Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 01/04/2011
CITY OF KENT AgendaCity Council Meeting January 4, 2011 Mayor Suzette Cooke Jamie Perry, Council President r 4, C®uncilrnernbers Elizabeth Albertson Ron Harmon ,rr Dennis Higgins Deborah Ranniger Y SF f Debbie Raplee w„ Les Thomas homas C,-ry CLERK �r . KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS KENT January 4, 2011 W>_HI. �N Council Chambers MAYOR: Suzette Cooke COUNCILMEMBERS: Jamie Perry, President Elizabeth Albertson Ron Harmon Dennis Higgins Deborah Ranniger Debbie Raplee Les Thomas ********************************************************************** COUNCIL WORKSHOP CANCELLED ********************************************************************** COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC - Citizens may request that an item be added to the agenda at this time. Please stand or raise your hand to be recognized by the Mayor. 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition B. Community Events C. Pantera Lago Neighborhood Council Recognition D. Introduction of Appointees E. Economic Development Report 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of Previous Meeting - Approve B. Payment of Bills - Approve C. Pantera Lago Neighborhood Council Resolution - Adopt D. Zoning Text and Map Amendments, Downtown Commercial Enterprise Height Limits, Ordinance - Adopt E. Kangley Grove Short Plat Bill of Sale - Accept S. OTHER BUSINESS None 9. BIDS None (Continued) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED 10. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Property Negotiations 12. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Regional Library. The Agenda Summary page and complete packet are on the City of Kent web site at www.choosekent.com 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. N L m ro S D.O 0--o ma`s c3 ¢uv EE a� vw-% cow °-au 2 tw CVG _ ro3 � V -O> C a `4.'lEG1�O � CUroTU T o °c_°eov o � 5 ° oEmcm '= s> EasN � av .�. `2 J o u E av" °' u v v E • •-"�-6� A m�-o�c`v omo ?. eon uo �' � `oo o.� O i� C> a'u �a LFE-o oroO«, `m o n ociU ro�.E c� �� m `a Eca E ua000coti�Y E� JNyO3m _ • -° m'a °i L v� a J J-o :E roY N o E 3 o E'm E u ,m�o E _c ¢ b �QC 2iroo.� P� >o.Vro aom'cE 5 .2— UE v .gym W o ",y5 WWA EO EE A Z� Zro= v= � coroy o� co o n m U o a m o 0 ow�� uJ nd� sL.KEa'u�« `�' yEv mEU m v m Y a > >.�_L E E o m y o-a s o pc 0 , m" c E omu a - I c o o` er L `° y Ups so O Ep ro T mU OY UuN3M J coo ua-y, o � �= aU Nx o � UEro oa �� Eoo cc Coro a v >-.. o � u O 0Ec ON E a -- �E o N `-�a E�ii-- �n mLin aE-o o� µ� aLroLU �° roovL�'EE do'cc v m`F- v vurj mJ S � ° N N 2 0 a N U L«J, O p C N ul O L _ N L CO O U _ 2 C O W L C E U�+ J'J Y C U a H C i C T C U >` -� >. a~G aay. 0 �i. Y T° .TiVN x• Gma OS Cp v-6 IQJb E_JE N00O-6 U CmTiK C'O M TE 3 y > C F a y c=L= a 0 O,B N a H N m E c v m o-E oZ-0 3 U Es u v m m N E+' � v-o = L 3v- c ° • ._. o L Fo E I-«._ -D E E r -o > v-o E N y r o-c = m-L c a m:2 y d F p c � vE�Sn(pEGtroa> 0M �v-_�=acav=aao: > Occ Lva ..scpU amv° o o E o EroNoc._ EO O OE« `V E 'W F c�uE m�o L � roSYpOv Ha2 U t2UUUm LjiFU a N"a' b.•�°�nyE=NU L3y 2E`mo ya.m. U O.�� l�'o m L = •Zu d O W z Z J J ii i ro a rJ > 3 3 a Uoa by o `c, v �^i ® unite N '�Nn U V J b NO -O JO ro U O cD J V cC (� c L U Od C E -D _TQ 1 LL F J ry• .+T' O •N' f J m E W SyU m E m u'a a D a rJ E °. °c° 3 � -ac o Lrov` ,uo' ' rovro� o� c y ro oa ; u -ro EN ro« a Eci • .c m>,m= y J -69 Jo ` E 'tlro«:a • o f o o > e o ro c y m ro c m p v v m p' (')L._ N > •_ v No L� Nmuy s veeom roL � 3o c v¢ e._ vv ao�`-"' eo cw� 3 ovA oYNs m _ mp`-'vp aLv- Cv a Y L•B p .. a y._ ya „ U >c CVYNt ° roC I COUNCIL WORKSHOP CANCELLED 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) PUBLIC RECOGNITION B) COMMUNITY EVENTS C) PANTERA LAGO NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL RECOGNITION D) INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTEES E) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PUBLIC COMMENT Kent City Council Meeting Date January 4, 2011 Item No. 7A - 7B CONSENT CALENDAR 7. City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through E. Discussion Action 7A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of December 14, 2010. 7B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through November 15 and paid on November 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on December 7, 2010. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 11/15/10 Wire Transfers 4372-4390 $2,860,171.47 11/15/10 Regular Checks 648309-648762 3,236,186.50 Void Checks 648499 (38.20) Use Tax Payable 1,158.60 $6,097,478.37 Approval of payment of the bills received through November 30 and paid on November 30 after auditing by the Operations Committee on December 7, 2010. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 11/30/10 Wire Transfers 4391-4406 $2,241,169.01 11/30/10 Regular Checks 648763-649055 3,441,427.55 Use Tax Payable 286.98 $5,682,883.54 (continued on back) 7B. Approval of Bills. Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 1 through November 15 and paid on November 15, 2010: Date Check Numbers Amount 11/15/10 Checks 320573-320764 $ 140,606.27 11/15/10 Voids & Reissues 320568-320572 0.00 11/15/10 Advices 275525-276152 1,201,447.68 $1,342,053.95 Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 16 through November 30 and paid on November 30, 2010: Date Check Numbers Amount 11/30/10 Checks 320765-320931 $ 145,743.67 11/30/10 Advices 276153-276784 1,545,750.97 $1,691,494.64 Kent City Council Meeting KENT was �',.' December 14, 2010 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Cooke. Councilmembers present: Albertson, Harmon, Higgins, Perry, Ranniger, Raplee, and Thomas. (CFN-198) The Police Honor Guard presented the colors in honor of Police Chief Strachan, who is leaving the City. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA A. From Council, Administration. Staff. (CFN-198) No changes were made. B. From the Public. (CFN-198) No changes were made. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition. (CFN-198) There was no public recognition. B. Community Events. (CFN-198) Ranniger announced a free walking program called ShoWalk, which is held on Monday mornings at the ShoWare Center. C. Introduction of Appointees. (CFN-198) None of the appointees on the agenda for confirmation were in attendance. D. Public Safety Report. (CFN-122) Police Chief Strachan reported that an arrest has been made in the homicide of a City employee, and updated statistics for November. He described calls of note, and Mayor Cooke administered the Oath of Office to three new officers. She then read a proclamation honoring Chief Strachan, and Councilmembers commended the Chief on his many accomplishments at the City. CONSENT CALENDAR Perry moved to approve Consent Calendar Items A through W. Thomas seconded and the motion carried. A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) Minutes of the regular Council meeting of November 16, 2010, and a correction to the minutes of the regular Council meeting of November 2, 2010, by adding the following Consent Calendar item were approved: I. Farm House Bill of Sale. (CFN-484) The Bill of Sale for the Farm House project, permit #2083239, for 2 gate valves, 1 hydrant, and 20.5 linear feet of waterline, 1 catch basin, and 127 linear feet of storm sewer lines, was accepted. This item was approved at the November 2 meeting, but inadvertently omitted from the minutes. B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) Payment of the bills received through October 31 and paid on October 31 after auditing by the Operations Committee on November 16, 2010, were approved. 1 Kent City Council Minutes December 14, 2010 Checks issued for vouchers, were approved: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/31/10 Wire Transfers 4355-4371 $2,453,187.46 10/31/10 Regular Checks 647951-648308 2,714,071.35 Void Checks 648086 (50.00) Use Tax Payable 767.27 $5,167,976.08 Checks issued for payroll for October 16 through October 31 and paid on November 5, 2010, were approved: Date Check Numbers Amount 11/5/10 Checks 320365-320567 $ 164,006.67 11/5/10 Advices 274901-275524 1,173,031.48 $1,337,038.15 C. Uncollectible Account Write-Offs . (CFN-104) Write-offs of uncollectible accounts was authorized. The Municipal Court has maintained outstanding fines and fees from matters that they have handled for the period 1994 through 2000. The amount of these uncollectible accounts is $9,866,477.47. These accounts are past the period in which the City can enforce collections (10 years) and the collection agency cannot pursue collection efforts on them. D. Police Services Agreement with Kent School District. (CFN-122) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Police Services Agreement with the Kent School District in the amount of $20,000, establish the budget, and expend the funds in accordance with the Agreement. The Agreement provides a Kent Police Lieutenant or higher (Director) to the District for the purpose of assisting with communication and logistics between the two organizations relating to school safety. E. Liability Claims Third Party Administration Services Contract. (CFN-149) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Consultant Services Agreement in the amount of $48,500 for 2011, $48,500 for 2012, then $49,500 in 2013, with Carl Warren & Company, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the Risk Manager and City Attorney. F. 2010 Liability Insurance Coverage. (CFN-149) The Mayor was authorized to execute all necessary documents to obtain reinsurance policies for the City's calendar year 2011 Liability insurance program to provide approximately $20 million in coverage, with policy costs not to exceed designated 2011 budgets and with policies subject to approval of final terms and conditions by the City Attorney. G. Premera Blue Cross Administrative Services Contract. (CFN-149) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Premera Blue Cross 2011 administrative contract which reflects a 5.5% increase in administrative fees by Premera Blue Cross and is budgeted in the Health & Welfare fund, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable by the City Attorney. 2 Kent City Council Minutes December 14, 2010 H. Group Health Cooperative Contract. (CFN-149) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound Group Medical Coverage Agreement which reflects an approximate 11.2% increase in the health care premiums for a total amount of $452,915 and is budgeted in the health and welfare fund, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound is the City's insured health maintenance organization (HMO). I. Washinaton Dental Service Administrative Services Contract. (CFN-149) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Washington Dental Services 2011 Administra- tive Services Agreement which reflects a 5.5% increase in administrative fees for an annual cost of $56,605, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. The overall projected cost of the City's self-insured plan (inclusive of administrative fees) is approximately $1,040,050 and is budgeted in the Health & Wellness Fund. J. Government Relations Consulting Services Agreement. (CFN-1216) The Mayor was authorized to sign an agreement with Outcomes by Levy in the amount of $66,000, for lobbying services to be provided during 2011, and all acts consistent with the terms of the Agreement were ratified, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. K. Appointments and Reappointments. (CFN-174/997/873) The Mayor's appointments to the Land Use & Planning Board, Bicycle Advisory Board, and Human Services Commission were confirmed as follows: James Sturgul, Dana Ralph, Steve Dowell and Barbara Phillips to the Land Use and Planning Board. Stanley McKie , Mel Roberts, Bill Miller and Dr. Samuel Hartt to the Bicycle Advisory Board. Brett Hollis, Mike Heinisch and Bill Hallerman to the Human Services Commission. Broderick Phillips and David Watson as student representatives to the Human Services Commission. L. Second Supply Proiect Partnership Agreement Amendment No. 7. (CFN-1065) The Mayor was authorized to sign Amendment No. 7 to the Second Supply Project Agreement between the City of Tacoma, Department of Utilities, Water Division, the City of Kent, Covington Water District and Lakehaven Utility District, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. M. Second Supply Proiect Partnership Agreement Amendment No. S. (CFN-1065) The Mayor was authorized to sign Amendment No. 8 to the Second Supply Project Agreement between the City of Tacoma, Department of Utilities, Water Division, the City of Kent, Covington Water District and Lakehaven Utility District, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. N. 2010 Citywide Large Storm Sewer Pipe Maintenance. (CFN-1038) The 2010 Citywide Large Storm Sewer Pipe Maintenance project was accepted as complete and release of retainage to Ventilation Power Cleaning, upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens was authorized. The original contract amount was $611,772.84. The final contract amount was $620,224.78. 3 Kent City Council Minutes December 14, 2010 O. 2011 Water Treatment Chemical Contract with Cascade Columbia Distribution. (CFN-675) The Mayor was authorized to sign the 2011 Water Treatment Chemical Supply Agreement with Cascade Columbia Distribution in the amount of $41,628, for Sodium Fluoride and Potassium Permanganate, subject to terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. P. 2011 Water Treatment Chemical Contract with Eguachlor, Inc. (CFN-675) The Mayor was authorized to sign the 2011 Water Treatment Chemical Supply Agreement with Equachlor Inc., in the amount of $79,925, for 25% Sodium Hydroxide, subject to terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. Q. Biological Opinion Contract with ESA Adolfson. (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with ESA Adolfson for the National Flood Insurance Program Biological Opinion Compliance, in the amount of $47,600, subject to terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. R. Hawley Road Contract with Tetra Tech. (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with Tetra Tech for Peer Review of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) in the amount of $17,609, subject to terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. S. Green River Levee Certification Proiects Contract with Shannon & Wilson. (CFN-1318) The Mayor was authorized to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with Shannon and Wilson, Inc. for a Wetland Reconnaissance Survey, Wetland Delineation, Biological Assessment and Reports in the amount of $50,870, subject to terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. T. Green River Levee Certification Proiects Contract with Historical Research Associates. (CFN-1318) The Mayor was authorized to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with Historical Research Associates, Inc. for an Archeological Recon- naissance and Cultural Resources Survey and Report in the amount of $62,859, establish a budget to be spent within the Green River Levee Improvements Projects from River Mile 14.25 to 22.00, and authorize expenditure of the funds, subject to terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. U. Sophia Glenn Final Plat. (CFN-1272) The final plat mylar for Sophia Glenn was approved and the Mayor was authorized to sign the mylar. The Hearing Examiner recommended approval for the applicant, Pacific West Development, to subdivide approximately 13 acres into 57 single-family residential lots. The property is located between the SR 167 ("Valley Freeway") right of way and 92nd Avenue