The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/19/2004 Planning & Economic Development Committee Agenda KENT Councilmembers: Ron Harmon •Bruce White•Tim Clark, Chair July 19, 2004 4:00 p.m. Item Description Action Speaker Time Page 1. Approval of Minutes dated June 14,2004 YES 1 2. Ordinance Amending References for the YES Bob Hutchinson 20 min 3 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings in the Uniform Housing Code&Uniform Code 3. Manufactured Housing YES Charlene Anderson 20 min 17 Zoning Code Amendment 4ZCA-2004-1 S-,f'e.mu'J'lanPlartning Cunml iteeVlx,41.I8ercMr i!I JIY04Ayeiula-PC Jai Unless otherwise noted,the Planning and Economic Development Committee meets the 3"Monday of each month at 4:00 p.m. in Council Chambers East,Kent City Hall,220 4th Avenue South,Kent,98032-5895. For information please contact Pamela Mottram in Planning Services at(253)856-5454. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at (253)856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. This page intentionally left blank. • iPLANNING& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES June 14,2004 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Tim Clark,Ron Harmon,Bruce White The meeting was called to order by Chair Clark at 4:00 P.M. Approval of Minutes Committee Member White MOVED and Committee Member Harmon SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the May 17,2004 meeting. The Motion CARRIED 3-0. 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update(#CPA-2002-1)Policy TR-5.6 and Policy LU-9.1 Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen explained the intent and purpose of Kent's Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Planning Committee and subsequently the City Council at their June I't meeting remanded the Comprehensive Plan's proposed language for Policy TR-5.6 within the Transportation Element and Policy LU-9.1 within the Land Use Element back to staff for further review. Ms. Gould Wessen described the proposed language for Policy TR-5.6: as Foster connectivity of new development with the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that the intent of this policy is to honor the need for connectivity with community services and to recognize the need to protect geographic or environmentally sensitive areas. Deputy Police Chief Chuck Miller, Assistant Fire Chief Ken Weatherill and Transportation Engineering Manager Steve Mullen addressed the Committee with regard to connectivity, access, circulation issues and the ability to provide the community with effective response time for fire and police emergency services. Ms. Gould-Wessen addressed social implications of connectivity. Tom Sharp, TNS Properties, POB 918, Maple Valley, WA 98032 stated that cul-de-sacs breeds good neighborhoods and it would be a disservice to the city to limit cul-de-sacs development. Ms. Gould-Wessen and Planning Manager Charlene Anderson addressed the Committee's concerns with how the City defines cul-de-sacs. Ms. Kim Adams Pratt,Asst City Attorney explained that if the Committee forwards policy language,that the public has not yet had an opportunity to comment on then a public hearing would need to be held limited to the new policy language. Ron Harmon MOVED and Bruce White SECONDED a motion to amend Policy TR-5.6 by adding new language: "allowing cul-de-sacs where appropriate". The Motion CARRIED 2-1 with Tun Clark objecting. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Policy LU-9.1 deals with the City's need to absorb anticipated growth in the next 10 to 20 years with the target being over 4,000 new housing units. Kent has been designated by the County as an urban community. She stated that at the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board has heard cases dealing with the issue of what is considered an urban density for housing and the Hearings Board has set forth a bright-line rule of(4)four units per net acre for urban densities. Ms. Gould-Wessen described the proposed language reflected concerns expressed by Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development, as well as 1000 Friends of Washington over the City's existing land use densities of one and three dwelling units per acre. Ms. Gould-Wessen addressed concerns raised by Ron Harmon and Tim Clark concerning zoning and land use designation densities as well as any impacts associated with adoption of this policy. Bruce White MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED a Motion to accept the language as amended for Policy LU-9.1. The Motion CARRIED 3-0. Ron Harmon MOVED and Bruce White SECONDED a Motion to forward the Comprehensive Plan back to the Full Council with a public hearing on the additional language recommended by the Committee for Policy TR-5.6. The Motion CARRIED 3-0. Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m. Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary,Planning Services S.WermitlPlanTlanning Committee120041Minutes1061404pc-min.doc z • This page intentionally left blank. 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director O BUILDING SERVICES KENT Robert D. Hutchinson, Manager W"s" "°T°N Phone:253-856-5401 Fax: 253-856-6421 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: JULY 13,2004 TO: CHAIR TIM CLARK AND PLANNING&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: BOB HUTCHINSON, BUILDING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING REFERENCES in the UNIFORM HOUSING CODE and the UNIFORMCODE for the ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS MOTION: I move to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance which amends the references in the Uniform Housing Code and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings to refer to the International Building Code and the International Residential Code. SUMMARY: With its adoption of Ordinance Nos. 3690 and 3691, the City Council adopted by reference the new international codes published by the International Code Council, Inc.—the International Building Code, the International Residential Code, the International Mechanical Code, and the International Fire Code. Accordingly, it is appropriate to amend various provisions within the Uniform Housing Code and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings to revise the references within those codes from the Uniform Building Code to the International Building Code or the International Residential Code, as may be applicable. BUDGETIMPACT: None. RDH\pm:S:\Permit\Ds\I-Codes'duly Plan Comm.doc cc: Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Community Development Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Services Manager 4 This page intentionally left blank. i • 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Kent City Code sections 14.01.070 and 14.01.080 to update the references from the Uniform Building Code to the International Building Code or the International Residential Code, as may be applicable. RECITALS A. On May 4,2004,the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 3690 and 3691 which adopted the new international codes published by the International Code Council, Inc.-the International Building Code, the International Residential Code, the International Mechanical Code, and the International Fire Code. B. In light of the adoption of the international codes,it is appropriate to amend the Kent City Code in order to update the references in the Uniform Housing Code and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings to refer to the International Building Code or the International Residential Code, as may be applicable. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the 1 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 6 ORDINANCE SECTION 1. —Amendment. Section 14.01.070 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Amendments to the Uniform Housing Code," is amended as follows: Sec. 14.01.070. Amendments to the Uniform Housing Code. The following local amendments to the Uniform Housing Code previously adopted in KCC 14.01.010 are hereby adopted as if fully set forth therein. A. Scope. Section 103 of the Uniform Housing Code is amended by substituting Section 103 with the following: Sec. 103. Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to all buildings or portions thereof used, or designed, or intended to be used, for human habitation. Such occupancies in existingbuildings uildings may be continued as provided in IBC 102.6 or IRC R102.7, as may be applicable, except such structures as are found to be substandard as defined in this code. Where any building or portion thereof is used or intended to be used as a combination apartment house-hotel, the provisions of this code shall apply to the separate portions as if they were separate buildings. Rooming houses, congregate residences, or lodging houses shall comply with all the requirements of this code for dwellings. B. Application to existing buildings and structures — Additions, alterations or repairs. Subsection 104.1 of the Uniform Housing Code is amended by substituting Subsection 104.1 with the following: Sec. 104.1 Additions, Alterations, or Repairs. For additions,alterations, or repairs, see IBC §§ 102.6 and 3403 or IRC § R102.7, as may be applicable. Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the 2 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 7 i CA. Repealer. Section 202 of Chapter 2 and Chapters 11 through 16 of the Uniform Housing Code are hereby repealed. D14. Board of appeals. Section 203 of the Uniform Housing Code, entitled"Board of appeals," is amended by substituting Section 203 with the following: Sec. 203 Board of appeals. The City of Kent hearings examiner is designated as the board of appeals in order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the building official relative to the suitability of alternate materials, design, and methods of construction and appeals of the reasonable application and interpretation of the building codes. Appeals shall be made as set forth in section 14.01.100 of the Kent City Code. EQ Violations. Section 204 of the Uniform Housing Code, entitled"Violations,"is amended by substituting Section 204 with the following: See. 204 Violations 204.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish, or occupy any building, structure, or equipment regulated by this code, or cause the same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code. 204.2 Violation penalties. Any person who violates a provision of this code, or fails to comply with any of its requirements, or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building or structure in violation of: (a) the approved construction documents, (b) a directive of the building official, or (c) a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be subject to penalties as set forth in Ch. 14.08 KCC or as otherwise provided by law. fUniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the 3 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 8 i F. Permits and inspections—General. Section 301 of the Uniform Housing Code, entitled"General," is amended by substituting Section 301 with the following: Sec. 301. General. No building or structure regulated by this code shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted, or demolished unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained from the buildingofficial icial in the manner and according to the applicable conditions prescribed in IBC 0 105 and 106 or IRC H R105 and R106, as may be applicable. G. Permits and inspections — Fees. Section 302 of the Uniform Housing Code, entitled"Fees,"is amended by substituting Section 302 with the following: Sec. 302. Fees. When a building permit is required by Section 301 of this code,the appropriate fees shall be paid as specified in IBC 5 108 or IRC § R108, as ma e golicable. H. Permits and inspections—Inspection. Section 303 of the Uniform Housing Code, entitled"Inspection,"is amended by substituting Section 303 with the following_ Sec. 303. Inspection. Buildings or structures within the scope of this code and all construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official in accordance with and in the manner provided by this code and IBC §§ 109 and 1704 or IRC § R109, as maeapplicable. I. Definitions—Building code. Section 401 of the Uniform Housing Code,entitled "Definitions,"is amended by revising the definition of"building code"as follows: Sec.401. Definitions. BUILDING CODE is the International Building Code ("IBC") or the International Residential Code CIRC"), as Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the 4 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 9 maybe applicable, promutgated by the International Code Council, Inc., as adopted by this jurisdiction. J. Definitions — Mechanical code. Section 401 of the Uniform Housing Code, entitled "Definitions," is amended by revising the definition of"mechanical code" as follows: Sec. 401. Definitions. MECHANICAL CODE is the International Mechanical Code or the International Residential Code, promulgated by the International Code Council, Inc., as may be applicable and as adopted by this jurisdiction. K. Space and occupancy standards — Location on property. Section 501 of the Uniform Housing Code, entitled "Location on Property," is amended by substituting Section 501 with the following: Sec. 501. Location on property. All buildings shall be located with respect to property lines and to other buildings on the same propertyas by Chs. 5 and 6 IBC and IRC § R302, as may be applicable. L. Light and Ventilation - Hallways. Subsection 504.4 of the Uniform Housing Code, entitled "Hallways," is amended by substituting Subsection 504.4 with the following: Sec. 504.4 Hallways. All public hallways, stairs, and other exitways shall be adequately lighted at all times in accordance with IBC 1006 or IRC H R303 and R311, as may be pplicable. M. Sanitation — Water Closet Compartments. Subsection 505.5 of the Uniform Housing Code, entitled "Water closet compartments," is amended by substituting Subsection 505.5 with the following: Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the 5 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 10 Sec.505.5 Water Closet Compartments. Walls and floors of water closet compartments, except in dwellings, shall be finishedfufnished in accordance with IBC 1210. This provision is not applicable to those projects subject to the IRC. N. Heating and Ventilation -Heating. Subsection 701.1 of the Uniform Housing Code entitled"Heating,"is amended by substituting Subsection 701.1 with the following: Sec. 701.1 Heating. Dwelling units, guest rooms, and congregate residences shall be provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining a room temQerature of at least 70T (21.1°C) at a point 3 feet (914 mm) above the floor in all habitable rooms. Such facilities shall be installed and maintained in a safe condition and in accordance with Ch.21 IBC or Chs. 10-24 IRC,as may be applicable,the Mechanical Code and all other applicable laws. Unvented fuel-burning heaters are not permitted. All heating devices or appliances shall be of an approved type. O. Exits-General. Section 801 of the Uniform Housing Code,entitled"General,"is amended by substituting Section 801 with the following: Sec.801. General. Dwelling units or guest rooms shall have access directly to the outside or to a public corridor. All buildings or portions thereof shall be provided with exits, exitways, and appurtenances as required by Ch. 10 IBC or IRC $ R311, as may applicable. P. Fire protection - General. Section 901 of the Uniform Housing Code, entitled 'General," is amended by substituting Section 901 with the following: Sec.901. General. All buildings or portions thereof shall be provided with the degree of fire-resistive construction as required by the building code for the appropriate occupancy, type of construction, and location on property, and shall be provided with the appropriate fire-extinguishing systems or Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Code far the 6 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 11 • equipment required by Ch. 9 IBC or IRC W313, as may be applicable. Q. Substandard Buildings—Definition-General. Subsection 1001.1 of the Uniform Housing Code entitled"General,"is amended by substituting Subsection 1001.1 with the following: Sec.1001.1 General. Any building or portion thereof that is determined to be an unsafe building in accordance with IBC§ 115 or any building or portion thereof, including any dwelling unit, guest room or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the conditions referenced in this section to an extent that those conditions endanger the life, limb,health,property,safety,or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof, shall be deemed and hereby are declared to be substandard buildings. SECTION 2. —Amendment. Section 14.01.080 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Amendments to the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings," is amended as follows: Sec. 14.01.080. Amendments to the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. The following local amendments to the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings previously adopted in KCC 14.01.010 are hereby adopted as if fully set forth therein. A. Purpose and scope. Subsection 102.1 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, entitled "Purpose," is amended by substituting Subsection 102.1 with the following: Sec. 102.1 Purpose. It is the purpose of this code to provide a just, equitable, and practicable method, to be cumulative with and in addition to any other remedy provided by the International Building Code,International Residential Code, Uniform Housing Code, or otherwise available by law, isUniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the 7 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 12 • whereby buildings or structures which from any cause endanger the life, limb, health, morals, property, safety, or welfare of the general public or of their occupants may be required to be repaired,vacated, or demolished. The purpose of this code is not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this code. B. Alterations additions and repairs. Section 103 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, entitled "Alterations, additions, and repairs," is amended by substituting Section 103 with the following: Sec. 103. Alterations, additions, and repairs. All buildings or structures which are required to be repaired under the provisions of this code shall be subject to the provisions of IBC § 3403 or IRC § R102.7, as may be awlicable. CA. Abatement of dangerous buildings. Section 202 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, entitled "Abatement of Dangerous Buildings," is amended by substituting Section 202 with the following: Sec.202. Abatement of dangerous buildings. All buildings or portions thereof which are determined after inspection by the building official to be dangerous as defined in this code are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by repair,rehabilitation, demolition or removal. DB. Violations. Section 203 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, entitled "Violations," is amended by substituting Section 203 with the following: See. 203 Violations. 