HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 03/10/1987 CITY OF �
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Scheduled Meeting for March 10, 1987 3:00 p.m.
This is to inform you that the City Council Planning Committee meeting
will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. in the Second Floor
Conference Room.
Committee Members
Judy Woods, Chair
Berne Biteman
Steve Dowell
Agenda
I . Regulatory Review - Drive-ins in M-2 Districts
II . Hearing Examiner Meeting Times
III . Historical Preservation
IV. Annexations: Multifamily
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 3, 1987
MEMO TO : City council Planning Committee
FROM : Jams P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT : REGULATORY REVIEW REQUEST TO ALLOW DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS IN 1,2 ZONE
The Planning Department has reviewed the request to allow drive-in restaurants
in the M2 zone and recommends against such an amendment at this time. Amending
the zoning code to allow drive-in restaurants in the industrial area would have
a number of impacts that would not be in the best interests of the City of Kent.
These impacts are discussed below.
Perhaps most importantly, drive-in restaurants generate a high amount of vehicle
trips. Drive-in restaurants can generate more than three times the amount of
traffic generated by a conventional restaurant. Drive-in restaurants generate
31 .6 vehicles trips per 1000 square feet while conventional restaurants generate
between six and ten vehicle trips per 1000 square feet. (These estimates are provided
by the ITE Trip Generation Manual for the PM peak hour period) . This level of
traffic could have a significant impact on the local and regional transportation
system.
Drive-in restaurants also generally have an appearance that is different from
uses permitted in the industrial area. These restaurants are designed to attract
and serve as many customers as possible. As a result, the development often
includes high-intensity lighting, extra signage, and bright building materials .
This type of development is in contrast to the more conservative, low-profile
developments being constructed in the M2 zone.
The operational characteristics of a drive-in restaurant also vary from permitted
uses in the M2 zone. Restaurants are generally open from mid-morning to late evening.
They are also open on weekdays and weekends . While they would serve employees of
industrial businesses in the area, nearby residents would also be served. The
purpose of zoning districts is to separate incompatible uses . Drive-in restaurants
in the M2 zone would attract the general public to the industrial area . This is
clearly not in the best interest of the public .
The Planning Commission recently completed review of the West Valley Industrial
Study. The Council will soon review their recommendation for code amendments .
This recommendation includes an amendment to the M1 zone to allow a limited ex-
pansion of retail/commercial land uses. Drive-in restaurants were considered but
not included as a use recommended in this amendment. Drive-in restaurants were
not deemed compatible with land uses in -the West Valley area. These restaurants
do not appear to be compatible with land use in the East Valley area either.
I
7
City Council Planning Committee
March 3, 1987
Page Two
In conclusion, the Planning Department is recommending the request to amend the
zoning code to allow drive-in restaurants in the M2 zone be denied. These uses
would have numerous impacts and would not be in the best interests of the City
of Kent.
JPH:ca
1
CITY OF KENT ;( ( � 1986
REGULATORY REVIEW _
'r I-HT
The Kent City Council has determined that ongoing review of the City's regulatory process is in the
public's best interest. The Council wants the public to be able to participate in this review. The
outline on this page is intended to give the public an opportunity to write down those things that
they do not like about an ordinance or regulation. The Council will then review the public's comments
and, when appropriate, make changes to ordinances and regulations.
0 What ordinance or regulation do you want the Council to review?
KCC 15. 04 . 180A. 13 . , "Retail Trade Uses" which prohibits eating
places with drive-in or drive-through facilities in the M2 zone.
0 What is it that bothers you about this ordinance/regulation?
The ordinance is inconsistent with uses, purposes and demands of
the M2 (Limited Industrial District) zone. A McDonalds is allowed
in the M2 zone, why not allow a McDonalds with drive-through
facilities? See further discussion attached.
0 What changes do you suggest to this ordinance/regulation?
Amend KCC 15. 04 . 180A. 13 . to eliminate prohibition of "drive-ins
and those (eating places) with drive-through facilities . "
0 What significance to the Community will occur with your proposed change?
Better service to the NI2 Industrial Community by providing
diverse eating establishments, and by reduction of excessive
driving between job and fast-food restaurants . Economic
benefit from retention of business in Kent. See further
discussion attached.
0 What effect, if any, will your proposed change have on related ordinances,
regulations, plans and policies?
See attached discussion.
0 Have you reviewed your concern with a City staff member?
See attached correspondence of November 5, 1986, and attached
response of Kent Planning Department, dated December 4, 1986.
0 Do you have any general comments you wish to make (can be about the or-
dinance/regulation you want changed or about anything else to do with
ordinances/regulations or the permit process)?
The City of Kent has generally been timely and considerate in
responding to our applications and proposals . Thank you for
your prompt attention to, and consideration of, this request .
NAME LeRoy Bowen
Park Ridge Bldg. , Suite 7
ADEQESS 15215 52nd Avenue S. , Seattle, Washinaton 9R1AR
CITY OF KENT
REGULATORY REVIEW
ATTACHMENT TO REQUEST OF LEROY BOWEN
The Kent Code allows for the development of a Burger King,
McDonalds or similar restaurant in the M2 zone . What is pro-
hibited by the Code is the addition of a drive-through facility
to such a restaurant . We believe that such a distinction is
without merit .