S, extending south from SE 202nd Street to SE 204th Street. V. S. 277th Corridor Interlocal Agreement for Valley Communications Fiber Optic Cable and Equipment. (CFN-122) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Auburn and Valley Communications Center for the installation and use of fiber optic cable and equipment on the South 277th corridor. Further, the Mayor was authorized to award the construction contract to the 4 Kent City Council Minutes December 14, 2010 lowest responsible bidder and to sign all necessary documents to implement the construction contract. W. Public Facilities District (PFD) Board Appointment. (CFN-1305) The Mayor's appointment of Randall Smith to the Kent Events Center Public Facilities District for an additional four-year term was confirmed. OTHER BUSINESS A. 2010 Property Tax Levy for 2011 Budget Ordinances. (CFN-104) The first proposed ordinance authorizes an increase in the regular property tax to 1% over the previous maximum allowed tax levy. The second proposed ordinance levies the tax for collection in 2011. Finance Director Nachlinger noted that this issue has been discussed at prior committee and Council meetings. Thomas moved to adopt Ordinance Nos. 3982 and 3983 authorizing an increase in the property tax levy and levying the property tax for collection in 2011. Harmon seconded and the motion carried. B. 2011 Operating Budget Ordinance. (CFN-186) The proposed ordinance adopts the 2011 Budget as summarized in Exhibit A. Thomas moved to adopt Ordinance No. 3984 adopting the 2011 Budget. Raplee seconded. Thomas, Raplee, Albertson, Higgins and Harmon each spoke in favor of the proposed budget; Perry and Ranniger each voiced opposition. Perry said her concern is with the creation of new positions and new projects during an economic downturn. Ranniger said she is concerned about the amount of money proposed for a study of wayside horns. The motion to adopt the ordinance then carried on a vote of 5-2, with Perry and Ranniger opposed. C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to include 2011-2016 Capital Improvement Plan Ordinance. (CFN-377/775/961) The proposed ordinance amends the Capital Facilities Element to include the City's Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2016. Thomas moved to adopt Ordinance No. 3985 amending the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the City's Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2016. Albertson seconded and the motion carried. D. Comprehensive Plan/Capital Facilities Element Amendment and Update to Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 Ordinances. (CFN-775/961/1000) The first proposed ordinance amends the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the amended Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent, Federal Way, and Auburn School Districts. The second proposed ordinance amends the school impact fee schedule contained in Section 12.13.160 of the Kent City Code to reflect changes in the Kent, Federal Way, and Auburn School Districts' Capital Facilities Plans. Thomas moved to adopt Ordinance No. 3986 amending the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the amended Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent, Federal Way, and Auburn School Districts; and to adopt Ordinance No. 3987 amending the school impact fees established in Section 12.13.160 of the Kent City Code to reflect changes in the Kent, Federal Way, and Auburn School Districts' Capital Facilities Plans. Albertson seconded and the motion carried. 5 Kent City Council Minutes December 14, 2010 BIDS A. Union Pacific Railroad at James Street, Non-Motorized Improvements. (CFN-113) The bid opening for this project was held on December 7, 2010, with six bids received. The low bid was submitted by Road Construction Northwest, Inc. Ken Langholz of the Public Works Department explained the project, including bike lanes, and recommended award to the low bidder. He answered questions regarding restrictions included in the grant, and proximity to the ShoWare marquee. Raplee then moved to award the contract for the Union Pacific Railroad at James Street, Non- Motorized Improvements to Road Construction Northwest, Inc., in the amount of $196,017.75 and to authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary contract documents, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. Harmon seconded and the motion carried. B. Carpet Purchase for Centennial Building, Third Floor Remodel. (CFN-1188) Parks Director Watling explained that funding is in the overall Centennial Building renovation project budget, and that the carpeting will be purchased off a City of Seattle Contract which went to Great Floors, which is located in Kent. He added that this project is related to annexation work space planning. Ranniger moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with Great Floors to purchase carpeting for the Centennial Building Third Floor Remodel project in the amount of $54,117.14, including Washington State Sales Tax. Albertson seconded and the motion carried. REPORTS A. Council President. (CFN-198) Perry announced that the Council will begin working on a strategic plan, and that she has been elected to the Suburban Cities Association Board of Directors. B. Mayor. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke spoke about the City's efforts to work with students regarding family support and career planning. She also said the King County Council adopted recommendations made by the City regarding regional transit. C. Operations Committee. (CFN-198) Thomas noted that there will not be another meeting in December. D. Parks and Human Services Committee. (CFN-198) Ranniger spoke about the Road Map to Success Education Results Conference she recently attended and how the City can participate in the successful education of students. E. Economic & Community Development Committee. (CFN-198) Perry announced that DCE height limits was recently discussed and will be coming forward to the full Council on January 4. She noted that transportation impact fees will be on the next committee agenda. F. Public Safety Committee. (CFN-198) No report was given. G. Public Works Committee. (CFN-198) Raplee noted that the December meeting has been cancelled and that the next meeting will be on January 3, 2011. 6 Kent City Council Minutes December 14, 2010 H. Administration. (CFN-198) Hodgson stated that there will be an Executive Session regarding property acquisition relating to storm water and levee improvements, with action anticipated when the regular meeting reconvenes, and said the Executive Session will take approximately 20 minutes. EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION Property Acquisition. (CFN-239) Hodgson explained the purpose of and funding for the property acquisitions discussed during the Executive Session. East Hill Operation Center. Raplee moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City of Kent and Floyd and Doris Lannoye, as well as any other documents necessary to complete the sale for the acquisition of Tax Lots 2122059099, 2122059122, and 2122059177, to be used as a detention pond site for the East Hill Operation Center within established budgets, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. Higgins seconded and the motion carried. Horseshoe Bend. Raplee moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City of Kent and Knudsen Properties, LLC, as well as any other documents necessary to complete the sale for the acquisition of Tax Lot 0006600030 for the Horseshoe Bend Levee construction project within established budgets, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. Higgins seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. (CFN-198) Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk 7 Kent City Council Meeting Date January 4, 2011 Category Consent Calendar — 7C 1. SUBJECT: PANTERA LAGO NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL RESOLUTION — ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Resolution No. recognizing Pantera Lago as a Neighborhood Council. Residents of this neighborhood have completed the process to establish a Neighborhood Council which provides an avenue for residents to work together to enhance the livability of their neighborhood. 3. EXHIBITS: Resolution 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Economic & Community Development Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes No 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Suzette Cooke, Mayor Phone: 253-856-5700 �IKENT Fax: 253 856 6700 WA S A IN°-0 N Add ress: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA. 98032-5895 December 7, 2010 To: Chair Jamie Perry and Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Toni Azzola, Neighborhood Program Coordinator Ref: Recognition of Neighborhood Council — Resolutions For Meeting of December 13, 2010 MOTION: Recommend Council adopt the proposed resolution which recognizes the Pantera Lago Neighborhood Council, supports its community building efforts, and confers all opportunities offered by the City's Neighborhood Program. SUMMARY: Pantera Lago neighborhood has completed the process to be recognized as a neighborhood council. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The City's Neighborhood Program is an initiative designed to foster better communication among residents in a geographic area and city government. The underlying objective of the program is to provide an avenue for residents to work together to enhance the livability of their neighborhoods. The program encourages organization of neighborhood councils, which serve as independent, non-profit organizations to promote resident-based efforts for neighborhood improvements while also establishing a partnership between City government and the neighborhoods it serves. i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, recognizing the Pantera Lago Neighborhood Council. RECITALS A. The City of Kent has developed a Neighborhood Program to promote and sustain an environment that responds to residents by building partnerships between the City and its residents. In addition, the City of Kent encourages residents to work together to form geographically distinct neighborhood councils as a means to foster communication among residents and to enhance their sense of community. B. The City of Kent recognizes and supports neighborhood councils by endorsing a process to establish neighborhood boundaries, approve neighborhood councils, and provide neighborhood grant matching program opportunities to make improvements in defined neighborhoods. C. The Pantera Lago neighborhood consists of one hundred and eighty-eight households occupying individually-owned lots for manufactured homes. The residents belong to the Pantera Lago Neighborhood Association and are bound by its covenants. 1 Pantera Lago Neighborhood Council D. The Pantera Lago Neighborhood is located on the East Hill and came into the City as part of the Panther Lake annexation area. The Neighborhood is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. It is legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein. E. On November 18, 2010, the Pantera Lago Neighborhood submitted an official registration form to request that the City recognize the Pantera Lago Neighborhood Council and to allow the Neighborhood to take part in the City's Neighborhood Program. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1, — Recognition of Neighborhood Council. — The City Council for the City of Kent hereby acknowledges the effort and commitment of the Pantera Lago neighborhood and all those who participated in forming the Pantera Lago Neighborhood Council. The Kent City Council hereby recognizes Pantera Lago as an official Neighborhood Council of the City of Kent, supports Pantera Lago community building efforts, and confers on the Pantera Lago Neighborhood Council all opportunities offered by the City's Neighborhood Program. SECTION 2, — Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. 2 Pantera Lago Neighborhood Council SECTION 3, — Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 4, — Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, this day of January, 2011. CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent this day of January, 2011. SUZETTE COOKE, 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 January, 2011. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 Pantera Lago Neighborhood Council Exhibit A sa,;r ".Ln_ r It w s i s %ii %//i j :;% NORuirr �! � ! MW MP �% /r �J/�!// ��r! ,r�/ o it /% U %/�///%�// f r/i%/ " r nnv 1/1 //r GAR r/ 'p %. / / y Key Pantera Lago Neighborhood E H©�„es Gras) s i Greenbelt Scaler�"=206' EXHIBIT B Parcel I Legal Description Lot 2, King County Short Plat Number 4810005 as recorded under King County recording No. 8110050652, records of King County, Washington, being a portion of the following described, to wit. The East 330.00 feet of that portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, lying South of S.E. 2041h Street, EXCEPT the West 7.00 feet of the North 150.00 feet, AND EXCEPT the East 135.00 feet of the North 141.00 feet in Section 05, Township 22 North, Range 05 East, W.M., in King County, Washington. Parcel II Legal Description Government Lot 7, in Section 05, Township 22 North, Range 05 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, EXCEPT the West 100.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of said Government Lot 7; AND EXCEPT the South 330.00 feet of the East 330.00 feet of the West 660.00 feet of said Government Lot 7; AND EXCEPT that portion described as follows, to wit Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said Section 05 with the North line Government Lot 7 produced Easterly; THENCE West along said produced line and said North line of Government Lot 7 a distance of 660.00 feet; THENCE South parallel with said East line 235.00 feet; THENCE East parallel to said North line 660.00 feet; THENCE North along said Section line 235.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPT the East 160.00 feet of the West 490.00 feet of the North 215.00 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT the North 30.00 feet and South 42.00 feet thereof for roads Kent City Council Meeting Date January 4, 2011 Category Consent Calendar — 7D 1. SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS, DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE HEIGHT LIMITS, ORDINANCE — ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. _ which amends the Downtown Design Review Guidelines; amends chapters 15.03, 15.04, and 15.09 of the Kent City Code; and creates a Downtown Commercial Enterprise - Transitional Overlay all to provide a transition between Single Family residential zoning districts and the Downtown Commercial Enterprise zoning district. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance and its referenced exhibits, Determination of Non- significance and Environmental Checklist Application Form 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Economic and Community Development Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the Downtown Design Review Guidelines; amending chapters 15.03, 15.04, and 15.09 of the Kent City Code; and creating a Downtown Commercial Enterprise - Transitional Overlay all relating to transition between Single Family residential zoning districts and the Downtown Commercial Enterprise zoning district. RECITALS A. The City of Kent (the "City") received a docket item requesting that the City's Downtown Commercial Enterprises (DCE) zoning district be amended to include a height restriction equivalent to the height limit in single-family residential zoning districts when a parcel zoned DCE is located within three hundred (300) feet of a parcel zoned single-family residential. B. The close proximity of DCE to Single-Family Residential raises issues regarding view protection, mixing of land uses, solar access impacts, and appropriate scale of development. Establishing a Downtown Commercial Enterprise - Transitional Overlay (DCE-T) within a portion of the DCE district addresses some of these concerns. The DCE-T would 1 DCE - Transitional Overlay include a height limit and mandatory, rather than optional, imposition of certain elements of the Downtown Design Review Guidelines. C. The City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) responsible official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on September 3, 2010. D. On June 24, 2010, notice requesting expedited review was received by the Washington State Department of Commerce. On October 6, 2010, the City was granted expedited review and was informed that it had met the Growth Management Act notice requirements under RCW 36.70A.106. E. Community meetings were held to consider this matter on February 10, 2010 and May 12, 2010. The Land Use & Planning Board held workshops on June 14, 2010, July 12, 2010, and August 23, 2010. The Board also held public hearings on July 26, 2010 and September 27, 2010 regarding this issue. The Economic & Community Development Committee considered this matter at its meetings on November 8, and December 13, 2010. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1, - Recitals Incorporated as Findings. The foregoing recitals are incorporated by this reference. SECTION 2, - Amendment. Section 15.03.010 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: 2 DCE - Transitional Overlay 15.03.010 DCE Downtown Commercial Enterprise District The purpose of this district is to encourage and promote higher density development and a variety and mixture of compatible retail, commercial, residential, civic, recreational, and service activities in the downtown area, to enhance the pedestrian-oriented character of the downtown, and to implement the goals and policies of the 1989 downtown plan, the Kent comprehensive plan, and the downtown strategic action plan. DCE-T Downtown Commercial Enterprise District Transitional Overlay Withinilt !eII)� nrtsnrpGnitteiciialll lntel �„ise.... �iistriict a tirainsiitiionall,! ..,,, �. ...... , , p , ....... . .1 , . .. ! , l: ! , :. , ,, l; ....gq!!; irut wi� iJncglay........2iiri. flts andp;,,,,,,,, , , ,l: . ,! . .. ...!!. .....t....l�.A...11,iit, t,iip,!n.....p.f ce.t..a Ii,!rig.....do..yna.!i]lo.,yna.!i].....d,e s..!!.oiru ireviiew elleirttneints. SECTION 3. - Amendment. Chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: 3 DCE - Transitional Overlay 15.04.190 Commercial and industrial zone development standards Zoning Districts o — — 0 0 e oIF IF IF E IF Fri Fri IF IF0 o F Fri o H — o u E E — U o E o F o o E o - F fn g U — — E d 8 Eo o o o U a ri - - a - E E - Co E 3 0 0 0 — z o 0 o U U E U e U o w cE a _ U - cE a 0 0 0 0 0 o a cd z U 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 � � � � � t9 Minimum lot area square feet or 10,000 10,0005,0005,00010,00010,00010,00010,0001 1 10,00020,00015,00010,0001 acre acres as noted sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft acre acre sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft (1) (66) (66) (66) Maximum site coverage.percent of 40% 40% 100%100%50% 50% 40% 30% 50% 60% 60% 65% 75% 40% 60% site Minimum yard requirements:feet Front yard 10 ft 15 ft (2) (3) 15 ft 15 ft 20 ft 25 ft 30 ft (5) (5) (6) (7) 15 ft (5) (4) (7) Side yard (8) (9) (2) (3) (10) (10) (10) (10) (11) (12) (12) (13) (14) 5 ft (12) (15) (16) Side yard on flanking street of comer (17) (17) (17) (18) 15 ft (17) lot Rearyard (8) 20 ft (2) (3) (19) (19) (19) (19) (20) (20) (21) (21) 5 ft (20) (2) (22) Yards,transitional conditions (23) (23) (24) (25) (23) Additional setbacks (26) (29) (29) (29) (27) (28) Height limitation in stones/notto 2 stry/35ft 3stry/ 4 (32) 2stry/ 2stry/ 2stry/ 3stry/ 2 2 2stry/ 2stry/ 2stry/ 3stry/ 2 stry/35 exceed in feet 40 ft stry/ 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 40 ft stry/ stry/ 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 40 ft ft (30) 60 ft (30) (30) (30) 35 ft 35 ft (35) (35) (37) (38) (35) (31) (33) (35) (34) Landscaping The landscaping requirements of Ch.1507 KCC shall apply. (52) (52) 1 (52) Outdoor storage (39) (39) (40) (40) (40) (42) (43) (43) (44) (45) (59) (43) (41) (41) (51) Signs The sign regulations of Ch.15 06 KCCshall apply. (60) Vehicle dnvathmugh,dnvain and (46) (46) (46) (46) (46) (46) service bays 1 (61) Loading areas (41) (41) (47) (47) (47)(48) (48) (48) (49) (51) Off street parking The off street parking requirements of Ch.1505 KCC shall apply. (57) (51) I-T (57) (57) (58) (58) (58) (57) (58) Additional standards (50) (36) (31) (31) (50) (50) (31) (36) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (56) (50) (50) (50) (56) (56) (36) (50) (56) (53) (53) (54) (54) (53) (62) (56) (56) (56) (50) (56) (54) (54) (55) (55) (54) (63) )67) (56) (55) (55) (56) (56) (55) (64) (56) (56) (56) (65) 4 DCE - Transitional Overlay 15.04.195 Commercial and industrial land use development standard conditions. 1. Minimum lot of record or five thousand (5,000) square feet, whichever is less. 2. None, except as required by landscaping, or if off-street parking is provided onsite. See the downtown design review criteria outlined in KCC 15.09.046. 3. No minimum setback is required. If a rear and/or side yard abuts a residential district, a twenty (20) foot rear and/or side yard setback may be required. See the downtown design review criteria outlined in KCC 15.09.046. See the downtown design review criteria outlined in KCC 15.09.046. 4. For properties abutting on West Valley Highway, the frontage on West Valley Highway shall be considered the front yard. 5. The minimum front yard setback shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street. This classification shall be determined by the city transportation engineer. The setbacks are as follows: a. Properties fronting on arterial and collector streets shall have a minimum setback of twenty (20) feet. b. Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a minimum setback of twenty (20) feet. 6. The minimum front yard setback shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street. This classification shall be determined by the city transportation engineer. The setbacks are as follows: a. Properties fronting on arterials and collector streets shall have a minimum setback of forty (40) feet. b. Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet. 5 DCE - Transitional Overlay 7. The front yard shall be ten (10) percent of the lot depth. Regardless of lot size, the yard depth need not be more than thirty-five (35) feet. S. No side or rear yard is required, except when abutting a district other than NCC, and then the yard shall be not less than five (5) feet in width, unless the abutting district or use is residential and then the yard shall be ten (10) feet in width and fully landscaped. 9. No side yard is required, except when abutting a more restrictive district, and then the side yard shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in width. 10. No side yard is required, except abutting a residential district, and then the side yard shall be twenty (20) feet minimum. 11. An aggregate side yard of thirty (30) feet shall be provided. A minimum of ten (10) feet shall be provided for each side yard. On a corner lot the side yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the property line. 12. The side yards shall have an aggregate width of ten (10) percent of the lot width, but the aggregate width need not be more than forty (40) feet. There shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet on each side. 13. The side yards shall have an aggregate width of ten (10) percent of the lot width, but the aggregate width need not be more than thirty (30) feet. There shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet on each side. 14. The side yards shall have an aggregate width of ten (10) percent of the lot width, but the aggregate width need not be more than twenty-five (25) feet. There shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet on each side. 15. A side yard of at least five (5) feet in depth shall be provided along the side property lines, except no side yard shall be required between adjacent properties where a common, shared driveway with a perpetual cross- access easement is provided to serve the adjoining properties. 16. Where a side yard abuts a residential district, a side yard of at least twenty (20) feet shall be provided. 6 DCE - Transitional Overlay 17. The minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street. This classification shall be determined by the city transportation engineer. The setbacks are as follows: a. Properties fronting on arterial and collector streets shall have a minimum setback of forty (40) feet. b. Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet. 18. The side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot shall be at least ten (10) percent of the lot width, unless the ten (10) percent figure would result in a side yard of greater than twenty (20) feet, in which case the side yard need not be more than twenty (20) feet. 19. No rear yard is required, except abutting a residential district, and then the rear yard shall be twenty (20) feet minimum. 20. No rear yard is required, except as may be required by other setback provisions of this section. 21. No rear yard is required, except as may be required by transitional conditions. 22. A rear yard of at least five (5) feet in depth shall be provided, except when a rear yard abuts a residential district, and then a rear yard of at least twenty (20) feet in depth shall be provided. 23. Transitional conditions shall exist when an industrial park M1 or MI-C district and 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 intervening use such as a river, freeway, railroad main line, major topographic differential, or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided. 7 DCE - Transitional Overlay 24. Transitional conditions shall exist when an M2 district adjoins a residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as a river, freeway, railway main line, major topographic differential, or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided. 25. Transitional conditions shall exist when an M3 district adjoins a residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as a river, railroad main line, major topographic differential, or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided. 26. Structures for feeding, housing, and care of animals shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line. 27. Transitional conditions shall exist when an MA district adjoins a residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as a river, railroad main line, major topographic differential, or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided. 8 DCE - Transitional Overlay 28. Industrial development in the MA district abutting the Green River, or Russell Road or Frager Road where such roads follow the river bank, shall be set back from the ordinary high-water mark of the river a minimum of two hundred (200) feet. Such setbacks are in accordance with the city comprehensive plan and are in accordance with the high quality of site development required for the industrial parks area of the city, which MA areas are designated to become in the city plan, and are in accordance with the state Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and shall be no more restrictive than, but as restrictive as, the Shoreline Management Act. 29. Development in the M1 or MI-C district and 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 state Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and shall be no more restrictive than, but as restrictive as, the Shoreline Management Act. 30. The planning manager shall be authorized to grant one (1) additional story in height, if during development plan review it is found that this additional story would not detract from the continuity of the area. More than one (1) additional story may be granted by the planning commission. 31. The downtown design review requirements of KCC 15.09.046 shall apply. 32. No maximum height limit is required, except for parcels located within a Downtown Commercial Enterprise-Transitional Overlay (DCE-T), where the height limit is th.1,ir;;V, ffinre ,! feet. See also the downtown design review criteria outlined in KCC 15.09.046. 33. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, there shall be added one (1) additional foot of yard for each additional foot of building height. 34. The planning manager shall be authorized to approve a height greater than four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, provided such height does not 9 DCE - Transitional Overlay 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. 35. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, there shall be added one (1) additional foot of yard for each one (1) foot of additional building height. The planning manager shall be authorized to approve one (1) additional story, provided such height does not detract from the continuity of the industrial area, and may impose such conditions as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibility with surrounding uses. Any additional height increase may be granted by the land use and planning board. 36. Design review for mixed use development is required as provided in KCC 15.09.045(E). 37. The height limitation is two (2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, there shall be added one (1) additional foot of yard for each two (2) feet of additional building height. The planning manager shall be authorized to approve one (1) additional story, provided such height does not detract from the continuity of the industrial area, and may impose such conditions as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibility with surrounding uses. Any additional height increases may be granted by the planning commission. 38. The height limitation is three (3) stories or forty (40) feet. An additional story or building height may be added, up to a maximum of five (5) stories or sixty (60) feet, with one (1) additional foot of building setback for every additional foot of building height over forty (40) feet. 39. Outdoor storage areas are prohibited. 40. Outdoor storage areas shall be fenced for security and public safety by a sight-obscuring fence unless it is determined through the development plan review that a sight-obscuring fence is not necessary. 10 DCE - Transitional Overlay 41. Any unfenced outdoor storage areas shall be paved with asphaltic concrete, cement, or equivalent material to be approved by the city engineer. 42. Outdoor storage (for industrial uses) shall be at the rear of a principally permitted structure and shall be completely fenced. 43. Outside storage or operations yards in the M1 or MI-C district and AG district shall be permitted only as accessory uses. Such uses are incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the property or structure. Outside storage or operations yards shall be confined to the area to the rear of the principal building or the rear two-thirds (2/3) of the property and reasonably screened from view from any property line by appropriate walls, fencing, earth mounds, or landscaping. Outside storage exceeding a height of fifteen (15) feet shall be so placed on the property as to not detract from the reasonably accepted appearance of the district. 