203.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the 8 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 13 firm, or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish, or occupy any building, structure, or equipment regulated by this code, or cause the same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code. 203.2 Violation penalties. Any person who violates a provision of this code, or fails to comply with any of its requirements, or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building or structure in violation of: (a) the approved construction documents, (b) a directive of the building official, or (c) a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be subject to penalties as set forth in Ch. 14.08 KCC or as otherwise provided by law. E. Inspection of Work. Section 204 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings,entitled"Inspection of Work,"is amended by substituting Section 204 with the following: Sec. 204 Inspection of work. All buildings or structures within the scope of this code and all construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official in accordance with and in the manner provided by this code and IBC §§ 109 and 1704 or IRC R109, as may be pplicable. FE. Board of Appeals. Section 205 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, entitled "Board of Appeals," is amended by substituting Section 205 with the following: Sec. 205 Board of appeals. The City of Kent hearings examiner is designated as the board of appeals in order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the building official relative to the suitability of alternate materials, designs, and methods of construction and appeals of the reasonable application and interpretation of the building codes. Appeals shall be made as set forth in section 14.01.100 of the Kent City Code. Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the 9 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 14 • GE. General - Definitions. Section 301 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings is amended as follows: Sec. 301 General. For the purpose of this code, certain terms,phrases,words,and their derivatives shall be construed as specified in either this chapter or as specified in the building code or the housing code. Where terms are not defined, they shall have their ordinary accepted meanings within the context with which they are used. "" 's Third-New ltAemational Pietionafy of the English e Unabr-idged shall be eenstFaed as pfevidifig > eepyfighte Words used in the singular include the plural and the plural the singular. Words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and the feminine the masculine. Building code is the International Building Code or the International Residential Code, as may be applicable,promulgated by the International Code Council, Inc., as adopted by this jurisdiction. Dangerous building is any building or structure deemed to be dangerous under the • provision of section 302 of this code. Endangered as used in section 302 means negatively affected,to any degree,by any and all conditions,actions or omissions which, singularly or together, reduce or are likely to reduce or negatively impact the life or limb, health, property or safety of the public, including but not limited to, economy in the provision of public service, general welfare, economic viability, or security in the enjoyment of the community.Health officer as used in this code shall mean the building official or his or her designee. Housing code is the Uniform Housing Code promulgated by the International Conference of Building Officials, as adopted by this jurisdiction. HP. Repealer. Chapters 4 through 9 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings are repealed. SECTION3.—Severability. If anyone or more section,subsections,or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the 10Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 15 SECTION 4.—Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this Ordinancefeselutiext is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 5. -Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of July,2004. APPROVED: day of July, 2004. PUBLISHED: day of July, 2004. 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\HousingCodeAbatementCode-Amendment.doc Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the 1 I Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 16 Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the 12 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings-Amendment 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP,Director PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager WASHINGTON -- -- Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 JULY 14,2004 TO: CHAIR TIM CLARK AND PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT #ZCA-2004-1 MANUFACTURED HOUSING MOTION: 1 move to recommend/not recommend approval of#ZCA-2004-1, amending Chapter 15 of Kent City Code to allow designated manufactured homes in all residential zoning districts, as recommended by the Land Use&Planning Board. SUMMARY: On March 31, 2004, Governor Locke signed Senate Bill 6593 which prohibits discrimination against consumers' choices in housing. In effect, the Bill prohibits the City from enacting any statute or ordinance that has the effect, directly or indirectly, of discriminating against manufactured homes in such a manner that is not equally applicable to all homes. The new regulations take effect July 1, 2005. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Existing Kent City Code permits mobile homes and manufactured homes only in mobile home parks; they are not permitted in any other zoning district nor are they allowed on individually platted residential lots. In light of Senate Bill 6593, the Land Use & Planning Board recommends approval of the following amendment to allow manufactured homes in a manner similar to other single family dwellings. Design review can be required for manufactured homes only when the standards also are applicable to other homes. Mixed Zoning Option: 1. Retain the existing mobile home park requirement for manufactured/mobile homes constructed prior to June 15, 1976 or for used manufactured homes, or used designated manufactured homes, and require the following for "designated manufactured homes" in order to locate within other residential zoning districts: a) A designated manufactured home must be a new manufactured home; b) The designated manufactured home shall be set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and the space from the bottom of the home to the ground shall be enclosed by concrete or an approved concrete product that can be either load bearing or decorative; c) The designated manufactured home shall comply with all local design standards applicable to all other homes; d) The designated manufactured home shall be thermally equivalent to the state energy code; and e) The designated manufactured home shall meet all other requirements for a designated manufactured home as defined in RCW 35.63.160. 18 2. Add to Kent City Code under Title 15 the following definitions from the Bill: Designated manufactured home means a manufactured home constructed after June 15, 1976, in accordance with state and federal requirements for manufactured homes, which: a. Is comprised of at least two fully enclosed parallel sections each of not less than twelve feet wide by thirty-six feet long; b. Was originally constructed with and now has a composition or wood shake or shingle, coated metal, or similar roof of nominal 3:12 pitch; and C. Has exterior siding similar in appearance to siding materials commonly used on conventional site-built uniform building code single-family residences. New manufactured home means any manufactured home required to be titled under Title 46 RCW, which has not been previously titled to a retail purchaser, and is not a"used mobile home" as defined in RCW 82.45.032(2). 3. The new regulations would become effective July 1, 2005, concurrent with the effective date of the state legislation. CA\pm S:\Perrnit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2004\2041159-2004-lpcO7l9O4.doe Enc: Minutes of 4/26/04 and 6/14/04 LU&PB meetings;6/7/04 staff memo to LU&PB;Senate Bill 6593 cc: Fred N.Sattersnom,AICP,CD Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Services Manager Project File Parties of Record: Planning&Economic Development Committee Meeting 7/19/04 Manufactured Housing#ZCA-2004-1 Page 2 of 2 19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP,Director^.00�svh*� PLANNING SERVICES NSZK E N T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager -----WASH IN G T O N Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 JUNE 79 2004 TO: CHAIR JON JOHNSON AND LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT #ZCA-2004-1 MANUFACTURED HOUSING For Public Hearing of June 14, 2004 SUMMARY: On March 31, 2004, Governor Locke signed Senate Bill 6593 which prohibits discrimination against consumers' choices in housing. In effect, the Bill prohibits the City from enacting any statute or ordinance that has the effect, directly or indirectly, of discriminating against manufactured homes in such a manner that is not equally applicable to all homes. The new regulations take effect July 1, 2005. BACKGROUND: Existing Kent City Code permits mobile homes and manufactured homes only in mobile home parks; they are not permitted in any other zoning district. Although initially the existing regulations were intended to help protect property values in residential districts, new manufactured homes arguably are becoming more similar aesthetically and structurally to "stick- built" dwellings that are allowed in residential districts. In light of Senate Bill 6593, staff proposes to amend the code to allow manufactured homes in a manner similar to other single family dwellings. Design review can be required for manufactured homes only when the standards also are applicable to other homes. OPTIONS: A. Mixed Zoning Retain the existing mobile home park requirement for manufactured/mobile homes constructed prior to June 15, 1976 or for used manufactured homes, or used designated manufactured homes, and require the following for "designated manufactured homes" in order to locate within other residential zoning districts: a) A designated manufactured home must be a new manufactured home; b) The designated manufactured home shall be set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and the space from the bottom of the home to the ground shall be enclosed by concrete or an approved concrete product that can be either load bearing or decorative; c) The designated manufactured home shall comply with all local design standards applicable to all other homes; • d) The designated manufactured home shall be thermally equivalent to the state energy code; and 20 e) The designated manufactured home shall meet all other requirements for a designated manufactured home as defined in RCW 35.63.160. Add to Kent City Code under Title 15 the following definitions from the Bill: Designated manufactured home means a manufactured home constructed after June 15, 1976, in accordance with state and federal requirements for manufactured homes, which: a. Is comprised of at least two fully enclosed parallel sections each of not less than twelve feet wide by thirty-six feet long; b. Was originally constructed with and now has a composition or wood shake or shingle, coated metal, or similar roof of nominal 3:12 pitch; and C. Has exterior siding similar in appearance to siding materials commonly used on conventional site-built uniform building code single-family residences. New manufactured home means any manufactured home required to be titled under Title 46 RCW, which has not been previously titled to a retail purchaser, and is not a"used mobile home" as defined in RCW 82.45.032(2). B. Design Review Similar to Option A, but additionally require design review for all residential dwelling units. C. All Districts Allow manufactured homes outright in all residential zoning districts, regardless of age of home, new or used, or other development conditions listed under Options A and B. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option A because it continues existing code regulations regarding manufactured homes and also incorporates the new state regulations for those homes constructed after June 15, 1976. Staff proposes any new regulations become effective July 1, 2005, concurrent with the effective date of the state legislation. Options B and C impose additional impacts on existing neighborhoods and further, with design review requirements would impose additional time, money, and workload constraints on residential developers and staff alike without contributing corresponding benefits. The SEPA Responsible Official has determined that no further SEPA actions are required as the proposed code amendments are categorically exempt from SEPA review. CA\pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2004\2041159-2004-Ilupbph061404.doc Enc: Senate Bill 6593 cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Services Manager Project File Parties of Record: 21 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom,C.D.Director PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager KEN T Phone:253-856-5454 W A S M I N O T O N Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avcnue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 14,2004 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Jon Johnson at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,June 14, 2004 in Chambers West of Kent City Hall. LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson, Chair, Steve Dowell, Theresa Ferguson and Elizabeth Watson LUPB MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Worthing,Vice Chair,Excused; David Malik,Unexcused; Nicole Fincher,Unexcused STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager, Kim Adams Pratt Assist City Attorney and Pamela Mottram,Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Steve Dowell MOVED and Elizabeth Watson SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of April 26, 2004. Motion CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that ZCA-2004-3 Hazardous Substance Land Use Facilities Amendment and ZCA-2004-2 Churches in M-1 Zoning Districts amendment will move forward to the July 6 City Council Meeting and ZCA-2004-1 Manufactured Housing Amendment will move forward to the July 20 City Council Meeting, due to the State's 60 day notification period in affect until July 20". #ZCA-2004-1 MANUFACTURED HOUSING Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the State has enacted new legislation requiring that cities allow certain manufactured housing in all single family residential zoning districts. Ms. Anderson described 3 (three) zoning options considered by staff for locating manufactured/mobile homes in Kent. Ms. Anderson described Option A Mixed Zoning as recommended by staff. Ms. Ferguson discussed her concerns regarding property values if manufactured homes are allowed in every neighborhood. Chair Johnson declared the public hearing open. Ron Harmon,11403 SE 264`h Place,Kent,WA asked the Board to consider including Option B-Design Review as part of the Mixed Zoning Option A. 22 Ms. Watson stated that it is her understanding that this piece of legislation was designed to prevent housing discrimination within the community and therefore, the Board could not • impose a design review, without imposing it on all dwellings within the City of Kent. The Board members concurred. Steve Dowell MOVED and Elizabeth Watson SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED. The Board members discussed options associated with design review parameters. Charlene Anderson addressed issues comparing manufactured homes with stick built homes. Elizabeth Watson MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to accept Option A Mixed Zoning as recommended by staff. Motion Carried 4-0. #ZCA-2004-2 CHURCHES IN M-1 ZONES Ms. Anderson said this project was initiated by Mayor White as the result of a request for a church to locate in the M-1 Industrial Park District. She stated that the code allows churches as special permit uses in most zoning districts. Ms. Anderson described the three (3) options analyzed by staff. Ms. Anderson stated that staff recommends a modified Option C, adding churches as Special Permit Uses only in the CM-1,MI and M1-3 zoning districts. Chair Johnson declared the public hearing open. Seeing no speakers, Steve Dowell MOVED and Elizabeth Watson SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED. Theresa Ferguson MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to accept Staffs recommendation for a modified Option C, adding churches as Special Permit Uses only in the CM-1,M1 and MI-C zoning districts. Motion CARRIED 4-0. #ZCA-2004-3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LAND USE FACILITIES Ms. Anderson stated that the City has adopted the International Fire Code which replaces the Uniform Fire Code. Ms. Anderson stated that Kent City Code Sections 15.08.050(D)(9)(g) and 15.08.050(D)(9)(k) reference the "Uniform Fire Code". She stated that staff is recommending replacing that language to reflect "adopted fire codes". Ms. Anderson stated that these new codes will be affective July 1, 2004 and will apply only to buildings that vest after the July 1"date. Chair Johnson declared the public hearing open. Seeing no speakers, Steve Dowell MOVED and Elizabeth Watson SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED. Theresa Ferguson MOVED and Elizabeth Watson SECONDED a motion to accept staff s recommendation to replace the Uniform Fire Code language with language referencing "adopted Fire Codes". Motion CARRIED 4-0. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for discussion, Steve Dowell MOVED and Theresa Ferguson SECONDED a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respec ally Submitted, (Ymlarzz - Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Secretary, Land Use and Planning Board • S.,PermPtlPlanILUPB12004LVinYleSIO61404min doc Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 14,2004 Page 2 of 2 23 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom,C. D. Director PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager Phone:253-856-5454 W A f M 1 M Y T O N Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 88032-5885 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC MEETING APRIL 26, 2004 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Jon Johnson at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 26, 2004 in Chambers West of Kent City Hall. LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson, Chair, Greg Worthing, Vice Chair, Steve Dowell, Theresa_ Ferguson, David Malik and Elizabeth Watson LUPB MEMBERS ABSENT: Nicole Fincher, Unexcused STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager and Pamela Mottram,Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ADDED ITEMS None COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Worthing agreed to cover short plat meetings for the duration of 2004, in response to a request by Planning Manager Charlene Anderson. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the Land Use and Planning Board will discuss the following zoning code amendment issues at their May 10 workshop; Manufactured Housing, Hazardous Substance Land Use Facilities and Churches in M-1 zones. Ms. Anderson stated that City Council has held two workshops on the Draft Kent Comprehensive Plan Update and intends to take the Draft Comprehensive Plan before the Planning and Economic Development Committee on May 171h. LUPB BY-LAWS Planning Manager Charlene Anderson described the revisions to the Land Use and Planning Board By-Laws. After deliberation by the Board, David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to accept the changes to the By-laws as proposed by staff. Motion CARRIED. #ZCA-2004-1 MANUFACTURED HOUSING Planning Manager Charlene Anderson described the options and provisions of new legislation associated with manufactured housing. After discourse with the Board, Ms. Anderson stated that this amendment will be discussed at the May 10 Land Use and Planning Board workshop. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for discussion, Steve Dowell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a Motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, �1 • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary, Land Use and Planning Board S:1Pennitl P1anLLUP812004UNinutest042604min.doc 24 • 25 i CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT SENATE HILL 6593 Seth Legislature 2004 Regular Session Passed by the Senate March 10, 2004 CERTIFICATE YEAS 41 NAYS S I, Milton H. Doumit, Jr., Secretary of the Senate of the State of Washington, do hereby President of the Senate certify that the attached is SM&TE SILL 6593 as passed by the Passed b the House March 3, 2004 Senate and the House of Y Representatives on the dates YEAS BS NAYS 11 hereon set forth. Speaker of the House of Representatives Secretary Approved FILED Secretary of State State of Washington Governor of the State of Washington • T— - - } 26 SENATE BILL 6593 AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE Passed Legislature - 2004 Regular Session State of Washington 58th Legislature 2004 Regular Session By Senators Prentice, Carlson, Keiser, T. Sheldon and Winsley Read first - time 01/26/2004. Referred to Committee on Financial Services, Insurance & Housing. 1 AN ACT Relating to prohibiting discrimination against consumers' 2 choices in housing; amending RCW 35.63.160; adding a new section to 3 chapter 35.21 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 35A.21 RCW; adding 4 a new section to chapter 36.01 RCW; creating a new section; and 5 providing an effective date. 6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON- 7 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. . The legislature finds that: Congress has 8 preempted the regulation by the states of manufactured housing 9 construction standards through adoption of construction standards for 10 manufactured housing (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5401-5403) ; and this federal 11 regulation is equivalent to the state's uniform building code. The 12 legislature also finds that congress has declared that: (1) 13 Manufactured housing plays a vital role in meeting the housing needs of 14 the nation; and (2) manufactured homes provide a significant resource 15 for affordable homeownership and rental housing accessible to all 16 Americans (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5401-5403) . The legislature intends to 17 protect the consumers' rights to choose among a number of housing 18 construction alternatives without restraint of trade or discrimination 19 by local governments. P. 1 SB 6593.PL 27 1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 35.21 RCW 2 to read as follows: 3 (1) A city or town may not enact any statute or ordinance that has 4 the effect, directly or indirectly, of discriminating against 5 consumers' choices in the placement or use of a home in such a manner 6 that is not equally applicable to all homes. Homes built to 42 U.S.C. 7 Sec. 5401-5403 standards (as amended in 2000) must be regulated for the 8 purposes of siting in the same manner as site built homes, factory 9 built homes, or homes built to any other state construction or local 10 design standard. However, any city or town may require that (a) a 11 manufactured home be a new manufactured home; (b) the manufactured home 12 be set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, 13 and that the space from the bottom of the home to the ground be 14 enclosed by concrete or an approved concrete product which can be 15 either load bearing or decorative; (c) the manufactured home comply 16 with all local design standards applicable to all other homes within 17 the neighborhood in which the manufactured home is to be 1'ocated; (d) 18 the home is thermally equivalent to the state energy code; and (e) the 19 manufactured home otherwise meets all other requirements for a 20 designated manufactured home as defined in RCW 35.63.160. A city with 21 a population of one hundred thirty-five thousand or more may choose to • 22 designate its building official as the person responsible for issuing 23 all permits, including department of labor and industries permits 24 issued under chapter 43.22 RCW in accordance with an interlocal 2S agreement under chapter 39.34 RCW, for alterations, remodeling, or 26 expansion of manufactured housing located within the city limits under 27 this section. 28 (2) This section does not override any legally recorded covenants 29 or deed restrictions of record. 30 (3) This section does not affect the authority granted under 31 chapter 43.22 RCW. 32 NEW SECTION. See. 3. A new section is added to chapter 35A.21 RCW 33 to read as follows: 34 .- .. -- (1)-.A code. city may-not- enact. any- statute or.ordinance that has the 35 effect, directly or indirectly, of discriminating against consumers' 36 choices in the placement or use of a home in such a manner that is not 37 equally applicable to all homes. Homes built to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5401- SB 6593.PL P. 2 28 1 5403 standards (as amended in 2000) must be regulated for the purposes 2 of siting in the same manner as site built homes, factory built homes, 3 or homes built to any other state construction or local design 4 standard. However, any code city may require that (a) a manufactured 5 home be a new manufactured home; (b) the manufactured home be set upon 6 a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and that the 7 space from the bottom of the home to the ground be enclosed by concrete 8 or an approved concrete product which can be either load bearing or 9 decorative; (c) the manufactured home comply with all local design 10 standards applicable to all other homes within the neighborhood in 11 which the manufactured home is to be located; (d) the home is thermally 12 equivalent to the state energy code; and (e) the manufactured home 13 otherwise meets all other requirements for a designated manufactured 14 home as defined in RCW 35.63.160. A code city with a population of one 15 hundred thirty-five thousand or more may choose to designate its 16 building official as the person responsible for issuing all permits, 17 including department of labor and industries permits issued under 18 chapter 43.22 RCW in accordance with an interlocal agreement under 19 chapter 39.34 RCW, for alterations, remodeling, or expansion of 20 manufactured housing located within the city limits under this section. 21 (2) This section does not override any legally recorded covenants 22 or deed restrictions of record. 23 (3) This section does not affect the authority granted under 24 chapter 43.22 RCW. 25 NEW SECTION, Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 36.01 RCW 26, to read as follows: 27 (1) A county may not enact any statute or ordinance that has the 28 effect, directly or indirectly, of discriminating against consumers, 29 choices in the placement or use of a home in such a manner that is not 30 equally applicable to all homes. Homes built to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5401- 31 5403 standards (as amended in 2000) must be regulated for the purposes 32 of siting in the same manner as site built homes, factory built homes, 33 or homes built to any other state construction or local design 34 standard. However, any county- may require-that (a)- a- manufactured home 35 be a new manufactured home; (b) the manufactured home be set upon a 36 permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and that the 37 space from the bottom of the home to the ground be enclosed by concrete p. 3 SB 6593.PL 29 1 or an approved concrete product which can be either load bearing or 2 decorative; (c) the manufactured home comply with all local design 3 standards applicable to all other homes within the neighborhood in 4 which the manufactured home is to be located; (d) the home is thermally 5 equivalent to the state energy code; and (e) the manufactured home 6 otherwise meets all other requirements for a designated manufactured 7 home as defined in RCW 35.63.160. 8 (2) This section does not override any legally recorded covenants 9 or deed restrictions of record. 10 (3) This section does not affect the authority granted under 11 chapter 43.22 RCW. 12 Sec. S. RCW 35.63.160 and 1988 c 239 a 1 are each amended to read 13 as follows: 14 (1) ( (Raeh_em, r hensi ._ plan wh _., deer net allowie "_ -,-,_,g 15 eff ..._---faebured emea en individual lots shall be subjeet to - review 16 by the-e1by of the-need-end demandfems-such homes. The review _h_,, be 17 eempleteel-by Peeember 33, 1:990. 18 (2) !''_wthe _..--- - of •,sing &.. ptio� al ref__enee far eit +'-ter--" r__._ __� -r"__.-"_ 19 w r=eh eheese teaa4lew manu€amebured—hemee—eat-sedivielztal bets;)) A 20 "designated manufactured home" is a manufactured home constructed after 21 June 15, 1976, in accordance with state and federal requirements for 22 manufactured homes, which: 23 (a) is comprised of at least two fully enclosed parallel sections 24 each of not less than twelve feet wide by thirty-six feet long; 25 (b) Was originally constructed with and now has a composition or 26 wood shake or shingle, coated metal, or similar roof of ((aet� 27 than) ) nominal 3:12 pitch; and 28 (c) Has exterior aiding similar in appearance to aiding materials 29 commonly used on conventional site-built uniform building code single- 30 family residences. 31 (2) "New manufactured home" means any manufactured home required to 32 be titled under Title 46 RCW, which has not been previously titled to 33 a retail purchaser, and is not a "used mobile home" as defined in RCW 34 82.45,032(2) . --- ..-- 35 (3) Nothing in this section precludes cities from allowing any 36 manufactured home from being sited on individual lots through local 37 standards which differ from the designated manufactured home or nev{ SB 6593.PL p. 4 . 30 1 manufactured home as described in this section, except that the term , 2 "designated manufactured home" and "new manufactured home" shall not be 3 used except as defined in subsections (1) and (2) of this section. 4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. This act takes effect July 1, 2005. --- END --- P. 5 SB 6593.PL PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES July 19, 2004 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Tim Clark, Ron Harmon, Bruce White The meeting was called to order by Chair Clark at 4:00 P.M with Chair Clark acknowledging Member White's absence. Approval of Minutes Committee Member Harmon MOVED and Committee Member Clark SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2004 meeting. Chair Clark stated that the Committee would await Member White's concurrence on the MOTION upon his arrival. #ZCA-2004-1 MANUFACTURED HOUSING Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that this issue is the result of new State legislation to allow manufactured housing in any single family or residential zoning district. She stated that the Land Use and Planning Board recommended approval of this zoning amendment at a hearing held in June. Ms. Anderson described the requirements for siting manufactured homes. Ms. Anderson stated that the Board and Staff recommends an option allowing specific types of designated manufactured homes in all residential zoning districts with other mobile or manufactured homes to be allowed only in mobile home parks per current code. Members Clark and Harmon expressed their concerns with regard to foundations and roof specifications. Member Harmon opined that as this legislation is not effective until July 1, 2005 staff should evaluate this issue further. Ms. Anderson deferred to Building Official Bob Hutchinson who addressed the Committee's concerns regarding structural issues, design standards and the administration and enforcement of Federal Standards. In response to Committee inquiry, Ms. Anderson stated that neighboring cities such as Auburn, Renton and Federal Way are complying with the new State legislation by allowing manufactured homes in residential areas. Tom Sharp, PO Box 918, Maple Valley, WA expressed his consternation that manufactured homes would be incompatible in existing single family neighborhoods due to differing construction standards. Mr. Sharp stated that the City would benefit by forming a task force to study this issue prior to making a final decision. Paul Morford, P.O. Box 6345, Kent, WA voiced his concern with construction standards as they apply to modular factory built housing. He explained that although modular housing is considered more affordable, it costs less to construct a stick built home in Kent even though it takes longer to construct a stick-built home than to site a modular home. Mr. Morford stated that modular homes are not aesthetically pleasing when placed next to existing houses. Mr. Morford suggested that if the City streamlined their permitting process so that single family building permits could be issued in a reasonable time, no one in Kent would want to purchase modular homes. Bob Hutchinson addressed Mr. Sharp's concerns as defined by Member Clark with respect to third party inspections, design standards and what the State's responsibility is with regard to enforcing quality construction. Ms. Anderson addressed questions raised by Member Clark concerning roof pitches and Bob Hutchinson addressed questions raised by Member Harmon concerning provisions for accessible doorways for the disabled. Chair Clark advised staff to review this issue further and bring it back to the Committee in October. Ordinance to Amend References for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings in the Uniform Housing Code & Uniform Code Building Official Bob Hutchinson stated that this is a proposed housekeeping ordinance to amend those references found within the Uniform Housing Code and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Building to direct readers to the correct provisions of the now current International Residential Code, International Building Code and International Mechanical Code. Member Harmon MOVED and Chair Clark SECONDED a motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance which amends the reference of the Uniform Housing Code and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings to refer to the International Building Code, International Mechanical Code and the International Residential Code. Motion CARRIED 3-0 with Committee Member White's concurrence. Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m. Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary, Planning Services VPermitTlanOanning Comniittee120041Minutes1071904pc-min.Aoc Planning&Economic Committee Meeting 7/19/04 Page 2 of 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager KEN 1T WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 KENT PLANNING SERVICES (206) 856-5454 STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF May 19, 2004 . FILE NO: Howard's Addition Rezone RZ-2003-2, KIVA 2031319 APPLICANT: Howard Wilson 403 Howell Way Edmonds, WA 98020 REQUEST: A request to rezone 4.43 acres of property from SR-2 single family residential to SR-3, single family residential. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Sharon Clamp, Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL I• GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The applicant proposes to rezone 4.43 acres from the current zoning of SR-2 single family residential to SR-3, single family residential B. Location The subject property is located at M30 1061h Avenue SE and is identified by King County Tax Parcel number 3222059094. C. Size of Property The property consists of one parcel totaling 4.43 acres. Staff Report Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA#2031319 D. Zoning Adjacent properties surrounding the subject site in all directions are zoned SR-2 Single Family Residential. E. Land Use Currently, there is a single family residence and a barn on the parcel. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan designates the property as SF-3, Single Family three units per acre. F. History The property is part of 3372 acres annexed to the City of Kent on January 1, 1996 under Ordinance No. 3241: . II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Environmental Assessment = A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (ENV-2003-14) for the rezone proposal as well as a project-specific proposal for a 10 lot•subdivision was issued on April 15, 2004. No conditions were proposed for the-rezone portion of the SEPA application. - The proposed project rezone contemplates a 10-lot subaivjsion. The applicant's SEPA application requested both a non-project analysts-,(rezone) and project specific (subdivision) analysis. On-site environmental irnpacts associated with the proposed project specific development have been analyzed and conditioned in the above referenced determination. The project specific proposal is dependent upon the outcome of the rezone application B. Significant Physical Features Topography Wetlands and Vegetation According to an approved wetland assessment prepared by B-Twelve Associates dated January 13, 2003, there is a Category 3 wetland on the site. Category 3 wetlands require, a minimum 25-foot no build buffer. and a 15-foot building setback from the buffer edge. The site is described as rolling with the steepest slope being 11 percent. The vegetation on site consists of pasture, shrubs, grass, and wet soil plants.` - Page 2 of 9 Staff Report Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA 42031319 C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The site is located along 108th Avenue SE, one-quarter mile south of the South 277`h Street Corridor. Upon future development of the property, road and street frontage improvements to meet .City of Kent roadway standards ,will be required as conditions of approval These improvements include but are not limited to 'curb, gutter, sidewalks, planting strips, street lighting, paving, necessary street improvements, and public stormwater conveyance. The proposed rezone appears to have no impact on the transportation system at this time. However, upon development of the subject property, this proposed rezone could potentially result in the creation of nine more PM Peak Hour Trips upon the City's street system than would be generated under the existing zoning designation based on the maximum densities allowed. 2. Water System Water service is provided by the City of Kent and is currently available. System improvements will be necessary to accommodate any subsequent development. 3. Sanitary Sewer System Sanitary sewer service is provided by the City of Kent and is currently available. System improvements will be necessary to accommodate any subsequent development. 4. Stormwater System A stormwater system will be necessary to accommodate any subsequent development. The developer will be required to complete a drainage analysis and develop and submit drainage plans prepared in accordance with the 2002 City of Kent surface Water design Manual and the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, D. CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The proposed rezone is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. Page 3 of 9 Staff Report Howard's Addition Rezone 4RZ-2003-2 KIVA#2031319 III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: Economic Development Manager Police Department Director of Public Works ' Fire Chief. Parks & Recreation Director City Clerk City Attorney Kent School District U.S. Post Master WA Dept. of Ecology Washington State DOT K. C. Wastewater Treatment Puget Sound Energy. King Co. Environmental Health Qwest King Co. Transit Division In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 300 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing. A Notice of Application was posted on the site and published in the King County Journal on January 2, 2004. Comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. IV. PLANNING SERVICES REVIEW A. Comprehensive Plan In 1995, the Kent City Council adopted the Kent Comprehensive Plan, which represented a complete revision to the City's 1977 comprehensive plan. The 1995 plan was prepared under the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act. The Comprehensive Plan, through its goals and policies, presents a clear expression of the City's vision' of growth for citizens, the development community, and other public agencies. The plan is Used by the Mayor, City Council, Land Use and Planning Board, Hearing Examiner, and City departments to guide decisions on amendments to the City's zoning code and other development regulations, which must be consistent with the plan, and also guide decisions regarding the funding and location of capital improvement projects. LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element of the plan contains a Land Use Plan Map, which designates the type and intensity of land uses throughout the city, as well as in the entire potential annexation area. The Land Use Plan Map designates the subject property as SF-3, Single Family Residential which allows three units per acre. The land use element also contains goals and policies relating to the location, ,density, and design of future development in the City and in the Potential Annexation Area. Page 4 of 9 Staff Report Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA#2031319 Overall Goal: Encourage a future growth and development pattern which implements the community's vision, protects` environmentally; sensitive areas, and enhances the quality of life of all of Kent's.residents. Goal LU-8: . The City of Kent adopts a 20-year housing target of 7,500 new dwelling units within the existing city limits. Coordinate with.King County through an interiocal agreement on housing targets in the unincorporated area within Kent's Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-8.1: Provide in the land use plan adequate land and densities to accommodate `both city and county housing targets within the Potential Annexation Area. Average net residential densities throughout the Potential Annexation Area should be at least four units per acre in order to adequately support urban services.. Policy LU-8.3: Locate housing opportunities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit and human and community services. Goal LU-9: Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and _densities throughout the city and the Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-9.4: Allow single family housing on a variety of lot sizes, including 5,000 square foot lots. Locate smaller lot sizes within close proximity to the urban activity centers. Planning Services Comment: The goals and policies of the land use element support the proposed rezone. The proposed location is easily served by existing urban services and is in convenient proximity to urban services along 104'h Avenue SE and Kent Kangley Road. Also, the proposed rezone is consistent with the Land Use Plan Map which allows up,to three dwelling units per acre. Growth Management Hearings Board decisions have determined that lands within Urban Growth Areas should a divided at a minimum of four dwelling units per net acre to ensure efficient provision of urban services. The zoning district SR-3 allows,3.63 dwelling units per acre and a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet. The net density calculations will be evaluated with the analysis of an application for subdivision. HOUSING ELEMENT The primary goal of the housing element is to meet the current and future need for housing in the Kent area. Overall Goal: Ensure opportunities for affordable housing and an appropriate living environment for Kent citizens. Page 5 of 9 Staff Report Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA#2031319 Goal H-1: Promote healthy neighborhoods by providing a wide range of housing options throughout the community that are accessible to community and human services, employment opportunities, and transportation and by being sensitive to the environmental impacts of development. Policy H-1.1: Ensure that community and human services, including, but not limited to, fire,police, library facilities, medical services, neighborhood shopping, child care, food banks, and recycling facilities are easily accessible to neighborhood residents. Planning Services Comment The proposed rezone is supported by relevant goals and policies of the housing element. Appropriate services, including, but not limited to, fire, police, public schools, medical services, neighborhood shopping and child care are easily accessible to neighborhood residents upon development of the subject property. NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS AND POLICIES: Goal LU-20: Protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas via the adoption of the City regulations and programs which encourage well-designed land use patterns such as clustering and planned unit development. Use such land use patterns to concentrate higher urban land use densities and intensity of uses in specified areas in order to preserve natural features such as large wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and forests. Goal LU-22: Ensure that the City's environmental policies and regulations comply with state and federal environmental protection regulations regarding air and water quality, noise and wildlife and fisheries resources and habitat protection: Demonstrate support for environmental quality in land use plans, development regulations, and site plan review to ensure that local land use management is consistent with the City's overall natural resource goals. Planning Services Comment: The proposed rezone is supported by relevant goals and policies contained within the Natural Resources Section of the Comprehensive Plan, The site contains a .25 acre Category 3 wetland. Category 3 wetlands require a minimum 25-foot no build buffer and a 15-foot building setback from the buffer edge. Any subsequent development on the property will be subject to the wetland area requirements outlined in Chapters .11.05 of the Kent City Code. Future development of the site will include. wetland buffer areas which preserve the natural features of the site. Wetland buffers also limit the overall density of the site. Page 6 of 9 Staff Report Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA#2031319 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Goa! TR-1: Coardi,^,ate land use and transportation planning to meet the needs of the City and the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Policy TR-1.2: Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with transportation projects to improve affected roadways: Policy TR-1.5: Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible. Planning Services Comment: The Growth Management Act, requires consistency between land use and transportation planning. As noted, the Land Use Plan identifies the area of the rezone as SF3,. Single Family Residential. The Public Works Department will identify specific improvements which will be necessary on 108`h Avenue SE along the property frontage to serve future development of the property and accommodate higher density permitted under this rezone. B. Standards and Criteria for Granting a Request for Rezone The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.09.050) are used by the.Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for a rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Services Comment The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the subject property as SF3, Single Family Residential, which allows up to three units per acre. A rezone of the site from SR-2 Single Family Residential to SR-3 Single Family Residential will allow,residential development of 3.63 dwelling units per acre. As previously mentioned, the proposed rezone is also consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. However, because of Growth Management Hearings:Board decisions establishing a net density of four dwelling units per acre, additional evaluation of consistency with the Growth Management Act will occur with review of the application for subdivision. 2. ;The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. Planninq Services Comment Land uses in the vicinity,of the site are predominantly single family residential. Although development in the immediate vicinity is predominantly single family Page 7 of 9 Staff Report Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA42031319 residences on large lots, the majority of these lots have future development potential, and many of these lots do not have the development constraints of on- site wetlands as does the subject property. 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. Planning Services Comment A rezone of this property to SR-3 Single Family Residential will not generate additional trips onto the existing transportation system. However, subsequent development of a proposed 10-lot subdivision will add nine PM peak hour trips to the local street system. Upon development of the site, road and street frontage improvements to meet the City of Kent roadway standards will be required as conditions of approval. These improvements include but are not limited to curb, gutter, . sidewalks, planting strips, street lighting, paving, necessary street improvements, and public stormwater conveyance. The applicant will be required to participate in other City transportation improvement projects by providing an environmental mitigation fee for the impacts created by development. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. Planning Services Comment The subject parcel was annexed to the City of Kent on January 1, 1996 and is developed with a single-family residence on the west side of the parcel. In 1995 the City of Kent adopted its Comprehensive Plan which designated this area as SF-3 Single Family Residential. Along with the Land Use Plan Map and Policies, the plan also contains a target for the number of new households the City must accommodate for the 20-year time horizon of the plan. The GMA also states the City's development regulations must implement, and be consistent with the Comprehensive,.Plan. Higher density single family development with smaller lot sizes while recognizing significant environmental features is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plana This area is currently characterized by low density residential development. Prior to Kent annexing this area, King County had zoned the area Urban Reserve, one dwelling unit per five acres. However, at the time the area was annexed, King County the was in the process of recommending lifting all Urban Reserve zoning because it was considered inconsistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan recommended capital improvement strategy for phasing growth. The new density King County recommended for this area was R-4-P, four dwelling units per acre. The County's reason for this proposed increase in density was the fact that lands within the Urban Growth Area were required by the County Wide Page'8 of 9 i Staff Report Howard's Addition Rezone . #RZ-2003-2 KIVA#2031,319 Planning Policies to be characterized by urban development,surrounding parcels in the Urban Reserve zoned areas were zoned R-4-P and R-6-P,`and urban services were available to, or planned for, ; the Urban Reserve parcels. Therefore, upon annexation, the City of Kent zoning for this area was set at R1- 20, single family residential two dwelling units per acre with a comprehensive plan designation of SF3, three units per,acre. This zoning represents a midpoint between the original King County zoning and King County's recommended zoning change to four units per acre. Since the time of annexation significant improvements to roadway infrastructure in the immediate area have been completed, specifically the South 272"d/2771n Street corridor located north of the site. This corridor connects the East Hill area of Kent to the valley floor and provides direct freeway access for residents coming off the Kent East Hill. An on ramp and off ramp to this new corridor are provided for at 108'h Avenue Southeast, just one-quarter mile to the north of the subject property. 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Planning Services Comment The proposed rezone is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequent development on the site will have to meet applicable codes and regulations, including mitigation of anticipated environmental impacts. Therefore, the rezone proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. V. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a rezone, the City staff recommends APPROVAL without conditions of the Howard's Addition rezone. KENT PLANNING SERVICES April 21, 2004 SC:ch:S:\Pe rmit\P la n\rezone\2003\2031319-2003-2report,doc Page 9 of 9 S� 27e4TVA ST sIT� a � . � a 279TH o'o ST o SE 281ST ST a o a = SE 284TH ST rn ------------------------------- 0 *ICATION NAME: HOWARD'S ADDITION REZONE REQUEST: #RZ-2003-2 KIVA#RPP4-2031319 VICINITY MAP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager KEN T Phone: 253-856-5454 w A s H i H c r o H Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 KENT PLANNING SERVICES (206) 856-5454 STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JULY 7, 2004 FILE NO: Howard's Addition Rezone RZ-2003-2, KIVA 2031319 1. GENERAL INFORMATION The applicant proposes to rezone 4.43 acres from the current zoning of SR-2 single family residential to SR-3, single family residential. The property is located at 27830 1061'Avenue SE and is identified by King County Tax Parcel number 3222059094. • IL HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION On June 4, 2004, the Hearing Examiner remanded the application for rezone to the Planning Services office for further analysis in accordance with his Conclusion No. 1. The Hearing Examiner concluded he needed additional evidence in order to determine if the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific concerns related to a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of SF-3 providing for a maximum of three dwelling units per acre, and a zoning designation of SR-3 providing for 3.63 dwelling units per acre. The Hearing Examiner also desired citations for the Growth Management Hearings Board decisions regarding urban density of four dwelling units per acre. III. STAFF COMMENT A. Consistency with Kent Comprehensive Plan When the GMA Kent Comprehensive Plan was adopted in April of 1995, the zoning districts were defined by minimum lot sizes rather than allowable density. Property with a land use designation of SF-2 was consistent with an R1-20 (20,000 square foot minimum lot size) zoning designation; property with a land use designation of SF-3 was consistent with an R1-12 (12,000 square foot minimum lot size)zoning designation. In December, 1995 via Ordinance No. 3268, the City Council adopted revised minimum lot sizes in single family residential districts in recognition of Kent Comprehensive Plan goals and policies recommending a revised calculation Staff Report-Addendum • Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA#2031319 system for determining maximum allowable single family density. In general the minimum lot sizes recognized that roads and detention areas restricted the ability of applicants to achieve the density allowed by the zoning district. The new provisions for the R1-20 district provided for a minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet; the R1-12 district provided for a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet. The provisions of Ordinance No. 3268 were further clarified in Ordinance No. 3290 that was passed in April, 1996. Ordinance No. 3290 redefined zoning districts such that R1-20 became SR-2 (2 single family dwelling units per acre) and R1-12 became SR-3 (3 single family dwelling units per acre). Further clarification of the Council's intent was provided with passage of Ordinance No. 3327 in December, 1996. Ordinance No. 3327 recognized the "unintended effect" of "rounding off' maximum permitted density for each of the single family residential zoning districts. The Council amended the maximum permitted densities for all single family residential zones to coincide with density factors that existed prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 3268, based on mathematically precise calculations. Thus, SR-2 allows 2.18 single family dwelling units per acre, and SR-3 allows 3.63 single family dwelling units per acre. Because of the history of the connection of land use and zoning designations, specifically within the referenced SR-2 and SR-3 districts, staff is able to conclude that the SR-3 zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of SF-3. B. Urban Density The following two paragraphs are excerpts from the original staff report: Policy LU-8.1: Provide in the land use plan adequate land and densities to accommodate both city and county housing targets within the Potential Annexation Area. Average net residential densities throughout the Potential Annexation Area should be at least four units per acre in order to adequately support urban services. Growth Management Hearings Board decisions have determined that lands within Urban Growth Areas should be divided at a minimum of four dwelling units per net acre to ensure efficient provision of urban services. The zoning district SR-3 allows 3.63 dwelling units per acre and a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet. The net density calculations will be evaluated with the analysis of an application for subdivision. Further staff comment: During the City's recent efforts to update the Kent Comprehensive Plan, staff received letters from both the Washington State Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development("CTED") and 1000 Friends of Washington on the subject of urban density. The CTED letter states in part, "The GMA was intended to ensure that lands inside urban growth areas (UGAs) are developed at urban densities, unless there are compelling reasons for developing at lower densities. The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (CPSGMHB) has determined that lands within a Page 2 of 3 Staff Report-Addendum • Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA#2031319 UGA should be divided at a minimum of four dwelling units per net (buildable) acre to ensure efficient provision of urban services such as sewer, water, and public transit...The land may be developed at lower densities, but should allow for infill when services become available." The letter from 1000 Friends of Washington states in part, "The Growth Management Act (GMA) goals encourage development inside urban growth areas (UGAs) and the reduction of low-density sprawling development.' Further, urban growth at urban densities shall be encouraged within the UGA.Z...To address these issues and carryout the goals and requirements of the GMA, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board has adopted a 'bright line' rule that comprehensive plans and development regulations must have a maximum density of no less than four residential dwelling units per net acre for all lands within the UGA.3 This density "is clearly compact urban development and satisfies the low end of the range required by the [Growth Management] Act."4 "Any new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less dense is not a compact urban development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl, and is prohibited." The board has recognized a limited exception for "...environmentally sensitive systems [that] are large in scope (e.g., watershed or drainage sub-basin), their structure and functions are complex and their rank order value is high, ..." Then a local government can apply densities of less than four housing units per net acres All three of these criteria must be met to qualify for the exception and generally few lands in the UGA will qualify for this limited exception." Staff proposes to embark soon on an analysis of its land use and zoning designations of less than 4 dwelling units per acre to ensure compliance with the GMA. In the meantime, wherever possible under existing designations, (in this case a rezone to SR-3 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of SF-3) staff will propose conditions to facilitate such compliance, as indicated by its proposed Condition #A.2 of the preliminary plat. 'RCW 36.70A.020(1)&(2). 2RCW 36.70A.110(1). 3Master Builders Association of Pierce County, Terry L. Brink, et al. v. Pierce County(MBA/Brink), CPSGMHB Case No.02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing Invalidity p. *8, 2003 WL 22896415 p. *7(September 4,2003)&Bremerton, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision and Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995). 4Bremerton, et al.v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0339c Corrected Final Decision and Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995). 51dand RCW 36.70A.110(1). 6Master Builders of Pierce County&Brink M.4GAJBrink), et al. v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB Case No.: 02- 3-0006 Final Decision and Order p. *10,2002 WL 31998487 p. *11 (February 4,2002). KENT PLANNING SERVICES June 9,2004 SC:CA:ch:S:\Permit\Plan%rezone12 0 0312 031 3 1 9-20 0 3-2reportadd.doc Page 3 of 3 -t^ OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER KEN ■ Theodore P. Hunter WASHINGTON Hearing Examiner COMMUNITY FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT Fred N.Satterstrorn AICP Director FILE NO: HOWARD'S ADDITION #RZ-2003-2 KIVA#RPP4-2031319 PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP APPLICANT: Howard Wilson Manager Mailing Address: REQUEST: A zoning map amendment (rezone) to rezone 220 Fourth Ave.S. 4.65 acres from SR-2 (Single-Family Kent,WA 98032-5395 Residential, maximum density 2.18 dwelling Location Address units per acre) to SR-3 (Single-Family 400 West Gowe Residential, maximum density 3.63 dwelling Kent,WA 98032 units per acre); and a preliminary plat to Phone:253-as6-5454 subdivide the 4.65 acres into ten single-family Fax:253-856-6454 lots. LOCATION: The sub�ect property is located at 27830 106` Avenue SE, Kent, Washington and is identified as King County Tax Parcel No. 3222059094 PROCEDURE: The Hearing Examiner held a consolidated open record hearing on the rezone and preliminary plat applications on May 19, 2004. In an order dated June 4, 2004 (Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation, No. RZ-2003-2), the Hearing Examiner remanded the rezone application to the Planning Department for further analysis of the relationship between the zoning request and the Comprehensive Plan. The open record hearing was reconvened on July 7, 2004 to supplement the record with the requested information and to allow interested parties to comment on the new information. Because the preliminary plat application was based on SR-3 zoning of the subject property, the Hearing Examiner determined that no decision on the preliminary plat could be made prior to City Council action on the rezone application. Thus, this recommendation addresses only the requested rezone. If the City Council approves the rezone, the Hearing Examiner will issue findings, conclusions and • decision on the preliminary plat application. DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: April 15, 2004 MEETING DATES: May 19, 2004 and July 7, 2004 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED July21, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Sharon Clamp, Planning Services PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Tom Redding, Baima & Holmberg Ed Pawlowski Fred Wing Brian Gilmore Jeff Wilson Attorney Bill Williamson represented the Applicant at the open record hearing. i EXHIBITS: At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted on the rezone application: 1. Staff Report dated May 19, 2004 and Staff Report Addendum dated July 7, 2004, with the following attachments: a. Rezone Application, including Preliminary Plat Map b. Correspondence, including letter of objection received January 8, 2004 (signed by Gilmore, Warren, Anderson, Pawlowski, Davis, Wing, Hoglund, Buchanan) c. City Staff Routing d. Public Notice / Public Routing e. Notice of Application / Notice of Completeness f. Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance and SEPA checklist Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation Hearing Examiner for City of Kent Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA #2031319 Page 2 of 11 2. Public Comment Letters (5) from Zimmerman, Henry, Pawlowski, Wing and Gilmore 3. City of Kent Wetland Inventory 4. Letter from Washington State Department of Community, Trade . and Economic Development dated February 23, 2004 5. Letter from 1000 Friends of Washington dated February 27, 2004 6. Letter from Bill Williamson dated July 6, 2004' 7. Letter from Shupe Holmberg, P.E. dated July 6, 20042 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearings, the Hearings Examiner enters the following Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation. FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requested a zoning map amendment to rezone 4.65 acres of land from SR-2 (Single-Family Residential, maximum density 2.18 dwelling units per acre) to SR-3 (Single-Family Residential, maximum density 3.63 dwelling units per acre); and a preliminary plat to subdivide the 4.65 acres into ten single-family lots. The subject property is located at 27830 106th Avenue SE, Kent, • Washington and is identified as King County Tax Parcel No. 3222059094. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 1, Attachment a. 2. The subject property and all adjacent properties are zoned SR-2. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2, Exhibit 1, Attachment a (Preliminary Plat Map). There is some property in unincorporated King County two parcels south of the subject property that is zoned for residential development at a density of four dwelling units per acre. Exhibit 1, Attachment a (Applicant Response to Criteria). ' This exhibit was admitted into the record during the July 7, 2004 remand hearing on the rezone application, but some of the issues raised (i.e., project density) will be addressed as part of the Hearing Examiner's review of the preliminary plat. For the rezone application, the relevant inquiry is the consistency of the proposed zoning designation with the Comprehensive Plan. Issues raised with respect to the consistency of the project with the Comprehensive Plan (i.e., whether the project density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and/or Growth Management Act minimum density requirements) are relevant to the preliminary plat application. The Hearing Examiner will issue a decision on the preliminary plat application after the City Council has made a decision on the rezone. 2 This exhibit was admitted into the record during the July 7, 2004 remand hearing on the rezone application but will be addressed as part of the Hearing Examiner's review of the preliminary plat. Findings, Conclusions& Recommendation Hearing Examiner for City of Kent • Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KlVA #2031319 Page 3 of 11 3. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the subject property and all surrounding properties as Single-Family, three units per acre (SF-3)3. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2, Testimony of Ms. Clamp; City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The difference between the density limitation as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan (maximum density three dwelling units per acre) and the SR-3 density limitation as expressed in the Zoning Code (maximum density 3.63 dwelling units per acre) is explained by the legislative history of the zoning designation (described in Finding No. 4, below). Exhibit 1, Staff Report Addendum. 4. When the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan was adopted in April of 1995, the City zoning districts were defined by minimum lot sizes (e.g., the R1-12 zone required a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet) rather than allowable density. At that time the SF-3 Comprehensive Plan designation was deemed compatible with the R1-12 zoning designation. Although not expressed as such, the 12,000- square foot minimum lot size allowed in the R1-12 zone yielded a gross density of 3.63 dwelling units per acre (43,560 square feet per acre 12,000 square feet per lot = 3.63 dwelling units per acre). Through Ordinance No. 3268 (December 1995), the City Council reduced the minimum lot sizes in the single-family residential zones to reflect the fact that plat features such as roads, stormwater facilities and open space tracts prevented the allowed zoning density to be . achieved. The minimum lot size in the R1-12 district was reduced to 9,600 square feet. Through Ordinance No. 3290 (April 1996), the Council redefined the zoning districts such that R1-12 became SR-3 (maximum density three dwelling units per acre). The unintended effect of Ordinance No. 3290 was that project densities decreased. Consequently, through Ordinance No. 3327 (December 1996), the Council amended the maximum permitted densities to coincide with the density factors that existed prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 3268. Under Ordinance No. 3327, the maximum permitted density in the SR-3 zone is 3.63 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the density allowed in the R1-12 district at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Exhibit 1, Staff Report Addendum, Testimony of Ms. Clamp. 5. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan contains the following goals and policies that are relevant to the rezone application: 3 Please note that the Comprehensive Plan designation has an "SF" prefix, whereas the Zoning Code designation has an "SR"prefix. Findings, Conclusions 8 Recommendation • Hearing Examiner for City of Kent Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA #2031319 Page 4 of 11 • Goal LU-8: The City of Kent adopts a 20-year housing target of 7,500 new dwelling units within the existing city limits. Coordinate with King County through an interlocal agreement on housing targets in the unincorporated area within Kent's Potential Annexation Area Policy LU-8.1: Provide in the land use plan adequate land and densities to accommodate both city and county housing targets within the Potential Annexation Area. Average net residential densities throughout the Potential Annexation Area should be at least four units per acre in order to adequately support urban services. Goal LU-9: Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities throughout the city and the Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-9.4: Allow single family housing on a variety of lot sizes, including 5,000 square foot lots. Locate smaller lot sizes within close proximity to the urban activity centers. Goal LU-20: Protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas via the adoption of the City regulations and programs which encourage well-designed land use patterns such as clustering and planned unit development. Use such land use patterns to concentrate higher urban land use densities and intensity of uses in specified areas in order to preserve natural features such as large wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and forests. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 5-6. 6. The Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A) provides cities with goals for guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations. One of the goals is to "encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner." RCW 36.70A.020(1). Another goal is to "reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development." RCW 36.70A.020(2). Within urban areas, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board has established a "bright line" net density threshold of four dwelling units per acre at or above which residential development would clearly constitute urban development consistent with growth management goals. Cities may plan urban areas at densities lower than four dwelling units per acre only with adequate justification, such as when needed to protect environmentally sensitive systems that are large in scope, have a complex structure and functions, and high rank order value. Litowitz v. City of Federal Way, No. 96-3- Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation Hearing Examiner for City of Kent Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KJVA #2031319 Page 5 of 11 0005 (Final Decision and Order, March 25, 1996); MBA v.Pierce County, No. 02- 3-010 (Final Decision and Order, February 4, 2003); Exhibits 4-6. ` 7. The subject property was annexed to the City of Kent in 1996. Prior to annexation, the King County zoning designation of the property was Urban Reserve, one dwelling unit per five acres, but the County was in the process of recommending that the Urban Reserve designation be replaced with the R-4-P designation, which allowed four dwelling units per acre. Upon annexation the City of Kent zoned the property for residential development at a density of two dwelling units per acre. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 8-9. 8. During the City of Kent's recent Comprehensive Plan update process, the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) recommended that "every parcel within a UGA should be subdivided to a minimum density of four units per net (buildable) acre" and cautioned against . averaging across a wide area to reach the minimum density requirement. Exhibit 4. 9. The subject property is currently developed with a single-family residence and a barn. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. 10. Development in the immediate vicinity of the site consists predominately of single-family residences on large lots. These lots could be developed to a density of 2.18 dwelling units per acre without a rezone. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7- 8, Exhibit 1, Attachment a (Preliminary Plat Map). 11. Taking into account the site area required for right-of-way dedication, access, wetlands and stormwater detention, the Applicant could divide the subject property into approximately seven single-family residential lots under current SR- 2 zoning standards. Testimony of Ms. Clamp; Exhibit 1, Attachment a (Applicant's Response to Criteria and Preliminary Plat Map). With the requested rezone the Applicant proposes to divide the 4.65-acre parcel into ten single- family residential lots.5 Access to the plat would be from 108th Avenue SE, and access to individual lots within the plat would be from a new hammerhead road "CTED is the agency responsible for administering the Growth Management Act. 5 This finding is based on the Applicant's original preliminary plat submittal (see Exhibit 1,Attachment a). At the July 7,2004 remand hearing on the rezone application,the Applicant proposed to create an 11 th lot to comply with the GMA four dwelling unit per acre standard described in Finding of Fact No.6(see Exhibits 6 and 7).Whether such action is warranted under GMA case law or permissible under the requested SR-3 zoning will be addressed in the preliminary plat decision. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation Hearing Examiner for City of Kent Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KI VA #2031319 Page 6 of 11 (Tract B). According to the preliminary plat map (Exhibit 1, Attachment a), the Applicant proposes to develop six lots (9,600 to 10,263 square feet in area) on the north side of Tract B and four lots (9,965 to 25,026 square feet in area) on the south side of Tract B. A 15,080-square foot stormwater detention tract (Tract C) and a 24,363-square foot wetland tract (Tract A)6 would also be located on the south side of Tract B, between proposed Lots 8 and 10. The preliminary plat map depicts a dedication of right-of-way along the west and south property lines and sidewalks along Tract B and the 108th Avenue SE property frontage. Exhibit 1, Attachment a (Preliminary Plat Map). 12. The subject property is on the west side of 108th Avenue SE, approximately one- quarter mile south of the City's South 272nd/277th Street Corridor. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 3 & 9. Since the SR-2 zoning was established the City has completed significant transportation improvements to the South 272nd/277th Street Corridor. This corridor connects the East Hill area of Kent to the valley floor and provides direct freeway access for residents coming from East Hill. An on-ramp and off-ramp to and from the new corridor have been provided at 108th Avenue SE to the north of ` the site. City staff submitted that the transportation improvements are a change in circumstance since the SR-2 zoning designation was adopted in 1996. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 9, Testimony of Ms. Clamp. 13. The residential density allowed by the rezone would generate more traffic than the residential density allowed under current SR-2 zoning. This traffic impact would be mitigated during the subdivision process through frontage improvement requirements and payment of environmental mitigation fees. The City has already issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the plat which requires traffic mitigation. The MDNS was not appealed. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 3 & 8; Exhibit 1, Attachment f. 14. The City of Kent conducted environmental review of the rezone and preliminary plat applications pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on April 15, 2004. The MDNS requires mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the plat, and installation of a fence and wetland identification signs around the perimeter of the wetland buffer. The MDNS does not contain any conditions directly applicable to the rezone application. The MDNS was not appealed. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2 Exhibit 1, Attachment f. 6 The subject property contains a Category 3 wetland. The wetland and required 25-foot wide buffer comprise 24,363 square feet of the site area. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 6,Exhibit 1,Attachment a Preliminary Plat Map). Findings, Conclusions& Recommendation Hearing Examiner for City of Kent Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KlVA #2031319 Page 7 of 11 15. Notice of the rezone application was posted on the property, published in King County Journal, and mailed to agencies with jurisdiction on January 2, 2004. Exhibit 1, Attachment e. 16. Notice of the open record hearing was posted on the property, published in King County Journal, and mailed to properties within 300 feet of the site on May 7, 2004. Exhibit 1, Attachment d 17. Public comment was submitted in opposition to the rezone application. The concerns raised included pedestrian and bicycle safety on 108th Avenue SE (which is already a busy street); the accuracy of the Applicant's wetland delineation (the contention was that the wetland extends throughout the site as depicted in the July 17, 2001 City of Kent Wetland Inventory (Exhibit 3)); flooding on SE 279th Street; the inconsistency between SR-3 lot sizes and lot sizes in the vicinity of the site; increased burden on public services such as schools; and negative impacts to wildlife and Mt. Rainier views. The witnesses objected to an increase in residential density. The current level of development in the area is approximately nine houses on 40 acres. Testimony of Mr. Pawlowski, Mr. Ong, Ms. Davis and Mr. Gilmore, Exhibit 1, Attachment b, Exhibit 2. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold an open record hearing on this quasi- judicial rezone and to issue a written recommendation for final action to the Council, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.170 and Chapters 2.32 and 15.09 of the Kent City Code. Criteria for Review Section 15.09.050(C) of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the standards and criteria the Hearing Examiner must use to evaluate a request for a rezone. A request for a rezone shall only be granted if: a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity; Findings, Conclusions& Recommendation Hearing Examiner for City of Kent Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 K1VA #2031319 Page 8 of 11 C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the Vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated; d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone; e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Conclusions based on Findings: 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The 3.63 dwelling unit per acre standard of the SR-3 zone is consistent with SF-3 Comprehensive Plan designation. Increasing the allowed density on the subject property through the requested rezone would further GMA goals as expressed in the RCW 36.70A, Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board decisions, and Policy LU-8.1 of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7& 8. 2. The proposed rezone is compatible with surrounding development. Development in the area surrounding the proposed rezone is all single family residential. The Applicant proposes a single-family development as part of this project rezone. Thus, the proposed rezone is compatible with surrounding development. The primary purpose of a zoning code is to provide separation and transition between incompatible uses. That is why the zoning map includes commercial and industrial designations. Here, even though the density of the proposed project rezone may be greater than that in the surrounding area, the proposed use is single-family residential, the same use that exists all around the subject property. Findings of Fact Nos. 9 & 10. 3. The proposed rezone would not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. The proposed rezone would add slightly more traffic to the local transportation system than would be generated by a development limited to SR-2 density. However, sufficient evidence was provided to be able to conclude that the additional traffic could be fully mitigated through the preliminary plat process. The MDNS issued for the proposal also includes traffic mitigation for the plat. Findings of Fact Nos.13 & 14. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district. In 8jarnson v. Kit-sap County, 78 Wash.App. 840, 846 Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation Hearing Examiner for City of Kent Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KI VA #2031319 Page 9 of 11 (1995), the court held that "where the proposed rezone ... implements policies of the comprehensive plan, changed circumstances are not required." The court adopted the rationale from the earlier decision Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County that: If such implementation were not allowed to occur until physical or developmental circumstances in the area had changed, the new comprehensive plan might never be fulfilled: if an area is presently undeveloped and newly amended comprehensive plan calls for industrial development, no industrial development may occur until al least one rezone has been granted. Bjarnson, 78 Wash.App. at 846 (quoting Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County, 99 Wash.2d 363, 370 (1983)). In the present case, the proposed rezone implements policies of the Comprehensive Plan (particularly Policy LU-8.1) by increasing residential densities in the annexation area to a level more consistent with the GMA standard. Although under Bjarnson changed circumstances need not be shown in this case, it should be noted that significant transportation improvements have occurred in the vicinity of the site since the zoning was established. Finding of Fact No. 12. • 5. The proposed rezone would not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Residents in the vicinity of the site provided much comment on the potential negative impacts of the rezone. However, the evidence was insufficient to conclude that there would be adverse health and safety impacts associated with the proposed SR-3 zoning. The rezone would allow only a slightly higher density of residential development than is allowed under the current zoning designation. Whether the zoning is SR-2 or SR- 3, development of the property would add traffic to the local street system and add impervious surfaces to the drainage basin. The additional quantity of impact caused by the SR-3 project density can be mitigated through the requirements of existing development regulations and conditions of subdivision approval. It must be emphasized in this regard that environmental review was conducted pursuant to SEPA on both the rezone and the plat. It was determined that no significant adverse impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are implemented. This determination was not appealed. The issue regarding wetland protection need not be resolved through the rezone process. The wetland must be properly characterized and protected in accordance with ordinance standards regardless of whether the property is zoned SR-2 or SR-3. Most of the remaining issues raised in public comment related to neighborhood character. However, neighborhood character is not a health or safety issue identified by the City Findings, Conclusions& Recommendation • Hearing Examiner for City of Kent Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA#2031319 Page 10 of 1 i Council. in the criteria for review of a proposed rezone. The criteria do refer to "the "citizens of the City of Kent", but this is a broader category of individuals than the property owners in the immediate vicinity of the site. While the concerns of immediate neighbors are taken into consideration, the Hearing Examiner must review a proposed rezone with the interests of the entire city in mind. Findings of Fact Nos. 11, 13, 14 & 17. - The "general welfare" of the citizens of the City of Kent should be determined with reference to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the key legislative statement regarding the level of development that is appropriate for the community. Because the proposed SR-3 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the rezone would not have an adverse impact on the general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examinee recommends that the application for a rezone of King County Tax Parcel No. 3222059094 from SR-2 to SR-3 be APPROVED. Dated this 21 s1 day of July 2004. THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearings Examiner S:1PermitlPlanlrezone1200312031319-2003-2findings2.doc Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation • Hearing Examiner for City of Kent Howard's Addition Rezone #RZ-2003-2 KIVA #2031319 Page 11 of 11 cIg Date: f-W- D y JAN 0 Fi 200¢ �NG Kent Planning Services 220 41h Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Re: Application Name: Howard's Addition Application Number: ENV-2003-14(KIVA#2031316) SU-2002-6(KIVA#2031318 RZ-2003-2 (KIVA#2031319 To Whom It May Concern: . Please consider this our notice that we object to the rezoning of the referenced property located at 27830 106`h Avenue S.E., King County tax parcel #3222059094. We wish to become party of record;receiving notice of and participating in any hearings as well as request a copy of decisions once they have been made. , Sincerely, Z�7z7--7 0(a 5 z .lam ld S .� �j �• � ./`.ia. ,�t-C..-8'C .f•'l..Z�L� W FYI L P-44 AMA tL � VJ .Sc75 O 30 r i � J / � % / w r r � � � r ! / r �/ � / � � !r y � � / � , i / i / , / � � i ` � � � , I � � i // � /, �/ � r / ./ i / � � � a � �� • � � � i � y �r r / ! / � __ d � // ` / / �; /i / / ' f' � r i � �� / .' / . � t / i �_. / i /'� � r � � � / � � qL � O / r / � • �/ � � , / r �. _/ d � � , / � r 1 r � � � � � � l '� / ./ / l a � � � .1 � / • � G v � ' ` , ,�/ � � � _ � � f /_ ! � �/ � 1' � �� i / � / � � @ it � • �� / ' �' / � � i _ ,. ` 1 t �� a �� ' � �� _ � � , t � / rs i a • i ' i °1 V,,•y+$#4pY'Sk'}. St srl u av y -,'� t r r. •� x sf � :t - r 9]d }Y Yr �.Sql �e,t.r�"�fy s�'f,}'tG� Cr.�ii' 4��aiS:,:r r� r-•t ),tfr:Ftu " rA laj aZ.�r; �g yy i * ,w,a i !I.• 'Cr 5{w'r,$ ` ^ 1 .[� xx�# f' .y^'P,i t.y s ter*YP fr M'ib �{'�F}, +nRS.e�E7'T d4��'F�`i� Valley ily r r. ,. n K An increasing number of people worry that construction and industrial waste will ruin Olsen Canyon and its eek NeL+sphaobyGARYNIssEL etorJt4 4" ' VS td, t 4 .f k r�:..t 5•rho. ,w .,yr.:c.�3# g ika � -. t ] :i .. ,l wr}�, 7 .� y s e ,h' z a. h ..#aarc a +F� 'r .e.p;.By DANNY WESTNEAT {fr A r+ valley Daily News t t h e r ! d rc kf� }e r r= € +rti M?v r r � : that slice through the walls of the Green River "#' r `t „*,` ' ' _ nyon Creek net hbor Bob Kee er a ms n a stretch of land between Aubur r Valley j > r „*Y 1 ��T `t, 3 trckrn offs list ofUi v b g ,� 6 But for th'e growing. roue of hardy eo le, skY n's naturaiF't and Kent,water cascades through a 4 {` 'Ywho have climbed to he bottom;thecan`on'C ' u°fires;"ome`of whom,he says,have ahead ft§§ d 'Ca "canyon$q steep and h.ddca.hat not,; waterfalls„dramatic slo s'and native runs of a�utits deatgltle area and couti uIt}makely bri t even the residents who live on its nm seem to ' salmon and cutthroaf trout make it o e of the ; know much about i4 v s Ax n tw3;. .. ti ,� `,`None of u�climb down here much "said k mosf rare and unspoiled natural res4lirces'tn ' ;hayepro'sth edtbu ldine�a d ICtng County f t:. P v laneroad'strat h Bill ,scrambling down an unstable sloperk* South K mg County „Ai i k+ ir E, ' e rt 4s 4 ., ry,t.ine I come down here Iam shuck P'!he Pttpm ofthe canyon,, Keever sold t Pa foot aterfall'aeavrl swollen From 'y q u. > The Ctty Qf A ulium has�m_aps wfiicTi show a r ms''•. �w e Y a_ b how tin "uel this can on ac wally rs, said y poten1m ewer line(ravelr` It s really`an untouched secret " 4 " " rfFondaZ�mmerman'rlaoCa1"wtio§ayhCCsto'T Kent'snW6rllion"al' * ngoughMere,and IC I don t rm8gmd Ilye.been dow here once r tf a Soon Cc"eek area o back to the lai l$110s '' - C Y R _ddin that F , .. `. $r P ex i. g. lon vaterreservp�r wrll MC last 10 ear§, i he estimated,a g he;t w � v ,,�n art dram dawn O1's Cas#ya Cry r'he gas lived ad scent td th � �� ;;�ry +ri when het randmothe' one s a -ofthe*t �� k9 a can on for 6 ,..a�- „� �y�,r � 9 ,� Y�x�„ wltte women on the I'atealr �� "` ��• �^ �p r�r k. > '" rs� ��O1sen Canyon;IoQated onpnvateproperty�''r ',�I�on'.tllviilcthereks an j e.a i� s`��a�� ressurefromdevelo`me�n .: ustnorthoftheAubuin.GolfCourse tsa`tfirsts it' remarkabl '' >~- Xd! g s round f the area,and s� e thi P anyon is as " ,lance�ust anoifier of the many small ravines+ �t b �'�-F*r� '� �i��;>A' �' ..'��.� `� > "�'�`�' '��" ' • -_.,,_bov�,cGgroar•oframpa¢initOlsed ' O n•.�W .7 _ r. �O ? ,J..G .. •t "`<a - ° • _ � � r��ri. �.�' �� • 00C _ ' —a �< 0 O ny 2 2;cy a° � �O,k10 , =°dw < .n � oo`< °v cm O a Y<� a CO 2 co, n = pj b< F o - o V ry 5 n-y O..+ _✓:• ao o0 r-y I El 0:3 ; CD �< C ` AOC7 Q 0 H ".gO .O OA sw v w C p Cb OGO wlUO 0<.6 —L7 � D n L � y wnn Q n� 0 co Cu\E prn N •_ .C.ry QG .� < � G� O _ -t'p -. Oa7`G -•< b pr a0CD P, www 0 w ] N :3 •CA Q w N O N y G < 'O G O N•O O n N •ti N N ,< w " O•° O p A O -°h 0 �,N A 7 C1 w � '_'i� _. `O °•h 7 3 6.� � "' "CD C "•O p' w p ^•ti N�G 7 S O fv C O ^ � ° � c°Oo � ^ mac co O>,q 0 �`<.�� w �° c ? aoa �� cy�•.n �•�ny0c` Nnocxi < ammOc ^ � o' w. (^TCwp °� FvCrl 0 ^ OO•p7p N 57 7' � 57'O� •^ C1F n 'D f°7 No -Oi 07i Sr o v N_ , 00 G n < v N a o a�5 c c - 10,00 IV., n << cr G Ep<< n n -y S rC n x w F T F =r v ^ y_ n w G= ° �w F _ (D o5 S ow rn 'm ooN owyw .lw10 "t ° n n ,n, Sw •w � co o w n� o F a5° ti �;410�< �� r co ° �� ° � S=r �'� ��rv ° �fpO cD .;sNw � NO3t� = n�=.y. ccDDnso � oow to N = `� � . �3 <ua grm :: `:< cSD � nc�D < o � a^ £ < :w �Clyw � a � °o = ^ o � < o O O w N'O F 7•y w O ?. •.nq N .^� _=v a, K - .Ow w o.N '_'^t Sw N X•O T^ CLN " n�_0.=p p _ ° N y y N ?° ° -, < N -nw w o n� cc0 ❑ ?�w w w ; B o c w w �_ 3 N "R-0 CorL G�El w = . cG� c^ � � yo 'co Pmog a =0.p °M°' wF -n'nnE• ow�ooFS.o.a� anppc2b --n �o �� ^ � a O -ti - . G p =r ri n C o �c wnivcD wFoy 5 nN ^ N a'^im " y = . mw �Darr N R 0 w •wi S w CND N 0." P. a�'D:D C N-[Q In= .'y'G S'O �D N v.' a n w ° S G.C O N O G C1 a< N G'p (► N n M, N Q O N w w 3 :'O '+ ° N O ^G 0 O 'p C '�:1 CS w :ppl w ,..,7, G(D w, ❑ O ❑_ •,'�.C+ vi o F :•nv •n ,..,,_—<.°p w Cl 3 O-_, w � p'C p o N w , W p: n � o, .c? < av N = c° o �• opc" ..Nn. w = ° _ ^°oa N •'t .-� w �,7C O N O r+ ^ N F O L,y N w Li N Cl 0 •N _ � co :cn, cc ::7— ° ter FcOS w '-a -; _ ^.wc° ma°, Fymwof°o.a y� z, 3•o. -7 ^ ND=-ADO w 57 ,`7 3 w F ° Er a co n w 2CD (<D R = �00 n •� ..'30 C N 7 n = n .� F N N n o _. Gn w t + w o < n 3 O y.L£ N N mr n y 0 a w ❑ ^ `< F •r .� w.� �_ y ^ � M.d �p TNn`y � w Q p .+ ? ^.n y O v '•"Cl? 7 C n 'i7 0.G ()n < p v. S � N`< T. ° ID ° —= 'w O'D O•F Cf0 C: w C C r;O 0 p 0 7 p a: n n p.n n " N O =r C w w w O F L 7 p v7. 7 n.7 < •p < 77 � .C+ N7N '� ?G— 7, w w_�X57w 00 N7 ONS` ^ O� ^ oa v v N vi ('J w N .+v< v v 'O i CO. OO ^ S CD 0. w NcD CD •-�S i .,vv-v (D < r (D O Q.�. ...4._. w N ? N m T �v (D C (D i O O 0 CD C � (D o l< f Q ry v O CD Z f I N e 7p W 0 D j 0 N . Cr r .r �.Mn� i ice► V �MJ IL JL \'Wan Wednesday, February 23, 1972 - Single copy fif►een centst� Kent, King County, wash..,9ru•• VVIM St . . ` ,r IF j1... •ia{use t ; tJ.Pv4 • . .yiffli�' ;vac• �- ,a. ./ ,tit';.,.: • 't:. - 1l= Jl 1 Outlaw's sixshootei• demonstrated fred Olson. 86. left, smoked remnants of a cigarette rented to Jim Shaughnessy, right, presidrnl of III,. it cradled a sfxshuoler that belonged to the Infamous Whitt- Ricer 1'allcy Historical Society.The rrlir \\ill ht flax Ifarr}• Tracy, who held Olson and other mem- on display in the Society's museum in Auhurn. rs of his family captive in 19OZ The Coll.45 xas pre- —Photo h}•1larlawr Churchill arm er captive of HarryTrac y . Ives outlaw's gun - to museum BY Marlowe Churchill Ion.The gun soon will I;o nil dlsplav The cabin is gtrrit n+•n Ill d. :t•sUt•Ck{'{j ,!nd rrloperable. Out- in the museum in Auhuni place slands a rltl:lllll fare- Trat 's lethal Coll .45 'file old six-shooter has [)evil ill while house Overlooking a I mrl:mi! cr h:ls httn gn-vil a niche in tilt•possession of: lfrud Olson still,,, the Grcen Itictr brlwrl•rl hall :1111! <11111• Illvvr Pally.• Historical all eastern Washinglon s1ltrlff Iva d :Auburn ern. tl lks In Frnl man who Ing the posse on tht• trail of Tracy. Olson. now86. btxhl.krr,d bat Ichl nt u: 1902 by the sent the gun to Olson after takulg'll h•t•sh even after cuuing .1 %%I- l. . In ell Trav%-'s run from an from the hand of the dead nutl:n\ Ill -or,h of firvwuod. rtrallell Ihw u prl:nn It, {astern Washing- August, 1902.Olson said rcvnls that happrnrf ilt ct:n's.11.. After bring mortally woundt•d b}• fie said he awAv at S a ill .lul\ !1 the posse. Tray n•illwit-dly .hill 1902 to find a ar lIgtr •:1un� himself in the head with tilt- plslol breakfast wnh Ills n111thtr .,lilt •t.•Ir to avoid caplure. . father Olson:s stepfather F: 11 Johnson. Olsnn rtinrnlbus fiat\ a:�. .Inp was sent to Tacoma In purcbast lilt nino w•.•1 rr...... . NAME . u :S Johnson Farm Common Alf Olson Farm Site No. �• LOCATION - Number t Street 28624 Crean River Road S. Not for ?ublicatlon City or Town Kent Zip 98031 Incorporated_ Unincorporated X Community name Congressional District 7 Community Planning District Sous Creek State Legislative District 11 Zoning RS County Council District 9 Shoreline Environment CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE District _Public _Occupied X Agriculture Museum X Building1s) XPrivate X Unoccupied _Commercial _Park —Structure _Both .Preservation _Educational Private Hlstor:c Site —Nock in Progress _Entertainment' —Residence , _Arc. Site ACCESSIBLE Threatened by: _Government _Religious _Object XYes Restricted Demolition _Industrial Scientific —Yes Uhrest. _Neglect _Military —Transportation No _Other - OWNER OF PROPERTY Alfred Olson Number L Street 22650 25th Ave. S. City or Town Des Moines State WA Zip 28188 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sec 32 Twn 22 Rng 3 (TL 32 1 GL 2 LESS FOR LY SWLY OF FOLG DESC LN BEG NW COR GL TH E ALG N LN SD GL 240 FT TH S D9-30-00 E TO NELY MGN CO RD TH SELY ALG SD MGN TO S LN SO GL 6 TERMINUS SD LN LESS E 441.0 FT OF N 402 FT PRESENT REGISTER STATUS ii',��'t',i`D .r •r•yaS:' �'TM•Y�ta i 7:/� ,yam•*•p".. •+ e t •1 �. x +i...i:1, •., 'tC: b` : '• } _Nat. Register —State Register .• � � :� x��'• �� :f:,,,�. —Other F.e_t y •• :fi�, tJ�+yf�kk '..: r $+yk DESCRIPTION L:•t....l�; .fir*ty#'..7M•' T` $�+'i�' ,t DescR s'r, !w- t: ,�.w.`�.:'�yiy�i':::Y�y��_ ,;yam. • .«••.,. CONDITION SITUATION ;yt,,'.�t,•�:•'•r• y. � � �{ X_ExcelLnt gUnaltered , _Good Altered `• 'y,''t• -"'T • '��jR•Q• _.... _Fair ' .y '1};r, a .�A —Deteriorated _original Site • ~ + . Ruins _Moved f ~ —Unexposed Date _ PRESENT i ORIG. PHYSICAL APPEARANCE •''ir,t•j�.4 I The Olson House is a 111 story 34' x 26', structure with shiplap siding. The roof consists of two gables which join at right angles. When viewed from the front (south), the end of the high gable Is on the right. The ridge of the'belicast portion is on the left and parallel to the main facade. The eaves and verges of both sections of the roof project; however, the rafters are exposed only under the eaves of the bellcaet section of the roof. There is a chimney straddling the ridge of each sec- tion of the roof. Although one of the chimneys appears unaltered, the other has been rebuilt with new brick. The roof is now covered with composition shingles. The main facade is simple and unadorned. The decorated front door opens onto a recessed porch. The porch is offset slightly to the left and rests entirely under the eaves of the bellcaet roof. The wood stairs are now missing. A dormer with a shed roof is centered on the slope of the roof above the porch. To the immediate left of the porch there are three adjoining double-hung windows. To the right of the porch, under the high gable end, there are two pairs of double-Sung windows: one pair ca each floor. The front door and the double-hung windows have simple entablature heads. Several outbuildings are located to the rear of the house: outhouses, barns, a >' tool shed, and, finally. a shed which at one time housed the works of a smell gas plant.* . Little can be seen of the outbuildings, however, Most appear to be frome structures with vertical board siding and high gable roofs. The outbuildings retain their cedar-shake roofs, The Olson Farm is especially important. The house is, in fact, one of the few houses built around the turn-of-the-century which has survived the last seven decades without major internal or external modification. The architectural integrity of the house may . be judged. in part, by its lack of either electrical wiring or indoor plumbing. It should also be noted that the house still boasts gas-sign: raxrures. :ne aurouueings, like the house, appear to be in very much the same condition as when they were built. The house and outbuildings are remarkably well-preserved examples of farm structures at the turn-of-the-centtury. e mac nary as een removed f rom the property, an is now on Lsp ay at the White River Vallev Riatnrfrnt Rn. 4.'- a_ ...�..__ 514.I1 l!a:SNCE Johnson .. �Architect(sl and/or Engineers) --LV,ej uu■ac 1902 Present Level of Significance. . Most significant Period 1902-present _National _State . ILLocal �`- - STATEMENT OF HISTORY i SIGNIFICANCE The Alfred Olson Farm is significant for two reasons. First, it has survived for over seven decades without mayor modification; and thus itis not only a prime example of turves to rural architecture, but is also an excellent source for anyone who wishes to study the social history of that period. And second, because it was the site Of a famous incident during which the Johnson family was.held hostage by a notorious - outlaw. The recent history of the site begins with Ito purchase by Alfred Olson, a Swedish Immigrant, in 1874.* Mr. Olson married during the 18801a and became the father of two children, Anna (b. 1885) and Alfred, Jr. (b. 1887). The family lived in a small cabin near where the Olson House now stands. Mr. Olson died shortly after the birth of his son. Mrs. Olson subsequently married E.H. Johnson, and the family coi.tinued to live in the cabin and work the farm. In early 19o2, the existing house was built. In July of 1902, the farm was visited by Harry Tracy. Tracy had escaped from prison in Oregon, where he was serving a twenty-year sentence for armed robbery. Prior to his arrival at the Johnson farm, the outlaw apparently killed a number of men, mostly guards and deputies. Upon reaching the Johnson farm, Tracy was in desparate need of rest and supplies. He forced Mr. Johnsori.to go to Tacoma to buy a gun' while he held Mrs. Johnson and the children hostage. The incident ended after Mr. Johnson returned with the required supplies. Tracy was.eventually cornered in Eastern Washington, where he committed suicide, rather than submit to capture:** Alfred Olson, Jr, remembers the details of the hostage incident clearly. The site is still used for agricultural purposes, and, although now retired, Alf Olson is still the owner. The farm is operated by his heirs, the Jamesons. * A lumber mill had previously been operated on the site. **'The gun purchased by Mr. Johnson In on display at the White River Valley Historical Society Museum in Auburn. This is the weapon with which Tracy committed suicide. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES "Former Captive of Harry Tracy Gives Outlaw's Gun to Museum," Kent News-Journal, February 23, 1972, p. 1, Interview: Olson, Alfred, Jr. Born June 22. 1887. 22650 24th Avenue S. Des Moines, WA. 9818g. TA4-5242. Born on the property and has lived there moat of his life. FORM PREPARED BY (PRINT):-F. Patrick Meehan Signature. - Date 6-2-78 Organization King County Historic Sites Survey Address 1955 6th Avenue W. Seattle, WA 98119 Phone (206) 284-8556 A ` VVI 03 :.:�, t(�; .__:::r:::�: � ,-sue°"` �• '� •� (J J i a ........ ... ......... ...... .. .. ............. .... � ."�:.......� le•w I�a M• SE �I � SA HS .. ..... _. ....... -._ - 11 I'I YI m i st In 1 Iew AR$E m s O _� q•w...SE � -v_. . �IO•r sE ^ A1( j- w N 7 So OW-4 O Al n T $ r . s e v 77 n rf n . 4 '- in r n r^ r pp 3 ( S 2 . S a z 9 A • - CCL ♦A T11 © U U tr •e - C a D ` d Q o 08 T C) D o � r u , : I zft F�S> e1Mt�7 a vim^ 9 w n9i F\ f a N a I - \ zs � d• s R 5t2600 w . .�••••^ r..� 1300 nL81°De i) s[zso sr 11 �,�I_ 5E 261 T \ �, T 1 /i SBQu 0 '� \_\ 3 .� A ni I a �\ oEn I• `Y �cenl s JrHrglrSch S�4A rA •rd' ,v .vY:. •�-'/ Sch , e t' 5 264 _ _— SE 264 5 w P 2 — I ��%� 5z6o sr )� NTH—�i 2� ;xss, SE zs 2 a00 j /. L .�'`' :• sm {R ' X. .Res ma's mil ! Nr+((. c > T _ m �F• 7 it � \ q \\ w '•^� m�J S 68 g STr •�_ io i% '= ZJ •ti o �. m ) �-�i srr ••\I SE 250 ST i 1� kr sY;;,�'L c . Q a s'.r•rt 1.�'r 5 �� gs*�u ,,, ;26000w .m —.� '\i 69• _SI �� w 7 "'gM. / �� ;.• ST 4 gt • • •7' III'. tn' 'w^ 270 �,m\� o/ SE 270t ST 0 L5' O fts�."t IS .. i ` T�� )7O PL `,� d ^ ��Cs�•��'+ 9A S J 0' J I , / J t3Y Vis ZS. 7171 f5�1' P I , m 7 C •,t 5 r Y p •\ / I rV'f, �' (F.�. Wi \ 9� 1 —FL•� ''T—�Al, eI'•�'•e I \ l� ♦ a E 31�0. �} - v IT +. N x 5E 274 ST 4 '�' ',� c u 3 1 a �,o. j :. N: ;• ! ? % 1° _ is SS 274 ST "I I > �I \ a aKP, Z l !I r. Y \ •q i K 5T S-, 1µ' ! m S = ' 76_ f'ST „ x w S 276 ST SE R F I I 77 51CSZ µ I/ I,`,iy. I \ In - SE.".i¢ N N .S}?� e \ n 27600 ` 9G ks .f.q'•. .. - .v5'�3*t!2Y,. .3 \' , a Pine T�a n 'L17 ST Pvk j ir,eT,t u u ml .`b Teti \ •r1A B �.. . �. ,} Z.79 ST. ` - __ lem 1. J II SE \ v1 :'- '��'" :jd:•e•m Tt�eues t �.. '� v D T ` ffi 280 ST 3 I_•e.`_ ——3 — — "— — •�s� (� 33 o y:, t�^ d 000 SE R N '. • i c> si - :• f m "SE 281 ST el 1 SE 202 I T •'s SE 282 ST f iMrlws !y „ : '• - I 1 P A L w S ^ 262�1 to Ian Sck 11 N QLC wE ty I °:' Ia:itA SEQ2`3, ST I 84 St_ ' O SE_285 ST- 264 1 _� o Fit ,7`tr..Mr,.,,;r/• F' n u{ 1 d J SE _+1 _ x l ISM I .G.'-`^I— 4-.\ O�1°e+ 88 5I - 5_E-288 SL - • 1 :28800i v. £ —.—...�6 j "±'•x'rGpCtB9 hT �� ' SE 290 T > i PL NW I 1 .r.._;•— 'a ISE 2904ST pL Y 5 a I = I > SE 2 — Z> rt 291 T= �� I •---- 9 9._�.'.r /....j '37 ST NE \ "5'oI re m zoo , 1 ' - � l Z.��nnnN�S' t SE 294 PL r E m N i i ♦ LE TACOMA - 60V , 35 1 . 5•••;1 WE, AO �.+....N j ITT H —ones , 0 L Cs �C2~ 6 � �uburn Munlcipa ` s „ m�T , t ,,,, pp er i Golf Course `., a a \� ° T b � 3n cT 'Pdc _ x ,•� I Ft N M oUDGS !L r�)1--___�F[s �$ 'as Ip,/nnort. �%. I ua� J a x • •P \ S 'aa 57 `,S /. is L 17 V r. fT =SE 302 T J o IJInd' TIN kyk ,A \� sx a yWs ;�lr _ 5 304N . ST '� l u€ 'sI•. w z 57` NE . 3040 `- LI,'. L°imdt it Ni w 1/' ! i -205 ST SE�O'PL cu_ 9, a s ,• a ' I rp 1 Si °N: Ws.•�..ou: s ISE 308 Leo Fiill O Z. I , xf F e - , `� , i N '� -#{fir•„ '.,,_T, }ire `� .� j Elem$Ch BO i.. ti I 1 o�T: ¢ o„ur + z T l._.\ . wMz • SE I T / P,t 1 \ > •i• j I ' ` •�.:ITobai R I Si NE, a wa+ Razelwod T SE S��'��-SE —d 12 ST a I r i,��Q�1200 IDO6 1 ' 16 ST `z N '_ —T_} 4 _ 31S ST SE A a Pl \ 4(J —�- n T ITT a r,�f'. ST w 4Tgy Jltl•SN'E E_'--_y1 •., 1 SE 1 PLE 1 T _••m I \... D C z s I lioo — ti9 z - ' _• -.._. ■ ss txw 2t g 3,7 sr le 3 8b0•J b 1{0o I 2 P A ndole , m _...._....�-• -- 1)00 11 T m `F! c a (5 Pork SE 10 yya w _ N• _ �/- .r N . y Bs 9Qt3 ST{� I- wJ G _wg SE 32D ST Oiwl_ SE yST - 1 N ' • • LmRA P a 2000 M..e�" MyI 1Sl x iemy t^ Yp 1�.SE 1Pl a 1{ k"b W s. i x c«nsBm r s[. Pi v afu: ^Z r W 5 a 323 5Yn I sit al Jf» • ►'L'.lPo� h z z 400 li 4 `T•s ss s •>a I o 5 t5 st eh4 rx Cd� 32400 Green Rlver:. t-1 ,y •.w• I ♦ t O t •r t °;S s 5265i t V 51 E u= tz s-• x�sr l ' s N n r{�spt x' nE 7 N ! Community College Ig >J �2 iMS - :�' xowMx^ ,• ISO ST QR•IT 1_v4 tXlSr T•{' '.r•--_- T ir/ ''ll cc n xs � m m^�c .... .,�J7� .}`. R•° r.L� � 5'.r3 : sP� 1�t I- —32D00 _ ur MAIN 1 O _.. ''T E ''nn+w;�.J'r�+•4M? a,� r41iT''+ I ,,.. / J@'� �� i ... 1 t- s- H ''~^S tlN bl� g ' ,/��MiA�tin1�M✓rrr,Pi 1� : 1"11,.,.M.fi 1�I FBI P .y' .. - n r '^ 200 .7 a s _ rr7V II Is 4.rrrr/F,rr I .1 I SE O o,� r 4 I F _ 4^•� • O O>o 'a.-�— SEA to o �"-4.,__ I ,•�•r h ; 4 1 •:; a jo o ppp 6 Sr SE LLJ75T- ''- m TO ION' .8rkc`4 v,e(AGr-1)IA N �'�counF/Porktl :/r.. H(* -g` w�,ONi ,or • ro �- _ + LAKE HOLE! T ,_ • t r sat a ..:rtrr,:rp.Sr+xcu,x:.l 4-. - ....�. „. �;. � I - SI 1 33600 f��01 s A S T F*W • � loge s�� . �j rn„LQ �/" /Is \ �¢j"♦,� `1\♦ \` \L� •�{ �•:J. ll; '--'\ ' ' Qom` '� , \ l 11 v V f� p�1��1,71�- '"__.•__ 1_.1 _ ___- I _ �S T t\��♦` J ,• 7// / \ I 1 ;+��,,'�•, fir 1� :F i .. �� I �- `\ 1 , •,V�`�/\o,'\\M(\\ �� l ;•, \.�I I-ice/ ¢ `\-1` 1,'♦. k. .��_ � l �,) • ! ,� n=c_' tilt , : \ _,�, \, 1 � �/ I � ♦;.'\\\ I, 10 •j] rl' ', \..� �`/ ID .• \ `\ \ � \I Ir NN "c:)� , i•, li• 1 �t ,:'. ,� ,)) .-�l •I\�\Ilyf9�.: , \ \ t, C 1� )\\ 1 e J 1 / 1 1 l\\ �), II\\\,`1\♦4 \II�.. :�.'.'�7 ,j1 r �.� ,!•`_L I 1 � � r /oIf �,�1\'�• 1 \Y. , �' 71�\ "C�',-\ 1 1 \ \, ••�\, \\\\\ 11}I�IIj: 1 �ii�L'/ ! / 1+ 1 r—� - 11 �) o' l`I,,� \ �� - /��JJ1111 C\ 1 \ \ \ C Yt R•/ \ 1 i 1 1 II \ y `,,, ,1,1 11 L• }1� 1, , f i-� '\ , 1 / 1\ la, 1 ,\,\ \ r{'I1 ♦1./ .. Jrjj 1 I1\-� / I - I \ � 1+ V. " n/,7,1/ii 1l_/a'filt�, �� / \ 1 ♦ t \I I ,.1\ ,1\ 1\\� �U I \ \\I � � r �\' IN law. lit 11119 l\_\ \.�\ v , \ ,o , 1 .�'�� I� •111\,, ,\\ I I \1 I� \0 I'1�� +1_`�,�(x;,yyh 1tic\ . �• ��,`) 1 \\ I i_ I I \ 1,1,1\ \ , \ �..� I \;��\\ 1 t 1 �a'11 .r• � .\\. \1 \, �\ \ ) 1 1 111 _ is 1 �\s r r / /117, I I ♦ 1 �\ �I wi q I \ / / -, � ('I .a \1 :•';til \,\``t\�`�t11);�;1�t\�t\, ,;1 ,,,P lllpl;' \ , 1 1\ 1\ „ II \ :•.� \\\1 a f t (� . r \ 1 1\ ♦ \ \\� ♦ \ 1 • ! i \ \ 111'tl \ 1 � r u♦ � \ 7 1 1 1 II111\. \ I / 0 l)l�cr'♦ 1 \\ '� j'`\ t • e� ': i �j/J _ ,,,yyy�jY�/ �f/ l 1 i / Jl i �y7 \ it � J 1 fit\,,t �t 10 a / 7 1 l�\':11` - t J I I / \`'t`I` ♦\ :'`� Zo i/ Irl.'£•iy.;r \ � , \ \� r' i I r)iil, .�- j 1`_ R�\_�„\ t\t 10, C•ai,t . 7nl ♦,O�j,� ro. x 4 ` i / , 1 l Il I I , C7 �_ / 1\1 1 / 7, '`y,3p;Fy? d2] \ J \1 �..T� \ ` 1♦ ,I f 4ill ♦ \ y)/ ..ILonp�Y: Y \� �``i l \ \. ,1 1 III I ` I 1 FAN 1 - 0 ) 1• p ) I `a 1 i ' , It 11}�II / �� Y . 11 Nil I \ \ ( y !\ \ \ IJl it i,/ .Y h7 ` i. i 1 �• 1, ,� %/I\ \ 1fQ;i - If ! ' 1) II , 1// ,� d!'I,�CI; \1 7 I_J /d I f ��1�c--•.�\J1 i �•,! 1 I / /-"! 1 \ l \ 1 \ / 1 1�\\ '"_ \ I,b!,III I s , 1 1 \ �1 lie 1�\ \ I 1j1 , li l 7Tc•C`1 HF •'.. � I �•�t\ 1 / / ��_ }}}---i u\ 11 11 1 1 1 I �'11' � ' r I I/ ' / - = b Sri •�`� tLb ti I i/111, 1 :/ fll'i�Jl1 Al /!1` I III 11 � lit l \`\ r 1 I I li�I J 111•,il.�l I I ' �'�II y \ `� \ r 'oA -:' iv Jr .��. �p� .�•I I I I ,I/:.,:•I I\ L 1,• Milli In , �•, 1\.o �\ `�.1; J 'I _J : :/ /'.' i i 'l�l'�'•:\ 111;1`�'+`:�- 1,1' I,II IIC• 1 r t I \ . �� 1•- , J/,', ). / _ .�\� - 17 11\`\\ I Ill\ )1\11 ;`t 1 1 \`_ �/' i ice- Y � � � \` /- ;' 17 ,♦,�' _ �,�JY:+':u llu m •�'�a\r J 1 , \ � :r�`.��'�h - , \ + h, /1,�311 11 Ill 0' _ \. �111/\`. i� -- // / \0 �� \ . •� / \ + -) \��ti \I 11 LJ�• � (,Sl\ III 111 pp 1„\ ,'__'�`-i/ , O r��l'J'S �` \�` ♦ / „ \.2-11"\-L1 1 lJ'i' j. Itrii 1\\ /�� ♦1i I l; \\ ;1Shci/j r/�j `�� d' 2 =C�• ,\ -.�. ��`1 �i' d ` \\ \1lf}i `l•1 JJ�V�. ` -��(\\'Q\ .\\. . .�� - - -•! � \`\�1 � `�� sC � , o QI j j 11"� 111 l 11�y11! VN jr 1 t' �„+g . ,) _ 93 � - to �p1} t\..-{� 1�ti �15^''� \t \ •,}!©I /\ 1) !�� \ sue:� / .'{,i �—__ \`� f \\\`\ 11� \tLa� ��•Q-,1 �\ \\\\�11�9 \ 4 \ 1 / � �' / ! ,r, y � �.a • � 1 1'"\IJ�a 1 + l 1 \ \I• nJ( \ ��j/ •d•\8=-- f � 1 / �i `U' � `�`�` � I 1 \��♦`�� 1 0 �1 ,1 1 I I t'\\\\I i '\ � II1111 �/ ---�-i-_ -��--�`=`�`_`` \\` �•`" �t `\\l�\;, ./ ��•� /Li1 �rl�� A l . ` � ♦ j l r�� l i l t! /lll ll7i��nl�'1,� l �/�°i `��Q� `� `C♦V "/ii'i 't ll--,, -f -_ �.� a1=: -�\ �`♦gip\ \ itu May 12, 2004 RECEIVED MAY '. '7 2004 CITY OF KENT City of Kent PLANNING SERVICES Office of the Hearing Examiner RE; Howard's Addition#SU-2002-6(KIVA#RPP3-2031319)and#RZ-2003-2 (KIVA #RPP4-2031319) Rezoning ofproperty located at 27830 106a'Avenue SE from SR-2 to SR-3 The property is near Meadow Glen elementary school and borders the walkway that children use to walk to and from school. Increasing the housing density will increase the traffic on the 2-lane road as well as creating the potential of additional stress to the already stretched Kent School District budget. Depending on what water and sewage sources are used,current residents' well water tables and drainage could be affected. The property is near wetlands that is home to birds and wildlife. Do we want to continue to drive our creatures of nature to extinction by continually encroaching on their habitat? It would appear that the re-zone is for the economic health of the requestor with no regard to the effects to the surrounding community. If the re-zone is granted,anyone with a 2/3 or more acre parcel in the SR-2 area would be able to request a re-zone compounding the effects of traffic, school overcrowding, wildlife extinction and quality of life. I oppose the SR-2 to SR-3 re-zone in an effort to help preserve the quality of life of this community. Respectfully Carole Henry 10604 SE 291 Kent, WA 98030 Exhibit oZ File Rz aoo3 Date 5-19-o1F Hearing Examiner City of Kent Impact due to Howard's Addition May 19, 2004 1 . This hearing should be re-scheduled three months from now in order that the adjoining neighbors can adequately respond to this Addition. We did not receive details until three days ago. This is insufficient time to prepare. The developer had years to prepare. 2. The homes and property currently in the neighborhood are well kept and maintained and are within the $350K range. The Howard Addition will substantially reduce the property values. 3. The proposed dwellings will be in a rural setting thereby making the Howard Addition appear out of place. An Addition like this should only be considered on existing bus lines and adjacent to existing shopping and service areas. This will have the appearance of a ghetto and certainly bean instant slum. It will only attract people who traditionally ignore property upkeep and are continually making life • miserable for people who express concerns regarding their life style. Fences will not keep these people at their homes. 4. This proposed high density, to my knowledge,does not exist in the Kent area except at apartment dwellings. S. Nine new homes mean 18 automobiles along with their noise and eventual junkers. We are having difficulty currently exiting 27911,Street onto 10811,Avenue; 10811 Avenue should be a candidate for four lanes now. 6. Pedestrian impact will be increased substantially from its present state no matter what is produced. The increase will alter lifestyles for my neighbors and I, who moved here to get away from overly busy areas for peace and quiet. If one complains, all we can expect is a finger wave and some bad mouthing. 7. The same with bike traffic from the new Addition because no reasonable parent will allow their children to ride elsewhere except on 10611 Avenue S.E. All of our children are grown and gone. Locate this Addition in town where children's facilities are in place for these kinds of activities. What is my liability for children getting into an accident on arty private road? Exhibit a File Rz-.ZOCN--Q Date U=%-19-o q - Hearing Examiner 1 City of Kent 8. My neighbors.and I moved here for the view of the mountain - ask any real estate salesperson what value they place on it. We will all see the garbage cans and junk in their back yards. 9. We can expect nine dogs and nine cats as a minimum. Where will they do their toileting? Certainly not on their postage stamp lot. Their next door neighbor won't allow it either. "Dear old Ed" across the street will have to clean up the mess. 10. 1 don't believe in fences (except deer fences). I do not propose to keep people out. What kind of fencing provisions will these new tenants permit? These are private roads in the area now - how do they propose to honor them as private? 11 . Noise. It presently is non-existent but it certainly will increase measurably from this tenant Addition. Did you ever try to reason with someone who generates noise from radios, music boom boxes, musical instruments and loud cars to name only a few sources? It is no fun getting the finger and being told to go to hell. 12. Why don't all lots in this Addition be made to exit and enter on 108`h Avenue? 13. it is now difficult to see oncoming traffic on 10811 Avenue when exiting from 2791" Street. It will become extremely dangerous when the ghetto and instant slums arrive and a building on lot 9 is built. 14. What is minimum distance between homes for this proposed ghetto and instant slums? Hopefully, it's 20 feet. 15. We are currently experiencing worse flooding and drainage conditions than in the past since the 911 facilities and Pheasant Ridge homes have been added in spite of the fact that this has been the driest spring in the past 40 years. What can we expect when the ghetto is built? 16. Where do children from the ghetto play? I don't want to be the nasty neighbor chasing them off my property only to get the finger and a lot of verbal abuse. 17. 1 want to be excluded from any water damage claims due to drainage from my property onto the proposed ghetto property. I have already had words regarding drainage onto that property in the past. This is natural drainage. 2 18. 1 want to make it absolutely clear that items 5 and 6, on page 16 of the staff report, be very specific in stating that access from the ghetto be only on 10811 Avenue. Items on page 8 of the staff report should be clarified or deleted. 19. What is a category 3 wetland? 20. Seems that Land Use Plan LU8 and LU9 are not being fully complied with. Especially LU-8.3 which states locate housing opportunities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit and community services". None of the above conditions are compliant to the Howard Addition. 21 . Would anyone in this Hearing room live in a neighborhood as depicted in the Howard Addition? 22. 1 have no objection to subdividing providing it is in concert with the existing dwelling and property values. Strongly recommend that zoning remain as is (SR-2). 23. Kent is proposing four homes on 10 acres behind the 911 facility whereas the reverse is true for the ghetto, just a block away, which has 10 homes on less than four acres. 24. The wetlands as noted on the site map of the preliminary plat are not completely defined nor is the culvert under 2791h shown. This culvert area floods heavily after most rain storms. It should be noted that a large pond which has been filled in is also not shown. Not shown also is the wetlands which exist from currently shown Tract through proposed lots 5, 6 and 7. The previous owner of lot 10 and I had a serious discussion regarding the natural rain water runoff from properties 22801 , 27727 and 27707 - all on 10611 Avenue S.E. The existing wetlands (not shown on site map) is a 30 to 40 foot wide swath from Tract A and continues north through lots 3 and 4 and continues through 27761 108`h Avenue S.E. property and on up to and including an existing pond on 27704 1061 Avenue S.E. which no longer dries up in the heat of summer as it previously did prior to the 911 installation and its extensive paving. The wetlands survey by B-Twelve Associates seems to be very generous for the developer showing minimum conditions. In my observations while walking almost daily and living here for 25 years, the wetlands were far greater than that depicted on the site map. The horse was not allowed to graze in one half of the pasture during fall, winter and early spring due to adverse muddy conditions. Is B-Twelve 3 Associates a government agency or private firm hired by Howard's Addition? Canweneighbors hire another firm or ask the City of Kent to perform another-wetlands survey? 25. Our area represents a transition between urban areas of Kent and the outlaying rural areas. We ask you to maintain the current status and zoning. Ed Pawlowski 27727- 106`"Avenue S.E. Kent, Washington 98030 i 4 May 19,2004 Page 1/2 Subject: Howard's Addition#SU-2002-6, Subdivision Proposal to divide 4.43 acres into 10 single-family residental lots Mr Hunter Land use Hearing Examiner Kent Planning Services After reviewing the subject proposal,it appears that there remains several issues regarding the wetlands area which must still be addressed. I have lived adjacent to the subject property for 28 years, and have observed the drainage pattern which occurs after a significant rainfall, and in general,the water flow during an average winter season. These wetlands are not isolated to this property exclusively,and are part of a complex ECO system which includes drainage from several acres to the North, West, and South of the Subject property. Also,2 large ponds to the South of this Property are directly affected. Below are some of the Items which still must be addressed and recommendations to alleviate these concerns. 1. Lots#3,4,5 and 6,will directly interfere with surface water runoff which occurs after each rainfall,and during most winter months. Buildings located in these areas will be vulnerable to flooding and other drainage problems, and will also interfere with the overall water drainage pattern which currently exists.. 2. 2790 St SE floods across the roadway routinely after most rainfalls,indicating that there are indeed,large amounts of water drainage which does occur. It is believed that a significantly larger area must be set aside in tract A to address the Wetland issue. 3. There are at least 2 large ponds directly to the South of the subject property which depend at least partially for their water source through the complex natural water flow drainage system which crosses through and under the subject property. Even small changes to this natural drainage system will adversely affect these downstream ponds which support many varieties of our birds,ducks,and many other species of wildlife which depend on these ponds for their existence. These Wetlands on downstream adjacent properties must also be considered and protected. The subject property slopes from North to South,and the natural water flow from areas to the North and South must cross this property. The subject property is not an isolated parcel,but represents only a link in a large and complex natural drainage system. As indicated above, water flowing from adjacent areas must cross through and/or under this property, and interfering with this natural process will also impact sensitive Wetlands on downstream areas as well. Exhibit File - oo - �_, Date - 9-0 Hearing Examiner City of Kent Page 2/2 May 19,2004 It is recommended that lots 3,4, 5,and 6 be abandoned as proposed building sites,and that they be permanently preserved as they currently exist. Hopefully this proposal will be considered and accepted as stated herein. If this proposal is not accepted as stated, it is requested that the Hearing Examiner will make a determination that further study is required to mitigate the issues brought forward herein. Page 2/2 I wish to thank the Hearing Examiner for his time and consideration of this proposal, which is intended to cause the least impact to the environment and area to be affected by the proposed Addition. Respectfully; Fred E Wing Jr 27901 106*Ave Se Kent, Wa,98030 Re: Harold's Addition Impact due to Howard's Addition May 19, 2004 OPENING STATEMENT Presently, our community has nine homes situated on approximately 40 acres. A number of people have horses that they keep year round and we all enjoy a rural-type life style which includes the wildlife indigenous to this area. We very much enjoy our neighbors and our community and the safety this secluded neighborhood provides not only for ourselves but for both our children and grandchildren. We understand that development is part of the growth of the City of Kent and we simply want to make it clear that the present zoning (category SR-2) should remain in place and the SR-3 zoning request, as proposed by the Howard's Addition, be rejected. If the zoning were kept as is, development of like, kind and quality structures would be undertaken that would be complimentary to our community and profitable for the developer. The proposed rezoning would negatively affect our community in every aspect of our daily life. We:have no objection to reasonable subdividing providing it is in harmony with the existing dwelling and property values. We request and strongly recommend the zoning remain as SR-2. AREAS / ISSUES OF CONCERN First Point - Environmental impact During the winter months, it is common for our only access road to be flooded at its lowest point from the saturation of the adjoining wetland. Building on the proposed lot is going to significantly exacerbate this already existing condition. Exhibit , File 1 Date Rio °I-o Hearing Examiner It is my understanding that the Environmental Committee that oversaw.the wetland report was not aware of a body of water which joins two large ponds within our community. The northern most pond is located on Mr/Mrs.Warren's property - the southern most pond is located on Mr/Mrs. Hogland's property. These two ponds are connected by a waterway that dissects the Howard Addition property. The culvert, under our only access road, and areas surrounding this location stay saturated year round, eventually overflowing in the winter months. We want to be excluded from any water damage claims due to natural drainage from our property onto the proposed Addition. Second Point- WATER QUALITY We believe this development, as proposed, will severely affect our private aquifer. Our community is serviced by one common well and allowing such a large concentration of people, including their vehicles, animals and landscaping by-products will most certainly contaminate our water supply because of the waste runoff from these external sources; runoff that we presently do not have. It is also my contention that such a concentration of housing will most certainly adversely affect the delicate structure of the existing wetlands, pushing waste water and erosion into the adjoining properties. Third Point - Safety Significant safety issues exist with this. proposed development. o There is to be a significant increased in the traffic flow on 1081" Avenue S.E. as one mile down the road construction is already underway for a 500 plus unit housing development in the Lea Hills area. Building nine additional homes will only add to the congestion of this already taxed roadway. 2 • o There will be an increased difficulty exiting 2791 (a private drive) onto 108"Avenue S.E. because of the close proximity of ingress and egress of this development to the north, the most dangerous direction for the traffic as this southbound traffic crests a hill just prior to our private road and visibility is very limited. o Increased liability on our private road, e.g. children, children on bikes, domestic animals where we, the existing homeowners, will have to bear the responsibility for the addition liability insurance. o increased wear and tear with respect to all local utilities o There is an elementary school directly across the street from this proposed development. Children walk to and from this school every day in great numbers. This appears to be a very dangerous location for 9 to 18 additional vehicles to enter/exit daily. o And, we are very concerned about the demographic of the population • targeted to live in this development. Crime basically does not exist in our community and we believe allowing such a dense population naturally increases the risk to our neighborhood safety. Fourth Point - Property Values We live in a rural-type setting where coyotes, deer, raccoon, feral cats, rats and mice exist in great number. Doubling the population, in such a concentrated area, will almost certainly increase the nuisance posed by these wild animals. Whatever development materializes, it is clear there needs to-be a tightly fenced perimeter to keep the vermin out; and that fence needs to be landscaped so it is harmonious with the existing layout of our community. It is critical that no access to our private road be granted to this development.' This private road 006`1Avenue S.E.) was designed only for the five existing homes which it now services - nothing more. Significantly increasing the load 3 • on this easement will deteriorate its lifespan exponentially, resulting in its repair at "our' expense. Presently we enjoy an unobstructed view of Mt. Rainier; The Howard Addition proposes building single family dwellings directly in our line of site of Mt. Rainier. am a professional commercial/residential damage appraiser and my profession is to evaluate and estimate construction costs and values with respect to damaged real property. The prevailing square foot price for new construction of this type of structure could be estimated at approximately $80/SF. Assuming a generous square footage of 2,000 SF per home, the construction costs will be roughly $160K each. In contrast, the replacement cost for reconstruction of our dwelling has been calculated at $535K. I cannot rationalize how homes costing 70% less than ours to construct will not significantly diminish our property values. The affect this development will have on our rural type buffer zone will be significant. Presently, we have nine homes on approximately 40 acres. All of these homes are situated on acreage in a very regular and attractive format. It is our understanding there is a planned development adjoining our property directly to the north, behind the new 911 center. The plan, as I understand it, is to construct four to five homes on approximately 10 acres ... each home on approximately two acres. We will be separated from these homes by green belts and distance. This development is complimentary to our present layout. It will not detract from our property values nor will it add significantly to our population density. . I do not understand why the Howard's Addition has to be the exception to the existing zoning requirements which appear to, be perfectly adequate regarding construction in this area. ; 4 We were fortunate enough to purchase a very nice home at the end of a dead end street where we enjoy the solitude, peace and harmony afforded to us by this remote location.' One of the driving reasons for our purchase of this home was the peace and serenity that now appears to be jeopardized by this new development. Finally - Construction Nuisances work from our residence where noise and distractions are a detriment to my productivity. Construction in such close proximity to my office will invariably decrease my productivity. During the recent construction of the 911 facility, our phone lines were severed a number of times; disrupting my business extensively. 1 can't help but anticipate the proposed construction by the Howard's Addition, which will occur near the location where,all of our phone lines are presently distributed, will cause significant delays in productivity and • efficiency. As such, I propose, prior to any ground breaking, that high speed internet service be run to every home in our community that wishes to have this service.-This will help offset many of the possible delays caused by construction damages. During the construction phase there will be increased dirt, noise and pollution for the duration of the project. Limiting the number of houses produced will minimize the length of time necessary to build these new homes thereby keeping the detrimental effects to the surrounding community to a minimum. SUMMARY We do not object to the reasonable subdivision of the Howard's Addition providing it is representative of the existing dwellings, property values and environmental conditions. Building two homes per acre, as the existing code now allows, with design concepts that enhance rather than detract from the existing community will not take any more time to complete. Considering 5 today's housing market, building homes of this nature may be even more profitable for Mr. Wilson. There is no pressing need to saturate, to the maximum level, the small piece of land owned by Howard Wilson with homes that do not reflect our very well established community. We are all separated by space and natural buffer zones; we have formed a strong community where neighbors look after one another. Introducing nine new families in such a tightly compacted location will disrupt this harmony without question. Our community represents a transitional buffer zone between the densely populated urban areas of Kent and the outlying rural areas. To allow Howard Wilson, a man who lives in Edmonds, which obviously has no long term interest in well being of our community, to so adversely effect our standard of living is reprehensible. This property owner has no other concern regarding this project other than his own profitability and as such we ask that you maintain the current SR2 zoning status. 6 ff •'ri r i( t-[l YY4✓_.. _� ` C ', I�1 1, Q LJ� _ .. o� ° F.o q«O � J Sp r,i arm-. •' �i I ✓' I�. fie� -..�, �+.� •O«�.C m C _� w C �I t .t�.M'`'-f r u NHS ..... t—.� -/• - ,a C ° W L V N orc `ac°iovs33 63-40 W — a 00 W . c ° mcs 0Wa '{ n L•-- ,;I `< on ` aLCQ °moo oE . Ex E o O O O� w we 8 ii F- aEWw WvS `W,a ------------ 41 CD -- ----- — — — —E p cb1 AMM YW ON NONE— 00 y9�aCC E c mii o E)i ,�1�11 /1�/fj �!j!'.\1`�. iJ�fj�! se,. 0E•° ° J � i II i r.. _��ij/•� �� -��/ ,,�j/J \. (-1 � A�Q,=l- cLL« C 2E•-oc ... - �O X .a Z °O 7 N=N1W Way C. Mottram, Pamela Isgym: Mottram, Pamela 1t; Friday, September 10, 2004 11:03 PM To: Hadley, Kenta Cc: Thompson, Chris; Bilodeau, Bernie Subject: Print Shop Order Kenta, I saved my Planning & Economic Dev. Committee Packet on the S:/Public/MultimediaDiv/Printshop Dropoff/Howa rdsAdd ition Rezo ne.... This is for my September 20, 2004 P&EDC Meeting. I will be out of the office the week of September 13-17th and wondered if"18" of these packets could be printed up and stapled. Could "10" of these packets be delivered to the City Clerk's Office ? : "7" would be for the City Council Members, "1" for Brenda Jacober, "1" for King County Journal Mail Box, "1" for Mary Simmons. ? Please contact Bernie Bilodeau for an Account No. or I could have her run a completed requisition over to you with an account number for the copying. Thank you. PGtvu,el,a A. Mottravv. ALdV i vdstratwe secreta rUu Pl Gt vwdvUq sevvCoes pUowe: 253-856-5454 253-85ro-6454 1 9/10/2004 11:02 PM 11:02 PM Mottram, Pamela m: Mottram, Pamela t: Friday, September 10, 2004 11:10 PM To: 'Ted Nixon, Campbell/Nixon Assoc.; 'Jeffrey Barker, Seattle P.I.'; 'Kelly Snyder, Roth Hill Engineering'; 'Mary Ausburn (mausbu@puget.com); 'Pam Cobley, Roth Hill Engineering'; W ickstrom, Don; 'Aaron T. Renner, KBAB'; 'Alexander, Jacquie, Kent Downtown Partnership'; Barry, Cathleen; Bilodeau, Bernie; Coleman, Bonnie; Crawford, Ed; Flemm, Lori; Gilbert, Matthew; Gill, Gary; Givens, Rosalie; 'Grob, Jacob W. KBAB; 'Hale, Thomas KBAB'; Hankins, Chris; Hanson, Kurt; Heiserman, Steve; Hodgson, John; 'Hoffman, David KBAB'; Holden, Chris; Hooper, Damien; Hutchinson, Robert; Kristiansen, Ryan; Lopez, Barbara; Martin, Mike; Hubner, Mike; Morrow, Judy; Mullen, Steve; Nachlinger, Robert; 'Nuss, Steven M KBAB'; 'Roberts, Melvin L KBAB'; Schneider, Jim; Senecaut, Kathleen; 'Shaunta Hyde, the Boeing Co.'; Sprotbery, Kevin; Storment, Jim; Torgelson, Nathan; White, Jim; White, Tammy; 'Marcelle Pechter(mpechler@KentChamber.com)'; White, Bruce; Anderson, Charlene; Brubaker, Tom; Cameron, Renee; Clark, Tim; Gould-Wessen, Gloria; Harmon, Ron; 'Huffman, Garrett SKC Mgr, Master Blders Association'; Jacober, Brenda; Marousek, Kim; Osborne, William; Peterson, Julie; Pratt, Kim Adams; Ranniger, Deborah; Raplee, Debbie; Satterstrom, Fred; Simmons, Mary; Thomas, Les; 'Theresa Ferguson'; 'Elizabeth Watson'; 'Greg Worthing (gaworthing@yahoo.com)'; 'Kenneth Wendling'; 'Steve Dowell (E- mail); 'David Malik(E-mail); 'Jon Johnson (E-mail)' Subject: Agenda Packets for the September 20, 2004 Planning & Economic Development Committee Please find attached the Agenda for the September 20, 2004 Planning & Economic Development Committee. It seems the entire Packet is too large for my email to handle. Please contact Planning Services if you would like the entire Agenda Packet. �20_04Agenda-P C.pdf(12 KB) Please open this with Adobe Acrobat. If you should have any questions, please contact Planning Manager Charlene Anderson or Planner Sharon Clamp. Thank you. Pa vu eia A. Mottra w, ALd vulvu,strotive 5ecveta r� Pta wwi� .services phov,e: 253-85�-5454 fax: 253-850-0454 e-w-ail:pw�ottraw@ci.l2ewt.wa.us 1 9/10/2004 11:10 PM 11:10 PM Mottram, Pamela m: Mottram, Pamela t: Friday, September 10, 2004 11:18 PM To: Hadley, Kenta; Thompson, Chris Cc: Bilodeau, Bernie Subject: P&EDC Agenda Packets (2nd Message) I failed to mention that the other "8" copies of the printed P &EDC Packets for Sept 20, 2004 would need to be delivered to Bernie Bilodeau for her to distribute to : Fred S, Charlene A, Sharon Clamp, Renee Cameron, Kim Pratt, Robert Nachlinger w/the two left over packets to be kept for the meeting. Thanks Bernie &Kenta. Pam Mottram 1 9/10/2004 11:18 PM 11:18 PM