HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 10/07/2003SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 7, 2003
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President
Tim Clark Connie Epperly Leona Orr
Julie Peterson Bruce White Rico Yingling
*********************************************************************************
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. CHANGES TO AGENDA
A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF
B. FROM THE PUBLIC
4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Employee of the Month
B. Proclamation – Fire Prevention Week
C. Introduction of Appointees
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Surplus of Impoundment Reservoir Property
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of Previous Meeting – Approve
B. Payment of Bills – Approve
C. Kent/Des Moines Joint Use Stormwater Detention/Treatment Facility
Agreement – Authorize
D. Condemnation Ordinance, Right of Way for 228th Street Extension Project –
Adopt
E. 104th Avenue SE Raising Project – Accept as Complete
F. Annexation for 277th Street, Ordinance – Adopt
G. LID 357, 120th Place SE Sanitary Sewers, Formation Ordinance – Adopt
H. Cluster Housing Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2003-2) Ordinance – Adopt
I. Binding Site Plan, Subdivision Code Amendment (SCA-2003-1) Ordinance –
Adopt
J. Qwest Conditional Use Permit Appeal Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Resolution – Adopt
K. Matricula Consular Identification Resolution – Adopt
L. 2003-2008 Economic Development Strategic Plan Resolution – Adopt
M. 2003 PC Replacement Plan – Authorize
N. City Beverages Sponsorship for Spotlight Series – Accept and Amend Budget
O. 2004 Washington State Arts Commission Grant for Canterbury Faire – Accept
and Amend Budget
P. Kent Civic Performing Arts Board Sponsorship for Spotlight Series – Accept and
Amend Budget
(continued next page)
SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED
Q. 2003-2004 Washington State Arts Commission Grant for Canterbury Faire –
Accept and Amend Budget
R. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Grant for Morrill Meadows Park –
Accept and Amend Budget
S. King County Public Health Department Donation for the Walking Guide – Accept
and Amend Budget
T. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Grant for Valley Floor
Community Park – Accept and Amend Budget
U. King Conservation District Grant for Campus Park Reforestation Project – Accept
and Amend Budget
V. Bureau of Justice FY 2003 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant – Accept and
Amend Budget
W. Stewart Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2003-4) Ordinance – Adopt
X. Kingsley Glen Minor Plat Alteration – Approve
Y. Kent Arts Commission Appointments – Confirm
Z. Diversity Advisory Board Re-appointments – Confirm
7. OTHER BUSINESS
None
8. BIDS
None
9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
10. REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
11. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. Property Acquisition
13. ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
14. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the
Kent Library. The Agenda Summary page is on the City of Kent web site at
www.ci.kent.wa.us.
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) EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
B) PROCLAMATION – FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
C) INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTEES
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS OF IMPOUNDMENT RESERVOIR PROPERTY
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Pursuant to state law, RCW 35.94.040, the City must
hold a public hearing before determining whether or not to surplus any water utility
property. In order to fulfill that obligation, this date has been set for the public hearing
on the possible surplus of the City's Impoundment Reservoir property. The purpose of
the hearing is to receive comments only. There will be no council action at the close of
the hearing.
3. EXHIBITS: None
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. City Council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through Z.
Discussion
Action
6A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of September 16, 2003.
6B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through August 31 and paid August 31, 2003.
The Operations Committee meeting on September 2, 2003 was cancelled.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/31/03 Wire Transfers 1492-1500 $ 975,842.08
8/31/03 Prepays & 552551 433,607.60
8/31/03 Regular 553061 1,813,651.00
$3,223,100.68
Approval of payment of the bills received through September 15 and paid on
September 15, after auditing by the Operations Committee on September 16, 2003.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/15/03 Wire Transfers 1501-1510 $1,037,823.25
9/15/03 Prepays & 553062 226,919.80
9/15/03 Regular 553573 943,114.28
$2,207,857.33
6B. Approval of Bills Continued
Approval of checks issued for payroll for August 1 through August 15 and paid on
August 20, 2003:
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/20/03 Checks 272068-272365 $ 265,979.25
8/20/03 Advices 152028-152683 1,165,735.28
$1,431,714.53
Approval of checks issued for payroll for August 16 through August 31 and paid on
September 5, 2003:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/5/03 Checks 272366-272679 $ 250,575.38
9/5/03 Advices 152684-153338 1,161,808.82
$1,412,384.20
Council Agenda
Item No. 6 A-B
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT/DES MOINES JOINT USE STORMWATER DETENTION/
TREATMENT FACILITY AGREEMENT – AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee,
authorization for the Mayor to sign the Kent/Des Moines Joint Use Stormwater
Detention/Treatment Facility Agreement to construct a joint detention/treatment pond
on Kent owned property subject to the City Attorney’s and the Public Works Director’s
concurrence of the language therein.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and agreement
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6C
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CONDEMNATION ORDINANCE, RIGHT OF WAY FOR 228TH
STREET EXTENSION PROJECT – ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee,
authorization to adopt a Condemnation Ordinance for the purpose of acquiring a portion
of 228th Street north of the Kent Highlands Landfill.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: City Council 8/19/2003
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6D
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 104TH AVENUE SE RAISING PROJECT – ACCEPT AS
COMPLETE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee,
accept the 104th Ave SE Raising project as complete and release the retainage to
Rodarte Construction, Inc. upon standard releases from the state and release of any
liens. The original contract amount was $655,824. The final contract amount was
$798,102.76. Adequate funds exist within the project budget to cover this overage.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6E
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ANNEXATION FOR 277TH STREET, ORDINANCE – ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee,
authorization to adopt an Ordinance for the purpose of annexing certain territory along
277th Street for municipal purposes.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum, closing letter from Boundary
Review Board and ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: City Council 12/10/2002
(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. 6F
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 357, 120TH PLACE SE SANITARY SEWERS, FORMATION
ORDINANCE – ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. that (1) orders the
construction of a sanitary sewer system in the vicinity of 120th Place SE in accordance
with Resolution No. 1651, (2) establishes Local Improvement District (“LID”) 357 in
order to carry out the proposed improvements, (3) provides for payment of the
improvements in part by special assessment, and (4) provides for the issuance and sale
of LID warrants.
Resolution No. 1651, adopted on August 19, 2003, declared the City Council’s
intention to order the installation of sanitary sewers in the vicinity of 120th Place SE.
At its September 16, 2003, meeting, Council held a public hearing regarding the
proposed improvement. At the conclusion of the hearing, Council determined to
construct the improvements and directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance
establishing the LID.
3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance and Resolution #1651
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6G
LID 357 Formation Ordinance
50400044.01
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, ordering the construction of an 8”
sanitary sewer system with 6” side sewer stubs to the
property line, all in accordance with Resolution No. 1651 of
the City Council; establishing Local Improvement District
No. 357 and ordering the carrying out of the proposed
improvement; providing that payment for the improvement
be made in part by special assessments upon the property in
the District, payable by the mode of “payment by bonds”;
and providing for the issuance and sale of local
improvement district warrants redeemable in cash or other
short-term financing and local improvement district bonds.
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 1651 adopted August 19, 2003, the
City Council declared its intention to order the construction of an 8” sanitary sewer
system with 6” side sewer stubs to the property line, and fixed September 16, 2003, at
7:00 p.m., local time, in the council chambers of City Hall as the time and place for
hearing all matters relating to the proposed improvement and all comments thereon
and objections thereto and for determining the method of payment for the
improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Public Works Director caused an estimate to
be made of the cost and expense of the proposed improvement and certified that
estimate to the City Council, together with all papers and information in his
possession touching the proposed improvement, a description of the boundaries of the
proposed local improvement district and a statement of what portion of the cost and
expense of the improvement should be borne by the property within the proposed
district; and
-2- LID 357 Formation Ordinance
50400044.01
WHEREAS, that estimate is accompanied by a diagram of the
proposed improvement showing thereon the lots, tracts, parcels of land, and other
property which will be specially benefited by the proposed improvement and the
estimated cost and expense thereof to be borne by each lot, tract and parcel of land or
other property; and
WHEREAS, due notice of the above hearing was given in the manner
provided by law, the hearing was held by the City Council on the date and at the time
above mentioned, and all persons appearing at such hearing and wishing to be heard
were heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it to be in the best
interests of the City that the improvement as hereinafter described be carried out and
that a local improvement district be created in connection therewith; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington,
orders the improvement of the properties within the area described in Exhibit “A,”
attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, by the construction of an 8”
sanitary sewer system with 6” side sewer stubs to the property line.
All of the foregoing shall be in accordance with the plans and
specifications therefor prepared by the City’s Public Works Director, and may be
modified by the City Council as long as such modification does not affect the purpose
of the improvement.
SECTION 2. There is created and established a local improvement
district to be called Local Improvement District No. 357 of the City of Kent,
Washington (the "District"), the boundaries or territorial extent of the District being
more particularly described in Exhibit “A,” the sanitary sewer improvements to be
constructed are described in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein.
-3- LID 357 Formation Ordinance
50400044.01
SECTION 3. The total estimated cost and expense of the
improvement is declared to be $101,700. Approximately $90,000 of the cost and
expense shall be borne by and assessed against the property specially benefited by
such improvement included in the District, which embraces as nearly as practicable
all property specially benefited by such improvement and the balance of such cost
and expense shall be paid by the City.
SECTION 4. In accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.44.047,
the City may use any method or combination of methods to compute assessments that
may be deemed to more fairly reflect the special benefits to the properties being
assessed than the statutory method of assessing the properties.
SECTION 5. No property, any portion of which is outside the
District, may connect to those improvements constructed or made a part of such
District unless either that property shall have been subject to the special assessments
on the assessment roll for that District or the owners of that property shall have paid
prior to such connection a charge in lieu of assessment, which shall be at least the
equivalent of those assessments that would have been applied to that property had it
been included within that District.
SECTION 6. Local improvement district warrants may be issued in
payment of the cost and expense of the improvement herein ordered to be assessed,
such warrants to be paid out of the Local Improvement Fund, District No. 357,
hereinafter created and referred to as the Local Improvement Fund, and, until the
bonds referred to in this section are issued and delivered to the purchaser thereof, to
bear interest from the date thereof at a rate to be established hereafter by the City’s
Finance Department Director, as issuing officer, and to be redeemed in cash and/or
by local improvement district bonds herein authorized to be issued, such interest-
bearing warrants to be hereafter referred to as “revenue warrants.” In the alternative,
the City hereafter may provide by ordinance for the issuance of other short-term
obligations pursuant to chapter 39.50 RCW.
If the City shall authorize expenditures to be made for such
improvement (other than for any cost or expense expected to be borne by the City)
-4- LID 357 Formation Ordinance
50400044.01
prior to the date that any short-term obligations or local improvement district bonds
are issued to finance the improvement, from proceeds of interfund loans or other
funds that are not, and are not reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a
long-term basis or otherwise set aside to pay the cost of the improvement herein
ordered to be assessed against the property specially benefited thereby, the City
declares its official intent that those expenditures, to the extent not reimbursed with
prepaid special benefit assessments, are to be reimbursed from proceeds of short-term
obligations or local improvement district bonds that are expected to be issued for the
improvement in a principal amount not exceeding $90,000.
The City is authorized to issue local improvement district bonds for
the District that shall bear interest at a rate and be payable on or before a date to be
hereafter fixed by ordinance. The bonds shall be issued in exchange for and/or in
redemption of any and all revenue warrants issued hereunder or other short-term
obligations hereafter authorized and not redeemed in cash within twenty (20) days
after the expiration of the thirty-day period for the cash payment without interest of
assessments on the assessment roll for the District. The bonds shall be paid and
redeemed by the collection of special assessments to be levied and assessed against
the property within the District, payable in annual installments, with interest at a rate
to be hereafter fixed by ordinance under the mode of “payment by bonds,” as defined
by law and the ordinances of the City. The exact form, amount, date, interest rate,
and denominations of such bonds hereafter shall be fixed by ordinance of the City
Council. Such bonds shall be sold in such manner as the City Council hereafter shall
determine.
SECTION 7. For the purpose of paying all or a part of the costs of
carrying out the improvements within the District pending the receipt of the proceeds
of the issuance and sale of the bonds or short-term obligations referred to in Section
5, interfund loans from the General Fund and/or Street Fund to the Local
Improvement Fund in the maximum aggregate amount of $90,000 are authorized and
approved, those loans to be repaid on or before the issuance of such bonds or
obligations from the proceeds thereof. Each of the interfund loans shall bear interest
at a variable rate, adjusted the 15th and last day of each month, equal to the interest
-5- LID 357 Formation Ordinance
50400044.01
rate of the State of Washington Local Government Investment Pool on the 15th and
last day of each month. The initial interest rate on the date of each interfund loan
shall be determined as of the last preceding interest payment adjustment date.
SECTION 8. In all cases where the work necessary to be done in
connection with the making of such improvement is carried out pursuant to contract
upon competitive bids (and the City shall have and reserves the right to reject any and
all bids), the call for bids shall include a statement that payment for such work will be
made in cash warrants drawn upon the Local Improvement Fund.
SECTION 9. The Local Improvement Fund for the District is created
and established in the office of the Finance Department Director of the City. The
proceeds from the sale of revenue warrants or other short-term obligations drawn
against the fund which may be issued and sold by the City and the collections of
special assessments, interest and penalties thereon shall be deposited in the Local
Improvement Fund. Cash warrants to the contractor or contractors in payment for the
work to be done by them in connection with the improvement and cash warrants in
payment for all other items of expense in connection with the improvement shall be
issued against the Local Improvement Fund.
SECTION 10. Within fifteen (15) days of the passage of this
ordinance there shall be filed with the Finance Department Director of the City the
title of the improvement and District number, a copy of the diagram or print showing
the boundaries of the District and the preliminary assessment roll or abstract of such
roll showing thereon the lots, tracts and parcels of land that will be specially
benefited thereby and the estimated cost and expense of such improvement to be
borne by each lot, tract or parcel of land. The Finance Department Director of the
City immediately shall post the proposed assessment roll upon her index of local
improvement assessments against the properties affected by the local improvement.
/ /
/ /
-6- LID 357 Formation Ordinance
50400044.01
SECTION 11. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5)
days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as required by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC
Special Counsel and Bond Counsel
Passed the _____ day of October, 2003
Approved the _____ day of October, 2003.
Published the _____ day of October, 2003.
50396206.01
50400044.01
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Kent, Washington, hereby certify
as follows:
1. The attached copy of Ordinance No. ______ is a full, true and correct copy
of an ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held at
the regular meeting place thereof on October 7, 2003, as that ordinance appears on the
minute book of the City; and the ordinance will be in full force and effect five (5) days
after the publication of its summary in the City’s official newspaper; and
2. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the
meeting and a majority of those members present voted in the proper manner for the
passage of the ordinance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of
October, 2003.
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
_____________________________________
BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CLUSTER HOUSING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
(ZCA-2003-2) ORDINANCE – ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. approving
#ZCA-2003-2, providing for cluster subdivisions in single family residential zoning
districts, as recommended by the Planning Committee and the Land Use & Planning
Board.
3. EXHIBITS: Staff Memo; Ordinance; Minutes of 8/19/03 and 9/16/03 Planning
Committee meetings and 7/28/03 LU&PB hearing; 7/21/03 LU&PB Staff Memo w/o
attachments
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee/Land Use & Planning Board/Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6H
1 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending chapter 12.04 and
chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code to provide for
cluster developments in the SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5,
SR-6, and SR-8 zoning districts.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent continues to endeavor to provide
flexibility in housing design, to discourage development sprawl, to facilitate the
economical and efficient provision of public services, and to preserve usable open
space and recreation areas; and
WHEREAS, the City has development regulations for traditional
housing formats, and it has recently adopted a planned unit development process for
residential developments to provide additional flexibility and to preserve open space;
and
WHEREAS, cluster subdivision means a development or division of
land in which residential building lots are reduced in size and concentrated in
specified portion(s) of the original lot, tract, or parcel; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to add the option to cluster single family
developments in order to further the City’s density, open space, and other housing
development goals; and
2 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
WHEREAS, after providing appropriate public notice, the City held a
public hearing on a proposal for cluster developments at the regular land use and
planning board meeting on July 28, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the planning committee considered this matter at its
regularly scheduled meeting on August 19, 2003; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2003, the City provided the required sixty
(60) day notification of the City’s proposed amendment for cluster developments
under RCW 36.70A.106 to the State of Washington; and
WHEREAS, the sixty (60) day notice period has lapsed and the
amendment is deemed appropriate; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. - Amendment. The heading of Section 12.04.263 of the
Kent City Code is amended as follows:
Sec. 12.04.263. Clustering in urban separators.
SECTION 2. - Amendment. The following Section 12.04.264 shall be
added to the Kent City Code:
Sec. 12.04.264. Clustering in residential zones outside urban
separators.
A. When located wholly outside an urban separator, cluster subdivisions are
allowed in SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts subject to the
regulations below.