44. Outside storage or operations yards shall be confined to the area to the rear of a line which is an extension of the front wall of the principal building, and shall be reasonably screened from view from any street by appropriate walls, fencing, earth mounds, or landscaping. 45. Outside storage or operations areas shall be fenced for security and public safety at the property line. 46. Wherever feasible, drive-up/drive-through facilities shall be accessed from the rear of a site and run along an interior lot line or building elevation. Landscaping, sufficient to soften the visual impact of vehicle stacking areas, may be required. 47. Loading areas must be located in such a manner that no loading, unloading, or maneuvering of trucks associated therewith takes place on public rights-of-way. 48. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street frontages as necessary to screen dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-way. Berms shall be a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches and a maximum of 11 DCE - Transitional Overlay forty-two (42) inches in height. Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to type III landscaping as described in KCC 15.07.050. 49. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street frontages as necessary to screen dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-way. Berms shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height. Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to type III landscaping described in KCC 15.07.050 pertaining to visual buffers. 50. Development plan approval is required as provided in KCC 15.09.010. 51. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street frontages as necessary to screen dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-way. Berms shall be a minimum of twenty (20) inches in height. Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to type III landscaping described in KCC 15.07.050 pertaining to visual buffers. 52. Where building walls face adjacent streets and are unfenestrated for more than forty (40) feet at any point along the facade, additional landscaping shall be required to reduce visual impacts. In such circumstances, type II landscaping, as defined in KCC 15.07.050, shall be required; provided, that evergreen trees shall be at least ten (10) feet in height and deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two (2) inch caliper at the time of planting. 53. Predominant activities and operations shall be completely enclosed within buildings or structures, except for customary appurtenances such as loading and unloading areas, or where special conditions exist as a result of a conditional use public hearing. The planning manager shall be authorized to determine the reasonable application of this provision in cases of operational hardship or other showing of uncommon circumstances. 54. Multitenant buildings shall be permitted. 55. All required yards, parking areas, storage areas, operations yards, and other open uses on the site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner appropriate for the district at all times. The planning manager 12 DCE - Transitional Overlay shall be authorized to reasonably pursue the enforcement of this subsection where a use is in violation, and to notify the owner or operator of the use in writing of such noncompliance. The property owner or operator of the use shall be given a reasonable length of time to correct the condition. 56. The performance standards as provided in KCC 15.08.050 shall apply. 57. Off-street parking may be located in required yards except in areas required to be landscaped. 58. Those areas not required to be landscaped may be used for off-street parking. 59. Outdoor storage is allowed only as an accessory use to small scale, light industrial, or manufacturing operations where the building, structure, or total operation, including all indoor and outdoor storage areas, does not encompass more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of total area. 60. Signage on commercial uses in the MI-C zone shall be as specified in KCC 15.06.050(B). Signage on industrial uses in the MI-C zone shall be as specified in KCC 15.06.050(E). 61. Any eating establishment with a drive-through/drive-in facility shall be located a minimum of one thousand (1,000) feet from any other restaurant with a drive-through/drive-in facility. 62. Parking should be located either next to or behind the building. Parking should not be placed between the street and the building. 63. A direct pedestrian connection shall be provided from the street to the building. 64. Screening by either an enclosure and/or evergreen landscaping shall be provided for mechanical equipment, service doors, and garbage areas. Rooftop equipment shall be enclosed with a parapet or similar design feature. 65. Structures shall be designed to maintain the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Modulating the building mass, adding 13 DCE - Transitional Overlay dormer windows, covered entryways, or porches are ways to enhance the human scale and provide a residential dimension to structures. 66. Minimum lot area requirements do not apply to multifamily development in the Kent downtown planning area identified in KCC 15.09.046. 67. .CdiitlYuiiiru th.e Downtown Commercial Enterprise-Transitional Overlay iPCIl;;;..:::::.11 ir q..l np..!C:...-E.22.1C:. not tz,�tiioiruall elleittneiruts. SECTION 4. - Amendment. Section 15.09.046 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: 15.09.046 Downtown design review. D. Downtown design guidelines - Adoption. The downtown design review committee shall use the downtown design guidelines in the evaluation and/or conditioning of applications under the downtown design review process. The downtown design guidelines, entitled "Kent Downtown Design Guidelines," initially prepared by the city of Kent planning services in collaboration with MAKERS, Architecture and Urban Design and Mark Hinshaw of LMN Architecture, dated September 19, 2000, and subsequent amendments thereto are hereby adopted by this reference as authorized pursuant to RCW 35A.12.140 and shall be placed on file in the offices of the city clerk and planning services. SECTION S. - Amendment. The Downtown Design Review Guidelines are amended as provided in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein. SECTION 6. - Adopt. The Zoning District Map designation for the Downtown Commercial Enterprise District Transitional Overlay (DCE-T) is 14 DCE - Transitional Overlay established within a portion of the Downtown Commercial Enterprise District as shown on Exhibit B attached and incorporated herein. SECTION 7, - Savings. The existing Chapters 15.03, 15.04, and 15.09 of the Kent City Code; the Downtown Design Review Guidelines; and the Zoning District Map, which are amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION S. - Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 9, - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. SECTION 10. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 15 DCE - Transitional Overlay APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 20. APPROVED: day of 20. PUBLISHED: day of 20. 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\DCE Height Limits Ordinance.docx 16 DCE - Transitional Overlay Exhibit A Downtown Design Review Guidelines Amendments III. Building Design B. Human Scale and Pedestrian Orientation Intent: To encourage buildings that are "comfortable" by relating building elements to human scale. Guidelines: 1. Incorporate human scale building elements: All new buildings and major exterior remodels must employ at least three of the following elements or techniques to achieve "human scale". If a proposed building is 3 stories or more than 100 feet wide as measured along any visible facade facing a street, then the design shall use at least four of the listed elements. If a proposed building lot is within the Downtown Commercial Enterprise-Transitional Overlay (DCE- T), then (a) and (g) are required and may be counted toward the minimum of four design elements used. a. Balconies or decks in upper stories; at least one balcony or deck per upper floor on the facades facing streets. To qualify, balconies must be at least 6 feet deep and 10 feet wide. b. Bay windows that extend out from the building face. c. Individual windows, generally less than 32 square feet per pane and separated from other windows by at least a 6 inch molding. d. A gable or hipped roof, providing that the hipped or gabled roof covers at least one half of the building's footprint and has a slope greater or equal to 3 feet vertical in 12 feet horizontal. e. A porch or covered entry. f. Building elements that define a sheltering space such as a trellis, overhang, canopy or other. 17 DCE - Transitional Overlay g. Upper story setbacks, providing that one or more of the upper stories is set back at least 6 feet. h. Smaller symmetrical building elements near the entry or pedestrian oriented street fronts of large buildings. (See "Axial Symmetry" in the Definitions section of this document). i. Other design methods proposed by the project applicant subject to approval by the City. The proposed methods must satisfy the intent of human scale and pedestrian orientation. III. Building Design C. Architectural Scale Intent: To encourage new development compatible with the existing building scale and character of downtown Kent. Guidelines: 1. Scale of large buildings: To achieve an architectural scale consistent with existing structures in downtown Kent, proponents of new buildings over three stories, or over 10,000 square feet in gross building footprint, must provide design elements to reduce the appearance of bulk. Provide at least two of the following features on facades visible from public rights-of-way and pedestrian routes and entries-. If a proposed building lot is within the Downtown Commercial Enterprise-Transitional Overlay (DCE-T), then (a) and (b) are required: a. Upper floor setback - To reduce the perception of bulk, one or more upper stories must be set back from the ground floor at least 10 feet. b. Horizontal Building Modulation - The stepping back or projecting forward of portions of a building facade within specified intervals of a building width and depth lessens the apparent bulk of the exterior wall of the structure. Buildings within 400 feet of a public right- of-way or park and/or visible from that right-of-way or park shall meet the following design standards: 18 DCE - Transitional Overlay (1) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building exterior) without building modulation shall be 100 feet. (2) The minimum depth of modulation shall be 6 feet. (3) Balconies may be considered building modulation if each individual balcony has a floor area of 100 square feet. c. Modulated roof line - To further reduce the scale of large buildings, the rooflines shall be modulated according to one or more of the following standards: (1) For flat roofs or facades with a horizontal eave, fascia, or parapet, change the roofline so that no unmodulated segment of roof exceeds 100 feet, measured horizontally. (2) Provide gable, hipped or shed roofs with a slope of at least 3 feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal. (3) Other roof forms such as arched, vaulted, dormer or saw-toothed may satisfy this regulation if the individual segments of the roof without a change in slope or discontinuity are less than 100 feet in width. d. Building articulation with design elements such as the following, providing the interval does not exceed 100 feet: (1) Repeat distinctive window patterns at intervals equal to the articulation interval. (2) Provide a porch, patio, deck, or covered entry for each interval. (3) Provide a balcony or bay window for each interval. 19 DCE - Transitional Overlay (4) Change the roofline by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables, or other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval. (5) Change materials or colors with a change in building plane. (6) Provide a lighting fixture, trellis, tree or other landscape feature within each interval. e. Clustering of smaller uses and activities around entrances on street-facing facades. f. Massing of substantial landscaping and/or pedestrian oriented open spaces along the building facade. g. A pedestrian pass-through that would access the rear of the lot through buildings over 200 feet in length. h. Other design methods proposed by the project applicant subject to approval by the City. The proposed methods must satisfy the intent of the design principles in this section. 20 DCE - Transitional Overlay Exhibit B A�-2-� Z L f„�, '.��a��fn� f J . y d � �° t+x'' ��LU� tl�A{�W"7�r��i'.�•e tJ w A l l aa'usy a 'i P Ah � � L n .s...•—m� cenmaY ntl s > C l7J �J�ail t W ll - a, rn A 6 fr n n �_ _ IarNAVN _ FWMW LS Wire' N 0 F—J °` ) m Jason AV NLWJJ EIT ', VS r o F�SPec _ fi I l l T11 mintl Aw� �m I mo I� A � aael vA N m IT _ nwo� nv 21 DCE - Transitional Overlay Planning Services Location: 400 W. Gowe � Mail to: 220 4`"Avenue South < Kent WA 98032-5895 Permit Center(253-856-5302 FAX: (253) 856-6412 www.ci.kent.wa.uslpermitcenter WCENT WASH IN OTC N RECEIVED Environmental Checklist JUL 27 2W Application Form Public Notice Board and CITY OF KENT Application Fee...See Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICES we qh1" l-�m�� Gr�� i � TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: APPLICATION #: C' ,9010-o2. KIVA#: i P��D-ZC �JLIS�J RECEIVED BY:492 �4*TE: 7 `a1 tU PROCESSING FEE: Sff, Cf)q- 200'3-5- A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT: V C)&- zLoa 2- Meets the categorically exempt criteria. P ' - zoo(?-I Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact($). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. Signature of Responsible Official Date B. COMMENTS: DICE HEIGHT LIMITS ENV-2010-21 CPA-2009-51C PZ-2009-2 RPP6-2093453 (William Osborne, Planner) _ C. TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTED: Comprehensive Plan Amendment !Zoning Code Amendment D. ZONING DISTRICT: Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE)Zoning District City of Kent Planning Se Cites ( - Environmental Checklist— Page 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1 Name of Project: Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE)Zoning District Building Height Limits 2. Name of Applicant: City of Kent Planning Services Office Mailing Address: 220 41h Avenue South Kent WA 98032 Contact Person: William D. Osborne, AICP, Planner Telephone: (253) 856-5437 (Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above.) 3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other):_City of Kent Planning Services 4. Name of Legal Owner: N/A Telephone: Mailing Address: N/A' 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and range). Areas with Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE)Zoning District Map designations that are located within 300 ft. of single-family residential zoning districts -- See attached map. 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet): N/A b. Tax identification number: N/A 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements,size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet). The areas are characterized by urban development, gentle slope, and a variety of geologically and hydrologically sensitive areas, including Mill Creek, wetlands, and ravines. 