Allowed in the M2 zone are service stations , and service
stations with retail convenience stores . As discussed in the
correspondence of November 5, 1986 , to Jim Harris, Planning
Director, one such service station with a retail convenience
store in the M2 zone is the functional equivalent of a drive-in
restaurant . Even without a convenience store, a gasoline
service station has more negative aesthetic, traffic and envi-
ronmental impact than a restaurant with drive-through facili-
ties . As recently as 1984 the Kansas Supreme Court has deter-
mined that a "planned fast-food store with drive-through
capacity appears to be a less intensive use than a gasoline
service station. " Taco Bell v . City of Mission, 234 Kan. 879 ,
678 P. 2d 133 , 141 ( 1984 ) .
It is not the intent of this regulatory review request to
be technical or legalistic, but rather to address this issue in
a common-sense manner . The M2 zone allows for drive-in banking ,
drive-in photo processing, and gasoline service stations (with
or without retail convenience grocery stores) . Restaurants are
allowed in the M2 zone . We believe that restaurants should also
be allowed to provide drive-through service .
The Kent Zoning Code provides specific protections from the
traffic and other impacts of restaurants with drive-through
facilities . We acknowledge those regulations and believe they
should be maintained. The Planning Department ' s position that
"drive-in restaurants have different operational characteristics
from banks" is contradicted by these regulations . Special
off-street parking and access requirements are set out in KCC
15 . 05 . 050 . These operational regulations are the same for all
businesses which maintain drive-in facilities .
Separate regulations concern aesthetics of restaurants with
drive-through facilities . Additional set backs , ingress and
egress , and landscaping standards are prescribed by KCC
15 . 08 . 020 D. These mitigation 'measures assure such developments
will have little or no/ impact in the M2 zone .
The Comprehensive Plan encourages commercial services
needed to serve the industrial area . See Kent Comprehensive
1
♦_ rr
Plan, Economic Element, Objective 4 , at P.26 . Further it is a
goal of the Valley Floor Plan to provide for suitable locations
for commerical development . See Valley Floor Comprehensive
Plan, "Economic Development" Element, Goal 2 , at P. 7 . The M2.
district provides generally for 25 percent commerical develop-
ment , including restaurants . Restaurants with drive-in or
drive-through facilities will not make a location any more or
less suitable for commercial development, but rather provide
better service to the industrial community. We do not under-
stand how a McDonalds with drive-through service "might encour-
age additional retail uses in the industrial area" when there
are existing limits to commercial development in the industrial
area, and restaurants are allowed commercial uses .
The warehouse and industrial employees who predominate in
this area should be encouraged to stay within the zone for
meals, and other commercial needs . Driving north to Renton, or
east to the Benson area in unincorporated King County will
continue to deny Kent available tax revenues . We do not believe
that substantial new traffic will be attracted to this area .
Customers will come from existing vehicle traffic in and through
the M2 zone. For example, the intersection of 84th (East Valley
Highway) and 212th, carries 35, 000 vehicles on 84th (South:
19, 400 ; North: 15, 600) and 39 , 800 on 212th (East : 17, 400 ; West :
22 , 400) . Source: Kent Engineering Department .
Traffic impacts resulting from a restaurant ' s addition of
drive-through facilities are comparable to those impacts caused
by facilities already permitted in the M2 zone . For example;
the following standard peak trip generation figures are for the
busy PM (4-6) period, of such a concern in this area of the City:
BANK, with drive-in tellers 25 . 3 ,
DRIVE-IN/FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS 31 . 6,
GAS STATION W/CONVENIENCE STORE 46 . 7 .
SOURCE: Trip Generation (3d.ed. , Inst . of Trafc. Engr . )
As discussed above, the zoning code already provides for mitiga-
tion of impacts of such development . If additional mitigation
is necessary, the environmental review process may so provide.
We believe that the development now coming to the City of
Kent will continue to attract and encourage quality, attractive
sites . The addition of a drive-through facility to a restaurant
will not diminish this progress .
We respectfully request that the regulation prohibiting
restaurants ' use of drive-through facilities in the M2 zone be
repealed.
1316b
- 2 -
F
k
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 24, 1987
MEMO TO : Brent McFall , City Administrator
FROM : Jim Harris
SUBJECT : DAYTIME MEETINGS FOR THE HEARING EXAMINER
I have reviewed Diane VanDerbeek's letter concerning her proposal to move the
Hearing Examiner meetings to Wednesday afternoons .
As she states, the nature of Hearing Examiner agenda items is such that the
general public does not often get involved.
I agree with Diane' s proposal and recommend that we reschedule these meetings
to a daytime slot with the following conditions:
1 . Specific Wednesday afternoon time slot to be worked out between Planning
Department and Hearing Examiner.