3 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
B. The purpose of this cluster development option is as follows: to permit
greater flexibility in design and discourage development sprawl; to facilitate the
economical and efficient provision of public services; to provide a more efficient use
of land in harmony with its natural characteristics; to preserve more usable open
space, agricultural land, tree cover, recreation areas, and scenic vistas; and to expand
the opportunity for the development of affordable housing without increasing the
development’s overall density. Development standards and review criteria are
intended to ensure that lots are consistent with the desired character of the zone,
allowing lots to vary in size and shape, while still adhering to the planned density of
the zone.
C. Cluster subdivisions shall be subject to the development standards outlined in
KCC Title 15, unless otherwise modified by this chapter. These standards include,
but are not limited to, minimum lot size, width, yards, setbacks, parking, landscaping,
and signage.
D. The provisions of KCC 12.04.235 through 12.04.255, as well as other
applicable portions of this chapter, shall apply unless specifically excepted. In
addition, the following standards shall apply to clustered Type I short subdivisions:
1. Location. The cluster residential development may be allowed in SR-
1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts outside of urban separators.
2. Permitted uses. The cluster residential development option shall
include only single-family residential uses, as defined in KCC 15.02.115.
3. Minimum area. No minimum area is established for a cluster
residential development.
4. Permitted density. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted
in a cluster development shall be no greater than the number of dwelling units
allowed for the parcel as a whole for the zoning district in which it is located.
5. Lot size. In the interest of encouraging flexibility in site design and
the preservation of open space, the minimum lot size of individual building lots
within a cluster subdivision in single family residential zoning districts may be
reduced by twenty-five percent of the minimum lot size for the underlying zoning
district.
4 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
6. Lot width. The minimum lot width for individual building lots in a
cluster subdivision shall be thirty (30) feet. The hearing examiner may allow a shared
driveway easement to be included in the minimum lot width of irregular lots,
provided the total driveway width is no greater than twelve (12) feet.
7. Other development standards. Development standards other than lot
size and lot width shall be the same as are required within the zoning district in which
the cluster residential development is located. Design review is required for cluster
development projects using the review criteria in KCC 15.09.045(C), Multifamily
design review.
8. Additional approval Criteria for cluster development projects.
a. The proposed cluster development project shall have a
beneficial effect upon the community and users of the development that would not
normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development, and it shall not be
detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the
comprehensive plan.
b. The proposed cluster development project shall be compatible
with the existing land use or property that abuts or is directly across the street from
the subject property. Compatibility includes, but is not limited to, apparent size,
scale, mass, and architectural design.
c. Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site shall
be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to benefit the development
and the community.
d. The proposed cluster development project shall provide open
areas by using techniques such as separation of building groups, use of well-designed
open space, common or shared space, and landscaping. Open space shall be
integrated within the cluster development project rather than be an isolated element of
the project.
e. The proposed cluster development project shall promote
variety and innovation in site and building design and shall include architectural and
site features that promote community interaction and accessibility, such as porches,
de-emphasized garages, shared driveways, sidewalks/walkways, and adjacent
5 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
common areas. Buildings shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but
contrast shall be provided throughout the site by the use of varied materials,
architectural detailing, building scale and orientation.
f. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept,
particularly when construction is in phases.
9. Common open space.
a. The common open space in cluster subdivisions shall be a
minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the entire parcel, whether or not the parcel is
constrained by critical areas or buffers.
b. Parking areas, public right of way, maneuvering areas, roads,
storage areas, driveways, and yards within individual lots shall not be included in
common open space.
c. The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be
located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective
buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, connects and protects area wildlife
habitat, creates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and
other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails, and
maintains scenic vistas.
d. All natural features (such as streams and their buffers,
significant strands of trees and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as
steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved.
e. Future development of the common open space shall be
prohibited. Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open
space, all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or
disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural
areas, agricultural areas, or resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity
between the open space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open
spaces; degrades wildlife habitat; and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the
residents of the development.
f. Ownership of such common open spaces may be retained by
the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, conveyed to a
6 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
homeowners’ association for the benefit of the residents of the development,
conveyed to the city with the city’s consent and approval, or conveyed to another
party upon approval of the city of Kent.
SECTION 3. - Amendment. The heading of Section 12.04.578 of the
Kent City Code is amended as follows:
Sec. 12.04.578. Clustering in urban separators.
SECTION 4. - Amendment. The following Section 12.04.579 shall be
added to the Kent City Code:
Sec. 12.04.579. Clustering in residential zones outside urban
separators.
A. When located wholly outside an urban separator, cluster subdivisions are
allowed in SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts subject to the
regulations below.
B. The purpose of this cluster development option is as follows: to permit
greater flexibility in design and discourage development sprawl; to facilitate the
economical and efficient provision of public services; to provide a more efficient use
of land in harmony with its natural characteristics; to preserve more usable open
space, agricultural land, tree cover, recreation areas, and scenic vistas; and to expand
the opportunity for the development of affordable housing without increasing the
development’s overall density. Development standards and review criteria are
intended to ensure that lots are consistent with the desired character of the zone,
allowing lots to vary in size and shape, while still adhering to the planned density of
the zone.
C. Cluster subdivisions shall be subject to the development standards outlined in
KCC Title 15, unless otherwise modified by this chapter. These standards include,
but are not limited to, minimum lot size, width, yards, setbacks, parking, landscaping,
and signage.
7 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
D. The provisions of KCC 12.04.545 through 12.04.570, as well as other
applicable portions of this chapter, shall apply unless specifically excepted. In
addition, the following standards shall apply to clustered Type II short subdivisions:
1. Location. The cluster residential development may be allowed in SR-
1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts outside of urban separators.
2. Permitted uses. The cluster residential development option shall
include only single-family residential uses, as defined in KCC 15.02.115.
3. Minimum area. No minimum area is established for a cluster
residential development.
4. Permitted density. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted
in a cluster development shall be no greater than the number of dwelling units
allowed for the parcel as a whole for the zoning district in which it is located.
5. Lot size. In the interest of encouraging flexibility in site design and
the preservation of open space, the minimum lot size of individual building lots
within a cluster subdivision in single family residential zoning districts may be
reduced by twenty-five percent of the minimum lot size for the underlying zoning
district.
6. Lot width. The minimum lot width for individual building lots in a
cluster subdivision shall be thirty (30) feet. The hearing examiner may allow a shared
driveway easement to be included in the minimum lot width of irregular lots,
provided the total driveway width is no greater than twelve (12) feet.
7. Other development standards. Development standards other than lot
size and lot width shall be the same as are required within the zoning district in which
the cluster residential development is located. Design review is required for cluster
development projects using the review criteria in KCC 15.09.045(C), Multifamily
design review.
8. Additional approval Criteria for cluster development projects.
a. The proposed cluster development project shall have a
beneficial effect upon the community and users of the development that would not
normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development, and it shall not be
8 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the
comprehensive plan.
b. The proposed cluster development project shall be compatible
with the existing land use or property that abuts or is directly across the street from
the subject property. Compatibility includes, but is not limited to, apparent size,
scale, mass, and architectural design.
c. Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site shall
be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to benefit the development
and the community.
d. The proposed cluster development project shall provide open
areas by using techniques such as separation of building groups, use of well-designed
open space, common or shared space, and landscaping. Open space shall be
integrated within the cluster development project rather than be an isolated element of
the project.
e. The proposed cluster development project shall promote
variety and innovation in site and building design and shall include architectural and
site features that promote community interaction and accessibility, such as porches,
de-emphasized garages, shared driveways, sidewalks/walkways, and adjacent
common areas. Buildings shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but
contrast shall be provided throughout the site by the use of varied materials,
architectural detailing, building scale and orientation.
f. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept,
particularly when construction is in phases.
9. Common open space.
a. The common open space in cluster subdivisions shall be a
minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the entire parcel, whether or not the parcel is
constrained by critical areas or buffers.
b. Parking areas, public right of way, maneuvering areas, roads,
storage areas, driveways, and yards within individual lots shall not be included in
common open space.
9 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
c. The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be
located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective
buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, connects and protects area wildlife
habitat, creates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and
other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails, and
maintains scenic vistas.
d. All natural features (such as streams and their buffers,
significant strands of trees and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as
steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved.
e. Future development of the common open space shall be
prohibited. Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open
space, all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or
disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural
areas, agricultural areas, or resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity
between the open space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open
spaces; degrades wildlife habitat; and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the
residents of the development.
f. Ownership of such common open spaces may be retained
under ownership by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the
development, conveyed to a homeowners’ association for the benefit of the residents
of the development, conveyed to the city with the city’s consent and approval, or
conveyed to another party upon approval of the city of Kent.
SECTION 5. - Amendment. The heading of Section 12.04.778 of the
Kent City Code is amended as follows:
Sec. 12.04.778. Clustering in urban separators.
10 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
SECTION 6. - Amendment. The following Section 12.04.779 shall be
added to the Kent City Code:
Sec. 12.04.779. Clustering in residential zones outside urban
separators.
A. When located wholly outside an urban separator cluster subdivisions are
allowed in SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts subject to the
regulations below.
B. The purpose of this cluster development option is as follows: to permit
greater flexibility in design and discourage development sprawl; to facilitate the
economical and efficient provision of public services; to provide a more efficient use
of land in harmony with its natural characteristics; to preserve more usable open
space, agricultural land, tree cover, recreation areas, and scenic vistas; and to expand
the opportunity for the development of affordable housing without increasing the
development’s overall density. Development standards and review criteria are
intended to ensure that lots are consistent with the desired character of the zone,
allowing lots to vary in size and shape, while still adhering to the planned density of
the zone.
C. Cluster subdivisions shall be subject to the development standards outlined in
KCC Title 15, unless otherwise modified by this chapter. These standards include,
but are not limited to, minimum lot size, width, yards, setbacks, parking, landscaping,
and signage.
D. The provisions of KCC 12.04.745 through 12.04.770, as well as other
applicable portions of this chapter, shall apply unless specifically excepted. In
addition, the following standards shall apply to clustered subdivisions:
1. Location. The cluster residential development may be allowed in SR-
1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts outside of urban separators.
2. Permitted uses. The cluster residential development option shall
include only single-family residential uses, as defined in KCC 15.02.115.
3. Minimum area. No minimum area is established for a cluster
residential development.
11 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
4. Permitted density. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted
in a cluster development shall be no greater than the number of dwelling units
allowed for the parcel as a whole for the zoning district in which it is located.
5. Lot size. In the interest of encouraging flexibility in site design and
the preservation of open space, the minimum lot size of individual building lots
within a cluster subdivision in single family residential zoning districts may be
reduced by twenty-five percent of the minimum lot size for the underlying zoning
district.
6. Lot width. The minimum lot width for individual building lots in a
cluster subdivision shall be thirty (30) feet. The hearing examiner may allow a shared
driveway easement to be included in the minimum lot width of irregular lots,
provided the total driveway width is no greater than twelve (12) feet.
7. Other development standards. Development standards other than lot
size and lot width shall be the same as are required within the zoning district in which
the cluster residential development is located. Design review is required for cluster
development projects using the review criteria in KCC 15.09.045(C), Multifamily
design review.
8. Additional approval Criteria for cluster development projects.
a. The proposed cluster development project shall have a
beneficial effect upon the community and users of the development that would not
normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development, and it shall not be
detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the
comprehensive plan.
b. The proposed cluster development project shall be compatible
with the existing land use or property that abuts or is directly across the street from
the subject property. Compatibility includes, but is not limited to, apparent size,
scale, mass, and architectural design.
c. Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site shall
be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to benefit the development
and the community.
12 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
d. The proposed cluster development project shall provide open
areas by using techniques such as separation of building groups, use of well-designed
open space, common or shared space, and landscaping. Open space shall be
integrated within the cluster development project rather than be an isolated element of
the project.
e. The proposed cluster development project shall promote
variety and innovation in site and building design and shall include architectural and
site features that promote community interaction and accessibility, such as porches,
de-emphasized garages, shared driveways, sidewalks/walkways, and adjacent
common areas. Buildings shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but
contrast shall be provided throughout the site by the use of varied materials,
architectural detailing, building scale and orientation.
f. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept,
particularly when construction is in phases.
9. Common open space.
a. The common open space in cluster subdivisions shall be a
minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the entire parcel, whether or not the parcel is
constrained by critical areas or buffers.
b. Parking areas, public right of way, maneuvering areas, roads,
storage areas, driveways, and yards within individual lots shall not be included in
common open space.
c. The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be
located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective
buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, connects and protects area wildlife
habitat, creates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and
other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails, and
maintains scenic vistas.
d. All natural features (such as streams and their buffers,
significant strands of trees and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as
steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved.
13 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
e. Future development of the common open space shall be
prohibited. Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open
space, all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or
disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural
areas, agricultural areas, or resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity
between the open space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open
spaces; degrades wildlife habitat; and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the
residents of the development.
f. Ownership of such common open spaces may be retained
under ownership by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the
development, conveyed to a homeowners’ association for the benefit of the residents
of the development, conveyed to the city with the city’s consent and approval, or
conveyed to another party upon approval of the city of Kent.
SECTION 7. – Amendment. Section 15.04.170 the Kent City Code is
amended as follows:
14 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
SECTION 8. – Amendment. Section 15.04.180 the Kent City Code is
amended as follows:
Sec. 15.04.180. Agricultural and residential land use development
standard conditions.
1. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the
first two (2) dwelling units, and two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for
each additional dwelling unit.
2. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the
first two (2) dwelling units, and one thousand six hundred (1,600) square feet for
each additional dwelling unit.
3. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the
first two (2) dwelling units, and nine hundred (900) square feet for each additional
dwelling unit.
4. To determine minimum lot width for irregular lots, a circle of applicable
diameter (the minimum lot width permitted) shall be scaled within the proposed
boundaries of the lot; provided, that an access easement to another lot is not included
within the circle.
5. Interior yards shall not be computed as part of the site coverage.
6. Porches and private shared courtyard features may be built within the front
building setback line.
7. For properties abutting on West Valley Highway, the frontage on West
Valley Highway shall be considered the front yard.
8. Proposed front yards less than twenty (20) feet in depth are subject to
approval by the planning manager, based on review and recommendation from the
public works department relative to the existing and future traffic volumes and right-
15 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
of-way requirements as specified in the city comprehensive transportation plan and
city construction standards.
9. At least twenty (20) linear feet of driveway shall be provided between any
garage, carport, or other primary parking area and the street property line with the
exception of an alley property line.
10. An aggregate side yard of thirty (30) feet shall be provided. A minimum of
ten (10) feet shall be provided for each side yard. On a corner lot the side yard
setback shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the property line.
11. Each side yard shall be a minimum of ten (10) percent of the lot width;
however, regardless of lot width, the yard width need not be more than thirty (30)
feet. For multifamily townhouse developments that attach three (3) units or less, in
the MRT-12 or MRT-16 zoning districts the aggregate yard width need not be more
than thirty (30) feet, but in no case shall a yard be less than ten (10) feet.
12. Structures for feeding, housing, and care of animals, except household pets,
shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line.
13. Additional setbacks for the agriculture general AG zoning district.
a. Structures for feeding, housing, and care of animals shall be set back
fifty (50) feet from any property line.
b. Transitional conditions shall exist when an AG district adjoins a
residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or
a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such
transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening
use such as a river, railroad main line, major topographic differential, or other similar
conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street
on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as defined in
this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall provided.
16 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
c. Setbacks, Green River. Industrial development in the AG district
abutting the Green River, or Russell Road or Frager Road where such roads follow
the river bank, shall be set back from the ordinary high-water mark of the river a
minimum of two hundred (200) feet. Such setbacks are in accordance with the city
comprehensive plan and in accordance with the high quality of site development
typically required for the industrial park areas of the city and in accordance with the
state Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and shall be no more restrictive than, but
as restrictive as, the Shoreline Management Act.
14. An inner court providing access to a double-row building shall be a minimum
of twenty (20) feet.
15. The distance between principal buildings shall be at least one-half the sum of
the height of both buildings; provided, however, that in no case shall the distance be
less than twelve (12) feet. This requirement shall also apply to portions of the same
building separated from each other by a court or other open space.
16. The height limitations shall not apply to barns and silos; provided, that they
are not located within fifty (50) feet of any lot line.
17. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four (4) stories or sixty
(60) feet, there shall be added one (1) additional foot of yard for each additional foot
of building height.
18. The planning manager shall be authorized to approve a height greater than
four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, provided such height does not detract from the
continuity of the area. When a request is made to exceed the building height limit,
the planning manager may impose such conditions, within a reasonable amount of
time, as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibilities with surrounding uses.
19. Except for lots used for agricultural practices, the maximum impervious
surface area allowed shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet when the lot is
greater than one (1) acre.
17 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
20. The following uses are prohibited:
a. The removal of topsoil for any purpose.
b. Grade and fill operations; provided, that limited grade and fill may be
approved as needed to construct permitted buildings or structures.
c. All subsurface activities, including excavation for underground
utilities, pipelines, or other underground installations, that cause permanent
disruption of the surface of the land. Temporarily disrupted soil surfaces shall be
restored in a manner consistent with agricultural uses.
d. Dumping or storage of nonagricultural solid or liquid waste, or of
trash, rubbish or noxious materials.
e. Activities that violate sound agricultural soil and water conservation
management practices.
21. Outdoor storage for industrial uses shall be located at the rear of a principally
permitted structure and shall be completely fenced.
22. Mobile home park combining district, MHP. The standards and procedures
of the city mobile home park code shall apply. General requirements and standards
for mobile home park design, KCC 12.04.055; mobile home parks, Ch. 12.05 KCC.
23. Except for lots used for agricultural practices, the maximum impervious
surface area allowed shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
24. Minimum lot width, building setbacks, and minimum lot size regulations may
be modified consistent with provisions for zero lot line and clustering housing
development.
25. The requirements of KCC 15.08.215 shall apply in any multifamily transition
area, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within one hundred (100)
feet of a single-family district or within one hundred (100) feet of a public street
right-of-way.
18 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
26. The requirements of KCC 15.09.045 for multifamily design review shall
apply to any multifamily dwelling of three (3) or more units.
27. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the
first two (2) dwelling units, and three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet for
each additional dwelling unit.
28. The following zoning is required to be in existence on the entire property to
be rezoned at the time of application of a rezone to an MR-T zone: SR-8, MR-D,
MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, O, O-MU, NCC, CC, GC, DC, or DCE.
29. All multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T zone shall be
condominiums only. A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded pursuant to
Chapter 64.32 RCW prior to approval of a development permit by the city.
30. As an option to the five (5) foot side yard requirement for single-family
development in all multifamily zoning districts as set forth in KCC 15.04.170, a side
yard width of no less than three (3) feet may be utilized under the following
conditions:
a. Fire hydrants for the development, as required by the fire code set
forth in KCC Title 13, will be placed a maximum of three hundred (300) feet in
separation;
b. The required fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of one
thousand five hundred (1,500) gallons per minute; and
c. Emergency vehicle access roads shall be provided to the development,
which includes an improved road accessible within one hundred fifty (150) feet of all
portions of the exterior first floor of the structure.
This option is subject to the approval of the Washington State Building
Council. Application of this option shall be effective upon receipt by the city of Kent
of such approval.
19 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
31. Where lands are located wholly or partially within the urban separator, as
designated on the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, dwelling units
shall be required to be clustered, subject to the provisions of Ch. 12.04 KCC, entitled
“Subdivisions.” The density in a cluster subdivision shall be no greater than the
density that would be allowed on the parcel as a whole, including all critical areas
(creeks, wetlands, geological hazard areas), and buffers, using the maximum density
provisions of the zoning district in which it is located.
The common open space in a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of fifty
(50) percent of the nonconstrained area of the parcel. The nonconstrained area of the
parcel includes all areas of the parcel, minus critical areas, as defined in RCW
36.70A.030(5) as currently and hereinafter amended, and buffers. The remainder of
the nonconstrained area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel. The
common open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured in
the manner that best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally
sensitive areas, connects and protects area wildlife habitat, creates connectivity
between the open space provided by the clustering and other adjacent open spaces as
well as existing or planned public parks and trails, and maintains scenic vistas.
Critical areas and buffers shall not be used in determining lot size and common open
space requirements in a cluster subdivision. All natural features (such as streams and
their buffers, significant strands of trees, and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive
areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved, as
open space in a cluster subdivision.
Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited. Except
as specified on recorded documents creating the common open space, all common
open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed in a manner
that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural areas, agricultural areas,
or resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space
provided by the clustered development and adjacent open spaces; degrades wildlife
habitat; and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the
development. Such common open spaces may be retained under ownership by the
20 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, conveyed to a
homeowners association for the benefit of the residents of the development,
conveyed to the city with the city’s consent and approval or to another party upon
approval of the city of Kent.
The minimum lot size of individual lots within a clustered subdivision is two
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, and the minimum lot width is thirty (30)
feet. In the event that common open space prohibits development of one single-
family residence on the parcel, the common open space will be reduced by the
amount necessary to meet the minimum two thousand five hundred (2,500) square
foot lot size. New lots created by any subdivision action shall be clustered in groups
not exceeding eight (8) units. There may be more than one (1) cluster per project.
Separation between cluster groups shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty (120)
feet. Sight-obscuring fences are not permitted along cluster lot lines adjacent to the
open space area.
32. For multifamily townhouse developments that attach three (3) units, the
minimum building to building separation shall be ten (10) feet. For duplex and
single-family condominium townhouse developments, the minimum building to
building separation shall be established through the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
33. Where lands are located wholly outside the urban separator, as designated on
the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, dwelling units may be
clustered, subject to the applicable provisions of Ch. 12.04 KCC.
SECTION 9. – Effect. The existing sections of the Kent City Code,
which are repealed and replaced by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and
effect until the effective date of this ordinance.
21 Amendment to KCC 12.04
Cluster Developments
SECTION 10. – Severability. If any one or more section, 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 11. – Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty days (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2003.
APPROVED: day of , 2003.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2003.
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\ClusterDevelopments.doc
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: BINDING SITE PLAN, SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT
(SCA-2003-1) ORDINANCE – ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. approving
#SCA-2003-1, adding a new section to Kent City Code (“KCC”) 12.04 to establish a
binding site plan process for the division of commercially and industrially zoned land,
and consolidating KCC 12.07 (Binding Site Plans for Condominiums) into KCC 12.04.
3. EXHIBITS: Staff Memo; Ordinance; Minutes of 9/16/03 Planning Committee
meeting and 8/25/03 LU&PB hearing, 8/18/03 LU&PB Staff Memo w/o attachment
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee/Land Use & Planning Board/Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6I
1 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, amending chapter 12.04 of the Kent
City Code, entitled “Subdivisions,” to add a section for
Binding Site Plan for the division of industrial and
commercial land, and repealing in its entirety chapter
12.07 of the Kent City Code, as said chapter will be
incorporated in chapter 12.04.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent endeavors to provide flexibility in the
segregation of parcels of real property; and
WHEREAS, for real property located in commercial or industrial
zones, the binding site plan process provides an alternative means to legally subdivide
land, for sale or lease, without following standard platting procedures; and
WHEREAS, as authorized by chapter 58.17 RCW, the City desires to
add the option of segregating parcels though a binding site plan in order to provide
flexibility to development in the industrial and commercial zones; and
2 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
WHEREAS, after providing appropriate public notice, the City held a
public hearing on a proposal for binding site plans at the regular land use and
planning board meeting on August 25, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the planning committee considered this matter at its
regularly scheduled meeting on September 16, 2003; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2003, the City provided the required sixty
(60) day notification of the City’s proposed amendment for binding site plans under
RCW 36.70A.106 to the State of Washington; and
WHEREAS, the sixty (60) day notice period has lapsed and the
amendment is deemed appropriate; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. – Amendment. Chapter 12.04 of the Kent City Code,
entitled “Subdivisions,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 12.04
SUBDIVISIONS, BINDING SITE PLANS, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 12.04.010. Title. This code shall be hereinafter known as the city of
Kent subdivision code.
3 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
Sec. 12.04.015. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide rules,
regulations, requirements, and standards, and procedures for subdividing land, for
obtaining binding site plans, and in the city and for administrative procedures for
adjustments of lot lines in the city, ensuring:
1. That the highest feasible quality in subdivisions will be attained;
2. That the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the city shall
be promoted and protected;
3. That orderly growth, development, and the conservation, protection and
proper use of land shall be promoted;
4. That proper provisions for all public facilities, including connectivity,
circulation, utilities, and services, shall be made;
5. That maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be taken into
consideration; and
6. That the process shall be in conformance with provisions set forth in KCC
Title 15, Zoning, and the comprehensive plan.
Sec. 12.04.020. Scope. This chapter shall apply to the division of land for
sale or lease into two (2) or more parcels and to the modification of lot lines between
adjoining parcels. Where this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher
standards upon the development of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive
covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail.
Unless otherwise indicated and as provided by RCW 58.17.040, tThe
provisions of this chapter do not apply to:
1. Cemeteries and burial plots while used for that purpose;
2. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or the laws of descent;
3. Division of land due to condemnation or sale under threat thereof, by
an agency or division of government vested with the power of condemnation;.
4. Divisions of land into lots or tracts classified for industrial or
commercial use when the city has approved a binding site plan for the use of the
land.
4 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
5. Condominium developments, pursuant to either chapter 64.32 or
64.34 RCW, that are subject to an approved binding site plan.
Sec. 12.04.025. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when
used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except
where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Active recreation activities shall mean all outdoor recreational activities
which involve field and court games.
Alley shall mean a public or private way not more than thirty (30) feet wide at
the rear or side of property affording only secondary means of vehicular or
pedestrian access to abutting property.
Binding Site Plan shall mean a scaled drawing which: (a) identifies and
shows the areas and locations of all streets, roads, improvements, utilities, open
space, and any other matters specified in this chapter; (b) contains inscriptions or
attachments setting forth such appropriate limitations and conditions for the use of
the land as established by the city through the approval process; and (c) contains
provisions which require any development be in conformity with the binding site
plan.
Binding Site Plan Committee shall be a committee consisting of the planning
manager, who shall be the chairperson, one member of the land use and planning
board, the building official, public works director, and the fire chief, or other
designated representative.
Block shall mean a group of lots, tracts, or parcels within well-defined and
fixed boundaries.
Circulation shall mean any of a number of quantitative measures that
characterizes the frequency of transportation mode trips, the duration of a mode trip,
and path choices made between two (2) or more activity spaces. Traffic counts
usually indicate a measure of circulation.
Clustering or cluster subdivision shall mean a development or division of
land in which residential building lots are reduced in size and concentrated in
specified portion(s) of the original lot, tract or parcel.
5 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
Common open space shall mean a parcel or parcels of land or an area of water
or a combination of land and water within the site designated for a subdivision or a
planned unit development, and designed and intended primarily for the use or
enjoyment of residents of a subdivision. Common open space may contain such
complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the
benefit and enjoyment of residents of the subdivision.
Community park shall mean a park that serves the entire city of Kent and can
be located throughout the city. Community parks may have facilities or amenities
that are not offered elsewhere in the city, and which can include boating, swimming,
fishing, athletic fields, group picnic shelters, play equipment, hard courts, skateparks,
and trails, and will vary at each park. Access to the park is by car, public transit, foot
or bicycle. Off-street parking is provided.
Comprehensive plan shall mean the document, including maps, adopted by
the city council, which outlines the city’s goals and policies relating to management
of growth, and prepared in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. The term also
includes adopted subarea plans prepared in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW.
Connectivity shall mean subdivisions which are connected by through streets,
easements, or other rights-of-way, to activity centers including other subdivisions,
neighborhood centers, shopping centers, transit stops, recreational spaces and other
public facilities. Such connections shall have a character that is pedestrian-friendly
and that provide a sense of location. A list of goals and criteria below indicate
provisions to be considered by the public works department and planning services
office in evaluating connectivity:
Goals and Corresponding Criteria:
A. Increase through-connections to adjacent subdivisions and activity centers.
1. Subdivision streets should connect through, except where impractical.
2. Cul-de-sac streets of subject subdivision should provide
pedestrian/bicycle pathway(s) from bulb-ends to neighboring subdivision(s) streets or
other adjacent activity centers.
6 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
3. Subject subdivision should provide continuous five (5) foot wide
sidewalks (on both sides of streets fronting developed lots) and connect to other
streets.
4. Subject subdivision intersections are four (4) way intersections.
B. Increase connections to other travel modes.
1. Subdivision lots should be located no further than one-quarter (1/4)
mile from the nearest bicycle path or trail.
2. Subdivision lots should be located no further than one-quarter (1/4)
mile from the nearest transit stop.
3. Subdivision lots should be located no further than four (4) miles from
the nearest park and ride lot.
C. Provide streetscaping improvements.
1. Vehicular traffic calming.
2. Provision of planting strips.
3. Neighborhood identity elements.
County auditor shall mean that person as defined in Chapter 36.22 RCW or
the office of the person assigned such duties under the King County Charter.
Cul-de-sac shall mean a short street having one (1) end open to traffic and
being terminated at the other end by a vehicular turnaround.
Dedication shall mean a deliberate appropriation of land by its owner for any
general and public uses, reserving to himself no other rights than such as are
compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the
property has been devoted. The intention to dedicate shall be evidenced by the
owner by the presentment for filing of a final plat or a final short plat showing the
dedication thereof; and the acceptance by the public shall be evidenced by the
approval of such plat for filing by the city.
Division of land shall mean the subdivision of any parcel of land into two (2)
or more parcels.
Final plat shall mean the final drawing of the subdivision and dedication
prepared for filing for record with the King County auditor and containing all
elements and requirements set forth in this chapter.
7 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
Hearing examiner shall mean the person appointed by the mayor, or his or
her designee, to conduct public hearings on applications outlined in Ch. 2.32 KCC
which creates the hearing examiner, and who prepares a record, findings of fact and
conclusions on such applications.
Hillside subdivision shall mean a subdivision in which any lot in the
subdivision has average slopes greater than fifteen (15) percent and in which any
street in the subdivision has grades greater than seven (7) percent at any point.
Homeowners’ association shall mean an incorporated nonprofit organization
operating under recorded land agreements through which:
1. Each lot owner is automatically a member;
2. Each lot is automatically subject to a proportionate share of the
expenses for the organization’s activities, such as maintaining common property; and
3. A charge if unpaid becomes a lien against the property.
Land use and planning board shall mean that body as defined in the Kent
City Code.
Lot shall mean a parcel of land of at least sufficient size to meet minimum
zoning requirements for use, coverage and area, and to provide such yards and other
open spaces as are required in this title. Such lot shall have frontage on an improved
public street, or on an approved private street, and may consist of:
1. A single lot of record;
2. A portion of a lot of record;
3. A combination of complete lots of record and portions of lots of
record; or
4. A parcel of land described by metes and bounds;
provided, that in no case of division or combination shall any residual lot or
parcel be created which does not meet the requirements of this title.
Lot, corner shall mean a lot abutting upon two (2) or more streets at their
intersection or upon two (2) parts of the same street, such streets or parts of the same
street forming an interior angle of less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees
within the lot lines.
8 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
Lot, frontage shall mean the front of a lot which shall be that portion nearest
the street or, if the lot does not abut a street, the portion nearest an ingress/egress
easement. On a corner lot, the front yard shall be considered the narrowest part of
the lot that fronts on a street, except in industrial and commercial zones, in which
case the user of a corner lot has the option of determining which part of the lot
fronting on a street shall become the lot frontage.
Lot line adjustment shall mean the adjusting of common property lines or
boundaries between adjacent lots, tracts, or parcels for the purpose of rectifying a
disputed property line location, freeing such a boundary from any differences or
discrepancies or accommodating a minor transfer of land. The resulting adjustment
shall not create any additional lots, tracts, or parcels and all reconfigured lots, tracts,
or parcels shall contain sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements
for zoning and building purposes.
Lot lines shall mean the property lines bounding the lot.
Lot measurements shall mean:
1. The depth of a lot which shall be considered to be the distance
between the foremost points of the side lot lines in front and the rearmost points of
the side lot lines in the rear.
2. The width of a lot which shall be considered to be the distance
between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines; provided, however, that
width between side lot lines at their foremost points where they intersect with the
street line shall not be less than eighty (80) percent of the required lot width except in
the case of lots on the turning circle of cul-de-sacs, where eighty (80) percent of
requirements shall not apply.
Lot of record shall mean a lot which is part of a subdivision recorded in the
office of the King County assessor, or a lot or parcel described by metes and bounds,
the description of which has been so recorded.
Lot, through shall mean a lot that has both ends fronting on a street. Either
end may be considered the front.
Meander line shall mean a line along a body of water intended to be used
solely as a reference for surveying.
9 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
Neighborhood park shall mean a park that serves a neighborhood (not a
subdivision), defined by arterial streets. These parks are generally located centrally
in the neighborhood so that the park is easily accessible and neighborhood residents
do not have to cross a major arterial to reach the park. Access is primarily by foot or
bicycle, so the park is usually no further than one-half mile from any point in the
neighborhood. Parking spaces are typically not provided, unless on-street parking is
not available, accessible or safe. Neighborhood parks have amenities for casual
activities that are not programmed or organized, or for which a fee is charged.
Amenities include play equipment, picnic tables, hard courts (basketball, tennis),
walking trails, and open grassy areas.
Official plans shall mean those maps, development plans, or portions thereof,
adopted by the city council as provided in chapter 44, section 6, Laws of 1935, as
amended. Such plans or maps shall be deemed to be conclusive with respect to the
location and width of streets, public parks, and playgrounds and drainage rights-of-
way as may be shown thereon.
Park open space shall mean those areas that are environmentally sensitive,
wildlife habitat, or wetlands, that remain in a relatively natural state with minimal
improvements for public access, interpretation, study or enjoyment.
Park service area shall mean those areas defined by arterial streets or
geographic features, and which are identified in the comprehensive park and
recreation plan, that a neighborhood park or community park is intended to serve.
Performance bond or guarantee shall mean that security which may be
accepted in lieu of a requirement that certain improvements be made before the final
plat is approved and signed, including performance bonds, escrow agreements and
other similar collateral or surety agreements.
Piggyback or accumulative short subdivision shall mean multiple short
subdivision of contiguous land under common ownership. Ownership for purposes
of this section shall mean ownership as established at the application submittal date
of the initial short subdivision approval.
10 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
Plat shall mean a map or representation of a subdivision, showing thereon the
division of a tract or parcel of land into lots, blocks, streets and alleys or other
divisions and dedications.
Preliminary approval shall mean the official favorable action taken on the
preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision, metes and bounds description or
dedication, by the hearing examiner following a duly advertised public hearing or on
a preliminary plat of a short subdivision following a duly advertised meeting of the
short subdivision committee.
Preliminary plat shall mean a neat and precise scale drawing of a proposed
subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks and other
elements of a plat or subdivision which shall furnish a basis for the approval or
disapproval of the general layout of a subdivision.
Roadway shall mean that portion of a street intended for the accommodation
of vehicular traffic, generally within curblines.
Short plat shall mean the map or representation of a short subdivision.
Short subdivision shall mean the division or redivision of land into nine (9) or
fewer lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer
of ownership. Tracts identified for or with the potential for future development shall
be included within the number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable
and/or are intended for public dedication, environmental protection or stormwater
detention are not included in the number of lots created.
Short subdivision, type I shall mean the division of land into four (4) or less
lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of
ownership. Tracts identified for or with the potential for future development shall be
included within the number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable and/or
are intended for public dedication, environmental protection or stormwater detention
are not included in the number of lots created.
Short subdivision, type II shall mean the division of land into more than four
(4) and less than ten (10) lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of
sale, lease or transfer of ownership. Tracts identified for or with the potential for
future development shall be included within the number of lots created, but tracts
11 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
which are not buildable and/or are intended for public dedication, environmental
protection or stormwater detention are not included in the number of lots created.
Street shall mean a public way thirty (30) feet or more in right-of-way width
which affords a primary means of access to property.
Subdivision shall mean the division or redivision of land into ten (10) or more
lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale or lease or transfer of
ownership; provided, that subdivisions of less than ten (10) parcels may be defined as
short subdivisions. Tracts identified for or with the potential for future development
shall be included within the number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable
and/or are intended for public dedication, environmental protection or stormwater
detention are not included in the number of lots created.
Subdivision, phased shall mean a subdivision, which is developed in
increments over a period of time.
Tentative plat shall mean a map drawn in accordance with the same
requirements as the preliminary plat map, but submitted prior to preliminary plat
submittal.
Title report shall mean a certified report from a bonded title agency showing
recorded title holder and all encumbrances and defects that exist on the land.
Tract shall mean a parcel of land proposed for subdivision or subdividing.
Trail system shall mean those pathways that connect points of interest, parks,
community facilities, streets, residences, etc. in the community, which are generally
not confined within the limits of one park. Trails are intended to be used by bicycles,
rollerskaters, and pedestrians; they are not intended to be used by motorized vehicles.
Urban separators shall mean low-density lands that define community or
municipal identities and boundaries, protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas, and
environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space corridors within and between
urban areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits.
12 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
V. Binding Site Plan
Sec. 12.04.800. Purpose. Consistent with RCW 58.17.035, the purpose of
this Article V is a) to create an alternative process segregating property zoned
industrial or commercial for the purpose of sale or lease without the necessity of
completing the procedures for platting, and b) to allow for the division of multifamily
residential zoned land for condominium purposes without the necessity of
completing the procedures for platting. A binding site plan process merely creates or
alters existing lot lines and does not authorize construction, improvements or changes
to the property or the uses thereon.
Sec. 12.04.805. Binding site plan committee.
A. A binding site plan shall be considered by the city’s binding site plan
committee. The planning services office shall distribute copies of the application for
binding site plan approval to each member of the committee and to other appropriate
agencies for review and comment, and provide public notice if required by KCC
12.01.140.
B. A meeting attended by the applicant or his representative and the binding site
plan committee members shall be held within thirty (30) days of the determination of
completeness of the application or receipt of requested additional information,
consistent with the timelines established in KCC 12.01. The meeting shall be open to
the public. Notice of the public meeting shall be circulated consistent with the
requirements of KCC 12.01.145. An additional meeting may be called if no decision
is reached at the first meeting. The second meeting shall be held no later than seven
(7) days after the first meeting or on a date mutually agreed upon by the applicant
and the committee.
C. Three (3) of the five (5) members of the binding site plan committee must be
present in order for the committee to take any action.
D. The binding site plan committee may approve, approve with conditions or
modifications, or deny the application. The committee shall not impose any
conditions which are inconsistent with prior land use approvals of the development
13 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
covered by this application. The decision of the committee shall be made at the
committee meeting.
E. As a condition of approval of the binding site plan, the binding site plan
committee shall have the right and authority to require the deeding of rights-of-way
for street and/or utility purposes, when determined necessary as a result of the
binding site plan development. Any deeding shall precede the recordation of the
binding site plan unless otherwise specified through a development agreement.
Sec. 12.04.810. Appeal. The decision of the binding site plan committee
shall be final, unless an appeal by any aggrieved party is made to the hearing
examiner within fourteen (14) days after the committee’s decision. The appeal shall
be in writing to the hearing examiner and filed with the planning services office.
Any appeal shall be consistent with KCC 12.01.190 (Open Record Appeal).
Sec. 12.04.815. Applicability for commercial and industrial sites.
A. The subject site shall consist of one or more legally created lots; and
B. The property must be zoned commercial and\or industrial.
Sec. 12.04.820. Application Requirements for commercial and industrial
sites. All of the following information shall be included in any application for
binding site plan approval for commercial and industrial lots:
A. At a minimum, the binding site plan application shall include the following
information:
1. A map or plan showing the location and size of all new proposed lots;
2. Proposed and existing structures including floor areas and setbacks;
3. Location of existing and proposed public rights of way, private and
public streets and easements;
4. Location of all existing and proposed open spaces including any
required landscaped areas, parking areas and all major manmade or natural features
(i.e. streams, creeks, drainage courses, railroad tracks, utility lines, etc.);
14 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
5. Layout of an internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation system,
including proposed or existing ingress and egress points;
6. Location of existing and proposed fire hydrants to serve the site;
7. Description, location and size of existing and proposed utilities, storm
drainage facilities and roads to serve each lot;
8. Expected location of new buildings and driveways;
9. Letter of water and/or sewer availability, if not served by the City of
Kent;
10. Parking calculations to demonstrate that the requirements of KCC
15.05 have been met;
11. The following code data: zoning district; total lot area; total building
area; percent of site coverage; total parking and maneuvering area;
12. Plans, analysis and calculations verifying building code compliance of
all existing structures, to include, but not limited to, identification of all types of
construction and occupancy classifications, allowable area calculations, wall and
wall opening protection, and provisions for exiting and accessibility for the disabled;
13. Proposed cross-access and maintenance agreements for parking,
circulation, utility and landscaping improvements, if shared;
14. The site plan shall also include the name of proposed development;
the legal description of the property for which the binding site plan is sought, the date
on which the plans were prepared; the graphic scale and north point of the plans; and,
15. The title, “Binding Site Plan” shall be at the top of the plan in large
print;
B. A recent title report covering all property shown within the boundaries of the
binding site plan shall be submitted with the application.
C. A plan showing the layout and size of all existing and proposed utilities to
serve each lot.
D. A phasing plan and time schedule, if the site is intended to be developed in
phases.
E. A complete environmental checklist, if required by KCC 11.03.
15 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
F. Copies of all easements, covenants and other encumbrances restricting the
use of the site.
Sec. 12.04.825. Approval Criteria for commercial and industrial sites.
A. Criteria. An application for a binding site plan on commercial or industrial
lands may be approved if the following criteria are satisfied :
1. Adequate provisions have been made for stormwater detention, water
supply, sanitary sewer, drainageways; private and/or public streets; pedestrian
access; public and private utilities and other public ways;
2. Each lot shall provide access to a public road and make provisions for
connectivity of alleys, pedestrian accessways and other public ways;
3. The binding site plan complies with, or makes adequate provisions to
comply with, applicable provisions of the building code, fire code, public works
standards, and zoning standards.
4. Potential environmental impacts together with any practical means of
mitigating adverse impacts, have been considered such that the proposal will not
have an adverse effect upon the environment.
5. Approving the binding site plan will serve the public use and interest
and adequate provisions have been made for the public health, safety and general
welfare.
B. Shared improvements. As a condition of approval, the City may authorize
sharing of open space, parking, access, setbacks, landscaping and other
improvements among contiguous properties. Conditions of use, maintenance and
restrictions on redevelopment of shared open space, parking, access and other
improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants,
easements or other similar mechanisms. Such agreements or restrictions shall be
recorded with the King County Auditor’s Office and run with the land. Such
agreements shall be approved as to form by the city attorney prior to filing the final
binding site plan. The binding site plan shall contain the conditions to which the
binding site plan is subject, including any applicable irrevocable dedications of
property. The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any
16 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
development of the site shall be in conformity with the approved site plan and any
applicable development regulations subject to the vesting requirements of this
chapter.
C. Phasing of Development. Unless otherwise provided for in a development
agreement, development permit applications shall be submitted for all structures and
improvements shown on the binding site plan within three (3) years of approval. The
planning manager may administratively extend this period by one (1) additional year
if requested by the applicant. Permit applications submitted within that period shall
be subject to the vesting requirements of this chapter. If the applicant chooses to
develop the property in a phased development, the applicant must execute a
development agreement with the city pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170. This Agreement
shall govern at a minimum, the use and development of the property subject to the
binding site plan, including: (1) vesting applicable to subsequent permits; (2) the
manner in which each phase of the development will proceed to ensure that the roads
and utilities necessary to serve each phase of the development are constructed prior
to the development of each phase; and (3) expiration of the agreement and all
provisions therein.
Sec. 12.04.830. Final Binding Site Plan for commercial and industrial
sites. Filing of the final binding site plan for commercial and industrial sites shall
conform to the requirements set forth in KCC 12.04.210 - Filing the final short plat.
Sec. 12.04.835. Improvements for commercial and industrial sites. Prior
to the issuance of a permit for construction within a binding site plan for commercial
and industrial sites, all improvements required to adequately serve that portion of the
plan for which the permit will be issued shall be installed. Improvements may
include, but are not limited to, road construction; water, sewer, and storm utilities;
parking; building improvements to meet code; and landscaping. Public
improvements may be bonded for, in accord with the process in KCC 12.04.205(D),
with approval of the public works director.
17 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
Sec. 12.04.840. Modifications for commercial and industrial sites.
A. If an applicant wishes to alter a binding site plan for commercial and industrial
sites or any portion thereof, that person shall submit an application to the planning
services office requesting the alteration. The application shall contain the signatures
of all persons having an ownership interest in lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions
within the binding site plan or in that portion of the binding site plan to be altered.
The planning manager shall have the authority to determine whether a proposed
alteration is minor or major.
B. If the binding site plan is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the
time of the approval of the binding site plan, and the application for alteration would
result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement
signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to
terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration
of the binding site plan or portion thereof.
C. If the alteration is requested to a binding site plan prior to recording of the
binding site plan with King County, a minor alteration may be approved with consent
of the planning manager and the public works director. A major alteration shall
require consent of the binding site plan committee, after public notice and a public
meeting is held. The planning services office shall provide notice of the application
for a major alteration to all owners of property within the binding site plan, and as
was required by the original application.
D. If the alteration is requested to a binding site plan after recording of the binding
site plan with King County and it is determined to be a minor alteration, it may be
approved with the consent of the binding site plan committee, after public notice and
a public meeting is held. The planning services office shall provide notice of the
application for a minor alteration to all owners of property within the binding site
plan, and as was required for the original application. If the alternation is requested
to a binding site plan after recording of the binding site plan with King County and it
is determined to be a major alteration, then the planning manager shall require the
binding site plan be vacated per KCC 12.04.845 and 12.04.230 and a new application
for a binding site plan may be submitted.
18 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
E. The binding site plan committee shall determine the public use and interest in
the proposed alteration and may approve, approve with conditions or modifications,
or deny the application for alteration. If any land within the alteration is part of an
assessment district, any outstanding assessments shall be equitably divided and
levied against the remaining lots, parcels, or tracts, or be levied equitably on the lots
resulting from the alteration.
F. After approval of the alteration, the binding site plan committee shall order the
applicant to produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration of the binding site
plan, which after signature of the chair of the binding site plan committee, shall be
filed with the King County Auditor’s Office to become the lawful binding site plan
of the property.
Sec. 12.04.845. Vacation for commercial and industrial sites. A binding
site plan may be vacated as a whole only. Vacating a binding site plan releases all
conditions and obligations on the parcel associated with such plan. A binding site
plan may be vacated by submitting a letter to the planning manager indicating an
intention to vacate the binding site plan. The letter shall include signatures of all
ownership interests within the binding site plan and shall become binding upon its
acceptance by the planning manager.
Sec. 12.04.850. Vesting for commercial and industrial sites. A binding
site plan application shall be considered under the zoning and other land use control
ordinances in effect on the land at the time of submission of the fully complete
binding site plan application. Any vacant or redeveloped lot within an approved
binding site plan shall comply with the standards in place at such time as a
subsequent project permit application is filed on that property unless otherwise
provided for in a development agreement.
Sec. 12.04.855. Applicability for condominium sites. Multifamily
residential condominium developments are eligible for binding site plan approval,
when the purpose of such approval is to divide the property so that a portion of the
19 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
parcel or tract can be subjected to either chapter 64.32 or 64.34 RCW. A binding site
plan can only be approved either when the development has already been constructed
or when the approval has been obtained and a building permit for an entire
development or a portion of a development is issued.
Sec. 12.04.860. Application requirements for condominium sites.
A. An application for a binding site plan for condominium sites may not be
submitted until a building permit has been approved.
B. The binding site plan application shall conform to the following requirements
and shall:
1. Be on reproducible material and shall be drawn to a scale of not less
than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet (unless otherwise approved by the
planning services office) on sheets eighteen (18) inches by twenty-two (22) inches;
2. Contain the name of the proposed development; the legal description
of the property for which binding site plan approval is sought; the date on which the
plans were prepared; the graphic scale and north point of the plans;
3. Show the following:
a. The layout of the site including the location of all existing and
proposed structures and their distance from property lines; the location of all existing
and proposed utilities, streets and easements within or abutting subject property; the
location of all existing and proposed private pedestrian walks; existing and proposed
open space area.
b. Any areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public
purposes, and areas to be reserved for private open space and landscaping and areas
reserved for the common use of the occupants of the proposed development.
c. All major manmade or natural features, i.e., streams, creeks,
drainage ditches, railroad tracks, etc.
d. Building dimensions, height and number of stories, distance
between buildings, location and size of parking areas and number of stalls.
20 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
e. Following zoning code data:
i. Zoning district;
ii. Total lot area (square feet);
iii. Total building area (square feet);
iv. Percent of site coverage;
v. Number of units proposed;
vi. Total number of parking stalls (include handicapped);
vii. Total parking and maneuvering area (square feet);
viii. Required landscaping (square feet);
ix. Percent of lot in open space;
x. Type of construction;
xi. Sprinklered-nonsprinklered;
xii. Occupancy classification.
4. Contain the name of the proposed development and the title,
“BINDING SITE PLAN” shall be at the top of the plan, in large print, together with
the statement required pursuant to RCW 58.17.040 (7)(e), prominently displayed on
the face of the site plan map.
5. Contain the statement, “The use and development of the property
must be in accordance with the plan as represented herein or as hereafter amended,
according to the provisions of the binding site plan regulations of the city and any
division of the land subject to this plan shall not take place until the development or
the portion thereof to be divided is subject to Chapters 64.32 or 64.34 RCW.”
6. Contain the statement, “The roads and utilities shown on this plan
need not be constructed and/or installed at the time that the property subject to this
plan is divided. Any permit required to develop any portion of the property shall not
be issued until the roads and utilities necessary to serve that portion of this property
have been constructed and installed or until arrangements acceptable to the city have
been made to ensure that the construction and installation of such roads and utilities
will be accomplished.”
21 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
7. Set forth or reference any conditions, limitations, and requirements for
the use and development of the land as required pursuant to the approvals set forth in
KCC 12.04.855.
C. The application shall be accompanied by a current title report.
Sec. 12.04.865. Approval criteria for condominium sites.
Approval of a binding site plan shall take place only after the following are
met :
1. Adequate provisions have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets,
other public ways, water supplies, open space and sanitary wastes, for the entire
property covered by the binding site plan;
2. Comply with all building code requirements;
3. Comply with all zoning code requirements and development
standards; and
4. Have suitable physical characteristics.
A proposed binding site plan may be denied because of flood, inundation, or
swamp conditions or construction of protective improvements may be required as a
condition of approval.
Sec. 12.04.870. Enforcement. Any violation of the conditions of approval,
limitations on development or the requirements of development imposed as part of a
binding site plan approval shall be subject to the enforcement proceedings and
penalties established for violation of Chapter 58.17 RCW and for violations of the
subdivision code.
Sec. 12.04.875. Final binding site plan for condominium sites.
The final binding site plan map which is submitted for filing shall conform to
all requirements of the preliminary binding site plan, plus the following:
1. It must be a reproducible map drawn to a scale of not less than one (1)
inch equals one hundred (100) feet, on stabilized drafting film or on linen tracing
cloth. Scale and north point must be on map;
22 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
2. Size eighteen (18) inches by twenty-two (22) inches;
3. Legal description of total parcel shall be shown on the final linen. All
legal descriptions shall be metes and bounds descriptions reflecting within the
descriptions ties to all subdivision lines, donation claim lines and/or recording plat
lines;
4. Property subject of the binding site plan shall be surveyed by a land
surveyor licensed in the state. All exterior corners and streets shall be monumented.
Surveyor’s certificate must appear on final linen;
5. All conditions, limitations, and requirements for the use and
development of the land as required pursuant to the approvals set forth in KCC
12.04.855 or the approval of the binding site plan committee shall be appropriately
set forth or referenced. Building permit number, if applicable, shall be shown on
mylar;
6. Certificate of approval by the chairman of the binding site plan
committee shall be provided on the linen; and
7. Face of final site plan linen must be signed by all owners of the
property.
Sec. 12.04.877. Filing binding site plan for condominiums. The binding
site plan must be signed by the chairman of the binding site plan committee. An
approved binding site plan shall be filed for record in the office of the King County
Auditor and shall not be deemed approved until so filed. Copies of the approved
binding site plans shall be filed with the planning services office, city clerk’s office,
and department of public works.
Sec. 12.04.880. Expiration period for condominium sites. If the binding
site plan is not filed within six (6) months of the date of approval, the binding site
plan shall become null and void. Upon written request of the applicant, the planning
services office may grant one (1) extension of not more than six (6) months. Such
request must be received by the planning services office prior to the six (6) month
expiration date.
23 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
Sec. 12.04.885. Modifications for condominium sites.
A. An approved binding site plan may be amended by filing a request for such an
amendment with the planning services office. The planning services office shall
determine what information shall be submitted with a request for an amendment,
based on the type of modification being requested. Any amendment to an approved
binding site plan must be reviewed by the binding site plan committee, unless the
committee sets forth other guidelines for approval of minor modifications.
B. If approved by the binding site plan committee, the amendment shall be set
forth in writing and filed in accordance with KCC, except that it shall be recorded
only if the binding site plan committee directs it to be recorded.
Article VI. Lot Line Adjustments
. . .
SECTION 2. – Repeal. Chapter 12.07 of the Kent City Code entitled,
“Binding Site Plan for Division of Certain Land for Condominiums” is hereby
repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 3. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsections,
or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same
shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be
in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
24 KCC 12.04 –
Binding Site Plan
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2003.
APPROVED: day of , 2003.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2003.
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\12.04-BindingSitePlan.doc
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: QWEST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPEAL FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION RESOLUTION – ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. , approving the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Kent City Council, sitting as
a quasi-judicial body, which sustained the Hearing Examiner’s Findings, Conclusions
and Decision issued on May 10, 2002, regarding the Qwest Conditional Use Permit
Appeal brought by Paul Morford in his individual capacity. On September 2, 2003, the
Councilmembers voted 5-1 to deny the closed record appeal and instructed that written
finding of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision be drafted for adoption by Council.
This Resolution adopts such written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision,
which are attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution.
3. EXHIBITS: Resolution and Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, & Decision
4. RECOMMENDED BY: City Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6J
1 Qwest Conditional Use Permit Appeal
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION of the city council of the city of
Kent, Washington, adopting findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and a decision regarding the quasi-judicial, closed record
appeal of the Qwest Conditional Use Permit, File No. CE-
2001-3.
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2003, the Kent City Council sitting as a quasi-
judicial body heard a closed record appeal brought by Paul Morford in his individual
capacity; and
WHEREAS, the Council voted 5-1 to deny the closed record appeal and
instructed that written finding of facts, conclusions of law, and a decision be drafted for
adoption by Council; and
WHEREAS, findings of facts, conclusions of law, and a decision have been
drafted in accord with the Council’s decision and are attached as Exhibit A to this
Resolution; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. - Adoption. The Kent City Council hereby adopts the attached
Exhibit A as its findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision in the closed record appeal
of the Qwest Conditional Use Permit, File No. CE-2001-3.
2 Qwest Conditional Use Permit Appeal
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
SECTION 2. - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in
force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular meeting of the city council of the City of Kent, Washington this
_____ day of October, 2003.
CONCURRED in by the mayor of the City of Kent, this _____ day of October, 2003.
__________________________________________
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. _______, passed
by the city council of the City of Kent, Washington, the _____ day of October, 2003.
____________________________________
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK (SEAL)
P:\Civil\RESOLUTION\QwestCUPFindingsConclusionsDecision.doc
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 1
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF KENT
IN RE:
The appeal of Qwest’s application for a C.U.P.
for the second floor expansion of a
telecommunications building located at 206 S.
State Street, Kent, WA.
PAUL MORFORD,
Appellant,
v.
K.D.W. ARCHITECTS, P.S., U.S. WEST/
QWEST (APPLICANT); AND CITY OF
KENT,
Respondents.
No. CE-2001-3
KIV No. 2011743
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND DECISION
INTRODUCTION
THIS MATTER came before the Kent City Council on September 2, 2003, on a quasi-
judicial, closed-record appeal brought by Paul Morford, an individual, challenging the Hearing
Examiner’s May 10, 2002 (“Decision after Remand”) approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(“CUP”) to Qwest to allow the construction of a second-floor addition to an existing
telecommunication facility in the City’s DCE zone. The following is a summary of the subject
property, the land use applications and the appeal filed by Paul Morford.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 2
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
File Nos.: Qwest—Kent Ulrich, file Nos. CE-2001-3, and KIVA No.
2011743.
Applicant: KDW Architects, P.S., U.S. West Communications, Qwest
(hereinafter collectively “Qwest”).
Property Owner: Qwest
Location: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of
South State Street and East Gowe Street. Located in the
northeast corner of Section 24, Township 22 North, Range
4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, WA. King
County tax parcel No.: 917960-0451. Street address: 206
South State Street.
Project Proposal: Request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the
construction of a second floor on an existing
telecommunication facility in the DCE (Downtown
Commercial Enterprise) zone. The application requests a
17,000 square-foot second floor addition to the existing
17,000 square-foot single story structure.
Application Filed: May 24, 2001.
SEPA Determination/Date: DNS. Issued August 9, 2001.
Staff Report: September 19, 2001.
1. Hearing Examiner [first]
Open Record Hearing:
September 19, 2001.
2. Hearing Examiner [first]
Decision:
October 3, 2001.
3. Appeal of Hearing
Examiner’s [first]
Decision:
October 12, 2001.
4. City Counsel [first] Closed
Record Appeal
Hearing/Decision:
November 20, 2001.
5. Appeal of Hearing
Examiner [second]
Decision:
May 24, 2002.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 3
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
6. Hearing Examiner
[second] Open Record
Hearing:
May 1, 2002.
7. Hearing Examiner
[second] Decision:
May 10, 2002.
8. Hearing Examiner
Decision re: 5/24/02
Appeal:
May 31, 2002 and June 13, 2002.
City Counsel [Second] Closed
Record Hearing/Decision:
September 2, 2003.
1) Closed-record appealed by Paul Morford—denied;
2) Hearing Examiner’s May 10th, 2002 decision on
9/02/03 C.C. Hearing remand—affirmed.
Argument Presented by: 1) For Appellant, Paul Morford—Paul Morford and
Michael M. Hanis, Esq.
(of Hanis, Greaney, Zoro, PLLC);
2) For Applicant and Respondent, Qwest—Michael P.
Witek, Esq. (of Helsell Fetterman, LLP);
3) For Respondent City of Kent--Kim Adams Pratt, Esq.
(Kent Assistant City Attorney)
Appeal Exhibits: 1) May 24, 2001 conditional use permit application
(and submittals A-G, and site plans) (AR-00073-
00083);
2) August 31, 2001 Kent Planning Services
“application deadline dates” (AR-00072);
3) May 25, 2001 routing slip and attached comments
(AR-00085-00089);
4) 2-page letter from Paul Morford (July 12, 2001) to
Kent Planning Department (AR-00088-00089);
5) Notices of Application (July 2, 2001) and attached
comments (AR-00091-00096);
6) June 19, 2001 Notice of Completeness (AR-00098);
7) Public Notices and evidence of mailing (generally
dated August 31, 2001)(AR-00100-00105);
8) Notice of Public Hearing and evidence regarding
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 4
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
posting of site (August 31, 2001) (AR-00107-
00108);
9) Notice of Public Hearing (August 31, 2001) (AR-
00110-00112);
10) August 9, 2001 SEPA determination of non-
significance (DNS), and environmental check list
application form (AR-00114-00126);
11) Vicinity Site Plans and landscape maps (AR-00128-
00139);
12) September 19, 2001 letter from Paul Morford/CAP
Properties to Theodore P. Hunter (including
attachments) (AR-00140-00146);
13) November 20, 2001 Kent City Council Meeting
“summary agenda” (AR-00148-00149);
14) November 20, 2001 Kent City Council Minutes
(AR-00151-00154);
15) December 12, 2001 letter from attorney Michael P.
Witek to Theodore P. Hunter (AR-00156-00158);
16.) December 18, 2001 “Hearing Date and Procedures”
from Hearing Examiner (AR-00160-00161);
17) January 9, 2002 letter from Paul Morford to
Theodore P. Hunter (AR-00163);
18) January 10, 2002 letter from Damian Hooper to Paul
Morford and Michael Witek (AR-00165-00174);
19) January 11, 2002 letter from Michael Witek to
Theodore P. Hunter (AR-00176-00178);
20) January 17, 2002 “continuation of hearing date”
notice from Hearing Examiner (AR-00180-00181);
21) January 15, 2002 letter from Dan Smith to Paul
Morford (AR-00183);
22) February 22, 2002 letter from Michael Witek to
Theodore P. Hunter (AR-00185-00186);
23) February 27, 2002 letter from Kim Adams-Pratt to
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 5
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
Ted Hunter (AR-00188);
24) February 28, 2002 “continuance” notice from
Hearing Examiner (AR-00190-00191);
25) April 10, 2002 letter from Michael Witek to Ted
Hunter (AR-00193-00195);
26) May 1, 2002 memorandum on remand from Qwest
(including attachments A-D) (AR-00197-00256);
27) May 15, 2002 “Findings, Conclusions and Decision
on Remand” by Hearing Examiner (AR-00258-
00270);
28) Series of 10 large maps and site plans (AR-00273-
00282);
29) Building addition log (map) dated 11/20/01 (AR-
00284);
30) Two-color photographs of Titus Mansion
Apartments (AR-00286-00288);
31) Series of 6 color photographs and partial site plan
(AR-00290);
32) Series of 5 color photographs and partial landscape
plans (AR-00292);
33) Photograph from Qwest property (AR-00294);
34) Photograph of Qwest property with graphic
projection (AR-00296);
35) Color photo/dimensional model of site (AR-00298);
36) Color dimensional model with existing trees (AR-
00300);
37) Color photograph of lift at apartments (AR-00302);
38) Vantage point of photographs from lift (AR-00304);
39) Vantage points of 3-D model (AR-00306);
40) Series of 9 color photographs with site plan (AR-
00308);
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 6
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
41) Color rendition, deck A (AR-00310);
42) Deck B, third floor (AR-00312);
43) Deck C, third floor (AR-00314);
44) Deck A, second floor (AR-00316);
45) Deck B, second floor (AR-00318);
46) Deck C, second floor (AR-00320);
47) Deck A, first floor (AR-00322);
48) Deck B, first floor (AR-00324);
49) Deck C, first floor (AR-00326);
50) Site section of proposed retaining wall (AR-00328);
51) Building additions log (AR-00330);
52) Declaration of Brenda M. Ross (AR-00332-00342);
53) Metro scan property profile (AR-00344-00345);
54) Landscape plan (AR-00347);
55) April 29, 2002 economic impact of Qwest second
floor addition by Allen M. Safer, MAI (AR-00349-
00360);
56) Ordinance No. 3050 (AR-00362-00382);
57) Ordinance No. 3051 (AR-00384-00387);
58) May 24, 2002 letter from Paul Morford to City of
Kent (AR-00389-00390);
59) May 31, 2002 “denial of Request for
Reconsideration” by Hearing Examiner (AR-00392-
00393);
60) June 13, 2002 “explanation of denial of Request for
Reconsideration” by Hearing Examiner (AR-00395-
00397);
61) September 11, 2001 “staff report” for Hearing
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 7
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
Examiner (AR-00056-00070);
62) October 3, 2001 “Findings, Conclusions and
Decision” of the Hearing Examiner (AR-00043-
00053);
63) October 12, 2001 letter from Paul Morford to City of
Kent, including appeal notice and receipt (AR-
00040-00042);
64) September 19, 2001 “verbatim minutes” of Hearing
Examiner hearing (AR-00011-00038);
65) Resolution No. 896 (AR-00006-00009);
66) November 8, 2001 “statement of hearing officer”
(AR-00004);
67) Index to Hearing Examiner’s record (AR-00002);
68) Memorandum from Roger A. Lubovich re:
procedure on closed record Appeal Hearing (AR-
00001);
69) August 18, 2003 “brief of Paul Morford on appeal of
conditional use permit to U.S. West/Qwest” (8
pages);
70) August 18, 2003 “Qwest’s memorandum in
opposition to appeal of Paul Morford” (and
attachments)(15 pages, and exhibits A-B);
71) August 7, 2003 letter from Michael Walter to
attorneys Hanis, Witek and Adams Pratt (3 pages);
72) Kent City Council meeting, September 2, 2003
minutes (4 pages).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 8
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On May 24, 2001, KDW Architects, P.S., submitted an application for a conditional use
permit for a second floor addition to the existing Qwest telecommunications equipment
building, known as Qwest’s Kent Ulrich Station, located at 206 South State Avenue,
Kent, Washington. The application was assigned No. CE-2001-3 and No. KIVA No.
2011743. The property owner was identified as Qwest, which has owned the existing
17,000 square foot structure since approximately 1955. CUP Application (AR-00072-
00083)
2. Qwest’s application sought to construct a full second story, 17,000 square-foot addition
to its existing building located on the corner of State Street and Gowe in Kent. The
addition was designed solely for telecommunications switch equipment, and all the
necessary support equipment to provide uninterrupted telephone service to the
community in the event of power outages. The existing 17,000 square foot structure
owned and operated by Qwest and its predecessors (U.S. West and Pacific Northwest
Bell) since 1955 has always functioned solely as a telecommunications facility. It has
significant underground cable infrastructure which provides telephone service throughout
the City of Kent. The building enables telephone services throughout the entire City,
including local, state and long distance calls, 911 emergency calls, wireless and all
internet services that operate through a modem. Without this building, these critical
services would not be available. The existing building and existing equipment require
expansion. The need for expanded capacity has quadrupled in the last five years. Id.
(AR-00074-00081); Hearing Examiner October 3, 2001 decision, findings 1, 4-6 (AR-
00044-00045); Hearing Examiner May 10, 2002 decision, findings 1, 4, 6-8 (AR-00261-
00263).
3. On August 9, 2001, the City issued a SEPA determination of non-significance (DNS)
(No. ENV-2001-24), which found that there were no significant adverse environmental
impacts associated with the Qwest CUP application. The DNS was not appealed. The
City of Kent is designated as lead agency for review of environmental impacts under the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA DNS (AR-00114-00126); October 3,
2001 Hearing Examiner Decision, Finding No. 9 (AR-00046); May 10, 2002 Hearing
Examiner Decision on Remand Finding No. 10 (AR-00263).
4. On September 18, 2001, the Kent City Council passed Ordinance No. 3574. This
Ordinance changed the Kent City Code regarding closed-record appeals of certain quasi-
judicial decisions of the Hearing Examiner. Ordinance No. 3574 eliminated a prior
provision of the Kent City Code that directed appeals of hearing examiner decisions to
the City Council, replacing it with a new provision directing that appeals of the Hearing
Examiner’s Decision go to Superior Court through a Land Use Petition Act petition
pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW. Ordinance No. 3574.
5. On September 19, 2001, the Hearing Examiner conducted an open-record hearing on
Qwest’s application for a CUP for its Kent Ulrich Station. At that open-record hearing,
the public, including Appellant Paul Morford, provided testimony and comment on
Qwest’s CUP application. All parties received timely, full and fair notice of this May 1,
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 9
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
2002 open-record hearing. No party challenged the timeliness or notice for this hearing.
Verbatim Minutes of Open-Record Hearing (AR-00011-00038).
6. On October 3, 2001, the Hearing Examiner issued “Findings, Conclusions and Decision”
on Qwest’s CUP application for the Qwest-Kent Ulrich Station. The Decision was to
approve the CUP with conditions. October 3, 2001 Hearing Examiner Decision (AR-
00043-00053).
7. On October 12, 2001, Paul Morford filed an administrative appeal of the Hearing
Examiner’s October 3, 2001 decision (“first appeal”). Mr. Morford’s appeal challenged
the Hearing Examiner’s approval of the Qwest CUP on the basis that the proposed
building expansion would block views and result in devaluation of the Titus Mansion
Apartments, which Mr. Morford owns, located on property adjacent to and to the south of
the proposed Qwest building expansion. Specifically, the appeal challenged the Hearing
Examiner’s approval of the CUP predicated on the first criteria of Kent City Code (KCC)
15.09.030(D), which provides that “the proposed use and the proposed location will not
be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district.”
October 12, 2001, letter from Paul Morford to City of Kent (AR-00040-00042).
8. On October 18, 2001, Ordinance No. 3574 (which changed the appeal procedures from a
Hearing Examiner decision on certain quasi-judicial permits) became effective.
Ordinance No. 3574.
9. On November 20, 2001, the Kent City Council held a closed-record appeal of the Hearing
Examiner’s October 3, 2001, decision, pursuant to the October 12, 2001, administrative
appeal filed by Paul Morford (“City Council first hearing”). This closed-record, quasi-
judicial appeal came before the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting and upon
proper and timely notice to all parties. The Appellant Paul Morford, was present and
provided argument at the closed-record appeal. The City Attorney explained the appeal
process and the options available to the Council, as well as the issue on the appeal. After
reviewing the record and hearing argument by the parties, the City Council approved a
motion to remand to case to the Hearing Examiner to obtain “additional evidence, facts,
or information for its reconsideration.” The City Council identified four questions of
issues for consideration by the Hearing Examiner on remand:
A. When were the Titus Apartments built?
B. What is the actual view blockage?
C. Does the Qwest building being there first matter?
D. Is the proposed building detrimental to the Titus
Apartments if views are not protected?
11-20-01 City Council agenda (AR-00148-00149); 11-20-01 City Council minutes (AR-
00151-00154).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 10
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
10. On May 1, 2002, the Hearing Examiner held a second open-record hearing on Qwest’s
CUP application. This was the hearing “on remand” from the Kent City Council. At this
hearing, the parties provided argument, witnesses testified, and additional documents
were received as evidence. All parties received timely, full and fair notice of this May 1,
2002 open-record hearing. No party challenged the timeliness or notice for this hearing.
Order Re: Continuance (AR-00190-00191); May 1, 2002, Memorandum on Remand from
Qwest (AR-00197-00256).
11. On May 10, 2002, the Hearing Examiner issued “Findings, Conclusions and Decision on
Remand” pursuant to the City Council’s November 20, 2001, request to remand to the
Hearing Examiner to consider the above referenced four items. The Hearing Examiner
approved Qwest’s CUP application, with conditions, and addressed and resolved the four
issues presented by the City Council in its November 20, 2001, remand directive. May
10, 2002 Hearing Examiner Decision on Remand (AR-00258-00270).
12. On May 24, 2002, Paul Morford filed a second administrative appeal to the City Council.
This appeal appealed the Hearing Examiner’s May 10, 2002, decision on remand. In
this second appeal, Mr. Morford contended that the second story construction of the
Qwest building adjacent to the Titus Mansion Apartments “will greatly restrict light and
provide a claustrophobic feel to the residents that they do not have at this time” and, he
contended that this would be a detriment to residents, and that this detriment “clearly
violates the first criteria” of the City’s CUP criteria. His appeal also challenged the
Hearing Examiner’s “narrow definition of ‘detriment’.” Finally, the appeal challenged
the sufficiency of parking for the Qwest CUP proposal, claiming that it did not meet City
code requirements for a sufficient number of parking stalls. May 24, 2002, letter from
Paul Morford to City of Kent (AR-00389-00390).
13. On May 31, 2002, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision entitled “denial of request for
reconsideration.” The Hearing Examiner concluded that Mr. Morford’s May 24, 2002,
letter, denominated an “appeal,” was in fact a request for reconsideration. The Hearing
Examiner further denied the request for appeal/reconsideration, without prejudice, and
stated that Mr. Morford could appeal the final decision to Superior Court within 21 days
of the date of the Hearing Examiner’s Order, as provided in KCC 12.01.200. Hearing
Examiner Denial of Request for Reconsideration, May 31, 2002 (AR-00392-00393).
14. On June 13, 2002, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision entitled “explanation of denial
of request for reconsideration.” In this explanation, the Hearing Examiner found that the
vested rights doctrine did not apply to protect an appellant from changes in procedures,
and further explained why the Hearing Examiner interpreted Mr. Morford’s May 24,
2002, “appeal” as a request for reconsideration. Hearing Examiner Explanation, June 13,
2002 (AR-00395-00397).
15. On June 21, 2002, Paul Morford filed in King County Superior Court a “Petition for
Issuance of Writ of Mandamus, or Alternatively, Appeal of Land Use Decision,” under
King County Cause No. 02-2-13454-3 KNT. On March 31, 2003, the Honorable Dean
Lum of the King County Superior Court issued a “Final Order Granting Writ of
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 11
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
Mandamus and Dismissing Land Use Petition” which found, in part, that Mr. Morford
should be permitted to exhaust the appeal process he began with his closed-record appeal
to the City Council of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision on Remand. Judge Lum’s final
order dismissed Mr. Morford’s Land Use Petition, and ordered:
The City of Kent City Council shall, within 30 (60) [sic] days from
receiving this Writ, conduct a hearing of the appeal of the Hearing
Examiner’s decision after remand dated May 10, 2002 as required
by former Kent City Code 12.01.040 and pursuant to City
Resolution No. 896, at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
The City Council has taken judicial notice of the pleadings and other documents on file
with the Court in this Writ and LUPA action, and has been advised of and is generally
familiar with the issues, arguments and decisions in this court action. Pleadings under
King County Cause No. 02-2-13465-3 KNT, generally.
16. In August 2003, the City scheduled a closed-record appeal hearing before the Kent City
Council on Mr. Morford’s administrative appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s May 10,
2002, decision on remand. The parties were given timely and proper notice of this
closed-record appeal hearing.
17. On August 7, 2003, Michael C. Walter, a legal advisor to the City Council, advised all
parties to the appeal (Paul Morford, Qwest and the City of Kent) of the September 2,
2003 closed-record appeal hearing and the procedures and time limits applicable to the
appeal hearing. August 7, 2003, letter from Michael C. Walter to parties of record
(through attorneys).
18. No party submitted or asked to submit any supplemental or new evidence for the City
Council’s review. Therefore, the record before the Kent City Council on the September
2, 2003, closed-record appeal hearing was limited strictly to the briefs by the parties and
the record before the Hearing Examiner at the prior Hearing Examiner hearings. Record,
generally.
19. This closed-record, quasi-judicial appeal by Paul Morford [the second closed-record
appeal] came before the Kent City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting on
September 2, 2003, upon proper and timely notice of all parties. Appellant Paul Morford
was represented by and through his attorney, Michael M. Hanis of the law firm of Hanis,
Greaney, Zorro, PLLC (Kent). The respondent (and the Kent-Ulrich applicant), Qwest,
was represented by and through its attorney of record, Michael P. Witek, of the Helsell,
Fetterman law firm (Seattle). The respondent, City of Kent, was represented by and
through attorney Kim Adams Pratt, Kent Assistant City Attorney. All representatives
were given an opportunity to present argument, and all did so. September 2, 2003, City
Council Closed-Record Appeal Hearing.
20. At the September 2, 2003, closed-record appeal hearing, Mayor White noted that the
Hearing Examiner’s decision on remand was issued on May 10, 2002, and described the
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 12
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
nature of the closed-record appeal of that decision. City Attorney Tom Brubaker
explained that this was a quasi-judicial hearing and that there was a potential conflict of
interest for the City of Kent and the City Attorney’s office, and that Michael C. Walter of
Keating, Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S., would represent and advise the City Council.
The City Council then adjourned to an executive session of approximately 15 minutes to
discuss legal matters, and the closed-record appeal hearing reconvened at 8:14 p.m.
Mayor White turned chairmanship of the hearing over to Council President Woods. Mr.
Walter then read into the record an appearance of fairness disclosure statement advising
the public and the parties of the quasi-judicial nature of the closed-record appeal hearing,
the state of Washington appearance of fairness doctrine and the process of making
objection to City Council decision-makers based on the appearance of fairness doctrine.
All City Council members were questioned on appearance of fairness issues. Several
members made disclosures indicating that they had driven by the subject property site or
that they had had phone service provided by the applicant, Qwest. Council member
Epperly indicated that she was a friend of Paul Morford and that on a prior occasion she
had been in one of the Titus Mansion Apartment units owned by Mr. Morford. There
were no objections to any of the City Council members. No person requested that any of
the Council members recuse themselves or alleged that any of the Council member had
an appearance of fairness violation. September 2, 2003, Kent City Council Minutes and
hearing.
21. At the September 2, 2003, closed-record appeal hearing, Mr. Morford described and
discussed the two issues he was bringing before the Council on his appeal of the May 10,
2002 Hearing Examiner decision. Those two issues were parking and view impairment.
Mr. Morford stated that the Hearing Examiner had ruled on parking issues and had
determined the Qwest facility to be a “warehouse”; however, Mr. Morford noted that a
warehouse would not be permitted as a conditionally permitted use in the DCE zone. Mr.
Morford also addressed view issues, and identified documents in the record that two real
estate brokers had noted very serious detriment to the property (his Titus Mansion
Apartment property) resulting from the proposed expansion of the Qwest facility. Mr.
Morford stated that he did not question Qwest’s need for the expansion, he admitted it
was necessary. He stated the tenants of his Titus Mansion Apartments were “very upset”
about this, and that there would be detriment to his property. He provided copies of
pictures of the site, which were already in the record. September 2, 2003, City Council
hearing.
22. At the September 2, 2003, closed-hearing appeal hearing, Mr. Morford’s attorney,
Michael Hanis, explained in more detail Mr. Morford’s position regarding the parking
and view impairment, and stated that the Hearing Examiner made an error of law. He
stated that construction of a brick wall (the second floor expansion of the Qwest facility)
clearly is a detriment to Mr. Morford’s property and his tenants. He described his
interpretation of the City’s policy for the area, which he described as a “gem,” pedestrian
friendly and unique. He discussed the case of Hansen v. Chelan County, 81 Wn. App.
1233, 913 P.2d 409 (1996), and offered his interpretation of how it was distinguishable
from the facts before the City Council. September 2, 2003 City Council hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 13
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
23. At the September 2, 2003, closed-record appeal hearing, Michael Witek, attorney for
Qwest, explained Qwest’s position and said that Mr. Morford could not show that the
Qwest second floor addition would damage or injure Mr. Morford’s property in any way
that a permitted use would not. He relied upon the case of Hansen v. Chelan County and
argued that the case and its holding is directly applicable to the facts of this case. He
discussed the history of the Qwest facility, which was built in 1955 and was upgraded in
1984 and which now needs to be upgraded again. He indicated that Qwest could build
many other types of structures in the DCE zone that would have far more view blockage
than the Qwest second floor expansion proposed in the CUP application. He noted that
this is the fifth hearing on this matter and that the City Council should focus on the
standards for appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s decision as set forth in Resolution No.
896. He also noted that while the City does have a view protection ordinance applicable
to other zones, that ordinance is not applicable to either the Qwest or the Morford’s
properties or to any property within the DCE zone, including the Qwest and Morford
properties. He also referenced appraisal reports indicating no loss in value due to the
increase in height of the Qwest facility. He addressed the parking issues raised by Mr.
Morford and argued that the closest type of facility to the Qwest building was a
“warehouse” or a “storage” facility, and that the Hearing Examiner properly found that
parking should be predicated on warehouse and storage parking standards. September 2,
2003, City Council hearing.
24. At the September 2, 2003, closed-record appeal hearing, Kim Adams Pratt, Assistant City
Attorney, explained the City’s position, noting that staff still supports the
recommendation made to the Hearing Examiner in 2001. Staff still believes that the
Qwest CUP application is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, City zoning and
the CUP standards. She noted that the City’s comprehensive plan promotes expansion of
telecommunications facilities and encourages co-location of such facilities. She
addressed the standards for granting a CUP as set forth in KCC 15-09-030(D) and noted
that Mr. Morford wants the City Council to treat two identical three-story walls – one
permitted as an allowed use and the other permitted as a conditional use - differently.
She also cited to and relied upon the case of Hansen v. Chelan County. September 2,
2003, City Council hearing.
25. In rebuttal, attorney Hanis (on behalf of Mr. Morford) disagreed with some of Ms. Pratt’s
comments, and said that the City Council does not have enough information to make a
reasoned decision. He argued that the Hansen case was distinguishable, that Mr. Morford
was not basing any of his arguments on the City’s comprehensive plan, and that this was
a “pure zoning” issue. He stated, again, that common sense says that the expansion of the
Qwest facility was a “detriment” to surrounding properties, especially Mr. Morford’s
apartment building. September 2, 2003, City Council hearing.
26. After a 30-minute executive session, the City Council decided Mr. Morford’s closed-
record appeal. Council member Orr moved to affirm the Hearing Examiner’s decision to
deny the appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s May 10, 2002, decision and to affirm that
decision. The Council voted 5-1 to deny the appeal and to affirm the Hearing Examiner’s
decision. September 2, 2003, City Council hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 14
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
27. Paul Morford’s October 12, 2001, and May 24, 2002, notices of appeal were timely filed
and perfected, pursuant to Resolution No., 896 (June 16, 1980), Kent City Code
12.01.040 and 12.01.095.
28. Paul Morford has standing to pursue both the October 12, 2001 and May 24, 2002,
appeals.
29. The subject property is zoned DCE, “Downtown Commercial Enterprise”, as are all
surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west. This zoning was adopted in
1992 pursuant to Ordinance No. 3051. Testimony of Damien Hooper (Verbatim Minutes
AR-00011-00038); Staff Report, pp. 1-7 (AR-00056-00062).
30. The proposed use is a telecommunication facility and is permitted as general conditional
use in the DCE zone under KCC 15.08.030(B)(1). There are no setback requirements in
the DCE zone or otherwise applicable to the Qwest CUP application. Id.
31. The maximum allowable site coverage for this property is 100% in the DCE zone. Id.
32. There are no height limitations on buildings in the DCE zone, or otherwise imposed
through City Code. Testimony of Damien Hooper; Staff Report, p. 8 (AR-00063);
Hearing Examiner remand decision, at finding 4 (AR-000261).
33. The existing Qwest building is one story and approximately 17,000 square feet, and it sits
upon a lot slightly larger than ¾ of an acre. The existing building is 16 feet in height, and
the proposed addition would add approximately 18 feet, 5 ½ inches, for a total height
after construction of 34 feet, 5 ½ inches. Staff Report, p. 3 (AR-00058); Drawing, CUP-
9, Site Section B (AR-00281).
34. The proposed expansion of the Qwest facility will not have any adverse impacts on any
of the surrounding properties. The expanded facility will “quietly” perform its function
with little impact on surrounding properties. Staff Report, p. 7 (AR-00062).
35. The use of the Qwest property as a telecommunications facility is not a change from the
use as it presently exists. The only exception will be the addition of the second floor
addition, raising the height of the building. No new, expanded or different uses will
occur as a result of the expansion. Staff Report, p. 8 (AR-00063).
36. The size of the site is more than adequate for the proposed expansion of the Qwest
building. Only a small portion of the site will be used for new entry stairs and exit ramp
to meet new building codes. The second story addition is an optimum use for the existing
site. Id.
37. Traffic generated by the proposed expansion will not unduly burden traffic circulation
systems in the vicinity, and will not appreciably add to any traffic in the area. There
should be no noticeable change to the existing traffic patterns. May 24, 2001, application
(AR-00073-00083); staff report, P8 (AR-00063); October 3, 2001 Hearing Examiner
decision, finding No. 5-6 (AR-00045); May 10, 2002, Hearing Examiner decision,
findings No. 7-8, 12 and conclusions No. 1-10 (AR-00262-00268).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 15
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
38. The number of full time employees of the site is not expected to change as a result of the
expansion of the building. The expansion is not anticipated to create any additional
demand for parking or for vehicle access. Id.
39. The performance characteristics of the proposed Qwest telecommunications expansion
are compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood and vicinity. The existing
telecommunications facility has operated in the City since 1939 with little or no impact
on the neighborhood. The building operates quietly with few full time employees. Most
employees checking in and out of the facility do so during normal business hours with
little impact on any surrounding properties. There is little to no activity to affect
residences in the evenings. With the exception of the facility’s HVAC equipment
occasionally operating and periodic testing of the backup power diesel generator, the
Qwest site performs its function as a telecommunications switching station without
disruption to surrounding land uses. The addition of the second floor addition will not
appreciably change these characteristics. Staff Report, p. 9 (AR-00064); Id.
40. The existing property is already well landscaped. After construction of the second story
addition, damaged landscaping will be replaced with new street trees planted along East
Gowe Street. The existing landscape buffer to the south of the building will be protected
during construction and will be enhanced at the completion of the addition. The site will
be landscaped according to Kent City Code, and, if required, enhanced through the
Downtown Design Review Program. Additionally, the Downtown Design Review
Program will require Qwest to incorporate various architectural and design features into
the building. This process specifies requirements for pedestrian amenities, human scale,
architectural scale, building detail and elements, and a variety of other guidelines to
ensure the development will be both aesthetically pleasing and in conformance with the
objectives of the downtown plan and downtown design guidelines. Staff Report, pp. 9-10
(AR-00064-00065); May 10, 2002, Hearing Examiner decision, findings No. 8-9, 12 and
conclusions No. 1-2, 5-7, 10, and decision (AR-00260-00269).
41. All mechanical equipment and operations, with the exception of some HVAC equipment
and a diesel generator, are contained within the building, and building operations should
not create any adverse noise impacts to surrounding properties. Staff Report, pp. 7-12
(AR-00062-00067).
42. The City of Kent does not have a view protection ordinance or any view protection or
view preservation requirements applicable to the DCE zone. Neither the Qwest property
nor any surrounding properties within the DCE zone are part of a “view corridor” or have
been identified by the City as an area subject to view preservation of any kind. The top
of the Qwest second floor addition will not impact any views of properties located in
either a single family or multi-family zone within the City. Staff Report, p. 12 (AR-
00067); October 3, 2001 Hearing Examiner Decision, Finding 7 (AR-00046); May 10,
2002, Hearing Examiner Decision (on remand), Finding 3 (AR-00260-00261).
43. Section 15.08.060 of the Kent City Code does provide view corridor protection to
properties within the MR-H zone. No view corridor protection is provided in the DCE
zone. Paul Morford’s Titus Manor Apartments were constructed in 1981. At that time,
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 16
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
because Mr. Morford’s Titus Manor Apartments were within the MR-H zone, the view
protection ordinance applied to the Titus Manor Apartment property. However, the view
protection provided in the ordinance was removed by the Kent City Council with the
rezone of the area from MR-H to DCE in 1992. Thus, there is no view protection for the
Titus Manor Apartment property. Declaration of Brenda Ross; May 10, 2002, Hearing
Examiner Decision on Remand, Finding 3; KCC 15.08.060; City of Kent Ordinances No.
3050 and No. 3051.
44. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan designates the Qwest property as “City Center.”
The Comprehensive goals and policies applicable to the Qwest CUP proposal include:
Goal UT-7, to promote the expansion of telecommunication
services to all locations within the Potential Annexation Area and
to provide access by future development to a variety of
telecommunication choices;
Goal UT-8, to review the location of new telecommunication
facilities to ensure that proposed locations promote the efficient
distribution of services and minimize impacts on adjacent land
uses and of the environment; and
Policy UT-8.1, to promote, where possible, the collection of
telecommunications facilities on existing structures or in existing
corridors without causing an undue burden on any single utility
provider.
The Qwest CUP application supports these comprehensive plan goals and policies. City
of Kent Comprehensive Plan, Staff Report, p. 6 (AR-00061); May 10, 2002, Hearing
Examiner Decision on Remand, Finding 5 (AR-00261).
45. The proposed use by Qwest qualifies as “warehouse and storage” under KCC 15.05.040,
because the building would be used to store batteries and telecommunication networking
devices. Parking requirements for this type of use are one parking space for every 2,000
square feet, or a total of 17 parking spaces. KCC 15.05.030. There is an existing 17-stall
parking lot owned by Qwest located to the north of the existing building, across East
Gowe Street. This parking lot is seldom used and is rarely full. Visitors to the subject
property find it more convenient to park along the public streets rather than to use the
parking lot. It is not a hardship to use the parking lot when visiting the Qwest building,
unless the visitor was handicapped. Testimony of Damien Hooper, Paul Morford and
Brenda Ross (Verbatim Minutes AR-00011-00038); October 3, 2001, Hearing Examiner
Decision, Finding 6 (AR-00045); May 10, 2002, Hearing Examiner Decision on Remand,
Finding 8 (AR-00262).
46. There is no testimony or evidence in the record that Mr. Morford, the property owner, or
any of the tenants or residents of the Titus Mansion Apartments will not be able to “use”
the building, the apartments or any specific apartment unit after construction of the
second floor addition to the Qwest facility. There is no testimony or evidence in the
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 17
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
record that any tenant of the Titus Mansion Apartments will not be able to use their unit
for its intended purpose. There is no testimony or evidence in the record that the Titus
Mansion Apartments will not be able to be used for their intended purpose as apartments.
There is no testimony or evidence in the record that any of the present tenants of the Titus
Mansion Apartments will be displaced or will be forced to leave their unit as a result of
the Qwest second floor addition. There is no testimony or evidence in the record that
Qwest’s second floor addition or the increased level of use of that property will preclude
or in any way detrimentally impact the use of Mr. Morford’s Titus Mansion Apartments.
Record, generally; Staff Report, pp. 6-13 (AR-00061-00068); 10-3-01 Hearing Examiner
Decision, Findings 5-8 and Conclusions 1-8 (AR-00045-00049); May 10, 2002, Hearing
Examiner Decision on Remand, Findings 7-10, 12 and Conclusions 1-10 (AR-00261-
00269).
47. Impacts to the value of the Titus Mansion Apartment property are not the same as
impacts to the use of that property. The evidence and argument presented by Mr.
Morford in his appeals goes only to the issue of detrimental impacts to the value of his
property and does not go to or establish any detrimental impact to the use of that
property. The City’s CUP criteria upon which Mr. Morford’s appeals are predicated
relates to detriments to “uses, legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning
district.” KCC 15.09.030(D)(1). While construction of the second floor addition to the
Qwest facility might have an impact on the value of Mr. Morford’s Titus Mansion
Apartments, it will not be detrimental to the actual use of that property. There is nothing
about the Qwest CUP permit or building expansion which is or will be detrimental to
uses of his property or any other properties legally existing or permitted outright in the
DCE zoning district. Id.
48. The City Council finds that Mr. Morford’s appeal addresses only the first CUP criterion
in KCC 15.09.030(D), which requires that: “the proposed use in the proposed location
will not be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning
district.” KCC 15.09.030(D)(1). The City Council finds that Mr. Morford’s appeal does
not address, and is not based upon any of the other criterion for approval of a CUP as set
forth in KCC 15.09.030(D).
49. Mr. Morford’s appeal does not address, discuss or apply Section 7(b) of Resolution No.
896, that proceedings were materially affected by irregularities and procedure. The City
Council finds that Paul Morford did not produce any evidence or offer any argument to
establish or infer that the proceedings were materially affected by irregularities in
procedure at any of the prior Hearing Examiner hearings, pursuant to Resolution No. 896,
Section 7(b).
50. Mr. Morford’s appeal does not address, discuss or apply Section 7(d) of Resolution No.
896, that the Hearing Examiner’s decision is in conflict with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan. The City Council finds that Paul Morford did not produce any evidence or offer
any argument to establish or imply that any of the Hearing Examiner decisions were in
conflict with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in Resolution No. 896, Section
7(d).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 18
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
51. The City Council finds that Paul Morford, the appellant, did not meet his burden of
proving any one of the standards for reversal or remand as set forth in Section 7 of
Resolution No. 896 which would support a decision to reverse, remand or modify the
Hearing Examiner’s May 10, 2002, decision on remand.
52. The City Council has reviewed or is familiar with the records before the Hearing
Examiner as part of the Hearing Examiner’s October 3, 2001, and May 10, 2002,
decisions, and finds that the Hearing Examiner committed no error, either procedural or
substantive, and that there is no basis for Paul Morford’s appeal. The City Council
expressly finds that the findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision by the Hearing
Examiner in his October 3, 2001, and May 10, 2002, decisions are supported by the
record and by substantial evidence. All findings of fact set forth in the Hearing
Examiner’s October 3, 2001, and May 10, 2002, decisions are incorporated herein by this
reference, and are made a part of this decision as though fully set forth herein. Hearing
Examiner record, generally.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Kent City Council has jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal pursuant to Chapter
36.70B RCW, Resolution No. 896, KCC 12.01.040 (prior to Ordinance No. 3574) and
12.01.195.
2. This appeal by Paul Morford was timely filed, served and perfected pursuant to Chapter
36.70B RCW, Resolution No. 896, KCC 12.01.040 (prior to Ordinance No. 3574) and
12.01.195.
3. The City of Kent planning staff is a proper and necessary party to this appeal, per KCC
2.32.170.
4. This is a closed-record, quasi-judicial appeal, authorized by Chapter 36.70B RCW,
Resolution No. 896, KCC 12.01.040 (prior to Ordinance No. 3574) and 12.01.195.
5. All parties to this appeal were given timely and proper notice of the September 2, 2003,
appeal hearing date, the appeal hearing rules and all applicable closed-record appeal
procedures. No party objected to either the timing, the notices or the procedures
regarding the September 2, 2003, closed-record appeal hearing.
6. The City provided an appearance of fairness statement at the beginning of the September
2, 2003, closed-record appeal hearing, and there were no objections from any member of
the public nor any requests for any of the City Council decision makers to recuse
themselves for any reason. Accordingly, the City Council concludes that there was no
appearance of fairness violation, and any such claim is no longer timely and has been
waived.
7. The Mayor has authority to attend and consider this appeal and to review documents and
hear argument, but cannot vote on the appeal except in case of a tie. RCW 35A.12.100.
In this appeal, however, the Mayor did not vote or participate in any decision making
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 19
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
since the there was no tie (the vote was 5-1 to deny the Appeal and Affirm the Hearing
Examiner).
8. This appeal is limited solely to the issue of whether the Hearing Examiner, in his May 10,
2002, decision, committed error sufficient to meet one of the five criteria in Resolution
No. 896, §7 in evaluating and deciding the first criterion for a CUP, as set forth in KCC
15.09.030(D)(1).
9. There is no basis for any appeal of or challenge to any SEPA threshold determination or
other SEPA or environmental decision by the City of Kent, and no such appeal is
properly before the City Council.
10. There is no basis for an appeal of or challenge to any comprehensive plan or plan
amendment decision by the City of Kent, and no such appeal is before the City Council.
11. All conclusions of law set forth in the Hearing Examiner’s October 3, 2001, “Findings,
Conclusions and Decision,” and his May 10, 2002, “Findings, Conclusions and Decision
on remand are incorporated herein by this reference and are hereby made a part of this
decision as if fully set forth herein.
12. Pursuant to the August 7, 2003, letter from Michael Walter to counsel for the parties, the
parties were advised that they could submit new or additional evidence if it was
“information that could not have been placed on the record previously”, pursuant to KCC
§ 12.01.195 (A). No party submitted new or additional evidence prior to the September
2, 2003, closed record appeal hearing. No party sought to supplement the record through
any letter, motion or other request. Accordingly, the record consisted of those documents
and exhibits identified in the introduction section of this decision.
13. Pursuant to the August 7, 2003, letter from Michael Walter to counsel for the parties, and
following a request by counsel for Qwest, the parties were permitted to provide to the
City Council with written briefs prior to the closed record appeal hearing. Appellant Paul
Morford, through his counsel of record, submitted a brief on or about August 18, 2003,
entitled “Brief of Paul Morford on Appeal of Conditional Use Permit to West/Qwest.”
On or about August 18, 2003, counsel for Qwest submitted a brief entitled “Qwest’s
Memorandum in Opposition to Appeal of Paul Morford.” The City Council reviewed
and considered both briefs prior to, and as part of its decision on this appeal.
14. Notice of the open record hearings before the Hearing Examiner was properly posted,
properly published and properly mailed to the public and parties of interest in accordance
with Kent City Ordinances. No party challenged the notices or procedures for the open
record hearings before the Hearing Examiner and, therefore, notice is presumed proper
and valid, and any claims of defective notice are waived.
15. The City of Kent is the designated lead agency for review of environmental impacts
under SEPA relating to the CUP proposal by Qwest. The City’s SEPA official issued a
determination of non-significance (DNS) on or about August 9, 2001, which concluded
that there were no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with Qwest’s
proposal. The DNS was not appealed and, therefore, is final and binding.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 20
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
16. The City Council has taken judicial notice of the pleadings and other documents on file
with the King County Superior Court, Cause No. 02-2-13465-3 KNT, in the Writ and
LUPA action Paul Morford v. KDW, Inc., et. al., and is generally familiar with the issues
and decisions in that case.
17. The Appellant, Paul Morford, has the burden of proof on this appeal.
18. Resolution No. 896, §7 sets forth five alternative criteria to overturn or reverse a decision
by the Hearing Examiner on a closed-record appeal. The City Council can grant the
appeal and modify or reject the Hearing Examiner’s decision only if the Appellant Paul
Morford meets his burden of proving one or more of the following criteria:
a) There has been substantial error; or
b) The proceedings [before the Hearing Examiner] were materially affected
by irregularities in procedure; or
c) The decision of the Hearing Examiner was unsupported by material and
substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or
d) The decision of the Hearing Examiner is in conflict with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan; or
e) There was insufficient evidence presented as to the impact on the
surrounding area.
Resolution No. 896, §7.
19. Based on the record as a whole, the briefs of counsel for the parties, and argument by the
parties to this appeal, the City Council concludes that there was no substantial error by
the Hearing Examiner in approving Qwest’s application for a CUP in his May 10, 2002,
decision. Therefore, the Appellant Paul Morford has not satisfied his burden of proof to
reverse or reject the Hearing Examiner’s, May 10, 2002, decision, pursuant to §7 (a)
Resolution No. 896.
20. Based on the record as a whole, the briefs of counsel for the parties, and argument by the
parties to this appeal, the City Council concludes that there is no evidence or inference
from the evidence that the proceedings before the Hearing Examiner, at any of the
Hearing Examiner hearings, was materially effected by irregularities in procedure.
Therefore, the Appellant Paul Morford has not satisfied his burden of proof to reverse or
reject the Hearing Examiner’s, May 10, 2002, decision, pursuant to §7 (b) Resolution No.
896.
21. Based on the record as a whole, the briefs of counsel for the parties, and argument by the
parties to this appeal, the City Council concludes that the May 10, 2002, decision by the
Hearing Examiner on Qwest’s application for conditional use permit was clearly
supported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.
Therefore, the Appellant Paul Morford has not satisfied his burden of proof to reverse or
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 21
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
reject the Hearing Examiner’s May 10, 2002, decision, pursuant to §7 (c) Resolution No.
896.
22. Based on the record as a whole, the briefs of counsel for the parties, and argument by the
parties to this appeal, the City Council concludes that the Hearing Examiner’s May 10,
2002, decision is fully consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and current plan
amendments, and the decision does not conflict with the comprehensive plan or any plan
amendments. Therefore, the Appellant Paul Morford has not satisfied his burden of proof
to reverse or reject the Hearing Examiner’s May 10, 2002, decision, pursuant to §7 (d)
Resolution No. 896.
23. Based on the record as a whole, the briefs of counsel for the parties, and argument by the
parties to this appeal, the City Council concludes that there was sufficient evidence
presented to the Hearing Examiner regarding the impact of the approval of the
conditional use permit and the expansion (adding a second level) to the Qwest
telecommunications facility on surrounding areas, and that such evidence was duly and
fully considered by the Hearing Examiner and was taken into account in his May 10,
2002, decision. Therefore, the Appellant Paul Morford has not satisfied his burden of
proof to reverse or reject the Hearing Examiner’s May 10, 2002, decision, pursuant to §7
(e) Resolution No. 896.
24. Based on the record as a whole, the briefs of counsel for the parties, and argument by the
parties to this appeal, the City Council concludes the Hearing Examiner properly and
fully concluded that the alleged view blockage claimed by Appellant Morford was not a
legally sufficient basis for denial of Qwest’s application for a CUP in the DCE zone, a
zoning district with no set back requirements, no height limit and no view protection
ordinance. Therefore, the Appellant Paul Morford has not satisfied his burden of proof to
reverse or reject the Hearing Examiner’s May 10, 2002, decision.
25. The City Council concludes that the DCE zone has no height limitation on buildings and
no view protection or view regulation ordinance. Thus, the City Council concludes that
the DCE zone is best used for business development that is relatively unfettered by
regulations of buildings such as setbacks, height restrictions and view protections.
26. The City Council finds that the case of Hansen v. Chelan County, 81 Wn. App. 133
(1996) is applicable to the facts of this case and that the rule of law announced in that
case governs, in part, the Council’s determination of Mr. Morford’s appeal. The City
Council concludes that the effect of a proposed use on its neighbors will not support a
denial of a conditional use permit unless the effect is greater than that of uses permitted
without a conditional use permit. The Council concludes that Qwest’s proposed second-
story addition has fewer land use impacts, and less potential for view blockage, than uses
that are permitted outright in the DCE zone without a CUP.
27. The Land Use Tables in KCC 15.04 indicate that the uses permitted outright in the DCE
zone include uses such as multi-family townhouse units, multi-family dwellings, multi-
family dwellings for senior citizens, group homes, public facilities, fire houses, police
stations, libraries, primary and secondary schools, general merchandise, dry goods,
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 22
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
variety and department stores, professional service buildings, administrative and
professional offices, general municipal use and buildings, performing and cultural art
uses, auditoriums, exhibition halls, bowling alleys, skate rinks, community clubs, athletic
clubs, recreation centers and the like. The City Council concludes that the subject
property owned by Qwest is over ¾ acre and could easily accommodate many of these
permitted uses. Many of these structures could be built higher than Qwest’s
telecommunications facility with the second-story added on. Therefore, Qwest’s CUP
application for a second-floor addition to its Kent-Ulrich facility would create no land use
impacts greater than the impacts which could be expected from many of the
aforementioned (and other) permitted uses.
28. The basis for requiring a conditional use permit for the Kent-Ulrich facility was the
classification of the facility as a “utility” under KCC 15.08.030(b)(1). Even thought the
facility is technically classified as a “utility,” Qwest’s proposal is different from other
utility type facilities such as electrical substations, pumping or regulating devices, gas,
steam and other facilities because all of the utility equipment will be stored inside or
underground, and not even be visible from outside of the building.
29. Based on the record as a whole, the briefs of counsel for the parties, and argument by the
parties to this appeal, the City Council concludes that Qwest’s proposed conditional use
permit would not have any land use impacts beyond those of other uses permitted
outright within the DCE zone without a conditional use permit. Appellant Paul Morford
did not present any evidence that the effect of the proposed use by Qwest of its facility
with the additional floor on neighboring properties would have an effect greater on those
properties than uses permitted in this zone without a conditional use permit. Therefore,
Appellant Paul Morford has not satisfied his burden of proof to reverse or reject the
Hearing Examiner’s May 10, 2002, decision.
30. Although the Qwest CUP proposal may have some potential negative impact on Mr.
Morford’s Titus Mansion Apartments, there is no evidence in the record that such impact
effects the actual use of his apartments or the tenants’ use of individual units. According
to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Third Edition), “use”
means “to put into service or apply for a purpose; employ”, or “to avail oneself of;
practice, use.” According to Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition, 1990), “use” means
“to make use of; to convert to one’s service; to employ; to avail one’s self of; to utilize; to
carry out a purpose or action by means of; to put into action or service, especially to
obtain an end.” In the land use context, Black’s Law Dictionary defines use of property
as “its employment, occupation, exercise or practice.” Here, there is absolutely no
evidence in the record, nor is there any testimony or argument that Mr. Morford will not
be able to use his Titus Mansion Apartments; nor is there any evidence, testimony or
argument that any of the tenants in those apartments cannot “occupy” or otherwise make
use of those units as a result of adding a second floor to the Qwest telecommunications
facility.
31. While Mr. Morford argues that the second story addition will cause some financial or
value detriment to his apartment building, import to the value or profit from the building
is not synonymous with detrimental impacts to the actual use of the property. The City
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 23
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
Council expressly finds that Mr. Morford’s property can still be used for its intended
purposes with the Qwest CUP approval.
32. Furthermore, not withstanding the preceding conclusions that the Qwest second-story
addition will not in any way detrimentally impact the “use” of Mr. Morford’s property,
the City Council concludes that while the Qwest proposed second story may have some
negative impact on the Titus Mansion Apartments, it cannot be concluded that the impact
is “detrimental” such that the CUP application should be denied. The City Council
concludes that even if there is some loss of light or view caused by a second story
addition of the Qwest facility which may result in some reduction of the enjoyment of
Mr. Morford’s apartments (but not use), such reduction does not cause any “injury” to
any person or thing or any damage as commonly understood because existing zoning
would have permitted the same or greater impacts under allowed uses.
33. The City Council concludes that with the conditions approved by the Hearing Examiner,
traffic generated by the proposed (increased) use will not unduly burden in his decisions,
the traffic circulation system in the vicinity of the Qwest facility.
34. The City Council concludes that with the conditions of approval as set forth in the
Hearing Examiner’s May 10, 2002, decision, any potential impacts from the Qwest CUP
approval can be mitigated by conditions proposed by the staff and adopted by the Hearing
Examiner.
35. The Qwest proposal qualifies as “warehouse and storage” under KCC 15.05.040 because
the building would be used to store batteries and telecommunication networking devices.
Parking requirements for this type of use are one parking space for every 2000 square
feet, or 17 spaces total. KCC 15.05.030. The proposed addition of 17,000 square feet,
coupled with the existing building of 17,000 square feet, will require a total of 17 parking
spaces to meet the City Code. The proposed use of this facility is most closely associated
with warehousing and storage, not manufacturing, research, testing or other uses as
argued by Mr. Morford. The City Council concludes that the Qwest CUP proposal
complies with the parking requirements and will not cause any parking or traffic impacts.
36. Based on the record as a whole, the briefs of counsel for the parties, and argument by the
parties to this appeal, the City Council concludes that Qwest’s proposed CUP will not
require any additional employees at the facility, and will not create any new demand or
parking at the facility. The City Council concludes that Qwest’s proposed CUP complies
with parking requirements established by Kent City Code, and that the Examiner’s
findings that the proposed CUP complies with parking requirements is supported by
substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, the Appellant Paul Morford has not
satisfied his burden of proof to reverse or reject the Hearing Examiner’s May 10, 2002,
decision pursuant to § 7 of Resolution No. 896.
37. Based on the record as a whole, the briefs of counsel for the parties, and argument by the
parties to this appeal, the City Council concludes that Appellant Paul Morford has not
satisfied his burden of proof under Resolution No. 896 and KCC 12.01.195 on this
appeal, and that the appeal must be denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - 24
(Morford v. Quest – CUP, 206 S. State Street)
38. The City Council concludes that the Hearing Examiner did not err in his May 10, 2002,
decision, and that the Conditional Use Permit for the Kent-Ulrich facility as submitted
and approved by the Hearing Examiner on May 10, 2002, should be affirmed.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Kent
City Council makes the following:
DECISION
1. Appellant Paul Morford’s closed-record appeal is hereby DENIED.
2. The Hearing Examiner’s May 10, 2002, as well as his prior (October 3, 2001), decision is
hereby AFFIRMED.
3. The CUP proposal by Qwest as submitted to and decided by the Hearing Examiner on
October 3, 2001, and later affirmed in his May 10, 2002, decision is hereby APPROVED.
DECIDED this _____ day of October, 2003.
THE HONORABLE JUDY WOODS, PRESIDENT
KENT CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MICHAEL C. WALTER
SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE KENT CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\FILES\OpenFiles\0614\FinalFindingFactsConclusions-CLEAN.doc
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: MATRICULA CONSULAR IDENTIFICATION RESOLUTION –
ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. acknowledging
and recognizing the Mexican Consular Identification Card as a valid form of
identification for City services and recommending that private agencies and institutions
within the City also accept the card when doing so will not conflict with state or federal
law.
3. EXHIBITS: Resolution and memorandum
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6K
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 2003-2008 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
RESOLUTION – ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the 2003-2008 City of Kent Economic
Development Strategic Plan which sets forth a strategic economic agenda for the City
and its business and community partners. The plan builds on two of the City’s five
strategic goals: (1) a vibrant downtown and (2) a strong local economy.
The purpose of the plan is to articulate a set of measurable strategies for the City’s
future economic growth, to set a five-year workplan for the City’s Economic
Development Manager, and to serve as a marketing document for the City’s business
attraction, retention, expansion and investment efforts. The plan will provide focus and
direction for future resource allocation and decision making.
3. EXHIBITS: Resolution, strategic plan and technical appendix
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6L
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 2003 PC REPLACEMENT PLAN – AUTHORIZE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the purchase
orders for replacement computers and vendor services not to exceed $106,654 pending
City Attorney approval of contract documents.
The City has approximately 576 desktop computers on a 4-year replacement cycle.
This would mean replacing 144 computers this year. However, we are recommending
replacement of only 120 desktop computers due to budget constraints. This will
eliminate the City’s 120 oldest computers and maintain an adequate desktop computing
environment to operate the City’s business and productivity applications. The desktop
computers eliminated will be the 350 Mhz through 500 Mhz processor models.
This replacement does not include monitors. Monitors are purchased separately and are
replaced only as failures occur.
3. EXHIBITS: Memo from Interim I.T. Director Stan Waldrop; HP quote; and Goods
& Services agreement
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 9/16/03 (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $106,654
SOURCE OF FUNDS: 2003 CIP Computer Replacement Plan Budget
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6M
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CITY BEVERAGES SPONSORSHIP FOR SPOTLIGHT SERIES –
ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept the
$750.00 sponsorship from City Beverages in support of the Spotlight Series and amend
the Kent Arts Commission budget.
City Beverages will sponsor a portion of the “Spotlight on Arts” in-school educational
element of the Kent Arts Commission’s Spotlight Series of performing arts events in
2004. The total amount of $750.00 will be used to support the presentation of three
educational activities in Kent elementary and middle schools. The funds will offset the
expenses of producing an elementary school music assembly by chamber music duo,
The Chvatal Kritzer Duo and two “Science Circus” assemblies for elementary or
middle school students by juggler Rhys Thomas.
3. EXHIBITS: Commitment form and copy of check from City Beverage
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of $750.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: City Beverages
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6N
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 2004 WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION GRANT FOR
CANTERBURY FAIRE – ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept the
$6,000.00 grant from the Washington State Arts Commission in support of the
Canterbury Faire and amend the Kent Arts Commission's budget.
The Washington State Arts Commission (WSAC) has awarded the City of Kent Arts
Commission a grant in the amount of $6,000 for the second year of the 2003-2004
funding cycle. WSAC’s Organizational Support Program (OSP) provides funding
intended for general operating support. The Kent Arts Commission applies this funding
to production of the annual arts and heritage festival, Canterbury Faire. Funding for the
second year of the 2003-2004 cycle decreased from $7,500 in 2003 to $6,000 for 2004.
Due to the 20% cut in state funding to WSAC’s budget, OSP awards have been reduced
across the board by 20%.
3. EXHIBITS: Award letter and contract #2004100 from WSAC
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of $6,000.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Washington State Arts Commission
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6O
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT CIVIC PERFORMING ARTS BOARD SPONSORSHIP FOR
SPOTLIGHT SERIES – ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept
$5,000.00 sponsorship from Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center Board of Directors
in support of the 2003-2004 Spotlight Series and amend the Kent Arts Commission's
budget.
The Kent Civic & Performing Arts Center Board of Directors will sponsor a portion of
the 2003-2004 Spotlight Series of performing arts events. The total amount of $5,000
will be used to support one public performance and one educational outreach activity
by the “Mystical Arts of Tibet.”
3. EXHIBITS: Commitment form and copy of check from Kent Civic & Performing
Arts Board
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of $5,000.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center Board
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6P
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 2003-2004 WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION GRANT
FOR CANTERBURY FAIRE – ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept the
$7,500.00 grant from the Washington State Arts Commission and amend the
Canterbury Faire budget.
The Washington State Arts Commission (WSAC) awarded the Kent Arts Commission
an Organizational Support Grant in the amount of $7,500.00 for the first year of the
2003-2004 grant cycle. Funds will be used to support production of the 17th Annual
Canterbury Faire.
3. EXHIBITS: Contract #2003062 from the Washington State Arts Commission
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of $7,500.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Washington State Arts Commission
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6Q
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
GRANT FOR MORRILL MEADOWS PARK – ACCEPT AND
AMEND BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept the
$275,660.00 grant from the IAC in support of Morrill Meadows Park acquisition and
amend the Land Acquisition budget.
State budget appropriation awarded funds to Kent for Morrill Meadows Park Backhaus
Acquisition in the amount of $275,660. The funds will be used to acquire property
between Morrill Meadows Park and East Hill Park for park connectivity.
3. EXHIBITS: Agreement #02-1175A from the IAC
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of $275,660.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6R
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT DONATION
FOR THE WALKING GUIDE – ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept the
$2,000.00 from Seattle and King County Public Health Department in support of the
Walking Guide and amend the operating budget.
Parks and Graphics Department staff collaborated to develop a guide identifying
popular walking trails in the Kent area. Along with the guide, a video segment for
Inside Kent was produced and a web site was created and published. Seattle and King
County Public Health Department provided $2,000.00 for printing costs. The Graphics
Department was able to print 7,500 copies of the new Walking Guides. The guides
have been distributed to public locations and are available at no cost to the public.
3. EXHIBITS: 2003 Walking Guide for Council members
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of $2,000.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: King County Public Health Department
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6S
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
GRANT FOR VALLEY FLOOR COMMUNITY PARK – ACCEPT
AND AMEND BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept the
$216,750.43 grant from the IAC in support of the Valley Floor Community Park
acquisition and amend the Land Acquisition budget.
In 1998, the City submitted an Interagency for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) grant for
acquisition of the LDS property for the Valley Floor Community Park. The City grant
application was below the funding level, but a city ahead of Kent dropped out and the
IAC made a partial grant award to Kent. The award was originally approved and
accepted at Parks Committee 4/08/03 and City Council 4/15/03 in the amount of
$138,090.00. Since then, additional funds were allocated for this project in the amount
of $78,660.43, making the grant award a total of $216,750.43.
3. EXHIBITS: Agreement #99-1113A from the IAC
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of $216,750.43
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Interagency for Outdoor Recreation
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6T
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KING CONSERVATION DISTRICT GRANT FOR CAMPUS PARK
REFORESTATION PROJECT – ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept the
$950.00 grant from Conservation District Number 9 in support of the Campus Park
Reforestation Project and amend the Native Plants budget.
In 2002, the City received a grant from the WA State Department of Natural Resources
Urban Forestry for removal of diseased trees at Campus Park. Replacement cedar trees
were planted by Kent Meridian Key Club members with City staff in April 2003, as an
Arbor Day celebration event. The City submitted a reimbursable grant to King
Conservation District (KCD) for the 25 replacement trees.
3. EXHIBITS: Notification letter and agreement from King Conservation District
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of $950.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: King Conservation District
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6U
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: BUREAU OF JUSTICE FY2003 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
BLOCK GRANT – ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Bureau of Justice FY 2003 Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) and establish budget documents.
The City of Kent’s allocation for FY2003 is $52,912. The City’s required match equals
$5,879.00. The grant acceptance deadline is October 17, 2003. The acceptance is an
on-line process with the U.S. Dept. of Justice.
3. EXHIBITS: Copy of FY2003 LLEGB Award Approval Notification; summary of
proposed technology funding from the FY2003 LLEBG; and copy of Bureau of Justice
letter dated 7/25/2003
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 9/16/03
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Revenue of $58,791
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6V
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: STEWART ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (ZCA-2003-4)
ORDINANCE - ADOPT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. approving
#ZCA-2003-4 amending the nonconforming use regulations of the zoning code
regarding drive-up banking facilities in the Downtown Commercial zoning district, as
recommended by the Planning Committee and Land Use & Planning Board.
3. EXHIBITS: Staff Memo; Ordinance; Minutes of 8/19/03 Planning Committee
meeting and 7/28/03 LU&PB hearing; 7/21/03 LU&PB Staff Memo w/attachments
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee/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:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6W
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KINGSLEY GLEN MINOR PLAT ALTERATION – APPROVE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve Kingsley Glen Plat Alteration #PTA-2003-1
and authorize the Mayor to sign the revised plat mylar.
3. EXHIBITS: Staff Memo, Maps, Revised easement language, KCC 12.04.735(E),
7/07/03 memo and 7/30/03 letter from Soos Creek Water & Sewer District, 7/11/03
letter from Earth Consultants, Inc.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6X
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT ARTS COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS – CONFIRM
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor’s appointment of
Ms. Cass Brotherton to serve as a member of the Kent Arts Commission.
Ms. Brotherton is a Kent resident and has been active in the arts community. She is
looking forward to working with Commission members as they continue the excellent
programs, public art, education, cultural programs and festivals the Commission
promotes.
Ms. Brotherton will replace Carol Vass. Her new appointment will continue until
10/31/2007.
Confirmation of the re-appointment of Ms. Lilly Kato, Ms. Charlene Shaw, and
Mr. Greg Worthing to continue serving as members of the Kent Arts Commission.
Their new terms will continue until 10/31/2007.
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6Y
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 7, 2003
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DIVERSITY ADVISORY BOARD RE-APPOINTMENTS –
CONFIRM
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor’s re-appointments of
Ms. Joyce Drake, Ms. Charlene Shaw and Mr. Steven Kato to continue serving as
members of the Kent Diversity Advisory Board. Their new terms will continue until
9/30/2006.
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6Z
REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
D. PUBLIC WORKS
E. PLANNING COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
A) Property Acquisition
ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
A)