8. Site Area: 37.65 acres(0,059 sq. miles) Site Dimensions: see attachedmap City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist- Page 3 9. Proiect description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): This project proposes to amend the City of Kent Zoning Districts Map to include designations for Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) Zoning District designated property located within 300 ft.of single-family residential zonedproperties. Theoptions described below feature zoning district designations that may include Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling unit per acre(MR-T16),General Commercial(GC)and a proposed Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE-7) Transitional Overlay. Option 1 (Johnson Proposal Apply 300 ft. Single-Family Residential Buffer): Place a single-family residential height restriction(35 ft.) on DCE zoned parcels within 300 feet of any single-family residential zoned parcel. No change or restrictions on specific land uses are proposed. Option 2 (Change Zoning to MR-T16): Adopt a Multifamily;Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling unit per acre(MR-T16)Zoning District designation for any DCE parcel having a portion of its area located within 300 feet of a parcel zoned as single-family residential. This option would significantly reduce the available height for new development in the Urban Center adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods (30 ft., five feet less than single-family residential),as well as restrict the permitted land use to condominium dwellings. As the MR-T zones are permitted within the Urban Center(UC) Land Use Map designation, no amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use ,Map would be necessary. Option 3 (Change Zoning to GC):Adopt a-General Commercial(GC) Zoning District for any DCE parcel having a portion of its area located within 300 feet of a parcel zoned as single-family residential. This option would significantly reduce the available height for new development in the Urban Center adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods (35 ft., same as single-family residential, with possible allowances for additional stories). A change to GC would also create a different set of permitted land uses and expectations of site planning to include automobile-oriented uses. Such uses are generally not consistent with Urban Center policies, and have been restricted in the past to Central Avenue. However,as the GC Zoning District is permitted within the Urban Center(UC)Land Use Map designation,no amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map would be required. Option 4(Amend DCE Heights in Designated Transitional OverlayAreas(DCE-7)Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zones with Upper Floor Setbacks Similar to SeaTac): Create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District (DCE-7) covering a full- block (300 feet or more in depth) in which a discrete building height would be set for whole parcels-four stories(50 feet). Furthermore, when adjacent to or abutting single- family residential zones, DCE-T parcels would be subject to an upper floor setback requirement similar to SeaTac Municipal Code, Section 15.35.350(A)(1). A maximum building height of 35 feet would be applied within 50 feet distance from the zoning boundary(whether the adjacent street centerline or lot line),inclusive of any ground-level rear or side yard setback. City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist- Page 4 Option 4b(Amend DCE Heights as described in Option 4,Except Ground and Upper Floor Setbacks determined only from lot lines; not street centerlines): A version of Option 4 suggested by the Mill Creek Neighborhood Council. Option 4b would have front yard setbacks at ground and upper floor levels measured from lot lines rather than the zoning district boundary-typically the centerline of the adjacent street(includes entire right-of- way). This would increase the distance between a building frontage and the back of sidewalk by a minimum of 20 feet from Option 4. If measured from the lot line, the upper floor stepback depth would be increased by half the width of the adjacent right-of-way. Option 5(Amend DCE Heights in Designated Transitional OverlayAreas(DCE-7)Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zones with Enhanced Downtown Design Review Requirements): Create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District (DCE-7) covering a full-block (300 feet or more in depth) in which a discrete building height would beset for whole parcels-four stories(50 feet). In addition,an enhancement of the existing Downtown Design Review Guidelines would require balconies and/or upper floor setbacks currently written in Sections III.B and III.C. as optional. This requirement would address bulk modulation rather than prescribed upper floorsetbacks featured in Options 4a and 4b. Option 6 (Amend DCE Heights for Depth of 300 Feet from Adjacent Single-Family Residential Zones within Designated Transitional Overlay Areas (DCE-7) - Railroad Avenue Excluded): Create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District (DCE-7)covering approximately a full-block(300 feet or more)in depth where adjacent to single-family residential zones. This overlay would clearly identify affected parcels on the Zoning Districts Map, and code text would be amended to include DCE-T regulations. These regulations would provide a discrete building height of four stories(50 feet)and would be set for a depth of 300 feet. Beyond that distance from adjacent single-family residential zones, the general development standards of DCE would apply. As with Option 5, an enhancement of the existing Downtown Design Review Guidelines would require balconies and/or upper floorsetbacks currently written in Sections 111.E and III.C. as optional. " Option 7(Amend Single-Family Residential Zoning within Buffer from DCEZoning District (Daoura Proposal)): proposes that areas be rezoned to Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units per acre (MR-T16) within 'a buffer of 200 or 300 feet extending from the DCE Zoning District into adjacent single-family residential zones. Option 8(Remove Mili Creek Middle School property from DCE/Urban Center): suggested that the UrbanCenter designation be withdrawn to Central Avenue from its current boundary. Options 7and 8 would require Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendments as well as rezones for areas located outside of the scope of the present project-and therefore are not considered further at this time, - 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule(include phasing and construction dates, if possible). City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist- Page 5 Public Nearing held by the City of Kent Land Use & Planning Board on July 26, 2010 Kent City Council consideration in August or September 2010 Adoption of ordinances in October 2010 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The City anticipates revising the Downtown Strategic Action Plan(DSAP) within the next year or two. In future planning efforts, other areas of the City designated for commercial development may receive similar consideration for impacts on adjacent single-family residential zones. 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local,state,federal, or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. DATE AGENCY PERMIT TYPE SUBMITTED* NUMBER STATUS** *Leave blank if not submitted **Approved, denied or pending I& Environmental Information: List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) Draft& Final SETS City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS Drainage Master Plan (DMP) 14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None at this time. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 6 AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat; rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The area has a variety of topographic features, including flat, rolling, hilly, and steep slopes. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Some steep slopes (adjacent to the Urban Center) exceed 40 percent. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gavel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to G/S data acquired through King County, the soils in the area include the Alderwood Series (AgC, AkF), Arents/Alderwood Material(AmC), Norma Series (No), and Urban Land(Ur). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. A number of areas have been identified as having unstable soils— with susceptibility to erosion, landslide and seismic activity. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Generally, the area designated DCE is already developed for urban uses. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. Any clearing and construction activities would be controlled at the City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 7 AGENCY USE ONLY development stage for projects. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? _ If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Generally, a decrease in capacity for future development is anticipated resulting from the proposed map designation amendment Development projects would likely contribute dust, odors,and vehicular emissions at various levels depending on the stage of completion. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known at present. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Separately from this proposal, the City is considering regulatory amendments to comply with State laws regarding permitting the location of electric vehicle charging stations. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There are several wetlands and culverts associated with Mill Creek. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to(within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Some future development projects may approach the described waters. The Critical Areas Ordinance regulates activities,including development, with regards to appropriate proximity buffers. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate City of Kent Planning Services '( EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 8 AGENCY USE ONLY the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Any development activities would be required to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts ; depending !on detailed delineations submitted with project applications. Specific information required foran estimate is unknown at this time. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals ordiversions? Give general description, purpose;and approximate quantities, if known. Not known at this time. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Some of the area lies within the 100-year floodplain. if new construction or substantial redevelopment is proposed, the requirements of Kent City Code 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations would be applied. This wi0 govern any construction or modification within floodplain, floodways, or areas of special flood hazard. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not known at this time. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description;- purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Not known at this time. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources,if any(for example: domestic , sewage; industrial, containing, the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s), are expected to serve. The area is within the City of Kent Sewer Utility service area. Specific impacts are not known at this time, but some pre- existing facilities would be updated. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 9 AGENCY USE ONLY c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and method of collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Construction activities and resulting structures may contribute directly or indirectly to runoff. Such projects and related storm water system improvements will be subject to City of Kent Surface Wafer Design Manual standards. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff < water impacts, if any: Not applicable. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _xDeciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other: pacific willow, cotton_wood, birch _x_Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _x_Shrubs: red elderberry, salmonberrv, vine maple _x_Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _x_Other types of vegetation: himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, scotch broom b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not known at this time. Removal of trees prior to development permit application approval is regulated by Kent City Code. City of Kent Planning Services ,� ( EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 10 AGENCY USE ONLY c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known at this time. Habitat conservation plans are required by Kent City Code and State law. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,if any: The use of native species in replacement planting is regulated by Kent City Code. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: robin, crow; seagull, swallow, sparrow, thrush, warbler Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: coyote, possum, rabbit, rat, raccoon, vole Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: frog, snake b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Bald Eagle. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, salmon & trout migration. Also migratory birds likely use wetland and stream areas. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The Drainage Master Plan (DMP) contains proposed flood management and habitat restoration project north of James Street along Mill Creek. 6. Eneray and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas, oil; wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Projects constructed in the area would primarily use electric and natural gas energy. Home heating fuels in the coldest months might include oil or wood City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 11 AGENCY USE ONLY b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Several of the proposals considered would increase the potential use of solar energy by adjacent single-family residential properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: All projects constructed will be required to comply with the Washington State Energy Code.° 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion,spill, or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None known. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None known. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None at this time. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Traffic along arterials, freight truck air brakes, emergency response vehicle sirens, typical noises associated with landscape maintenance. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis(for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term construction noise for projects constructed. In the long-term, traffic noise might increase. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: City of Kent Planning Services C' ( EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 12 AGENCY USE ONLY None at this time. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current land use within the subject area of=DCE Zoning is predominantly single-family residential (near 40%) with some commercial,public/utility and multi-family residential use(near30%) rounded out by a substantial amount of property identified as vacant or in parking lot use (near 3011o). The area is served by Mil! Creek Middle School, the Kent SeniorActivity Center, the Mill Creek Canyon/Earthworks Park, and a few commercial retail strips along Central Avenue and Smith Street. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describer Not in the recent past. c. Describe any structures on the site. A wide variety of civic,residential,commercial and utility structures exist within the area. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not at this time. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Urban Center(UC). g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive area? If so, specify. Some areas have been identified as being prone to soil instability and flood hazard. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed i City of Kent.Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 13 AGENCY USE ONLY project? The proposals considered would likely reduce the number of housing units and jobs from figures recently calculated as part of the Comprehensive Plan EIS update. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None at this time. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None at this time. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Several of the options are generally consistent with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP). Options 5 and 6 address adjacency to single-family residential neighborhoods with a discrete height limit of 4 stories and reduction of apparent upper-level bulk through design review requirements, while allowing for the feasible development of mixed- use consistent with the purpose of DCE Zoning. Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4b may considered incompatible with existing land use plans for the following reasons: 1. the extent of reduced building height; 2. front yard setbacks; 3. extensive upper-floor setbacks; and 4. limitation on mixed-use. Option 1:Incompatible for Reason 1. Option 2:Incompatible for Reasons 1,'2 and 4. Option 3:Incompatible for Reasons 1, 2 and 4. Option 4:incompatible for Reasons 2 and 3. Option 4b:Incompatible for Reasons 2 and 3 Whether taken separately or in combination, the four provisions considered in Options 1, Z 3 and 4 effectively restrict an area of the Urban Center designated for higher-intensity mixed-use to a greater extent than for lo wer-in tensity commercial lands located adjacent to single-family residential zones elsewhere in the City. While establishing limits would be supportable where commercial use or mixed-use is adjacent to single-family residential zones, establishing limits of greater magnitude in the Urban Center than elsewhere would be inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Housing City of Kent Planning Services ( �` EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 14 AGENCY USE ONLY a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. Not yet known — but in setting a height limit, a reduction from - numbers generated in previous growth forecasts could be reasonably expected. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None at this time. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including: antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?, The DCE Zoning District has no height limit at present,but a limit of up to 50 ft. (4 levels) has been proposed where properties are adjacent to single-family residential zoned parcels. - Selection of building materials may be reviewed during Downtown Design Review for specific development projects. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Establishing a specific allowed DCE building height within 300 ft. proximity to single-family residential zones would reduce impacts on views claimed by single-family residential neighbors. Claimed views are not necessarily recognized in Kent City Code as being the same as having a "View,""View, Property, orappropriateregulatory protections— which are associated with steep slope situations. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The Kent City Code includes regulations of street, site, parking, landscaping and building development, The City also requires design review for parcels located within the Downtown area (per KCC 15.09.046)and for certain multi-family residential development (KCC 15.09.045(D)and 3.25..040(E)). Some of the proposals include provisions to require stepbacks of upper floors in DCE developments where adjacent to single-family residential zones. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist- Page 15 AGENCY USE ONLY would it mainly occur? Not known at this time. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not known at this time. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. None at this time. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Mill Creek Middle School has sports fields and playgrounds. Although currently in need of repair or replacement,there has been in the past a trail connection through Mill Creek Canyon/Earthworks Park from Downtown Kent(and the Senior Activity Center)to East Hill neighborhoods. To the west,across Central Avenue, the Sister Cities Parks, Town Square Plaza, Kent Station, the Kent Commons and ShoWare Center provide ample opportunities for passive and . active recreation. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Not at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. Not applicable. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Seven parcels within the affected DCE area are listed in the Historic Resources Inventory of the City. Two of these parcels are registered City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 16 AGENCY USE ONLY as historic properties— the Unity Church of Kent(218 S. State St.) and Valley Tool(fmr. City Water Department Building, 220 Railroad Ave S.). The Herbert Bayer Earthworks within Mill Creek Canyon Park is a registered City landmark located adjacent to the affected area. A number of other parcels adjacent to the affected area may be found in this inventory. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known aside from the Historic Resources Inventory. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. The historic landmarks preservation regulations of the City would be applied during development review. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans,if any. The area is generally served by Railroad Avenue, Central Avenue, State Avenue, Kennebeck Avenue, Clark Avenue, Jason Avenue, Saar Street, Titus Street, Gowe Street, Meeker Street, Smith Street, and James Street. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The area is served by regular bus routes and a special circulator shuttle is also available. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The answers to these questions are not known at this time. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Any improvements to streets would need to be identified in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) or required as mitigation for impacts of project-specific development proposals. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 17 AGENCY USE ONLY No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Single family residences generate one PM peak trip per unit. Commercial uses might generate a range of PM peak trips depending upon specific uses. Mixed use development would have a broad possible range of PM peak trips based on project specific characteristics. These uses are not known at this time. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) has incorporated land use and trip-generation modeling consistent with planned land use in the area. Project-specific development applications would be required to identify specific land use(s) and possibly provide a traffic impact study as part of the application review process. 16. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Redevelopment of the area has been taken into account in past planning for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Review processes for significant development projects include notification and opportunities for comment from public service providers. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water,refuse service,telephone,sanitarysewer,septic system,other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. Downtown Kent is served by Puget Sound Energy for electricity and natural gas, primarily by City of Kent Water and Sewer Utilities for water supply and wastewater disposal. C. SIGNATURE City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 18 AGENCY USE ONLY The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date: ,Z��2Fl� City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 19 AGENCY USE ONLY DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. Howwould the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;emission to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Low-density development (suburban character) in the area as proposed in several Options would depart from existing plans by creating additional demand for automobile storage — which is generally considered to have greater impact on watersheds and air quality. Provision of structured parking(expense near$30,000 per space) to mitigate these impacts would be very unlikely with two- story height limits and/or large setback requirements. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Development regulations of the City would be applied at the project development application stage. Options have been provided that allow for pedestrian-oriented mixed use development at higher intensities than found elsewhere in Kent. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? _ increased water and air quality impacts on habitat would be anticipated from an increase in demand and support for automobile use in the area Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Development regulations of the City, including the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) would be applied at the development project application review stage to avoid or minimize impacts on habitat. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The process and results of development necessarily consume energy and natural resources. There may be a greater level of City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 20 AGENCY USE ONLY energy consumption if development standards favor low-intensity and single use rather than higher-intensify mixed-use. Options 5 and 6, with discrete height limits of fifty feet or greater and minimal setback requirements would be most consistent with the existing plans for the Urban Center and regulations for DCE to encourage pedestrian activity and transit service. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The regulations of the City would be applied at the project application review stage. The City will be considering regulatory accommodation for facilities that can charge electric-powered vehicles. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild 'and.scenic rivers,threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposals considered would not be expected to have greater_ impact on environmentally-sensitive areas,habitat,historic/cultural sites and parks. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The City would apply regulations.to avoid or reduce impacts to critical areas, habitat, historic1cultural sites and open space at the development project application review stage. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Option 1 creates a wide area of low-rise development (35 ft. maximum) that would provide significant challenges to developing walkable mixed-use, where the height of buildings in relation to street width is supposed to be more vertical than horizontal. Options 2 and 3 would rezone the affected DCE area either to single use residential or single-use commercial. While MR-T16 and GC Zoning Districts are allowed in the Urban Center Land Use Map designated area, creating single-use districts with height limits less than or equivalent to single-family residential zones from existing mixed-use districts maybe seen as incompatible with existing plans for Downtown Kent. This could be especially true for GC Zoning, which is considered to have greater potential impact in terms of City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR Environmental Checklist— Page 21 AGENCY USE ONLY encouraging auto-oriented uses adjacent to single-family residential zones than DCE Zoning. Options 4 and 4b would meet the mixed-use intent of existing plans, and offer a height limit (4 stories, 50 ft.) that may be reasonably considered feasible for mixed-use development. The required setbacks, particularly for upper floors, are very restrictive and effectively reduce the building envelope in a manner that discourages a potentially viable project from occurring in the City's Urban Center. The additional setback and upper-floor stepback depth called for in Option 4b clearly makes the Urban Centerzoning more restrictive when adjacent to single-family residential zones than for other commercial areas of the City. Options 5 and 6 provide a reasonable height limit(4 stories, 50 ft) for mixed-use development, and require upper-floor stepbacks and balconies through Downtown Design Review that are appropriate to site conditions. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: City of Kent regulations would be applied at the development project application review stage. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Options 2 and 3 particularly reduce the potential transit-orientation of future development in the affected DCE area by restricting or prohibiting residential density. The cost of replacing or expanding infrastructure on underdeveloped land would likely be borne by future development that brings the promise of significantly greater return on investment. Zoning that more closely conforms to the existing development pattern is unlikely to provide the incentive for redevelopment that will pay for infrastructure improvements and reduce traffic impacts associated with auto-oriented land uses. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: City of Kent regulations would be applied at the development project application review stage. 7. Identify, if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Not applicable. SlPomftPlanICOMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS@0091CPA-2069-5 DCE Bldg HeighWLUIRM07261 MSEPA_CHECKLIST_CPA-2D09- 5 cawoFnal.doc .r r ryLLJ LL Q1 _ r a r• r: .. co y — i ♦ 4 1 , Jo it t`l __ -lit �;, ♦ • -d" � - jf � roL. >. Ya0N37 • 1 - a3oNVXa9tl ° tl30Ntr�7- _ 1DadSOyd ..._ `d Ce! i L I _ l n NoSV ,w ,:l ` o clyo i o -- -ALLEY., I 1 f' WAA � 1 i F i A A r o s3gatae ' .I. 3 fJ. S._ f # . 