2. The Planning Department in consultation with the Hearing Examiner has the
right to schedule a meeting in the evening based on our knowledge that a
certain agenda item(s) will generate a great deal of public interest (West
Hill zoning) .
3. Allow interested persons (public) to request an evening meeting.
4. Our target date for implementation would be the second Hearing Examiner
meeting in April (15th) .
The following steps will be necessary to implement the Wednesday afternoon schedule:
1 . Planning Department, working with City Attorney, will redraft the Hearing
Examiner ordinance.
2. The proposal will be presented to the City Council at their meeting of March
17th. (We might want to run the proposed change by the Planning Committee
at their March loth meeting.)
JPH: ca
t
,
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 4, 1987
City Council Planning Committee
MEMO TO : Judy Woods , Chair
FROM : James P. Harris , Planning Director
SUBJECT : HISTORICAL SITES WITHIN THE EAST HILL COMMUNITY WELL #2 ANNEXATION
The City has received notice from both King County and the Boundary Review Board
regarding three properties located within the proposed East Hill Community Well
#2 Annexation area. These three sites are currently listed in the King County
Inventory of Historic Sites, which makes them currently eligible for landmark
designation and protection.
The County is concerned that at the time of annexation to the City, the protection
afforded these properties would be removed, since the City has no vehicle for
protection of designated historical properties .
The City needs to take action to work out a city program or some type of agreement
with the County to protect these properties from unnecessary demolitions and in-
appropriate alterations.
The Planning Department is currently working with Flo Lentz, Cultural Resources
Specialist for King County, to work toward some type of interlocal agreement to
address this problem.
JH:JPH:ca
i
a
Washington State Boundary Review Board
R k : For King County
906 Smith 7bwer Seattle, 117ashington 98104 Telephone(206) 344-4196
February 23, 198 � ��� c
get, 1`!�'/
FEB 24 198(
The Honorable Dan Kelleher,
Mayor of Kent
Municipal Building Planning Department
Kent, WA 98031 City of Kent
IN RE: FILE NO. 1418: CITY OF KENT - Proposed Annexation
(East Hill Com. Well Site #2)
Dear Mayor Kelleher:
The Board declined to take jurisdiction on the above-referenced matter. However,
they asked that I convey their concerns regarding three properties contained in
this annexation which are on the King County Inventory of Historic Sites as Files
492, 628 and 643. (See paragraph two of a letter dated November 5, 1986 from
the Department of Planning and Community Development enclosed for your
convenience.)
The Board respectfully requests you to consider an informal agreement between
your Planning Department and King County's Historic Preservation Officer. Then,
development or demolition proposals for any of the three properties could be
discussed with King County in the light of their levels of historic significance.
If possible, mitigating measures could then be discussed with the developer.
An alternative would be to explore an inter-local agreement between Kent and
the P&CD, which would protect identified historical sites and respond to the
concerns expressed in the letter of November 5th, until such time as Kent had
had time to fully develop its own protective measures.
We are very hopeful a voluntary and amiable solution might be achieved.
Yours very truly,
WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW
BOARD FOR KING COUNTY
G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary
MS/GBM/par
Encls. as noted y
CC: Mr. James Harris, Director of Planning, City of Kent
Ms. Kjris Lund, K.C. Historic Preservation Officer
King County Department of
Planning and Community Development
811 Alaska Building 1?...
618 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104 - -.,,.„:.,,,,,��t_E,4 :•1jVT
(206)344-7503
November 5, 1986
TO: G. Brice ''r••�td� Executive Secretary, King County Boundary Review Board
FM: Joe N; - lirLctor Designee, Department of Planning and Community Development
RE: T.F. 10-4, Proposed Annexation of East Hill Community Well (Area 2) - City
of Kent
This annexation would incorporate a 410 acre area into Kent which can be logically
served by the City. The area is within the City's "sphere of influence" area. Kent's
present East Hill land use plans for the annexation area are generally consistent
with the Soos Creek Community Plan's land use designations and policies. The annexation
will focus growth within the City consistent with the King County Comprehensive
Plan's "urban" designation and Comprehensive Plan policies PI-302 and PI-303.
The proposed East Hill Community Well Annexation area includes three properties
listed in the King County Inventory of Historic Sites (File Nos. 492, 628, and 643.)�----"
Under County jurisdiction, such properties are considered potentially eligible for
King County Landmark designation. Any development impacting these properties
triggers the landmark designation process. Designation itself provides further protection
from demolition and inappropriate alteration.
Should these properties be annexed to the City of Kent, they would be removed
from such protection. The City could mitigate this impact by legislating a process
for the identification, evaluation, and protection of historic properties. To ensure
protection comparable to that of King County, local legislation should provide a
system of design review that discourages inappropriate alterations and unnecessary
demolitions.
JN:VN:am
CP048/AO2
cc: Tim Krause, SEPA Coordinator
Bill Jolly, Acting Manager, Planning Division
ATTN: Lois Schwennesen, Chief, Community Planning Section
Vaughan Norris, Community Planner
Kjris Lund, Manager, Historic Preservation Program
ATTN: Flo Lentz, Cultural Resources Specialist
Dan Kelleher, Mayor, City of Kent
ATTN: James P. Harris, Planning Director <%
DRAFT
I,
1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PRESERVATION
2 OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS LOCATED WITHIN
3 (SUBURBAN CITIES)
4
5 This Agreement, made and executed as of the day of
6 1984, by and between King County, a municipal
7 corporation of the State of Washington, and the (Suburban City,
8 a municipal corporation of the State of Washington.)
9
10 WITNESSETH:
11 WHEREAS, the parties of this Agreement find that:
12 (1) The protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use
13 of buildings, sites , districts , structures and obiects of
14 historical, cultural , architectural engineering, geographic and
15 archeological significance located in King County is necessary
16 in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general
17 welfare of the people of King County.
18 (2) Such cultural and historic assets are a significant
19 part of the heritage, education and economic base of King County,
20 and the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of the County '
21 cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the heritage of
22 the County and by allowing the unnecessary destruction or deface-
23 ment of such assets.
24 WHEREAS, the purposes of this Agreement are to:
25
(1) designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuat
26
those sites, buildings , districts , structures and objects which
n
reflect significant elements of the local cities ' , county's,
28
state's and nation's cultural, aesthetic, social, economic,
29
political, architectural, archeological engineering, historic
30
and other heritage;
31
(2) foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments
32
of the past;
33
-1-
DRAFT
E '
1 (3) stabilize and improve the economic vitality and
2 values of landmarks , sites , districts, buildings, structuresand
3 objects;
4 (4) protect and enhance the local cities' and the
5 county's tourist industry;
6 (5) promote the continued use of outstanding sites,
7 districts, buildings, structures and objects for the education,
8 inspiration and welfare of the people of King County;
9 (6) promote and continue private incentives for
10 ownership and utilization of landmark buildings, sites , districts
11 structures and objects;
12 (7) assist, encourage and provide incentives such as
13 historic preservation grant funds to private owners in suburban
14 cities for preservation, restoration, redevelopment and use of
15 landmark buildings , sites, districts, structures and objects;
16 (8) provide incentives to local cities to adopt their
17 own landmark preservation ordinances and commissions in the
18 future.
19 WHEREAS, King County, on April 7, 1980, adopted Landmarks
20 Preservation Ordinance 4828 which establishes a procedure for
21 designating historic landmarks throughout King County; and
22 WHEREAS, King County has completed an inventory of landmarks
23 within (Suburban City) which identifies those structures and
24 sites potentially qualified for designation; and
25 WHEREAS, (Suburban City) , with the passage of
26 ( ) has adopted the (relevant comprehensive
27
plan) which sets goals for the preservation of historic landmarks ;
28 and
29 WHEREAS, (Suburban City) with the passage of ( ) ,
30
has adopted legislation for the preservation of designated
31 historic landmarks within the corporate limits; and
32
33
-2-
DRAFT
1 WHEREAS, King County and (Suburban City) wish jointly to
2 designate and preserve historic landmarks within (Suburban Citv) :
3 NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of the mutual benefits and
4 promises contained herein, the parties hereto do agree as follows:
5 I. General Agreement
6 A. Criteria for Designation
7 (1) An object, improvement, site or district may be
8 designated as a King County landmark, landmark site or district
9 if it is more than forty years old or, in the case of a landmark
L0 district, contains improvements that are more than forty years
11 old, and possesses integrity of location, design, setting,
12 materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:
13 (a) is associated with events that have made a
14 significant contribution to the broad patterns of national , state
15 or local history
; or
16
(b) is associated with the lives of persons
17 1
significant in national, state or local history; or / '
18
(c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of
19 a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or
20 that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
21 components may .lack individual distinction; or ( L (
22
(d) has yielded or may be likely to yield, informa-
23 tion important in prehistory or history; or
24
(e) is an outstanding work of a designer or
25
builder who has made a substantial contribution to the art; or
26
(2) An object, improvement, site or district may be
n
designated a community landmark because of its prominence of
28
spatial location, contrasts of siting, age or scale, it is an
29
easily identifiable visual feature of a neighborhood or the
30
county and contributes to the distinctive quality or identity of
31
such neighborhood or county. An improvement or site qualifying
32
for designation solely by virtue of satisfying criteria set out
33
in this section shall be designated a community landmark and
DRAFT
s ..
1 shall not be subject to the provisions of Section E of this
2 Agreement.
3 (3) Cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical
4 figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for
5 religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their
6 original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties
7 primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have
8 achieved significance within the past forty years shall not be
9 considered eligible for designation. However, such a property
10 will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that meet
11 the criteria set out in Section I.A. (l) above or if it is:
12 (a) a religious property deriving primary
13 significance from architectural or artistic distinction or
14 historical importance; or
15 (b) a building or structure removed from its
16 original location but which is significant primarily for its
17 architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most
18 importantly associated with a historic person or event; or
19 (c) a birthplace, grave or residence of a
20 historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other
21 appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her
22 _ productive life; or
23 (d) a cemetery that derives its primary signifi-
24 cance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from
25 age, from distinctive design features , or from association with
26
historic events; or
27 (e) a reconstructed building when accurately
28 executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified
29 manner (or) as part of a restoration master plan, and when no
;0 other building or structure with the same association has
31 survived; or
32
33
4-
DRAFT
1 (f) a property primarily commemorative in intent
2 if design, age, trandition, or symbolic value has invested it
3 with its own historical significance; or
4 (g) a property achieving significance within the
5 past forty years if it is of exceptional importance.
