm talking to Pet Boys, I'm talking to a very carefully selected group of tenants that will be retail quality of tenant that is a benefit to the community and can afford to pay the rent. Because, by the time we go through all the expense of creating something like this, the rent is pretty expensive. So I need a quality tenant to be able to pay the rent. With regard to the fence issue, the only area that is fenced is the backside. It will look like a regular retail building in the front and we've gone out of way to spend extra money to create a retail appearance. All of the roll up doors across the front are interchangeable with glass door fronts, it could be retail. They are also glass paneled roll-up doors so the idea is that the people performing automotive repair work, if we go automotive repair, would have to maintain a clean shop. And, so it's really important that we maintain that. As far as our colors go, we've pretty much already selected our colors and when we order parts of the building, like we're going to have a metal roof on it, it's going to be in a forest green color, not bright green like BP, but a forest green. And the color of the perimeter of the building is all done in a split face, called cumulata or split face block and we are doing that in kind of a latte color, color of coffee with milk in it. So we're trying to make it classy, a classy building there. It's going to be expensive and we're going to get quality tenants and we have an enormous investment in this property, so we just going to be very careful. Hunter: Um hum. Pounder: And I just want you to understand that this isn't a ramshackle shop with foul language. And another issue is probably they'll be opened regular business hours, you know, 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning to 5 or 6, probably not later than 7 in the evening. And, your trailer park, know I've lived on Lake Meridian, since I've been six, 41, so that's about 35 years, so I respect the community, I live there currently, with my wife and kids, the whole family lives there. And that's my relationship with Mr. Zerr, grew out of my brokerage business in Bellevue but Mr. Zerr and I became acquainted over the years and that's why I did that deal on his property. I saw a need in the marketplace for this service. I've done as a broker, eight other automotive centers so I know of the mistakes that have been and I know the positive things that can be done too. Hunter: So, when you say automotive center, you're not necessarily committed to a repair facility. Pounder: No. Page 11 of 13 Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 Hunter: It could be any number of other items, but you applied for a conditional use approval of a repair facility. Pounder: That flexibility. Hunter: To have that flexibility. Pounder: For example the Pep Boys requires that they have some service bays as part of their deals, but they are really an auto parts store, but they do some service as well. Hunter: Um hum. Pounder: Schucks on the other hand, if we do land Schucks, then the likelihood is that they will take up 3/4 of the building for their use and we might have one other facility left and we might convert that to retail. We don't...the auto center is auto service is needed in that area or we wouldn't be making the investment in that type of building. And, also, your trailer park, the mobile home park, is on the other side of the five-lane state road, so we've got some buffering of the road and whatnot that separate us from you. I don't mean or want to be adversial with you, I want to be a good neighborhood. So, anyway that's... Hunter: O.K., so it's your intent then that whatever goes in there would not have sound impacts off the site, that's what the conditions are designed to address, that all sound be maintained within the building or on the site. Is that your intent as well? Pounder: Yeah. That is my intent. We are especially sensitive to that on the south side of the property because that abuts single-family residences. We have extra buffering and we have a wood fence. I think the buffering, the idea is to defray the sound or absorb the sound as well as the fence, cause it bounce off the top. On the front side, the City hasn't been really vigorous on that and neither have we. Our feeling was that the fact that we front on a state highway that is five lanes wide with, I think, we have 34,000 cars a day going by there, that any sound that came out of building be defracted by...offset by the traffic, it kind of sounds like a river, you know, white noise washes out the... Hunter: Um hum, um hum. O.K., thank you for being here Mr. Pounder. Pounder: O.K. Hunter: O.K., any others first. O.K., Mr. Dahlquist, you want a brief response. Dahlquist: You know I've been listening to the cars for IS years and I'm pretty use to it by know. I have no complaint if this guy wants to put in an auto parts store, a paint store or Page 12 of 13 Verbatim Minutes Lake Meridian Automotive Service Center #CE-99-3 Hearing of July 7, 1999 whatever, that's fine, I'm not going to say a word. But, I'm just telling you, even with the cars there you can hear people spitting, talking, playing music and you can hear all that stuff all day long. I mean just down and sit in front of... Hunter: No one is disputing that. Dahlquist: Les Schwab, I don't want to here it, O.K. I'm just flat telling you. You can put an auto parts, whatever, right. Hunter: Mr. Dahlquist, let me suggest this, Mr. Pounder's here, you two live fairly close to each other, why don't you make sure that you trade phone numbers and keep in touch with this and see if he moves forward with this, you can keep in touch and see what evolves. Dahlquist: O.K. Hunter: And.... Dahlquist: And you guys will let me know too, won't you. Hunter: Absolutely. Yeah. Dahlquist: O.K., that's fine. I just want to make sure that I get the point across, you know. It's the noise because I really have to listen to that every day. Hunter: Yep, heard you loud and clear. No problem hearing you today. All right, any other rebuttals, responses. O.K., then I'm going to close the record on this application and issue the decision within ten days. Thank you being here. ch:ceMverbatimmin.doc Page 13 of 13 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 21 , 1999 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: NEELY HOUSE RENOVATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Neely House Renovation Project bid opening held on September 10, 1999, produced one bid from Father and Son Construction from Tacoma, Washington. The Engineer' s estimate is $170, 260 . 00 . The Parks and Recreation Director recommends awarding the contract to Father and Son in the amount of $166, 990, plus Washington State Sales Tax for the Neely House Renovation Project . 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tab 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: taff (Committee, Sta f, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL ERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $166 , 900 . 00 , plus WSST SOURCE OF FUNDS : Gra funds 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ,V Councilmember Q0 moves, Councilmember seconds to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with Father and Son Construction for $166 , 990 . 00, plus Washington State Sales Tax for the Neely House Renovation project . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 8A O O 0 rn rn c1rS O c) O co O N N t C � 64 N o .O o O � O O � � M W O N e� O cC) rn }: of Q a W N 0 0 Ln O Z Z i 00 Qz0 Zw cl LL Q F— 0 a � 0 E-- O z a Ow = 0 LO 0 o Q Jm o 0 U Q Oct Dw � r- N z W m (� Y O Q N � a. O O c`o O 1,,- O O r r- z co Y 0 co ; t� EA ER 1 fA 69- 1 OW tR fR Q co C CD d W L6 O C) O Q � H t5 6.? O m L N o W Q a�i m U c ZU) cQ O 0 O H Ill ca co LV Lu rn L W 0 t O Z IxG LL ~ Z N ri ui cC W Q REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT -- u^� d B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE w(L-0 �C 5 3 o C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PARKS COMMITTEE F. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Y P REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Labor Negotiations r -