40 ICEIVT Wwsnivaton CITY OF KENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No. #ENV-2010-21 Project DCE HEIGHT LIMITS #RPP6-2093453 Description: This project proposes to amend the City of Kent Zoning Districts Map to include designations for Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) Zoning District designated property located partially or wholly within 300 ft. of single-family residential zoned properties. The options described below feature zoning district designations that may include Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units per acre (MR-T16), General Commercial (GC) and a proposed Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE-T) Transitional Overlay. Alternatives under consideration include: Option 1 (Johnson Proposal - Apply 300 ft Single-Family Residential Buffer): Place a single- family residential height restriction (35 ft.) on DCE zoned parcels within 300 feet of any single- family residential zoned parcel. No change or restrictions on specific land uses are proposed. Option 2 (Change Zoning to MR-T16): Adopt a Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units per acre (MR-T16) Zoning District designation for any DCE parcel having a portion of its area located within 300 feet of a parcel zoned as single-family residential. This option would significantly reduce the available height for new development in the Urban Center adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods (30 ft., five feet less than single-family residential), as well as restrict the permitted land use to ownership-interest dwellings, whether condominium or other type of ownership As the MR-T zones are permitted within the Urban Center (UC) Land Use Map designation, no amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map would be necessary. Option 3 (Change Zoning to GC): Adopt a General Commercial (GC) Zoning District for any DCE parcel having a portion of its area located within 300 feet of a parcel zoned as single-family residential. This option would ment in the Urban Center adjacent to reduce the available height for new development significantly g P residential with possible ft. same as single-family single-family residential neighborhoods (35 P allowances for additional stories). A change to GC would also create a different set of permitted land uses and expectations of site planning to include automobile-oriented uses. Such uses are generally not consistent with Urban Center policies, and have been restricted in the past to Central Avenue. However, as the GC Zoning District is permitted within the Urban Center (UC) Land Use Map designation, no amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map would be required. Option 4 (Amend DCE Heights in Designated Transitional Overlay Areas (DCE-T) Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zones with Upper Floor Setbacks Similar to SeaTac): Create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District (DCE-T) covering a full- block (300 feet or more in depth) in which a discrete building height would be set for whole parcels - four stories (50 feet). Furthermore, when adjacent to or abutting single-family residential zones, DCE-T parcels would be subject to an upper floor setback requirement similar to SeaTac Municipal Code, Section 15.35.350(A)(1). A maximum building height of 35 feet would be applied within 50 feet distance from the zoning boundary (whether the adjacent street centerline or lot line), inclusive of any ground-level rear or side yard setback. Determination of Nonsignificance DCE Height Limits #ENV-2010-21 #RPP6-2093453 Option 4b (Amend DCE Heights as described in Option 4 Except Ground and Upper Floor Setbacks determined only from lot lines; not street centerlines): A version of Option 4 suggested by the Mill Creek Neighborhood Council. Option 41b would have front yard setbacks at ground and upper floor levels measured from lot lines rather than the zoning district boundary - typically the centerline of the adjacent street (includes entire right-of-way). This would increase the distance between a building frontage and the back of sidewalk by a minimum of 20 feet from Option 4. If measured from the lot line, the upper floor stepback depth would be increased by half the width of the adjacent right-of-way. Option 5 (Amend DCE Heights in Designated Transitional Overlay Areas (DCE-T) Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zones with Enhanced Downtown Design Review Requirements): Create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District (DCE-T) covering a full- block (300 feet or more in depth) in which a discrete building height would be set for whole parcels-four stories (50 feet). In addition, an enhancement of the existing Downtown Design Review Guidelines would require balconies and upper floor setbacks currently written in Sections III.B and III.C. as optional. This requirement would address bulk modulation rather than prescribed upper floor setbacks featured in Options 4a and 4b. Option 6 (Amend DCE Heights for Depth of 300 Feet from Adjacent Single-Family Residential Zones within Designated Transitional Overlay Areas (DCE-T) - Railroad Avenue Excluded): Create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District (DCE-T) covering approximately a full-block (300 feet or more) in depth where adjacent to single-family residential zones. This overlay would clearly identify affected parcels on the Zoning Districts Map, and code text would be amended to include DCE-T regulations. These regulations would provide a discrete building height of four stories (50 feet) and would be set for a depth of 300 feet. Beyond that distance from adjacent single-family residential zones, the general development standards of DCE would apply. As with Option 5, an enhancement of the existing Downtown Design Review Guidelines would require balconies and upper floor setbacks currently written in Sections III.B and III.C. as optional. Option 7 (Amend Single-Family Residential Zoning within Buffer from DCE Zoning District (Daoura Proposal): Rezone to Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units per acre (MR-T16) those areas within a buffer of 200 or 300 feet extending from the DCE Zoning District into adjacent single- family residential zones. Because this proposal would require amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, it is outside the scope of the project and will not be analyzed further. Option 8 (Remove Mill Creek Middle School property from DCE/Urban Center): Withdraw the Urban Center designation to Central Avenue from its current boundary. Because this proposal would require amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, it is outside the scope of the project and will not be analyzed further. Applicant William Osborne, AICP City of Kent Planning Department 220 4`h Ave South Kent, WA 98032 Lead Agency CITY OF KENT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed 2 of 3 Determination of Nonsignificance DCE Height Limits #ENV-2010-21 #RPP6-2093453 environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 28 days from the date of this decision; this includes a 14-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period as provided by WAC 197 it 680. Comments must be submitted by September 17, 2010. Responsible Official Charlene Anderson AICP Position/Title Planning Manager / SEPA OFFICIAL Address 220 S. Fourth Avenue Kent WA 98032 Telephone: �(253) 856-5454 Dated Seotember3 2010 Signature�� , APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 11,03.520. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: NONE j m\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2010\DCE-2093453d ns.d oc 3of3 Kent City Council Meeting Date January 4, 2011 Category Consent Calendar — 7E 1. SUBJECT: KANGLEY GROVE SHORT PLAT BILL OF SALE — ACCEPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Bill of Sale for the Kangley Grove Short Plat project, permit #2063020, for 315 linear feet of new street, 145 linear feet of frontage improvements, 3 storm sewer manholes, 10 catch basins, 15,548 cubic feet of detention pond storage, and 560 linear feet of storm sewer line. The project is located at 27305 135th Ave. SE. 3. EXHIBITS: Bill of Sale 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes No 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: MAIL TO: CITY OF KENT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 40 a ATTN: Jackie Bicknell 220 — 4T" AVENUE SOUTH KENT WASH 1 N 670 N KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 OF KENT Project: Kangley Grove Short Plat Permit #: RECC-2063020 ��r, 0 3 20111 Location: 27305 135th Avenue S.E. N(;iNEERIN T Parcel #: 6792200070 BILL OF SALE CITY OF KENT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON THIS INSTRUMENT made this 3rd day of December 2010, by and between Washington Federal savings, hereinafter called "Grantors", and City of Kent, a municipal corporation of King County, State of Washington, hereinafter called "Grantee": WITNESSETH: That the said Grantors for a valuable consideration does hereby grant, bargain, sell to Grantee the following described Improvements: A. WATERMAINS: AIA . Together with a total of gate valves at $ each, hydrants at $ each and/or any other appurtenances thereto. ON FROM TO (street, easement, etc.) Including linear feet at $ per LF of (size &type) waterline, B. SANITARY SEWERS: 1U. Together with a total of manholes at $ each and/or any other appurtenances thereto. ON FROM TO (street, easement, etc.) Including linear feet at $ per LF of (size & type) sewerline. Bill of Sale 1 of 5 14578.009.doc C. NEW STREETS. Together with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and/or any other appurtenances ON FROM TO (street, easement, etc.) SE 273rd Street 135th Avenue SE Westerly terminus of SE 273rd St On-site Public Drainage Tract within the site within the site Including 315 linear feet at $200.00 per LF of Concrete C&G, 5' Concrete Sidewalk and 20' wide paved road. D. FRONTAGEYMPROVEMENTS: Together with lights, trees, landscaping (except residential streets) and/or any other appurtenances ON FROM TO (street, easement, etc.) 135th Avenue SE South property line North property line Including 145 linear feet at $200.00 per LF of Concrete C&G, 5' Concrete Sidewalk and pavement widening. E. STORM SEWERS: Together with a total of 3 manholes at $3,300.00 each and total of 10 catch basins at $ 1,650.00 each, approximately 15,548 cubic feet of detention pond storage with a total cost of $5,000.00, and 560 linear feet at $30.00 per LF of 12" PVC Storm Drain Pipes with total cost of$16,800.00. ON FROM TO (street, easement, etc.) SE 273rd Street and 135th Avenue SE Westerly terminus of SE 273rd St 135th Avenue SE and South property line North property line Within property to the south South property line SE 274th Street To have and to hold the same to the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. The undersigned hereby covenants that it is the lawful owner of said property; and that the same is free from all encumbrances; that all bills for labor and materials have been paid; that it has the right to sell the same aforesaid; that it will warrant and defend the same against the lawful claims and demand of all person(s). The Bill of Sale is given on consideration of the agreement of the Grantee for itself, its successors and assigns to incorporate said utilities in its utility system and to maintain them as provided in the applicable City Ordinances. The City accepts the items subject to staff approval and completion of a 2 year maintenance period. Bill of Sale 2 of 5 14578.009.doc IN WITNE S WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed on this ( day of December , 2010. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Instrument to be executed on this day of - _ 2") STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this `77�C� day of December , 2010, before me, the undersigned A Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared -?�ickck GerS}lv0.61O1 to me known to be the Individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she signed and sealed this instrument as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. �r ���eu� GIVEN under my hand and official seal this � day of `��1' 20 tU ®®®®®®®NoP°4� ®0. ®® B ®0 '®®e�gSl®N ", e100. a , /' 0 No ry F�Gblic in and for the State of W hington, residing at ® d o NOTARY q cJea � Wh cg9 j PUBLIC At My Commission Expires: 20 Or Bill of Sale 3 of 5 14578.009.doc 40 \47 Ic KENT W A S H I N O T O N ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION CITY OF KENT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON The figures used on the Bill of Sale for Kangley Grove Short Plat project dated Pee. 2 t!, 9010 , for the same said Kangley Grove Short Plat project. Hal P. Grubb, the undersigned P.E. or land surveyor is the person responsible for the preparation of the Bill of Sale and is an employee of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., the firm responsible for the preparation of the record drawings. V. GRL�� " K� Jg ViASpA� �P OZ e Signature w� a�rrs .v sv (Engineer stamp required) PQy,%„`�u Bill of Sale 5 Of 5 14578.009.doc REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. MAYOR C. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE D. PARKS AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE E. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE F. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE G. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE H. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES KENT WA 1HI Tor. ECONOMIC &COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2010 Committee Members Committee Chair Jamie Perry, Elizabeth Albertson, Deborah Ranniger. Chair Perry announced Albertson's excused absence calling the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Ranniger MOVED and Councilmember Perry SECONDED a Motion to approve the October 11, 2010 Minutes. Motion PASSED 2-0 with Albertson's concurrence. 2. Kenton Firs Neighborhood Council Recognition - Resolution Neighborhood Program Coordinator Toni Azzola stated that the City's Neighborhood Program is designed to foster better communication among residents in a geographic area and city government. She stated that the City has 18 non-profit independent neighborhood groups on board with 30 homes up to 2200 members per group. Azzola introduced the Kenton Firs Neighborhood Association members; Don and Trish Norman, and Dick Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe stated that the Kenton Firs neighborhood consists of 146 households occupying individually-owned lots. The neighborhood is located on East Hill. The neighborhood boundary's northernmost street is S.E. 2261h Street with neighborhood homes on the north and south side of the street. It is bounded on the west by 1121h Avenue SE with neighborhood homes on both sides of the street. Councilmember Ranniger MOVED and Councilmember Perry SECONDED a Motion to recommend Council adopt the proposed resolution which recognizes the Kenton Firs Neighborhood Council, supports its community building efforts, and confers all opportunities offered by the City's Neighborhood Program. Motion PASSED 2-0 with Albertson's concurrence. 3. 2010 Annual Docket Report Long-Range Planner William D. Osborne defined the docket process and summarized the following six docket proposals: 1) The Freiwald Proposal which seeks to amend the zoning districts map and development regulations associated with critical areas and habitat associated wetlands. Staff recommends considering this proposal as part of the Critical Areas Ordinance update process within the next year. 2) The Olschefski Proposal is a map amendment proposal. However, applications and associated fees were not received. Therefore, staff recommends denial. 3) The Melvin Roberts Proposal proposes amending Kent's development regulations to recognize the federally adopted 2009 Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUCTD). Staff's recommendation acknowledges that the remedy sought in this request is already addressed in the Construction Standards. 4) The Kent Bicycle Advisory Board Proposal recommends that the Transportation Master Plan (updated in 2008) include a requirement for continuance of bicycle lanes along James Street between Central and Washington Avenues with marked shared travel lanes provided in the interim. In consideration of this proposal, the Public Works Transportation Engineering Division would like to modify staff's recommendation. 