6 B. Nomination Procedure
7 Any person, including the historic preservation officer
8 and any member of the commission, may nominate any site, improve-
9 ment, district or object for designation as a landmark or land-
10 mark site or district. The nomination or designation of an objec
11 or improvement as a landmark shall constitute nomination or
12 designation of the site on which the object or improvement is
13 located as a landmark site unless the nomination provides other-
14- wise. Nominations shall be made on official nomination forms
15 provided by the historic preservation officer, shall be filed
16 with the historic preservation officer, and shall include all
17 data required by the commission: Nominations found to be in
18 order by the historic preservation officer shall be considered
19 by the commission at a public meeting. The historic preservation
20 officer, his or her designee, or the commission may amena or
21 complete any nomination. The historic preservation officer shall
22 mail a copy of any nomination and of any amendment thereto to
�3 the owner and to the leading official of (Suburban City) or his/
24 her designee upon completion.
25 C. Preliminary Determination Procedure
26 (1) Upon receipt by the historic preservation officer
27 of any nomination for designation, the officer shall review the
28 nomination, consult where necessary with the person or persons
29 submitting the nomination and the owner and prepare any amend-
30 ments to or additional information on the nomination deemed
31 necessary by the officer. The historic preservation officer may
32 refuse to accept any nomination for which inadequate information
33
-S-
DRAFT
1 is provided by the person or persons submitting the nomination.
2 It is the responsibility of the person or persons
3 submitting the nomination to perform such research as is
4 necessary for a preliminary determination by the commission.
5 The historic preservation officer may assume responsibility for
6 gathering the required information, or appoint an expert or
7 experts to carry out this research in the interest of expediting
8 the preliminary determination. The landmark protection proce-
9 dure set out in Section E of this Agreement shall not be
10 enforced until after a preliminary determination of significance
11 by the commission.
12 (2) When the historic preservation officer is
13 satisfied that the nomination contains sufficient information
14 and complies with the commission's regulations for nominations,
15 the officer shall give notice in writing to the owner of the
16 property or object, to the person submitting the nomination
17 and to the leading official of (Suburban City) that a pre-
is liminary determination on the nomination will be made by the
19 commission. The notice shall contain the date, time and place
20 of hearing, the address and description of the property, and
21 shall state that, upon a preliminary determination of signi-
22 ficance, the landmark protection procedure set out in Section E
23 of this Agreement will apply, together with a statement that,
24 upon a preliminary determination of significance , no significant
25 feature may be changed without first notifying
y g y• g (Suburban City)
26 whether or not a building or other permit is required. A copy
27 of the provisions of Section E shall be included with the notice
28
(3) The historic preservation officer shall, after
29 mailing the notice required herein, refer the nomination and all
30 supporting information to the commission for consideration on
31 the date specified in the notice. No nomination shall be
32 considered by the commission less than fourteen (14) calendar
33 days after notice has been mailed to the owner and person
-6-
DRAFT
1 submitting the nomination except where the historic preservation
2 officer or members of the commission have reason to believe that
3 immediate action is necessary to prevent the destruction, demo-
4 lition, or defacing of an object, improvement, site or district,
5 in which case the notice setting the hearing shall so state.
6 (4) The commission shall make a preliminary deter-
7 mination on each nomination referred to it only at a public
a meeting. The commission shall consider the nomination documents,
9 supporting materials, and any written statements concerning the
10 nomination which are submitted no later than three (3) days
11 before the meeting at which a nomination is considered. Upon
12 review of such materials, the commission shall determine whether
13 the object, improvement, site or district nominated is of
14 significant value and likely to satisfy the criteria for
15 designation set out in Section I.A. of this Agreement. Such
16 determination shall be effective as of the date of the public
17 meeting at which it is made. Where the commission makes a
18 preliminary determination to approve the nomination for consi-
19 deration for designation, it shall:
20 (a) specify the boundaries of the nominated
21 property, the significant particular features thereof, and such
22 other description of the site, improvement, district or object
23 as it deems appropriate;
24
(b) set a dale, which shall be not less than
25 thirty (30) nor more than forty-five (45) calendar days from
26 the date of preliminary approval of nomination at which a public
27 hearingon the designation shall be held as g provided in
28 Section D.
29 (5) Within five (5) working days after the commission
30 has made a preliminary determination approving a nomination for
31 further designation procedures , the historic g p preservation officer
32 shall file a written notice of such action with the leading
33
-7-
DRAFT I
1 official of (Suburban Cit)r) and mail copies of the same,
2 certified mail/return receipt requested, to the owner, the
3 person submitting the nomination and interested persons of
4 record. Such notice shall include:
5 (a) a copy of the commission's preliminary
6 determination;
7 (b) a statement that while proceedings pursuant
a to this ordinance are pending, or six (6) months from the date
9 of the notice, whichever is shorter, and thereafter if the
to designation is approved by the commission, the landmark pro-
11 tection procedures set out in Section E of this Agreement, a
12 copy of which shall be enclosed, shall apply to the described
13 object, site, improvement or district, whether or not a building
14 or other permit is .required;
15 (c) the date, time and place of the commission
16 hearing on the designation;
17 (d) a statement that all proceedings to review
to the action of the commission at the hearing on approval of
19 designation will be based on the record made at such hearing
20 and that no further right to present evidence on the issue of
21 designation is afforded pursuant to this Agreement.
22 (6) Where the. commission rejects a nomination, it
23 shall so notify the owner, the person submitting the nomination,
24 the leading official of (Suburban City) and interested persons
25 of record setting forth its reasons why approval of the nomina-
26 tion for further designation procedures is not warranted. Any
27 interested person of record may appeal rejection of the nomina-
28 tion as provided in Section F. (1) of this Agreement.
29
30
31
32
33
-8-
DRAFT
1 D. Designation Procedure
2 (1) The commission may approve or deny designation
3 of a site, improvement or objects only after a public hearing.
4 At the designation hearing the commission shall receive evidence
5 and hear argument only on the issues of (1) whether the district
6 site, improvement or object meets the criteria for designation
7 of landmarks, landmark sites or districts specified in
e Section I.A. of this Agreement and merits designation as a
9 landmark, landmark site or district and, (2) the significant
10 features of the district, site, improvement or object. The
11 hearing may be continued from time to time in the discretion
12 of the commission. The decision of the commission shall be
13 made at the next regularly scheduled public meeting of the
14 commission after the close of the public hearing.
15 (2) Whenever the commission approves the designation
16 of all or any portion of the district, site, improvement or
17 object under consideration for designation as a landmark. land-
is mark site or district it shall, within fourteen (14) calendar
19 days of the public meeting at which the decision is made. issue
20 a written designation report which shall include:
21 (a) the boundaries of the nominated property and
22 such other description of the improvement or object sufficient
23 to identify its ownership and location;
24 (b) the significant features and such other
25 information concerning the district, site , improvement or object
26 as the commission deems appropriate;
27 (c) findings of fact and reasons supporting the
28 designation and section (b) above with specific reference to
29 the criteria for designation set forth in Section I .A. of this
30 Agreement;
31 (d) a copy of related landmark protection
32 legislation by (Suburban City) as described in Section E of this
33 Agreement.
-9-
DRAFT
1 (3) Whenever the commission rejects the nomination of
2 all or any portion of the district, site, improvement or object
3 under consideration for designation as a landmark, landmark site
4 or.-district it shall, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the
5 public meeting at which the decision including findings of fact
6 and reasons supporting its determination that the criteria set
7 forth in Section I.A. of this Agreement have not been met .
8 (4) A copy of the commission's designation report or
9 decision rejecting a nomination shall be delivered or mailed to
10 the owner, to interested persons of record and the leading
11 official of (Suburban City) within five (5) working days after
12 it is issued.
13 If the commission rejects the nomination, it shall
14 include in the notice to the leading official of (Suburban City)
15 a statement that the provisions of (related legislation by the
16 Suburban City) no longer apply to the district, site, improve-
17 ment, or object. Any interested person of record may appeal the
18 approval or rejection of a designation in the manner provided in
19 Section F. (2) of this Agreement.
20 (5) If the commission approves the designation of all
21 or any portion of a district, site, improvement or object, the
22 provisions of Section E of this Agreement shall apply to the
23 designated district, site, improvement, object or portion
24 thereof. (Suburban City) shall file -a-copy-of the designation
25 report with the County Recorder together with"a legal descriptio
26 of the designated property and notification that the provisions
27 of (related local legislation'by the Suburban City) ' apply.
28 E. Related Local Legislation by Suburban City for Landmark
29 Protection
;0
(1) (Suburban City) shall provide an implementing
31 process for review and protection.of landmark districts, sites ,
32 improvements or objects. This process shall be referred to
33
-10-
- 1U/84
1 as (related local legislation) in this Agreement. This local
2 related legislation shall include but not be limited to: Cj "
3 (a) (Suburban City) shall designate an entity
4 within its governmental structure to be responsible for accept-
5 ing designation decisions of the King County Landmarks Commission
6 in a timely manner, and reviewing, approving or denying altera=
7 tions to significantfeatures of designatedplandmark districts, ,
F 0rn.P�i
8 sites, improvements or objects;
9 (b) (Suburban City) shall review such alteration
10 requests in keeping with the National Secretary of the Interior's
11 Standards for Rehabilitation; r;, ( 1 ,--, �,7/( ,ye,�,, ,/s�/ ��� s � .
12 (c) (Suburban City) shall develop an appeal
13 process to hear appeals of development review decisions;
14 (d) (Suburban City) shall adopt a legal standard)7
15 and procedure for such development review and appeals;�,',�A J
16 (e) (Suburban City) shall submit a report to the
17 Landmarks Commission once a year, June 30, reporting on
18 development review decisions affecting historic properties
19 recommended to (Suburban City) by the King County Landmarks
20 Commission;
21 (f) (Suburban City) shall notify the King County
22 Landmarks Commission of their intent to establish,their own
23 local ordinance and commission through this legislation;
24 (g) (Suburban City) shall establish criteria and
25 procedures for Evaluation of Economic Impact of development
26 review decisions resulting from this legislation.
27 (2) At any time after a designation report and notice
28 has been filed with the leading official of (Suburban City) and
29 for period of six (6) months after notice of a preliminary
30 determination of significance has beem mailed to the owner and
31 filed with the leading local official of (Suburban Citv) ,
32
33 -ll-
DRAFT
1 approval must be granted by (Suburban City) before any person
2 may make alterations or significant changes to the significant
3 features or characteristics of the district, site, improvement
4 or object suggested for preservation in the preliminary deter-
s mination of significance or thereafter specified in the
6 designation report. This requirement shall apply whether or
7 not the proposed change or alteration also requires a building
8 or other permit.
9 F. Reconsideration; Appeals from Decisions of the
10 Commission
11 (1) Any interested person of record aggrieved by a
12 preliminary determination of the commission finding that a
13 district, site, improvement or object is ineligible for
14 designation may, within thirty-five (35) calendar days of the
15 date of notice of the determination, petition the commission
16 for reconsideration of that determination on the ground that the
17 determination was based on errors or omissions of fact o- that
18 new information bearing on the determination and not discover-
19 able by the petitioner at the time of the determination is
20 available. The petition for reconsideration shall be filed
21 with the historic preservation officer and shall be accompanied
22 by a statement of the grounds for the petition and supporting
23 documents. Within sixty60 calendar days of a( ) petition for
24 reconsideration, the commission shall, after review of the
25
record, affirm, modify or reverse its prior determination and
26
may render a revised determination. The commission may, in its
27
discretion, hold a hearing on the petition for reconsideration.
28
The action of the commission denying reconsideration and
29
affirming its preliminary determination that a district, site,
30
improvement or object is ineligible for designation shall be
31
final unless, within twenty (20) calendar days from the date of
32
the action, an interested person of record obtains a writ of
33
-12-
DRAFT
1 certiorari from the superior court of King County, State of
2 Washington, for the purpose of review of the action taken.
3 (2) If the commission determines, upon reconsidera-
4 tion, that the district, site, improvement or object is
5 eligible for designation, a hearing on the designation shall
6 be scheduled pursuant to I.C. of this Agreement and the
7. provisions of Section E of this Agreement shall apply.
a (3) Any interested person of record aggrieved by a
9 decision of the commission designating or rejecting a nomination
10 for designation of a district, site, improvement or object may
11 appeal such decision to (Suburban City) according to the appeal
12 procedures established in the related local legislation
13 described in Section E of this Agreement. The written notice
14 of appeal shall be filed with the historic preservation officer
15 and the leading official of (Suburban City) and shall be
16 accompanied by a statement setting forth the grounds for the
17 appeal, supporting documents, and argument.
18 (a) If, after examination of the written appeal
19 and the record, the (Suburban City) determines, that: (1) An
20 error in fact may exist in the record, it shall remand the
21 proceeding to the commission for reconsideration or, if the
22 (Suburban City) determines that: (2) the decision of the
23 commission is based on an error in judgment or conclusion, it
24 may modify or reverse the decision of the commission.
25
(b) The (Suburban Citv's) consideration shall be
26 based upon the record only; however, the (Suburban City) may at
27 its discretion publicly request additional information of the
28 appellant, the commission or the historic preservation officer.
29 (c) The (Suburban City) shall take final action
30 on any appeal from a decision of the commission by adoption of
31
an ordinance, and when so doing, it shall make and enter findings
32 of fact from the record and reasons therefrom which support its
33
-13-
x _ 7/5/84
1 action. Srid findings and reasons shall set forth and
2 demonstrate the manner in which the action carries out and
3 helps to implement the goals, objectives and criteria set
4 forth in this Agreement and other (Suburban City) policies
5 and objectives. The (Suburban City) may adopt all or portions
6 of the commission's findings and reasons.
7 (d) The action of the (Suburban City) approving
8 or rejecting a decision or recommendation of the commission
9 shall be final unless within twenty days from the date of the
10 action an interested person of record obtains a writ of
11 certiorari from the superior court of King County, State of
12 Washington, for the purpose of review of the action taken.
13 G. Funding Procedures
14 (1) The commission shall have the power to make grants
15 of funds received by it from private sources and from local,
16 state and federal programs for purposes of maintaining, purchas-
17 ing or restoring improvements, sites or districts it deems
18 significant pursuant to the goals, objectives and criteria set
19 forth in this Agreement if such improvements, sites or districts
20 have been nominated or designated as landmarks pursuant to this
21 Agreement.
22 H. Fees and Processing Costs
23 King County will charge a fee for processing costs
24 associated with the consideration and designation process includ-
25 ing clerical support, postage, advertising, transportation, and
26 staff support. The average cost per nomination reviewed is
27 Three Hundred thirty five dollars, during 1984 and 1985.
28 The nominator of any historic site is responsible for the
29 cost of preparing an adequate nomination, photographs, historical
30 documentation, boundary-legal description, and any proceedings at
31 which a court reporter is requested.
32 A Three hundred thirty five dollar filing fee will be charged
33 the nominator upon acceptance of a nomination by the Historic
-14-
7/10/84
' r•
1 Preservation Officer but following a positive preliminary
2 determination by the King County Landmarks Commission.
3 II. Modification
4 This Agreement is the complete expression of terms agreed
5 upon, and there are no additional representations or under-
6 standings not incorporated in this Agreement. Further, any
7 modifications of this Agreement shall be in writing, signed
8 by both parties and made a part of this Agreement.
9 III. Time of Performance
10 A. This Agreement shall be terminated upon occurance of
11 the following:
12 (1) The establishment of a local landmarks ordinance
13 and commission by (Suburban City);
14 (2) King County Ordinance 4828 is repealed or no
15 longer in effect;
16 (3) A lack of good faith effort by (Suburban City)
17 to take action as specified above on processing the designation
18 reports of the Landmarks Commission. Such good faith effort
19 will be based on Commission Review of annual reports to the
20 Commission which are described in Section E of this
21 Agreement; or
22 (4) The revoking of authorizing legislation by
23 either King County or (Suburban City) .
24 B. This Agreement, also may be terminated upon sixty
25 days notice by either party. Nominations under consideration
26 at the time of termination will be remanded to (Suburban City) .
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 -15-
DRAFT
1 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this
2 Agreement to be signed by its respective officers.
3
4 CITY OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
5
6 By; By:
7Mayor Executive
8
ATTEST:
9
10
11 Lauraine D. BreUe
12 County Administrative Officer
13
14
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
"
15
16 Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Z7
28
29
30
31
32
33 -16-
6L 84 -
504
�Grn King County Executive
CMMMFOUNr�tORRECTon /'� RandyRevelle
CMWM.RETURNED To DEA on _
CORRECTED LEGISLATION RECEMI)
---august 14, 1984
i
The Honorable Gary Grant
Chairman, King County Council
COURTHOUSE
RE: Historic Preservation Interlocal Agreement
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The enclosed motion authorizes the Executive to enter into an agreement to
provide historic preservation services to suburban cities. Passage of this
motion approving a general interlocal agreement is requested at your earliest
convenience.
The King County Landmarks Commission has been working on this proposed agree-
ment for over a year. The common goal has been to provide a means of sharing
King County' s expertise with similar jurisdictions to identify and preserve
King County's landmarks at a reasonable cost. Over the last year, discussions
between my staff, Landmarks Commissioners, and representatives from the
Prosecuting Attorney's Office and the Budget Office have taken place related
to the scope and fiscal impact of the Landmarks Commission' s proposal .
At their July 12, 1984 meeting, the Landmarks Commission voted to transmit
a general agreement prototype to the King County Council for approval . Under
this proposed motion, each interested jurisdiction would negotiate a separate
contract with King County based on this general model . Under this proposal ,
the King County Landmarks Commission could designate King County Landmarks
within suburban cities and make recommendations_to__suburban cities for
preserving King County Landmarks. The local jurisdiction would be required
to adopt local legislation ensuring a procedure for acting on the King County
Landmarks Commission' s recommendation and for reviewing development actions
affecting historic landmarks. A fee of approximately $300 would be charged
for processing a nomination to cover the costs of mailings, legal notices and
other administrative expenses.
400 King County Courthouse 516'Third Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)3444040
Gary Grant
August 14, 1984
Page Two
The enclosed memorandum from Kjris Lund explains in greater detail the scope
and fiscal impact of this proposal .
If you have any questions about this matter, please telephone Holly Miller,
at 344-7503.
Sincerely,
RANDY RE E
King County xecutive
RR:KL:ol
cc: King County Councilmembers
ATTN: Cheryl Broome, Program Director
Jerry Peterson, Council Administrator
Holly Miller, Director, Planning and Community Development
ATTN: Kjris Lund, Historic Preservation Officer
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 4, 1987
MEMO TO : Judy Woods , Chairperson
Planning Committee
FROM : James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT : ANNEXATION POLICY -- MULTIFAMILY ZONING
At its last meeting, the Planning Committee expressed a desire to establish
policy with respect to potential multifamily zoning in annexation areas. This
action came on the heels of a discussion about the City Council 's 20% density
reduction goal established in Resolution #1123. Please be advised that the
Planning Department is currently analyzing annexation policy in the Greater
Kent Study which will be presented to the City Council in the near future. We
intend to incorporate the concerns of the Planning Committee in draft policy
statements relative to potential annexation zoning.
FS:JPH:ca