Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Regular Minutes - 05/07/1973 Kent, Washington May 7, 1973 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 8:00 p.m. Present: Mayor Hogan, Councilmen: Baffaro, Elliott, Kitto, Martell, Masters and Thornton, City Administrator Street, City Attorney Mirk, Public Works Director Ulett, Finance Director Winkle and Planning Director Harris. Councilman Just was absent. Elliott moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 16th with the following correction: On Page 5 , "Elliott moved to accept the contract with ORB for the Shorelines Management Plan and to add a clause providing for the completion date of January 1 , 1974" , Kitto seconded, motion carried. Mayor Hogan presented certificates to three city employees : Margaret Drotz, Mike Webby and Pat Henderson, who have successfully completed training coVrses in "Human Relations" and "Principles of 'Supervision" . HEALTH & Flood Damage. A letter was read from John Biggs, Director SANITATION of the Department of Ecology, noting that the office of Housing and Urban Development has provided for federal sub- sidized flood insurance premium rates for communities subject to flood damage and mud slides. MASTERS MOVED that receipt of the letter be noted, Elliott seconded , motion carried. Emergency Sewer Repair - S . 196th. Upon the recommenda- tion of the Engineer, MARTELL MOVED that the W. C. Frost Contract for sewer repair on S . 196th, in the amount of $9 ,971.91, including tax, be accepted as complete and any withheld funds be released when it is legal to do so, Thornton seconded, motion carried. Proposed ULID. A petition for a ULID for sanitary sewers was received from a group of citizens living in Sunset Manor Plat at S .E. 256th and 116th S .E. The petition was reviewed by the Utilities Committee, and the Engineer has been directed to review the petition and report back to the committee. SOUTH Funding. At last work session, Walt Ramsey gave a very CENTRAL preliminary estimate of the cost of a pumping plant to STORM increase the present ten year flood design of the South DRAINAGE Central storm drain gravity system. His estimate was approximately $175 ,000. Since it has been assumed that money to be used for such a project would be Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, it is recommended that the following action be taken: 1. A separate contract be entered into between I:ent and Hill , Ingman & Chase for this specific work. 2. Prior to such a contract, a public hearing be held on the proposed expenditure of federal funds. 3 . Item #2 also applies to any Mill Creek project that involves federal funds. 4. A suggested date for the public hearing is June 4th. MASTERS MOVED that a public hearing on the proposed budget- ing of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds be held June 4th at a regular council meeting, Elliott seconded. On Kitto's question, it was determined that this public hearing would cover use of all Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. Mayor Hogan suggested the matter be discussed at the next work- shop. Motion carried. FINANCE Inter-Fund Financing. The City Attorney introduced Re- solution 744, authorizing the City Treasurer to borrow money from the Current Expense Fund and from the City Hall Construction Fund to pay the May principle and in- terest on excess levy G.O. Bonds. MASTERS MOVED for adoption of the resolution, Martell seconded, motion car- ried. It was noted that the sales tax revenue for January a- mounted to $98,912 which brings the total received this year to $205 , 311. On that basis , this revenue is run- ning 4% above the budget estimate which will help to off- set for the slow property tax payments. PARKS & Mill Creek. The City Attorney introduced Ordinance 1825 , RECREATION providing for condemnation of Mill Creek property for park purposes . ELLIOTT MOVED for passage of the ordinance , Kitto seconded, motion carried . Baffaro noted that Parks Director Wilson has been invited to speak in Selah on coordinating parks and school pro- grams. PLAT Mountain View Tracts . Harris pointed out the proposed plat on a display map, located on the east side of 112th Ave. S .E . at approximately S .E . 236th Place. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the plat, subject to the following conditions : 1 . Location of easement shall coincide with present water lines. 2. Sanitary sewers to be installed dry. 3 . Street (S .E . 236th Place) is to be asphalt concrete pavement with concrete curb and gutters. 4. Culvert shall be installed on east side of 112th Ave. S .E. under 236th Pl. with catch basins at the north- east and southeast corner of said intersection. 5 . Applicant shall provide on perc test per every two lots to indicate the general receptibility of the land for septic system use. 6. Applicant shall provide two soil log holes to a depth of 48". 7. The plat shall be designated as Mountain View Estates, rather than Mountain View Tracts. 8. Any septic tanks on Lots 4 and 5 be so located so as not to cause contamination of water mains, in case of water main break. 9 . The 20 foot easement between Lots 4 and 5 be adequately detailed on the face of the plat to insure that block- ing of access to and on the easement is prohibited. Also, posting of the easement may be required. 10 . Provision be made for power and telephone relocation. Upon Thornton's question, Harris explained that the re- quirements for the dry sewers was included so sewers can be connected when available. Harris pointed out that the applicant had proposed a mat finish for the streets rather than asphalt pavement, and noted his concern about open ditches and the absence of curbs and gutters. Elliott and Ulett noted that most of the streets in the city's residen- tial area are oil mat streets . Elliott stated that this proposed plat provided for a cul-de-sac with six building lots so there would not be much traffic. On Kitto 's in- quiry, it was pointed out that the asphaltic concrete had been required for other plats, including this plat when it was first proposed in 1969 . Harris noted that Park Orchard has curbs and gutters and that sewers were in a plat north of this proposed plat. Mayor Hogan opened the public hearing. MOUNTAIN Miles Drake, Engineer representing the applicant, noted VIEW that if improvements are put in now, the price of the lots TRACTS will increase. He stated that considering the storm drain- PLAT age problems on the east hill, it was his opinion that (Cont'd) the water would dissipate better in the ditches. Ulett noted that the Planning Commission did not recommend storm sewers, but recommended concrete curbs and gutters to take the water to 112th S .E . where it would be discharged into the existing ditch. Mrs. Mary Mulder spoke in favor of requiring the dry sewers, noting that it would be dif- ficult to get owners to agree later to put in the improve- ments. Upon Elliott 's question, Drake stated he had no percolation test results but would expect that approval of the plat would be subject to satisfactory tests. There were no further comments and KITTO MOVED to close the hearing, Masters seconded , motion carried. BAFFARO MOVED to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance approving the plat in accordance with the re- commendations of the Planning Commission, with the follow- ing exceptions : to delete Item #2, and to change Item #3 to read "S .E . 236th to be constructed to conform to 112th S .E . " , Thornton seconded. Kitto stated that the City should have a policy on this type of development, and if such a policy does not exist, this would be a poor instance on which to base a policy. lie further noted that if a policy is in effect, it should not be deviated from. Ile suggested that the Planning Commission recommendations be followed in this instance. Masters pointed out that a development further out on 136th which was developed less than 10 years ago, now has serious sewer problems after developing on septic tanks . The owners are now faced with unusually high sewer hookup fees . She opined that it is more advantageous for people to pay more init- ially for lots which have improvements already in. Motion carried, with Baffaro, Elliott and Thornton voting aye and Kitto and Masters voting nay. Martell, as owner of the property took no part in the discussion and did not vote. FINANCE A letter was read from Wes Uhlman to Jess Ramaker of the U. S . Department of Labor, requesting information as to why neither Seattle nor any other city in the King- Sno- homish SMSA was allocated a portion of EEA funds earmarked for summer employment. MASTERS MOVED to accept the letter and for it to be made a matter of record, Elliott seconded , motion carried. A letter was read from Central Puget Sound Economic De- velopment District, advising of their formulation of two programs to explore economic development potentials with- in the region. The letter noted that Ports have legal economic development powers which cities and counties do not and asks that the cities and counties comment on the desirability of additional powers, and which additional legal powers would fill their needs. MASTERS MOVED that receipt of the letter be noted , Thornton seconded, motion carried. MILL CREEK It was noted that King County and the City of Kent are STORM doing enough preliminary surveying so that cost estimates DRAINAGE for engineering and construction of holding ponds will be available soon. A representative of King County En- gineering also met with our Director of Public Works and the modification necessary in the 104th Ave. S .E. plan seemingly can be accomplished to allow the holding ponds to be developed as proposed . COMPREHENSIVEIt was noted that the Manpower contract has been rewritten MANPOWER and apparently is now acceptable to the City and will PROGRAMMING be signed shortly. (CMP) DES MOINES It was noted that several weeks ago, the City approved SEWER an annexation to the Des Moines Sewer District. The City DISTRICT has been informed that it is necessary to reduce the ANNEXATION size of the original proposed annexation. The Engineering Department has reviewed this proposed annexation and re- commends approval . MARTELL MOVED to authorize the Mayor to sign said petition, Masters seconded , motion carried . BIDS The following bids were received for the installation of high density lighting on the West Valley Highway at the intersections of S . 228th, S . 212th and S . 196th: Base Bid *Deduction Signal Electric $39 , 650 $6, 700 Westcoast Electric 40,517 11,445 Service Electric 42 , 600 13,000 Carl T. Madsen, Inc. 49 ,900 15 , 750 *The deduction was to eliminate the lighting at the S. 196th intersection. It was noted that the amount budgeted is $34,000. It is recommended that the total project be authorized because to delay the S . 196th intersection not only would cost considerably more later, but there is construction activity for business which will increase the hazard of this in- tersection. ELLIOTT MOVED to accept the best bid of Signal Electric for all three intersections, Masters seconded. Upon Kitto 's question, Street noted that the additional funds would come from the unexpended balance from last years budget. Motion carried . NASA The City Attorney introduced Resolution 745 , supporting the NASA Space Shuttle Program. ELLIOTT MOVED for adoption of: the resolution, Kitto seconded, motion carried. SHORELINES It has been suggested that the Shorelines Management Citizen MANAGEMENT Review Committee consist of the following occupation rep- CITIZEN resentatives: REVIEW COMMITTEE 1 . Banker S. Conservationist 2. Real Estate Broker 9 . Senior Citizen 3 . Housewife 10. Teenager 4. Minister 11 . Retailer 5 . Educator 12 . Boeing or Heath 6. Professional, such as 13 . Railroad doctor, architect or 14. Property owner with lawyer property within 2.00 7. Construction ft. of Green River Each Councilman has been asked to be responsible for con- tacting representatives from two categories, and getting assurance that they will participate. Each Councilman drew two slips and were assigned as follows : Baff aro 13 and 14, Elliott 5 and 6, Just 3 and 4, Kitto 1 and 2, Martell 7 and t , Masters 11 and 12, Thornton 9 and 10 . CITY OF The Boundary Review Board has advised Kent that the City DES MOINES of Des Moines proposes to annex a small parcel of property ANNEXATION near our western city limits and the I:ent-Des Moines High- way. It is recommended that no action be taken on this matter, as the parcel is more appropriately located to annex to the City of Des Moines . ANIMAL A letter was read from County Councilman Mooney proposing LICENSES that King County and the various municipalities honor each others ' animal licenses. It is suggested that if such action is taken, that the requirements and costs of licenses be the same, to avoid problems. MASTERS MOVED that the letter and proposed ordinance from Councilman Mooney be recorded and the Administrator be directed to respond and report any suggestions to the Council, Kitto seconded. It was suggested that this matter be discussed at workshop. Motion carried . FIRE It was noted that the Building Inspection Section of the DEPART14ENT Fire Department has requested that an additional inspector be hired. There are 166 active permits and the department is unable to give adequate service. ELLIOTT MOVED that the Personnel Department advertise for a building inspector and bring an amendment to the 1973 budget to cover this position, Baff aro seconded, motion carried . LICENSES Discussion was had regarding license fees for Circuses, Carnivals, etc. It was noted that Ordinance #940 which amends Ordinance 1#686, places the license fee for a circus , carnival or sideshow at $400 minimum plus $100 per. day LICENSES for any day over four. In the past a business license (Cont 'd) based upon $12 Per year has been issued for "Amusement Rides only" . The City Clerk has checked with adjacent cities regarding their fees or licenses . Street re- ported that Renton has a detailed ordinance covering all phases of this type of activity. Auburn's ordinance dates back to 1928 , and Bellevue does not permit car- nivals. Tukwila is proposing an ordinance based on a temporary permit with a clean-up bond requirement. Street rioted that the "Meeker Days" celebration was approaching and suggested that Ordinance ##940 be amended by deleting the word carnival. Baff aro was in favor of requiring a clean-up bond. MASTERS MOVED that Sec- tion 8 of Ordinance 940 be amended by removing the word "carnival " from said ordinance, Thornton seconded . Martell suggested that the matter be further discussed at workshop session. MlI STERS WITHDREW tier motion, Thornton withdrew his second . METRO Mayor Hogan pointer] out that the proposed Metro budget for 1974 is being prepared and a copy is on file in the City Clerk 's office. Mayor Hogan noted that proposed new routes Tor Metro Transit are unce.r study now. BEAUTIFICA- Clean-Up Week. A letter was read from the Chambei of TION Commerce regarding the status of the clean up efforts conducted April 28th, noting that 12 truckloads of trash were collected and over 1000 lbs. of rubbish re- moved from Kent curbsides, through the help of National guard, City Beverage, Valley Distributors and Boy Scout troops. It was noted that Boy Scout Troop #413 collected the most trash. MASTERS MOVED that receipt of the letter be noted and for the Mayor to express appreciation to those participating, Kitto seconded , motion carried. PROCLAMATIONS A letter was read from Don Samuelson, Regional Repre- sentative of the Secretary of Transportation requesting the City to proclaim May 13-19 as "Transportation Week" and May 18th as "National Defense Transportation Day" and urging that the news media be advised to inform the public. MASTERS MOVED to acknowledge receipt of the letter and to grant the request, Kitto seconded, motion carried. Mayor Hogan read a proclamation declaring May 13-19 as Transportation Week and May 18th as National Defense Transportation Day. A letter was read from Joyce Oleson urging the City to observe May 6-12 as National Hospital Week. 14ASTERS MOVED to accept the letter, Elliott seconded, motion carried. Mayor Hogan read a proclamation, declaring May 6-12 as National Hospital Week. Mayor Hogan proclaimed May 18 and 19 as "Poppy Days" in Kent. AMERICAN A letter was read from Gordon Harris of the American LEGION Legion, inviting city officials to attend their Law and Order Program on May 15th at 8:00 p.m. at the Kent Legion Ball to honor Law Enforcement Officers of South King County. MASTERS MOVED to accept the letter and for it to be made a matter of record, Kitto seconded, motion carried. FINANCE ELLIOTT MOVED to pay bills received on or before May 5th after approval by the Finance Committee at their meeting to be held at 8 :00 a.m. , May 16th, Baff aro seconded, motion carried . PROPOSED It was noted that the public hearing on the proposed NEW ZONING new zoning code will commence at this meeting. Guide- CODE lines for the hearing established at the last work session are as follows: The letters received concerning the text of the ordinance will be reviewed and the Planning Department answers noted. The Mayor will then ask for input from the audience concerning the text. PROPOSED At this time the members of the Council should deter- NEW ZONING mine any items that will be considered for change fol- CODE lowing the closing of the hearing. (Cont 'd) The sign chapter will be discussed at 7:00 p.m. , Tues- day, May 8, regardless of how far along the Council is on the first items. Next the mapping will be discussed and the letters and Planning Department answers noted . The zoning map and appropoiate letters will be divided into four quadrants. It is planned that the public hearing sessions of the continued public hearing will commence at 7:00 p.m. on May B and May 9 and end at approximately 11 :00 p.m. Mayor Hogan opened the public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance ay 9 :07 p.m. Planning Director Harris noted letters received concern- ing the text of the proposed ordinance and the recommen- dations made by the Planning staff for eacli, as follows : Chuck Adams of Glendale Realty wrote that residents of the proposed CM Commercial Manufacturing) area were of the opinion that 35% coverage in CM is too restrictive and that a larger portion should be permitted . The Planning Staff recommendation notes that since the pur- pose of the CM district is to provide locations for those types of developments which combine some character- istics of both retail establishments Find in,7ustria.l op- erations, heavy commercial and wholesale uses, the 35/ site coverage for CM could be increased to 45% or 50% without damaging the CM concept. Elmer McHugh of Precision Spring & Stamping Co. has written requesting that the proposed CM district be modified, as he plans to purchase adjacent property for a new 10, 000 sq. ft. ?wilding and for use for dry stor- age of campers, boats, trailers, etc. The Planning Staff has noted that rather than change the zoning to M-1, it would prefer to change the Code to allow the . 10,000 sq. ft. manufacturing building Linder CM class- ification. Harlan Bull 's letter proposes 7 changes in the text under the i`1-2, Limited Industrial District. 1 . Under Principally Permitted Uses, Section 3 .18.1, page 49, Mr. Bull suggests that paragraph 7, which reads: "Administrative or executive offices which are a part of a predominant industrial operation", be changed by deleting the word are and substitut- ing may be. The Staff notes that this would allow every kind of office building or use in the M-2 zone, and recommends that the paragraph not be changed . 2. Under the same heading , Mr. Bull suggests that par- agraph 12, which reads "warehousing with retail sales" be changed to read "warehousing with retail sales and limited retail sales" . The Staff points out that this really means that commercial uses would be per- mitted in the M-2 zone and recommends against Chang- ing the paragraph. 3 . Under Section 3 .18.4, Development Standards, page 50, paragraph 1, which reads : "Minimum lot 20,000 square ft. ", Mr. Bull suggests a change to 10,000 square ft. The Planning Department contends that 10 ,000 square ft. is too small for a lot in an industrial district, and recommends that no change be made. 4. Under the same heading, page 50, paragraph 2, Mr. Bull asks that the minimum site coverage be changed from 60 to 70%. Harris pointed out that the propsed modifications to the text suggests 65%. 5 . Mr. Bull suggests that paragraph 3c on page 51 be changed to read : "Side Yards The side yard shall be minimum of ten feet on each side" . The Planning Staff recommends that this item remain as is : "Side Yards The side yards shall have an aggregate area of 10 percent of the lot width, but the aggregate area need not be more than 30 feet. There shall be a minimum of 10 feet on each side. PROPOSED 6. Mr. Bull notes that paragraph 6 on page 61, Has NEW ZONING been modified to read : a) "Landscaping, Front Yard . The front 15 feet shall be improved with appropri- ate permanently maintained landscaping. Such land- scaping shall extend to the street curb lane where appropriate" . He requests that this be changed to 10 feet. The Planning Staff recommends that no change be made. 7. Mr. Bull has also suggested that the side yard land- scaping requirement be set to 5 feet. The blue sheet modification states as follows : b) "Side Yards. At least 10 feet of the side yard shall be landscaped as in 6a above" . The Planninq Staff recommends that no change be made. Harris noted that a letter had been received from I:aryne Waldner requesting that beauty shops be allowed in a residential zone. The Planning Department recommends that beauty salons not become home occupations because beauty salons, barber shops and like operations require that the dwelling be altered to allow these operations. Mr. Howard Tank of Kent Bowl Realty wrote 2 letters asking questions concerning several aspects of the proposed zoning code. Harris noted that another letter had been received today, but that it had not been in- cluded in the Staff 's report. Mr. Tank asked why set- backs are required in the General Commercial District and not in the Downtown Commercial District. Harris pointed out that the GC district would replace the former C-3 in those areas where commercial development had taken place in a haphazard manner or where there were large tracts of undeveloped land designated to be commercial on the Comprehensive Plan, but not yet de- veloped. Therefore, GC zoning is proposed only on Pacific Highway South, along Central Avenue and in the Kent West Mall area. He noted that -the core area is proposed DC zoning which requires no set backs because it is considered a pedestrian-oriented area with less need for setbacks than the outlying auto-oriented com- mercial areas. The fact that the old C-3 district did not have setbacks does not mean that there should not be setbacks now. Had there been setbacks under. the C-3 and landscaping requirements, a much more attrac- tive type of development would have occured in the areas presently zoned C-3 . Mr. Tank objected to the proposed code requiring land- scaping. Harris noted that the only way a City can be assured that all properties will be treated equally, if the City desires landscaping, is to require land- scaping by ordinance. Barris stated, in further answer to Mr. Tank 's objec- tions, that the Planning Commission fails to see how the GC district will further downgrade the areas now zoned C-3 when the C-3 district has absolutely no set- back or landscaping requirements and few use restrictions . Mr. Tank had stated in his letter that the new code was being pushed through too fast, and Harris noted that the city has bo en working on this for 3 years and had held 22 public hearings on the code. The Plan- ning Department recommends that there be no change in the GC regulations. Mr. Bull spoke from the audience in support of his letter, reiterating that he could see no reason for not allowing various types of offices in M-2 zoning. Ile noted that there were 42 to 50 tracts which were in the proposed M-2 zone which were less than 5 acres, and that it appears that the big problem is that this zoning classification is designed for large tracts. Ile suggested that the retail sections allowed under conditional use should be put under the permitted use category. With regard to lot sizes, lie pointed out that 20, 000 sq. ft. was too large a size to require and that he knew of at least 22 tax lots in the East Valley area which were less than 20,000 sq. ft. He pointed out that a good sized building could be placed on a 10 to 15 , 000 sq. PROPOSED ft. lot. Mr. Bull noted further tiia.t 5 ft. of landsc.apincr NEW ZONING for side yards should be sufficient inasmuch as it would CODE join the 5 ft. of landscaping; provided by the adjacent property owner. Mr. Rayfuse spoke from the audience, noting that a firm interested in locating a heavy manufacturing business in this area would buy up several sma11 {parcels. Iie noted that as a representative of the Planning Commis- sion, the Commission was against lessening the restric- tions on site coverage. Mr. McCorkle, President of the Chamber. of Commerce urged the Council to consider the Chamber of Commerce 's remarks and suggestions which have been submitted in writing. lie noted that the code would have, a strong impact on the business community, and that some points must be modified. Harold Ritland noted that after taking the 10 ft. set- backs off a 10, 000 sq. ft. lot, most of the remaining space would, be used for the building, and he questioned what would be used for parking space. Masters referred to Mr. Bull ' s remarks regarding ad- ministrative, executive and professional offices , and asked if: including real estate, engineering and sur- veying type offices would be a valid consideration in th M-2 area. Harris commenter' thEt this would create a tendency for offices to move into industrial areas. Thornton asked why the commercial aspect had been totally eliminated north of S. 208th. Harris pointed out that if we start using the Industrial zones for commercial activity, the Commercial zoned areas ' activity would be dissipated . Ile said that there are about B sq. miles designated Industrial and 10 sq. miles used for commercial , the time could come when an industry in- terested in locating in I:ent would not be able to purchase the required industrially zoned land. The code could be changed later, he noted, if it was deemed necessary. Elliott asked if warehouse-retail operations generated enough foot traffic to warrant small commercial type businesses such as restaurants, barber shops, etc. , would these be allowed in industrial zones . Harris noted that the Planning Commission did not forsee this happen- ing and the industrial land should be left for just that. Paul Weiser noted that the area between S . 218 th and S . 222nd on the East Valley highway had been zoned eDmmercial for many years and he recommended that it remain so. Harris noted that Mr. Weiser 's letter would be read during the mapping portion os the hear- ing. Upon Martell 's question, Rayfuse pointed out that there is no need for buyers to go to a higher priced area, as there is plenty of open space in every zoning category, including areas close to the railroads. Ile stated that small shops are not a benefit in industrial areas. Martell said he thought Mr. Bull was referring not to the railroads, but rather to proximity to the highways where people have small pieces of ground , which unless zoned, would be hard to sell. Iiarr.is noted that zoning should not be used as a point for sell- ing land, and that the Comprehensive Plan was devised to create an orderly development of the community. Martell asked how the owner of a 10,000 sq. ft. lot could use the land . Harris explained that this would be a "lot of record" and could certainly be used. Mr. Bull commented that this would be a non-conforming use right from the start, and therefore difficult to sell. Merville Bishop concurred. Martell asked if the 40% site coverage meant just buildings. The City Attorney stated that under_ the definition section of the code "site coverage" is defined as "buildings or structures" . Mr. harris next introduced the Planning Staff 's report and analysis of the changes suggested by the Chamber of, Commerce, a copy of which is on file and a part of the record. PROPOSED 1-a) The Chamber has noted that throughout the code, NEw ZONING references are made to reviews by various de- CODE partments, and suggests that they be incorporated into a review section. The Planning Staffie-- conm�r,ds that no change be made since the code is easier to understand if review requirements are spelled out in each pertinent part of the code . 1-b) The Ch�imber has suggested that the principal of a develor�meiit should have to meet only with the "Technical Review Committee" (Department Heads) , and should not have to meet additionally with members of the various departments . Harris noted that the Department Head review committee informs the citizen of the regulations governing his particular situation, but that -the depart- ments particularly coil,_,erned con 'act -the final review. The Planning Staff recommends that no change be made. 1-c) The Chamber noted that if construction is not involved, the review woulc' be conducted by only those department heads particularly concerned . Harris noted that this comment had nothing to do with the zoning code. 2. The Chamber sug-ested that those businesses de- fined in. Section 4.5 , page 67, should be speci- fically prohibited from DC area as defined in Section 3 .11, pages 33-34 an(] urged that pedes- trian orientation be maximized, and asked that no auto drive-in uses be permitted . Harris es:plained that the D-C, Downtown Commercial zone has two segments : DC-1 and DC-2. The DC-1 area coincides with off-street- Parking LID 260 and off-street parking is riot required in this area. The DC-2 area is the -emainder of the DC zone where normal off-street parking is required. The DC-1 area is planned to be oriented toward pedestrian traffic. The Staff recommends that drive-in facilities not be permitted in the DC-1 portion of the DC zone district. 3 . The Chamber requests clarification of the dif- ference between the DC-1 and DC-2 districts . Harris pointed out that the boundaries for the DC-1 and DC-2 areas were adequately discussed by the Planning Commission, and he noted that the Planning Department recommends that the DC-1 and DC-2 boundaries adopted by the Planning Commission be also adopted by the City Council . These boundaries are shoini on the Section 24 map. 4. The Chamber urges that precise language in the lighting requirements section be set down similar to other performance standards of the ordinance. Harris noted that Section 4.9 .4, on page 70, states, "Any lighting on a parking lot shall illuminate only the parking lot. All lighting shall be designed and located so as to avoid undue glare or reflection of light. . . " and also pointed out that in the sign section of the Code, on page 71 , there are several references to illum- inated signs . The Planning Department recommends that the City work out a set of policy standards for light- ing requirements, but that these standards not become a part of this Code , but rather become a part of overall City standards. 5 . The Chamber suggests that Section 6 on view pro- tection needs additional work so that a greater radius of view is protected. Harris stated that the view protection regulations are a new concept that need to be in operation for a time be1-ore they can be modified . PROPOSED The Planning Department recommends that the view NEW ZONING regulations be left as they are. CODE 6. The Chamber suggests that all height limitations should be adjustable upward by variance Harris pointed out that the Code provides that the Planning Director shall authorize heights greater than those imposed by the Code and re- commended that no change be made. 7. The Chamber states that Section 6.17 and 6.18 are in direct conflict with Section 13 .06D of the uniform building code and should be omitted. Harris stated that there was not a conflict and recommended that no chancre be made. S-a) The Chamber notes that Section 7.1 , 7.2, and 7.3 should be adjusted consistent with their recommendation regarding reviews in Item 141. The Planning Department recommends that no changes be made in review procedures . 8-b) The Chamber suggests that in Section 7.4 - 7 .4.1, duplicating language in the definition section should be eliminated . Harris noted that duplication of language between the definition section and the rest of the Code should be expected and recommended that no change be made. S-c) The Chamber suggests that sections covering no- tices -to property owners be revised . Harris noted that the Staff recommends that the sections not be changed except that at the end of paragraph 1, Section 7.4.2 the words ten days prior to the public hearing - be added. IIe fur- ther recommended that the City come up with an expanded mail out area, on a sliding scale. This area to be worked out after this code has been approved . The Chamber suggests also that a new section be added covering 10 day notices on appeals. Harris pointed out that procedure for appeals is different and the appellant is immediately notified and therefore the Staff recommends that no change be made. 8-d ) The Chamber suggest mandatory annual review by the Planning Department and Commission on the anniversary date of ordinance with recommendations for changes to be made to the Council within 75 days for adoption of amendment. Harris noted that it was planned that the Code could be amended any time a problem arises, and therefore the Planning Department recommends that no change be made. 8-e) The Chamber suggests that a civil penalty be enacted for violations rather than having crim- inal proceedings. Harris noted that the Planning Department recom- mends that changes be carried out to alter Sec- tion 7 .11.2, Penalties for Violation from crim- inal to civil proceedings . S-f) No comments were made on this item. PROPOSED 9a 1 ) The Chamber suggests that parking be prohibited NEW ZONING in the front yards of RA, R-1 , MR-D and MA CODE districts . Harris noted that no reason was given for the proposed change and recommended that no change be made. 9a. 2) The Cliam1,)er recommend:: l hat l)rurklng .;l �,►1]_ ))c� permitted in all side yards and in all except the first ten feet of front yard in the follow- ing districts : MR-G, NIR-M, MR-II, M-2, M-3 , NCC, CM, HC and GC. Harris noted that the Code provides for the MR-G, MR-M and MR-II districts : "Off-street parking may be located in required yards ex- cept for the front ten (10) feet abutting any public right-of-way which must be landscaped. No off-street parking is permitted in the re- quired open careen area" , and noted that this really says the same thing. He pointed out further that the blue sheet pro- vides for the follwoing : For the M-1 and 14-2 districts "Those areas not required to be land- scaped may be used for off-street parkin(�" . This reflects a change by the Planning Commission over the original text. He pointed out that in the M-1 district, the front twenty( 20) feet is to be landscaped and at least fifteen (15 ) feet of the side yard and that in the NCC district off-street parkin(.c may be located in required yards , except in areas required to be landscaped . This is also true for the C-M, GC and II-C dis- tricts . The Planning Department .recommends that no change be made in the Code in reference to Item #9a (1 and 2) . 9a 3) The Chamber suggest that parking may be per- mitted in all parts of the required yards in the following districts : CC, 0 and DC-2; provided that an area equivalent to the ten foot wide front yard st-ri i_. ridded to the required landscape area. The Planning Department recommends that no change be made in off-street parking for the CC, 0 and DC-2 districts. 9b 1) The Cha-Li0>er recommends that at all parking areas between the rear building line and the front 10 feet wide landscape strip, an area shall be landscaped ewual to 10% of the paved area plus lOr' of the dross first floor area of the building or buildings; and for the purpose of this section, paved r.,_eas shall not include enclosed storage yards or building service areas. Trees shall be located at a. maximum distance of 70 feet on center in one direction and 35 feet on center in the other direction on all paved areas; and that the area of the required 10 foot wide landscape strip may be included in computing the total required landscape area. Harris noted that the basic reasons behind re- quirine; a specific area to be landscaped is that one can be assured that the landscaping will be visible, will conform to all properties in the same district an,' i,ill reduce the neces- sity for the staff ' to painstakingly work with each developer to find the area. tb be covered with the 10 percent requirement. I-lost develop- ments now underway in Kent ar putting in land- scaping in accordance with the requirements in the new Code. The Planning Department recommends that no change be made to the Code. PROPOSED 9b 2) The Chamber comments that landscaping is required NEW ZONING in. the 10 foor wide strip. Trees shall be planted CODE in the maximum distance of 35 feet apart in the said 10 foot wide strip. Harris stated that the Commission 's view was that trees should be planted anyway the property owner sees fit, unless they are on a public right- of-way. Clusters of trees are very effective, as are groupings of trees only five (5 ) or ten (10) feet apart. The Planning, Department-: recommends no change in the Code. 9c) The Chamber has recommended that trees required under this paragraph shall be in conformance with performance standards covering size and tyre as are fully spelled out elsewhere in this ordinance. They note that this would prevent "acres of asphalt" developments with literally no landscaping. They have referred to the mini- mal landscaping at the Renton K Mart Store, due to the fact that the Renton ordinance did not specify type or size of trees or distance required between them. The Chamber suggests further that in the down- town area an alternative should be provided to the developer wherein he may ignore planting strips entirely if lie spreads across his site landscaping which is ecruivalent to the square footage in the planting strip he may do so, but the flexibility offered by this alternative, will produce imagina- tion in the landscape site plan for these core area uses. Ilarris stated that the Code as recommended will. overcome the problems cited above. Specifying types or sizes of trees will not assure that land- scaping will be done any more than spelling out elaborate criteria for the area that must be land- scaped . What is important is the way the officials of the City impress upon clevelol:)ers the desirabil- ity and necessity of doing a good job of land- scaping. 9d 1) The Chamber suggests that final plans for land- scaping shall be sul)miteed to the technical re- view committee alone with all other plans prior to securing the building or site improvement permit. Harris noted that the Commission does not agree with this idea. The landscaping plan should be reviewed by the Planning Department, which Depart- ment is responsible for administering the Zoning Code. Administering the Code by committee would only serve to weaken the administration of the Code, the very thine that h�)rsons vo-,21,7. likc to see. The Staff recommends that no change be made. 9d 2) The Chamber recommends that all landscape con- struction shall be completed as per plans within 12 months of the issuance of the permit, and a. bond shall be posted payable to the City of Kent in an amount equal to the bid of a responsible landscape construction contractor on landscape plan. The Planning Department recommends that this idea be incorporated into the Code. Harris noted that -the next portion of the Chamber 's input concerned the Sign portion of -the code which would be tak,_:r: ,ir tomorrow nir;ht. PROPOSED Joe Street asked Pete Ciirran if the "no drive-in" NEW ZONING oA-)eration in DC-1 was meant to include banks. Curran CODE replied that it was so meant, ir) DC-1 areas only, whicli jgould put some of the banks into a "non-con- forming" category. Curran noted that the Chamber realized that the Cone was i.,7ell written, but that the Council should consider the input of the Cham- ber particularly the sections pertaining to landscaping of industrial and commercial property. He pointer: out further that the "height limitations" section of the Code had flexibility only in some areas. Ilal Cline referred also to height limitations, noting that the Planning Director alone had the authority -to ad- just heights upward. He suggested that requests of this nature should be heard by a board . Kitto pointed out that appeals over the Planning Director 's decisions were directed to the Board of Adjustment. Cline sate] he was ccrcerned as to favorable decisions also. Harris pointed out that his decisions would be in the best interests of all of the citizens of Kent. Rayfuse clarified that height adjustments upward were permitted for only one story over the maximum allowed in the particular zone except for the manufacturing zone, which is not spelled out. Harris noted an article from -the Bureau of Census about the trend toward garden type apartments instead of the tower type. Martell. noted that ordinances should not be written on a basis of what other- cities are doing , that we should decide what is best for our area and what our citizens went. Rayfuse stated that this is exactly what has been done with this proposed code, that the ideas had come from the people attencl- ing the Planning Commission hearings . James Curran noted that the section dealing with. notices should be changed to specifically state that . notices will be mailed instead of the phrase "notice given" . Mirk noted that the city has been mailing notices all along in the manner suggested by the Chamber. Elliott suggested that the Council should define which areas in the text covered tonight might be chariged. Masters suggested that since so much mat- erial had been covered tonight that it would De bet- ter for the Council to respond individually, in writing, to the administration, their views on poss- ible changes to the text. It was pointed out that the sign portion of the ordinance was scheduled for 7 :00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 8, and the text portion would be continued after completion of the sign section. At 11 :00 p.m. , ELLIOTT MOVED to continue the public hearing to 7:00 p.m. on May 0, 1973 , Masters seconded, motion carried. Respectfully submitted , Marie Jensen City Clerk