5) This submittal would be incorporated into the work program as CPA-2010-3 Kentara. The City received a map amendment proposal application and other associated applications for a comprehensive plan map amendment and associated fees. This application proposes to amend a portion of a property designated as Single-Family 6 units per acre and Urban Separator entirely to Single-Family 6 units per acre. 6) This docket submittal proposes revising Kent's Urban Center boundary to remove a portion of area east of State Avenue. Staff recommends consideration of this proposal during the update of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan within the next year. Planning Director Fred Satterstrom stated that Dkt-2010-4 should be considered when the Transportation Master Plan is updated in two years. Mel Roberts, 9421 S 241s' St., Kent, stated that his docket submittal Dkt-2010-4 proposes implementation of dedicated bicycle lanes along an East/West route that provides connectivity, a safer corridor for bicyclists, as well as provides convenient access to the Transit Center, ShoWare, Interurban Trail, Kent Station, the Rail Station, and Kent Commons. Council Member Perry tabled further discussion of this item to the end of the meeting. 4. DCE Height Limits CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 Long-Range Planner William D. Osborne presented the Land Use and Planning Board's (LUPB) and staff's recommendations concerning Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) zoning adjacent to Single Family Residential (SFR) zones. Osborne explained why the LUPB recommended Option 4c and why Staff recommended Option 6 drawing attention to the October 11, 2010 Economic and Community Development Committee (ECDC) packet. Osborne stated that a number of public meetings, community workshops, LUPB workshops and two LUPB Hearings have been held on this issue. The DCE Transitional (DCE-T) Overlay contains special regulations addressing height. The LUPB's Option 4c establishes a DCE-T Overlay, applies height limits of four stories and 50 feet to all DCE-T parcels. Setbacks would be required wherever adjacent to SFR zoning. Option 4c enhances the Downtown Design Review (DDR) Guidelines. Osborne illustrated the differences in regulations related to setbacks from SFR zoning, building heights and the presence of balcony type features through a series of diagrams, consistent with the proposed regulations of each option. Osborne stated that staff recommends Option 6 which applies height limits of four stories and 50 feet to portions of DCE-T parcels within a 300 foot buffer from SFR zoning. Setback treatments would be required through an enhancement of the DDR Guidelines. Osborne stated that Option 4c allows a 35 foot building height, with a building setback from the 35 to 50 foot height level. Economic & Community Development Director Ben Wolters, in response to concerns from the Councilmembers with respect to the additional building height setbacks, stated that this type of building would not be built with the decreased space on the 41h floor. There is no economic value at that point, and a developer would not make the additional structural requirements to construct the additional top floor space. Wolters stated that under this scenario, the likely outcome is that buildings would remain at 35 feet. Osborne clarified for the Committee that Option 4c would apply to the entirety of parcels designated DCE-T. Osborne stated that in Option 6 only those portions of the DCE-T parcels within a 300 foot buffer from a Single Family Residential (SFR) zone would be regulated. Osborne stated that if a property is located outside the 300 foot buffer or a portion of it is outside the 300 foot buffer, that portion could be developed at full DCE zoning. Osborne stated that if a DCE parcel is not located adjacent (across the street from), or abutting a SFR zoned parcel it could be developed to four stories 50 foot height, but would not include upper floor setback requirements. Councilmember Perry questioned the docketing process and the Committee's options. Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt stated that through the review of the Revised Code of Washington (RCWs), the docketing process is an iterative process allowing for the creation of other options and modifications throughout the review process. Michael Johnson, 436 Jason Ave N, stated that he submitted the original docket defined as Option 1 allowing a 35 foot building height limit with a 300 foot setback from SFR zones. He proceeded to clarify issues with respect to Option 4c, stating that for example the junior high wished to build a five-story building which would be fine within the scope of Option 1, but would restrict the height to 50 feet under Option 4c. Johnson stated that the Mill Creek ECDC Minutes November 8, 2010 Page 2 of 5 community sees Option 4c much like Option 4b as a compromise and not relevant to community interests. However, as a compromise, the residents would be most comfortable with accepting Option 4c. Carolyn Clayton, 604 E Temperance St., stated that Mondo Development has proposed to build a 7-story building facing E Smith Street, 40 feet from her back door within the Mill Creek Neighborhood. Clayton stated that her property would be totally shaded out were that building developed. She stated that there is split zoning along Temperance Street whereby east facing properties are residential and west facing properties are commercial. Clayton encouraged the committee to preserve the historic Mill Creek Neighborhood and to consider how the city determines progress, and not to think of progress as anything that will economically profit a few people but rather consider the total impact for the city. Clayton acknowledged the timeliness of addressing height restrictions for the city in general as Kent's alluvial soils would not support 10-15 story high buildings. Clayton recommended moving the DCE zoning boundaries from State Street westward so that development would not impact her neighborhood. Sharon Bersaas, 436 Jason Ave N, voiced her support for 4C. Mary Jacob, 426 Prospect Ave N, voiced her and her mother's (Mary Edwards) preference for Option 1, with 4b as second choice, and 4c as their third choice. Jacob stated that they would not like to see their historic neighborhood devalued. Stacey Kroeze, 703 E Temperance St., voiced her support for Option 1, but would support 4b or 4c as a compromise. She voiced her concerns that the city needs to protect the boundaries between the residential and commercial zones. Julie Brown, 802 E. Temperance St., voiced her support for Option 1, but would support Option 4c. She voiced opposition to Option 6. Stephen Cluphf, 21805 116th Ave SE, stated that he speaks on behalf of his son John Cluphf who lives at 316 N Clark St. He noted that staff has not provided an option for a "no change" to the existing zoning or height restrictions currently in place. He stated that current zoning works. Cluphf stated that his son's home is located on a street split zoned residential and commercial. He questioned if the city has considered compensating those people who have invested in the commercial property or considered providing options to protect those people who have invested in commercial properties. Kim Portera, 617 E. Temperance St., stated that she lives across from the proposed Mondo development and if a mammoth building were to go in, it would devalue her property. Jim McHugh, 424 Clark Ave, stated that he prefers Option 1, but would support Option 4c. Vern Schultz, 704 E. Temperance St., stated that he supports Option 1 but would accept 4c. Joan Schultz, 704 E. Temperance St., stated that she would support 4c. She voiced concerns with the potential for parking impacts and traffic increases within their neighborhood were a building developed next to their community. Dan Ulrey, 332 Alvord Ave N, spoke in support of Option 4C and spoke about concerns with parking, traffic congestion and the need for proper buffering from the DCE zone. Laura Gorder, 318 Jason Ave N, stated that her home is located 60 feet from the proposed building. A study (based on the Mondo development proposal) submitted for the record at a previous meeting indicated that the shadows cast from a building development would eliminate all sunlight except for early morning summer sun. Gorder voiced her support for Option 1 but would support Option 4c. She stated that traffic noise would increase as a result of development, creating a tunnel affect that would bounce off and feed back into the windows of the abutting residences. ECDC Minutes November 8, 2010 Page 3 of 5 In response to Councilmember Ranniger, Osborne stated that the Option 1 proposal looks at splitting zoning for an area that is located within Kent's designated Urban Centerwithout clearly demonstrating a distinction for affected parcels on a map. The height limit would only be noted in development regulations with something like an asterisk. Michael Johnson reiterated his original proposal known as Option 1. He stated that he believes staff took their initial proposal and built it into something greater than they had intended. Councilmember Perry expressed understanding for Mr. Johnson's concerns and for staff's effort to provide options based on clarity of expectations for neighbors and developers. Osborne spoke to how staff created the various options, including how staff derived Option 4c. The Council Committee, staff and Johnson debated setback criteria with respect to Options 4b and 4c. Wolters stated that the feasibility question centers on the top floor's 40 foot setback and that the slope is irrelevant. Wolters stated that in terms of economics, it is unlikely that a building would be constructed with a fourth floor with a 40 foot setback. Osborne spoke about components of the Downtown Design Review Guideline regulations that speak to inclusion of balconies and upper floor setbacks as options. He stated that Options 4c, 5 and 6 would make those options requirements. Osborne clarified in response to Councilmember Ranniger that the removal of the middle school from the designated urban center as featured in Option 8 is actually reflected as Docket Item 2010-6. This proposal would require changing the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map for those areas located largely east of State Street currently designated Urban Center and zoned DCE. What that zoning would be was not suggested. Angela Schultz, 715 E. Temperance St. clarified that the shadowing study submitted by the Gorders was based on a building height of 50 feet. Michael Johnson stated that Mill Creek residents would like the DCE zone moved back to Central Ave and approves of having DCE zoning due to the design review element that would require a better looking building. Councilmember Ranniger stated that a decision should not be made without Councilmember Albertson's presence. Perry stated that this issue will be tabled until the next meeting with no formal action taken tonight. 3. 2010 Annual Docket Report (Continued) Osborne reiterated that the Public Works Department would like to modify the recommendation with respect to the Docket 2010-4 proposal. Senior Transportation Planner, Cathy Mooney stated that the City spent more than two years developing the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) including the non-motorized 20-year bicycle plan. The City received over 500 public comments from various sources that included business interests, the Kent School District, neighborhood groups, senior citizens and youth. Mooney stated that the TMP is scheduled for update in two years at which time this proposal could be considered as part of that process. Councilmember Perry agreed that the Docket 2010-4 proposal should be considered as part of the TMP update. Councilmember Ranniger MOVED and Councilmember Perry SECONDED a Motion to recommend approval of the 2010 Annual Docket Report as presented by staff. Motion Carried 2-0 with Albertson's concurrence. Councilmember Perry stated that this item will go on the City Council's consent calendar. 6. Economic Development Report Economic & Community Development Director Ben Wolters stated that a request for qualifications (RFQ) was issued for the Kent City Center Garage project. Wolters stated that the RFQ is an effort by the City to make sure that every developer that has an interest in the property knows about it and is given opportunity to submit interest in the project. ECDC Minutes November 8, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Wolters stated that the City will go through a review process. Upon completion of the review process, staff will narrow it down to who they think are the best prospects. Staff will then determine whether or not there are a sufficient number of prospects to go through a Request For Proposal (RFP), a detailed proposal requirement that would allow a more in- depth analysis in selecting who will be the developer to whom the City would want to sell property to create a successful development. Wolters stated that the City has advertised in the Daily Journal of Commerce, the Puget Sound Business Journal and have sent the RFQ to 18 parties that have indicated interest in the project. Wolters stated that the City has received word that the FAA project is still moving forward, that the delay was a decision at the national level to allow the other two regional FAA sites - Fort Worth and Atlanta to catch up to the same level as the effort being undertaken in the Pacific Northwest. This is part of a national program on the part of FAA to consolidate their operations for both national security and efficiency purposes. The FAA wants all three sites to go to the market simultaneously with the same set of requirements with a plan to issue a request for proposal early next year. Wolters reported that the Economic Development Team has recruited a new member Josh Hall, who has been with the City for two weeks and has begun to compile valuable industry data which staff will use for next year's economic development strategy update. Hall is working on creating a new marketing tool for targeting business sectors that highlights Kent's advantages. He is working on two business recruitment efforts, one for a clean-tech company and one for a manufacturer who would bring 150 employees to Kent. Hall will focus attention by attending the East Hill Partnership meetings over the next few months. Perry asked about traffic impact fees and what other cities are doing. Wolters stated that Matt Gilbert has been asked to focus his attention in researching how other jurisdictions treat change of use as a trigger for transportation impact fees and to confirm how they apply their transportation impact fees (TIF) to new construction. Wolters stated that Kent is applying TIFs in much the same way as other jurisdictions. Wolters stated that Council has the information related to rate impacts on different development scenarios. Based on this year's rates, Kent falls in the middle compared to other jurisdictions. Council adopted a schedule where that rate will automatically increase each year unless you take proactive action to not have it pass through legislation. Wolters stated that he is working on obtaining more detailed information on claims of lost business in terms of industrial and is attempting to follow up with retail businesses where staff made an interpretation that the type of retail development proposed would not trigger a change of use and therefore would not trigger a TIF stating that he will find out if those projects have continued forward as a result of that decision or if other factors have prevented these businesses from moving forward. Wolters stated that today the City issued a 'notice to process' to the contractor, The Sign Factor, to proceed with the installation of the new marquee for the ShoWare Center. For Information Only Adiournment Council Chair Perry Adjourned the Meeting at 6:55 p.m. Pamela Mottram, Economic & Community Development Committee Secretary ECDC Minutes November 8, 2010 Page 5 of 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION