HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 07/05/1988 - City of Kent
- City Council Meeting
Agenda
Office of the City Clerk
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A. Employee of the Month
B. Proclamation - NHRA Seafair Nationals Week
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Public Hearing
1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - BY UNION PACIFIC REALTY COMPANY
VAN DOREN ' S LANDING II REZONE NO. RZ-88-2
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This hearing will consider an appeal of
the Hearing Examiner ' s denial of Van Doren' s Landing to r
No. RZ-88-2 . The is to rezone 7 . 1 acres fro M1
( industrial park) industrial park, commercial suffix) .
The property is located on the south side of South 212th St .
approximately 1200 feet west of West Valley Highway.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, minutes, finding and recommendation,
letter from Union Pacific Realty Company
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner, 5/19/88
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . )
Denial
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
- SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt/modify the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to
concur with/disagree with the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation
-. of denial of Van Doren' s Landing II rezone No. RZ-88-2
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
T«-_ „_ 11
{ UNION PACIFIC
REA['V COMI ByAWY
A Subsidiary of Ter1 - grapp
Union Pacific Corporation Dir vrj�-j
r/,�
-icons
June 2 , 1988 y r
~ U
Ms. Marie Jensen T)'o 88
Kent City Clerks Office F
Kent, Washington 98032 c�FRk
Re: Van Doren's Landing II #R2-88-2 , a request to rezone
7 . 1 acres of land from M-1 Industrial Park to M-1-C,
Industrial Park-Commercial suffix
Dear Ms. Jensen:
A public hearing before the Kent Hearing Examiner was
held relative to the above mentioned rezone on May 4 , 1988 .
On May 19, 1988 the hearing examiner issued a recommendation
to deny said rezone. The hearing examiner's recommendation
for denial was based on a perceived inconsistency with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Hearing Examiner's findings concluded that:
1) The proposed rezone would not result in strip
commercial zoning as argued by staff.
2) The hotel/restaurant complex would provide a
desirable amenity to the Van Doren's Landing
project.
3) The proposed rezone is compatible with development
in the vicinity or anticipated in the vicinity.
4) The rezone would not unduly burden traffic
circulation system because the traffic generated
by the proposed use would be less than generated
under existing zoning.
5) Circumstances have changed to warrant the proposed
rezone and the rezone would not adversely affect
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Kent.
6) The "C" suffix nodes are not well defined and it
is therefore a policy decision within the role of
the City Council and outside the proper role of
the Hearing Examiner to determine whether the "C"
suffix zoning should be extended to include the
proposed rezone area.
1 6-100 Sol lhrr slur P:.dt w;ry
S IIIIL'30:r,Soulha:nler I'I�rLu
Seallle(Tukwih).WA 981M
`yc; 1.1.. I,",
Union Pacific Realty Company (formerly Upland
Industries Corp) respectfully appeals the Hearing Examiner's
decision to the Kent City Council. Union Pacific Realty's
appeal is based on errors in the interpretation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The basis for the appeal is supported with the
following data:
1) The West Valley study dated September, 1986 as
prepared by the Kent Planning Department suggested
that the City of Kent modify its zoning
regulations to expand retail opportunities in
selected locations. This change would permit
additional specified retail uses (including
hotel/restaurant uses) at designated major
intersections .
2) The West Valley study identified three potential
nodal locations for expanded retail opportunities.
The locations are West Valley Highway/South 180th
Street, West Valley Highway/South 212th Street and
West Valley Highway/South 228th Street. A copy of
the West Valley study map is attached.
3) As a result of the West Valley Study the Kent
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code were
amended in 1987 to allow certain limited
commercial land uses that provide necessary
personal and business services for the general
industrial area. Such uses are allowed in the M-1
District at the centralized nodal locations
discussed in Item 2 above .
4) The largest node as identified in the West Valley
Study and the Comprehensive Plan is at West Valley
Highway/South 212th intersection.
5) Due to existing land uses and/or ownerships of
much of the property contained within "C" nodes,
the potential for commercial/retail development is
greatly reduced. The existing land use of each
node is described below:
180th Street
o Only the SE quadrant is within the
City Limits of Kent where a gas
station is located.
South 212th Street
o The NE quadrant is part of the
Boeing Aerospace complex.
o The NE quadrant is owned by the
Kent School District (O'Brien
School) .
o The SE quadrant is occupied by a
gas station and the O'Donnell
Business Park.
o The SW quadrant was recently
rezoned by Corporate Property
Investors to Ml-C.
South 228th
o The NW quadrant is occupied by the
new REI headquarters .
o The NE quadrant is occupied by
Laing Business Park.
o The SE quadrant is occupied by the
US West facility.
o The SW quadrant is vacant and owned
by Union Pacific Realty Company.
6) The limits of nodes as conceptually illustrated in
the West Valley Study and Comprehensive Plan were
not intended to be definitive boundaries. This
was confirmed in the Hearing Examiners findings.
The proposed rezone area is slightly outside the
"circle. "
7) The property immediately adjacent to the proposed
rezone area (CPI property) was recently granted a
M1-C rezone. A portion of this property is
outside the approximate boundary of the "circle. "
8) In the opinion of Union Pacific Realty Company
there are not adequate services in the West Valley
Area to support existing and future
industrial/business park uses. In addition, if
the nodes are strictly interpreted as the lines as
drawn there is insufficient area to develop
service uses to support the projected employment
population. If sufficient area is not devoted to
such commercial uses, the higher density office
and research and development projects will be
impeded and continuation of lower density
distribution and warehouse uses will be
encouraged.
In conclusion, we feel the proposed rezone is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that this rezone
and the proposed hotel/restaurant development which meets or
exceeds all of Kent's goals and objectives will be an
extremely positive addition to the City.
The Council 's consideration of this appeal is
respectfully requested. If the Council so elects I would be
pleased to make a presentation at the appropriate time and
place.
Sincerely, ,
w "na
TFK:ks
1 8 0 t h at
a
•
�4/ m
Ism N = WEST VALLEY
1e0th INDUSTRIAL STUDY
�O
198th at
qC
3
� x
• o
Cq m
m
a
_ � o
o �
a
212th
o:
C
• r
• O
b 3 220t
1
C
• d
• > C
> q
q 228th
N 61
LO
Z ® Retail Areas
w ■o s�
c-� ■ Q NN® Study Boundary
• M 5q -
z - >
N • q
•
/,is
M
7 L
«
R 0
James at 0
0 3M o
POTENTIAL AREAS FOR EXPANDED
RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES - GENERALIZED
MAP 9.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: VAN DOREN'S LANDING II #RZ-88-2
APPLICANT: UPLANDS INDUSTRIES
REOUEST: A request to rezone 7. 1 acres of land from Ml,
Industrial Park, to Ml-C, Industrial Park-Commercial
Suffix.
LOCATION: The property is located on the south side of S . 212th
Street, approximately 1, 200 feet west of West Valley
Highway.
APPLICATION FILED: February 3 , 1988
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: March 3 , 1988
HEARING EXAMINER MEETING: May 4 , 1988
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: May 19 , 1988
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
STAFF REPRESENTATIVES : Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department
Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Greg McCormick, Planning Department
Gary Gill, Public Works Department
Ken Morris, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Ted Knapp, for applicant
Other Comments
Chris Crumbaugh
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant,
all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of
the personal inspection of the subject property by the Hearing
Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall
constitute the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on this
application.
1
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, Uplands Industries, requests a rezone from M1,
Industrial Park, to M1-C, Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix, to
allow the development of a motel/restaurant complex.
2 . The site is located on the south side of S. 212th Street,
approximately 1, 200 feet west of the West Valley Highway and is
7. 1 acres in size.
3 . The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as I, Industry, and
the Valley Floor Plan designates the site as IBP, Light
Industrial/Business Park.
4 . The proposed development would be part of a 600 acre
development known as Van Doren' s Landing. Of the total site,
30 acres are owned by the City of Kent and consist of the
sewage lagoon, and 570 acres is owned by the rezone proponent.
5. The proposed hotel/restaurant complex would generate 1, 472
vehicle trips per day with 121 p.m. peak hour trips per day.
Under current zoning, office and/or warehouse uses could
generate 1, 213 daily trips and 289 p.m. peak hour trips.
Therefore, the uses proposed in connection with the rezone
would not generate a considerable amount of additional traffic.
6 . Staff, while complimenting the applicant on the quality of the
entire Van Doren' s Landing Project, recommends denial of the
rezone. The recommendation of denial is based upon the fact
that Section 15. 04 . 170 of the Zoning Code designates MI-C
zoning only at commercial nodes, i. e. the intersections of the
West Valley Highway and 180th, 118th, and 212th. As indicated,
this site is 1, 200 feet west of the West Valley Highway. Staff
feels that favorable action on the rezone would result in strip
commercial development.
7 . The applicant is willing to have the rezone conditioned upon
compliance with the site plan and the uses anticipated in the
application.
8 . At the time of the hearing, counsel for an adjacent project,
Green River Square, a hotel/restaurant/convention center east
of the site, opposed the project on the same grounds as
Planning staff.
9 . Land uses in the vicinity include Boeing Company to the north;
vacant land, the King County Humane Society and Kent sewer
lagoon to the south; vacant land to the east with the
2
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Green River Square development approved; and vacant land and an
RV park to the west.
10. The site is flat and undeveloped.
11. The site has access to S. 212th which is classified as a minor
arterial.
12. The staff report, with its recommendation of denial, is
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Zoning Code sets forth a series of criteria which must be
established before a rezone can be granted.
2 . The first of these criteria is that the rezone must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The "C" suffix zoning
which resulted from the West Valley Industrial Study clearly
establishes the need for limited commercial uses on the valley
floor. However, the "C" suffix zoning in the Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning Code is intended to be concentrated at
major commercial nodes. Zoning Code Section 15 . 04 . 170 states
"such uses are allowed in the M2 district, through application
of the C suffix, at centralized, nodal locations where major
arterials intersect. " The evidence does not establish that
approval of this rezone would result in strip commercial zoning
as argued by staff. In fact, to the contrary, if the rezone
were conditioned upon compliance with the site plan and uses
anticipated therein, the hotel/restaurant complex would provide
a desirable amenity to the Van Doren's Landing Project. While
the "C" suffix nodes are not well defined, the undersigned
concludes that it is a policy decision within the rule of the
City Council and outside of the proper role of the Hearing
Examiner to determine whether the "C" suffix zoning should be
extended as far as 1 , 200 feet or further from major
intersections. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that the
proposed rezone is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3 . The evidence establishes that the proposed rezone is compatible
with development in the vicinity or anticipated in the
vicinity.
4 . The rezone would not unduly burden the traffic circulation
system because the traffic generated by the proposed use would
be less than traffic generated under existing zoning. Traffic
mitigation measures imposed through the SEPA process would
3
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
adequately mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the
development.
5. Circumstances have changed to warrant the proposed rezone and
the rezone would not adversely affect the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent.
RECOMMENDATION
Since the proposed rezone is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Code, the undersigned recommends that it be DENIED.
Dated this 19th day of May, 1988 .
DIANE L. VANDERBEEK
Hearing Examiner
Request for Reconsideration
Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based
on error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence may file a written request for reconsideration with the
Hearing Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 .
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written
appeal to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of
the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and
state the basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural
errors, omissions from the record, errors in interpretations of the
Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and
Resolution #896 for specific information.
4
CITY OF KENT
planning .
G
a• het
Ii
O
-212TH-; �--ST .._ -- , ...
I I
r • ( I
l
"d
re ,,6•r
q i f3'
`Z93935 M.Ln :✓:l.y..VGS 1.a aaT N L.�' S :"�.5.'G
SITE \:
M1 `
t
e/
t l
APPLICATION Name Van Doren's Landing 11 LEGEND :
Number R7-88-2 Dale May a, 1988 -lb' application site —
RO[IUBSt Rezone
Topo/Zoning
SCALE = Reduced
CITY OF KCNT
planning
a.
J
iWN StiN h.w.
rdil �.
• -,is- -
_. P
I
c 1
iilHUIIIIb
510 /
APPLICATION Name Van Doren's Landing 11 LEGEND
Number R7-AR-7 Date _ May 4, 1988 application site ---
Request RP7on
Site Plan
SCALE = Reduced
CITY OF KENT
planning
J
' J
7
r
r W 1✓.(
4 �
rH ST
Intluabla RosO
�'! I•..���,1 1 S. 204 TH. ST. ..
I] `
Ar.Ro srnct I \\\
INuusrrfr �
Lot J,
3 12 InauarM no.tl
C v
10 11 :° 9 i 121
a c �
c - \
.. OBRIEN -.
LEMENTAR
--' t --212rH - T�� CHOOL .1
SITE ,=� -
r
Ci �'JUFFIX
fire Station
x \ ® e
�F
5,216 ST.S rN-
S If,i
PC `I
I I
I I >
�1 9 ).foil, Sr
I �
l ¢ -
I �
>� Fe
er Sul,St.
1d 11 Il 12 \
15 14 14 13
$226 TII AVE.
w
N > 5-------------
72 rr!1
n •1
w x W
N > H i
Q
w x v o
Q f
m 2 a 2 n
F /
INDUSTRIAL AR
2�etH
i
APPLICATION Name Van nnrPn'c Landing 11 LECENO :
Number R7-sa-2 pate May a, 1988 .! application site
R egijeSt--RP7MP
city limits — — —
Vicinity
SCALE = 1- - 1,000r
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
May 4, 1988
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by
the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, May 4, 1988 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council
Chambers.
Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the hearing
and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to
sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports, agendas, and
the description of procedure of the hearing were available by the
door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the sequence and procedure of
the hearing. All those who intended to speak were sworn in.
VAN DOREN'S LANDING II
Rezone
#RZ-88-2
A public hearing to consider the request by Uplands Industries for a
rezone of 7. 1 acres of land from M1, Industrial Park, to Mi-C,
Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix, to allow the development of a
motel/restaurant complex. The property is located on the south side
of S. 212th Street, approximately 1, 200 feet west of West Valley
Highway.
VERBATIM MINUTES:
(1-676) Greg McCormick: Good Afternoon, Madam Hearing Examiner, my
name is Greg McCormick and I will be presenting the Planning staffs '
staff report this afternoon. As you have stated, the applicant is
requesting a rezone of approximately seven acres from a current
designation of Mi, Industrial Park, to M1-C, Industrial Park-C suffix
to allow the development of a motel/restaurant complex. The site is
located on the south side of 212th, on the, it would be on the
southwest corner of 212th and 64th Avenue which is the access back to
the King County Humane Society. The subject property is currently
- vacant.
This area was annexed in the City in 1959 as part of 1, 900 acre
annexation and it was initially zoned MA with the current zoning of M1
was adopted in 1973 with the adoption of the present Zoning Code.
Historically the land use in the valley area has been dominated by
agriculture. Over the years this has changed to where we are getting
a lot of industrial development in the valley. The Boeing Company is
located directly north of the site and has been on that site since
about 1965. The first rezone utilizing the Ml-C overlay zone was
- approved just last year under the file RZ-87-1 and that property is
located immediately adjacent to the east of the site and is known as
the Green River Square site. This project will consist of retail
stores, a restaurant/motel convention center, and an automobile
1
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
center, fully developed. Recently, the City has received development
plans for the first phase of this project which will consist of a
multi-tenant commercial building on the Green River Square site.
The land use in the area, as I indicated, to the north is the Boeing
Company, south is vacant land as well as the King County Humane
Society and the Kent Sewer Lagoons, to the east is vacant, presently.
However, the City has received the development plans for the first
phase of the Green River Square commercial development, and to the
west, it is vacant immediately adjacent to the site but further west
there is a recreational vehicle park. At this time I would like to
show a short video of the area.
VIDEO SHOWN (1-770 to 1-848)
Environmental review was completed on this project and a Determination
of Nonsignificance was issued on March 3 , 1988 for the proposed rezone
and in the event the rezone is approved some conditions were attached
to that Determination of Nonsignificance which are included in the
staff report, I won't go over those at this time.
The topography of the site is generally flat and there are no surface
water problems that are evident. Vegetation on the site is basically
just native grasses, shrubs and some trees. The street fronts on
212th, excuse me, the site fronts on 212th which is classified as a
minor arterial. The average daily traffic count for 212th is
approximately around 22 , 000 vehicle trips per day. There is adequate
water, sanitary and storm sewer utilities available to serve the site.
The City Comprehensive Plan designate the site as Industry and the
Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted by the City in 1969, expresses
the goals, objectives and policies of the community for the future
growth of Kent and areas within the Sphere of Interest. The City of
Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific
concerns of various areas, on a more specific level. This particular
area falls under the Valley Floor Plan which also includes goals,
objectives and policies that complement the overall City-Wide
Comprehensive Plan. I would just like to briefly review some of the
Comprehensive Plans, both the City-Wide and the Valley Floor Plans
elements as they relate to this proposed rezone.
First, the City-wide Comprehensive Plan under the Economic Element,
the Overall Goal of that Element being to: Promote, control the
economic growth with orderly physical development, resource
conservation and preservation. Goal 2 under the Overall Goal is to:
Assure retail and commercial developments are in suitable locations.
Objective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of strip commercial
development. Policy 3 under Objective 1 is to restrict strip
commercial developments to areas already so developed. In September
of 1986, the Kent Planning Department completed the West Valley
Industrial Study which examined the changing trend of development in
2
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
the West Valley area. The study reviewed the Comp Plan, current
zoning, transportation, policies, surface water utility and recent
industrial development to determine potential areas of conflict. And,
in response to those findings, the City staff presented several
alternatives for zoning changes that would reflect the changing
directions that land development in the West Valley area were going.
The alternative that was ultimately adopted and implemented through
amendments in the Zoning Code was to establish a commercial overlay
zone which is indicated on this map, indicated that it is a C-suffix
zone. And what that study did was to identify nodes at the major
intersections of West Valley Highway and the major east/west arterials
and determine those appropriate locations for more intensive
commercial uses that are currently allowed under just the Ml zoning.
These nodes are not tied to specific property lines; however, the
concern of staff has is that the potential for strip commercial
situations being created if the M1 zoning is extended along the
roadways rather than being concentrated at the intersections. The
Planning staff feels that extending this commercial suffix zone as far
away from the intersection as is proposed for this rezone, would go
beyond the scope of the intent and purpose of the Ml-C overlay.
The Circulation Element in the City-Wide Comprehensive Plan, the
Overall Goal being to establish a balanced, safe and efficient
transportation system for all modes of travel . Goal 1 is to: Assure
the provisions of safe and efficient routes and terminal facilities
for vehicular traffic moving within and through Kent. Objective 1 is
to: Provide adequate trafficways for both and local and through
traffic, separating systems when possible. And Policy 1 is to:
Provide better and easier east/west traffic flow. The Traffic
Engineer comment during, that the current average daily traffic count
on S. 212th is approximately 29, 900 trips per day. The current level
of service at the intersection of 212th and West Valley is "F" . And,
during the environmental review, the Traffic Engineer estimated that
this project would generate an approximate additionally 1, 472 daily
traffic trips and additional 121 p.m. peak hour trips. The City is
currently going through the environmental review process for major
intersection improvements at 212th and West Valley Highway. These
improvements include additional turn lanes, acceleration/deceleration
lanes, both on 212th and West Valley. I believe the work is scheduled
_. to begin later this year on the project and on a broader scope, the
City also has plans for improvements of West Valley Highway from James
Street north to approximately 190th. And, some of these projects have
also been through the environmental review process. These
improvements would also consist of additional through lanes, turning
lanes, deceleration/acceleration lanes. It would be staff's feeling
on this that it may be more appropriate to wait until these
improvements have been made to see if the situation, in terms of
traffic on the West Valley Highway, improve as a result of those
improvements and possibly look at extending the commercial zone at
that time.
3
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Under the Valley Floor Plan, the Economic Element, Overall Goal being
to: Promote controlled economic growth with orderly physical
development, resource conservation and preservation. Goal 2 is to:
Assure suitable locations for commercial developments. Objective 1 is
to: Minimize adverse physical impacts of strip commercial developments
and a Policy under that is to: Encourage planned retail, commercial
business developments.
As I brought up earlier in my discussion, it would appear to the staff
that this particular request would go beyond the original intention of
the M1-C overlay and that the extension of this commercial use in a
linear fashion along the 212th Corridor would set the stage for
possibly strip commercial development being developed along 212th.
Staff did receive additional comments from other City departments
regarding this development and one was quoted in the staff report on
page 4, from the Kent, City of Kent Fire Chief, and, I don't think
that I will read that, but paraphrase it and simply the Chief is
saying that there is inadequate fire service in that area right now
and that currently they have no full-time staff on the north end and
that not only this development but general development in the valley
puts an increase demand on emergency services and this would add to
that problem.
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to
the Comp Plan, the present zoning, land use, street system, flood
control problems and comments from other departments and finds that:
The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the property as I.
Industry.
The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the property as IBP, Light
Industry/Business Park.
The site is currently zoned M1, Industrial Park. The site is
currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include industrial, vacant,
quasi-public and a recreational vehicle park.
The site has access to 212th which is a minor arterial and no apparent
flood control problems on the site.
The Kent Zoning Code sets forth specific criteria that a rezone
request must meet prior being, which must be reviewed in light, or by
the Hearing Examiner, City Council, to evaluate the requested rezone.
Those criteria consist of:
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would
be compatible with development in the vicinity.
4
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
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.
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment
of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone, and
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent.
Staff has responded to those five criteria and I will just hit two,
discuss two of those criteria and they relate to the requested rezone.
The first criteria is that the proposed rezone is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. As I discussed earlier, the current designation
under the City-wide Plan is I for Industry and the Comprehensive Plan
now has the C-suffix nodes indicated on them as well. While these C-
suffix nodes are not tied to property lines they were intended to
concentrate this commercial development at the intersection. The
extension of the M1-C boundary, the distance as being requested in
this rezone would seem to go beyond the scope of the original
intention of the MI-C overlay zone.
The second criteria is that the proposed rezone and subsequent
development would be compatible with development in the vicinity. As
I earlier noted, there is a similar development proposed for the
property immediately adjacent to the east of the site. However, there
is just to the north we have the Boeing Aerospace industry going and
there is quite a bit of vacant land in the area as well. The
precedent that this might set by extending the M1-C zone that far down
212th would not, it would be awful difficult to refuse once you get
into the, once you get into extending that, that sort of use that far
from the intersection, to deny other requests that might come along
for similar rezones in the future that would extent it either, either
way, either up West Valley or east of the intersection of West Valley
and 212th.
After reviewing comments from the other departments and the merits of
the rezone and the appropriate plans, City staff recommends that the
requested rezone be denied. May I answer any questions?
(1-1336) Diane VanDerbeek: I was just wondering if you know how wide,
how wide the property is its frontage on 212th? You said that the
site is located 1,200 feet from the intersection, but how wide is the
site from the east to the west? I don't think it's really on there,
if it is, I could figure that out.
McCormick: No, I don't really see it. I see a 479 .5 feet but I 'm not
really sure that reflects the frontage of that particular lot or not.
5
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Here's the large map, or site plan.
VanDerbeek: I didn't see it on the site plan. Maybe the applicant
can answer the question. All right, I guess I have another question
concerning the staff recommendation. The, I can understand staff's
position about the potential for extending the C-suffix zoning that
far from the intersection but, I 'm wondering where in the M1-C zoning
ordinance does it say that encouraging commercial development should
be retained at intersections that are four-way intersections. In
other words, this is an intersection, it's not a four-way intersection
like the intersection of West Valley and 212th. But, it is an
intersection.
McCormick: The West Valley Study actually specifies that the
recommendation is to concentrate those uses at the intersections of
West Valley and the major east/west corridors which would be, I can't
think right off the hand, 196th, 212th and those subject zones are
actually indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map.
VanDerbeek: All right thank you. Is there any further comment from
staff. I have one question about traffic it's the same question that
I asked last time.
McCormick: O.k. , maybe we should have Ken address that then.
VanDerbeek: Perhaps. I don't know why I 'm having so much trouble
interpreting these traffic statistics but, I just wanted to ask about
the information in the staff report with respect to the additional
trips generated by the proposal. Are we talking about the additional
trips generated as a result of the commercial uses as opposed to the
uses permitted outright under the existing zoning.
(1-1421) Ken Morris: Maybe I should state my name first. Ken Morris,
City Traffic Engineer. Yes, we are talking about the additional trips
above what the permitted uses are. So, if they put a warehouse and
office facility on that site versus a commercial facility, what they
have proposed--restaurant and motel--you would get a difference of 120
p.m. peak hour trips.
VanDerbeek: Well, how many. . . I guess, I guess the difference to me
doesn't mean much because I want to know how many trips per day total.
Morris: Well, the reason that we look at the difference is, if they
put a warehouse out there, it's a permitted use and they wouldn't be
here and they could just more or less build it if they could mitigate
those impacts through SEPA.
VanDerbeek: Right, I understand that. But, but, you are a traffic
engineer and you look at these things every day, but I only look at
them two times a month and so it's hard for me to calculate it in my
6
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
head what the total trips are to get a complete picture. So, that's
why I was asking.
Morris• O.k.
VanDerbeek: Do you know the. . .perhaps you can comment on it during the
rebuttal period, Mr. Morris. I 'm not going to wait too long.
Morris: I can calculate that real quick for you and give you an
_ estimate of the. . .
VanDerbeek: O.k. , just an estimate because I mean, I have no idea
whether this use generates 20, 000 trips or day or 5, 000.
Morris: O.k. I assume they could put an approximately 150,000
thousand square foot warehouse facility on this site. Given the
maximum coverage of 65 percent, but usually what is built is about 50
percent of site coverage, when they built a warehouse/office facility,
typically. And, that would be 245 p.m. peak hour trips and so the
additional 121 would be about 366 total.
VanDerbeek: All right.
Morris: Were you interested in the daily. . .
VanDerbeek: The total daily trips, uh huh.
Morris: O.k. That would be about 732 daily trips from a warehouse
type facility and I think we had 1, 400 additional. . .
VanDerbeek: 1,472?
Morris: So that would be about 2 ,200 daily trips associated with the
commercial facility.
VanDerbeek: Why would the percentage of p.m. peak hour trips be so
much higher than the additional percentage of daily trips in the
changed uses?
Morris: Well, it depends on the type of, the land use of the
facility, that percent can vary quite considerably. The peak hour of
a commercial facility itself would be quite different from the peak
hour of an office or the peak hour of a warehouse type facility. And,
we are looking at the peak hour of the adjacent street, not the most
concentrated peak of the facility itself.
VanDerbeek: So, the additional 245, or, I 'm sorry, the additional 121
p.m. peak hour trips are based on the adjacent street?
7
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Morris: No, it's based on the commercial facility but it's based on
when you would have the most traffic on the adjacent street.
VanDerbeek: Which would be what, four to six?
Morris: Four to six, right. So the, you know, they may have more
traffic at noon but we are only looking at the traffic during at that
peak hour, when you are going to have a mixture of commuters, work
trips and the shopping trips, commercial trips.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your testimony. Any further
comments from staff. All right I will hear from the applicant or the
applicant's representative.
(1-1603) Ted Knapp: I 'm Ted Knapp with Union Pacific Realty,
16400 Southcenter Parkway, Suite 305, Tukwila. I think maybe to start
with, I 've got some slides to show and before concentrating on the
request for rezone on the seven acre site, I think its maybe important
to go through an review how this piece of property fits with the
entire development which we are in the process of doing which is Van
Doren's Landing which is about a 650 acre development in Kent and then
with that I will get into more specifics on the rezone and how that
fits with it. So if you can bear with me a little time to do this.
(Beginning of slide presentation) (1-1674) This is an old aerial, in
fact it still has our old name, Northwest Business Park, and the area
outlined in white does not show everything we own now. Since this was
taken we've bought some property to the south of 228th Street as well
as the property along 212th which is where the application is pending
today. Just to orient you, I think the staff did a good job
familiarizing with the site and surrounding uses. Just briefly you
see Boeing to the north, the KOA Campground there at 212th along the
river, West Valley Highway, of course, is shown on the map. The
Green River to the west, Sea-Tac International , of course, on top of
the hill as well as I-5 and then the Lakes project would be off the
map here, just the lower left-hand corner. Some of the transportation
improvements have already been covered by staff. Again, just to
briefly show, on this map indicates some of the existing
transportation systems that' s in place as well as some of the planned
transportation. Of course, the West Valley Highway is already in
place; 212th already connects all the way up the West Hill to I-5 to
Sea-Tac International. Connects with SR167 and continues on up the
East Hill. It is also the only east/west corridor at this point in
time that connects the east hill to the west hill and the airport to
I-5 and 167.
South 228th Street is constructed to the river and in some portions
you get close to the river, its a very narrow two-lane road. It is
planned to go across the river with a bridge and proceed up and
connect in near the interchange and Military Road at 516 and I-5.
8
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
That is one of the corridor's that the mitigation agreements are
covering today. Also, 64th Avenue which is partially improved
adjacent to the rezone site, the City has, under design right now,
64th Avenue, and, in fact, Union Pacific Realty has front ended
$30, 000 for that effect to get the design .moving ahead in front of the
actual formation of the LID to speed the process up. But it will be
extended from 212th Street down to Meeker Street on the south. Meeker
Street, of course, connects in with 516 so you have a shot up to I-5
to that interchange. The last estimate I 've heard from Public Works
is that they hope to have that under construction later this year.
Also, the West Valley Highway is, of course, being improved, anywhere
from five to eight lanes wide from about James Street clear up to
about the north city limits of Kent.
Just to walk you through a little bit of the planning process we went
through on a site of this nature, it' s quite large. It' s about 650
acres and I might add that includes the City-owned lagoon property
which is on the right-hand side there, shown in blue. That' s about 70
acres, so we own about 570 or control about 570 ourselves but have
taken on some of the conceptual design of that lagoon as well. Some
of the things affecting this site are already gone over, some of the
transportation improvements around it, some of the future things
planned, existing lagoon on the right hand site, the Lakes, the
residential to the south and, of course, there's some buffering
requirements associated with that use. We have a school site down on
the lower part of 64th Avenue, there's a drainage channel, a 100-foot
easement that will be constructed which will be the main trunk system
that will ultimately enter into the lagoon for the drainage system.
The river on the west, there are some special requirements, the
1, 000 foot corridor that the City has implemented. Russell Woods,
down on the Lakes side of 212th Street there. . .228th Street, also
has. . . is an environmentally sensitive area. There's a Puget Power
right of way that cuts across approximately the center of the
property. There's already some existing development on the site.
There are three plats actually, two short plats and a full subdivision
plat have been recorded. Basically, the center of the property,
there's some existing industrial/light distribution type uses. On the
West Valley Highway, 228th Street side, the REI has just moved in with
their corporate headquarters, and an 82 , 000 square foot office
building. Also, there has been an approved preliminary plat for the
parcel south of 228th, the 105 acres which was approved last fall
sometime. When this was done, we did not own the site to the north,
that's why it doesn't show up that way.
There's an existing KOA Campground also up there, which we do not
control. The stars or asterisks, those indicate key corners or
prominent intersections that surround the site. This is a schematic
of the Lakes property to the south just to show you some of the
existing conditions and some of the somewhat unique things that are
_. going on around that affect this site.
9
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
This is an aerial of the Lakes in its early stages of construction.
Also the Green River and its location. As you get further north in
the valley, this is primarily a diked system where the dikes are
raised 10 or 12 feet above the surface and this area is not, it is an
attractive amenity that we would like to take advantage of. The
lagoon which I 've already mentioned also, I think, right now is not
being utilized to its fullest capabilities and we think there is some
tremendous opportunities there both in terms of wildlife, storm water
detention as well as an amenity to development that would occur there.
With those factors, we began mapping out all the site influences, if
you will, of the property and trying to start shaping the land use
patterns that should occur out there also given the things that were
happening in the market which I will discuss in a few minutes.
Starting out on a lower site, you see again as you enter the property
both on 64th and West Valley Highway some prominent entryway points.
The area in red has good access, good exposure which would start to
indicate maybe some retail or commercial type activity should occur
there. Major intersection of 212th and 228th and West Valley Highway
seems to be also a good corner for that type of use such as office
where REI has already located. You have the light industrial in the
center, we want to take advantage of the areas along the river. So
that would indicate, maybe a higher density--office or corporate
campus type of use, between that and the industrial we need some
buffering requirements, some kind of a buffering land use, which we
will see later to gradually change those land use patterns. Up
towards the lagoon, I think it suggests a need maybe to bring that
feature into the site a little bit more, take better advantage of it.
And then, along 212th Street, 64th, we see 212th Street as the 50 yard
line of the valley and that is the highest entry point in the valley
and that starts to suggest more major office structures, certainly not
industrial of any type and retail/hotel and those types of uses.
To touch upon the market, I think we are all aware that the
industrial, industrialization of the valley, distribution, light
manufacturing uses, but over the last few years we've seen a dramatic
change toward other types of uses including pure office, high tech
facilities such as Meteor Communications and so forth. And the
Planning Department recognized this two or three years ago when they
undertook the West Valley Planning study and identified areas of
support services, higher density uses within the industrial area.
This is a. . .three/four story office buildings, Boeing is located, also
might add this is zoned Mi. The two eight-stories located next to it
are also located within an industrial zone. Even the industrial
buildings, the distribution is located in our Southcenter Corporate
Park, a little further north in the valley, again, not the industrial
uses that we've experienced 10 or 12 years ago in the valley,
likewise, another one, much higher percentage of office than we use to
experience. Just to go through then, I 've got several master plan
10
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
layouts, different schemes that we've gone through and all of them are
fairly close in terms of use and where they are located.
I will go through them briefly after I explain one of these and show
you the differences. Again, what we are trying to do, on the center
of the property, west of 64th and where the existing industries are
located, CFS, Exotic Metals, Lindon Transports, others, we are trying
to concentrate the heavier truck oriented businesses to the center of
the property. Also trying to lay out the transportation network in
such a way that we discourage the heavy truck traffic on the streets
that would be servicing the higher employment density type uses. So,
what we are trying to do is take most of the traffic, truck traffic,
to 64th which will be the main feeder line out of here. on the West
Valley Highway side, again, retail, we would probably come in for a
future date asking for an MI-C on that corner when plans are further
along than they are now. Office at the corner at 228th and
West Valley Highway and all along 228th; REI is already there. We are
working on an office transaction right now for the site next to it.
An R&D transitional use north of that, we've also working on a
basically an R&D project that we hope to start construction this year
on that site. Because of the market transition, light industrial and
distribution is still a strong part of our market. We do see a need
for additional distribution sites to respond to the market, so we are
looking at perhaps along 64th and along the southerly property
boundaries of the site some additional light industrial there as well
as pushing up north on the Puget Power right of way with industrial to
respond to the market.
Through the center of the property, you see the Puget right of way
turned into a bike trail, pedestrian linkage that links the lagoon
site with the Green River, ultimately connects to the east to the
Interurban Trail.
228th Street is shown going across the river and then a boulevard that
would connect 228th with 212th, that would occur at a later phase of
development but we would see that as a major boulevard type of a
street to help encourage the types of uses that we would like to see
happen back there. When that interior street goes in we would suggest
to the City that Russell Road be vacated from vehicular use. You have
some extremely dangerous intersections particularly at 212th and turn
that into a pedestrian related street and this one doesn't show but
our later ones do. Also, coming off the boulevard you see
approximately every, I think it' s every 500 feet, additional
pedestrian connections to the river. The lagoon in this case was left
in, the boundaries are currently owned by the City of Kent. Again, on
the north, we are showing hotel, office, retail, special use, the
highest use of the property.
Going through these, very similar concept. This one has more light
industrial than that shown on the last one. We have also taken some
11
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
liberties with the shape of the lagoon and starting to bring it into
the site somewhat. In this case, we have eliminated Russell Road. A
similar concept, a little less light industrial, more R&D separating
office from the industrial; again 228th, also again at 212th between
64th and our Boulevard. And, again a different shape of the sewage
lagoon.
This is Scheme F: This is the one we are operating off right now, if
you will. Again, very similar concept with the industrial, light
industrial, in the center. In this case we have shown a penetration
of the lagoon all the way to the river, will not make a physical
connect--could be a piped connection for a secondary outlet. That is
still being worked out, but, again, that type of treatment. And,
then, Russell Road closed off except for some access that would have
to be left open for the few existing properties that are back there.
Also, this is a large master plan park, we've controlled things such
as signage, we will have a uniform signage program throughout. The
other key thing is architectural control. The other thing that we are
going to be doing on. . .everywhere except for the existing industrial
where we had predominantly traditional type uses with trucking out
front, truck doors out front. We are going to eliminate truck dock
high doors on street frontage sides. As we get into later phases of
development that won't occur to the center, but on future phases as we
go further south.
Also, a very key component is the landscape treatment. We are going
to set up a hierarchy of streets so that we can highlight those that
are more important than others, more major. Those would be 228th,
West Valley Highway, 64th, 212th and then the boulevard that would be
built later. We've got some cross sections here of what we are
planning to do and some of this depends on the City with medians and
so forth and existing streets which has to be worked with the City, of
course.
This shows the top one, for example, is West Valley Highway and 212th
which shows a 48-inch high berm, about a 40-foot landscape strip
behind the property line, street trees, the sidewalks set off the back
curb, 16-17 foot median, landscape median in the center which allows
about a 4-foot landscape node so you have some reasonable distance
there when the left-hand turn pocket narrows in. On the bottom, 228th
Street--a similar treatment, in that case, double street trees since
we control both sides of the road in that case.
64th Avenue, likewise a similar treatment. You notice on the left the
drainage channel which is there, so that changes that somewhat. We
are trying to take away the sharp edges of that so it does not look
some much like a drainage ditch as it does today. On the bottom is
the interior streets as Kent requires a 20-foot landscape strip now
behind the property line, we are going to implement in our covenants a
25-foot landscape strip on the interior strips. A 39-inch high berm,
12
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
street trees and then we are going to put in a hedge which you can see
on the left here which extends up the block, the cars as you drive
down, almost totally screening the cars from view of the streets.
I 've got some examples of this.
This would be an example of 228th, 64th, West Valley Highway; double-
row of street trees, sidewalks off the back of the curb, 40-foot
landscape street, 48-inch high berm in total from the height from the
sidewalk. You can see the median on the center of the street. More
formal plantings along the street edge and then more informal
plantings on the berm side. This could be 64th Avenue, very straight
shot.
This is an example of an interior street, these are shots taken of a
park in Chicago, by the way. Again, not a particularly attractive
industrial building, but the landscaping totally saves this project.
It's a 39-inch high berm, the hedge behind there, you can just barely
see the tops of the cars, that' s a 25-foot landscape strip. And
that's looking at it from another direction. You can just barely see
on the other side of the road, a very large industrial building. A
30-foot clear huge building that's pulled right up on the landscaping
and about 30-foot back. It' s look very, very acceptable, all the
trucking is on the back side.
Again, just to go back and reference this and I 'm going to go through
some of the landscaping on the boulevard. The boulevard will receive
a treatment. This will be a later phase, something similar to this, a
curb linear type of street with landscaping medians and so forth.
This could be an example, let's back up here, that's not a bridge. Up
there where the boulevard crosses over the water feature up there,
something like that could be done. This again is out of that park in
Chicago. This is just--it appears to be a bridge but its actually a
culvert underneath the railing on top to give the perception or the
feeling that it is a bridge. These are all possibilities. This, if
you have a little vision, could be the Lagoon once its redevelopment,
some passive recreational opportunities on one side. This likewise
could be a more native, could allow for a wildlife habitat, perhaps a
habitat on the other side, could also be possibility for along the
river and places and so forth, wildlife.
Not sure where this project is, but this is also an example of an
office building under construction near a water feature. Again, the
landscaping, this is a park actually in Oveland Park, Kansas, but,
again, a similar type of development standards in places. This park
is more of an office park than we would expect here at least for some
time but, I think, that along 212th Street in the future this is
certainly possible. Other office structures, some of the courtyards
and turnarounds may be built. This is an example of a retail or
quasi-retail type of a use, which happens to be a bank facility not
unlike what we could envision along 212th or the West Valley Highway.
13
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
This is, again, just a little more detail layout, we haven't drawn
buildings throughout but, you can see that REI 's building there on
212th and West Valley Highway. Adjacent to it is another office site,
we are working on plans right now for that. Boulevard shown in and
then this a blow-up of the intersection of 64th Avenue and
212th Street. The planned layout we have now is slightly different
than what you see there but still conceptually very close. Sixty-
fourth, as you pointed out, is not a full intersection at this time.
Boeing, I think, has plans to match to that intersection with their
driveway, not at this time, as they do additional work so it will
affect the full intersection. Although one spoke would be private
drive. We would envision other major office types of developments
perhaps on the waterfront. Some other types of commercial uses in the
future as well as the hotel. That's it for the slides. Do you have
any questions on that.
VanDerbeek: No, I don't think so. Thank you.
KnaAA: Talk a little bit specifically about the rezone and the site
itself. It's about. . .a little over seven acres. I think the
dimensions here is about 510 feet, about 670 feet deep. It is about a
150 room hotel. On this drawings it's envisioned to be two-story,
that could change but at this time it is shown two-story. But when we
get further into the site plans it could be taller than that. About
8, 000 square foot restaurant pad at the intersection of 212th and 64th
Avenue. Again, the 40-foot wide landscape strips, we would have a
major monument entryway sign into our development at this
intersection. We are proposing just two curb cut breaks at this time,
and they can be for right hand only here, we are still analyzing that.
The hotel itself will be limited restaurant facilities in the hotel,
probably a coffee shop at this time. Most of the main food service
would come out of this, it would be a quality restaurant. There would
be some meeting room in the hotel as well. Parking will be laid out
around the rooms, also a good amount of parking, about (unclear)
stalls that would service the restaurant.
A few other comments, I guess, that relate to the staff report. I
guess what we are requesting at this time--the M1-C allows a number of
uses from various commercial uses and a hotel being included. We are
not seeking to do anything there beyond the hotel and the restaurant
at this time and we would be more than willing to accept a limit to
that use only, to those uses only at this time. We have no plans to
put any strip commercial center or anything of that nature. Also, we
would be willing to agree to a time requirement some reasonable time
requirement; if the hotel were not to commence construction within
that time frame that the zoning would revert back to the underlying
Mi.
14
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Talked a little bit about the nodes that are created, there are three
nodes created by the new zoning action in Kent or the new
Comprehensive Plan that was changed about a year ago. They are at
180th, 212th and 228th. The one at 212th, at least conceptually on
their map, is much larger than the other two nodes. If you analyze
the three nodes, starting at 180th, of that circle, half of it is not
within the City of Kent, a quarter of it's in Renton, a quarter of
it's in Tukwila. Beyond that, the one's that are in Kent, one node is
actually within the Green River which is on--where the river cuts in
very close to the intersection so there is no retail opportunities
there and the other side has the existing gas station and the old
Orillia school so the opportunities there are limited. As you get
down to 228th Street, likewise we have REI on one corner, a new
building; Laing Corporate Park on the one corner, one other corner,
which is a relatively new project, and the AT&T facility on the third
quadrant, so that only leaves one quadrant available for retail and
that would be within our park and we do plan, in the future, probably
to bring in a request in for that one. At 212th, likewise you have
the Boeing which occupies one corner; you have the school on the
second corner; you have a new, relatively new project on the southeast
corner--the O'Donnell Business Park and a gas station and the fourth
corner there is already M1-C has been rezoned and I should add that
that M1-C rezone abuts our property or it's separate only by
64th Avenue, comes up to our site. So, I guess the point is that
there are limited opportunities for retail even with the new code,
there are only two corners along the entire West Valley Highway right
now that the MI-C would be available to. . . Terms that have been
referenced several times is strip commercial development, we have no
intention of developing strip commercial development and I think some
of the slides and plans we show would hopefully indicate that. This
is anything but a strip commercial development. Also, I guess the
other item was dealing with traffic. I guess I would debate whether
or not your increase in traffic from what is allowable out there
because this use, hotels do not impact on the peak hour traffic much
at all. In fact as far as allowable uses, we could presumably build
twin eight-story office towers on this site and, which has
tremendously more traffic impact than a hotel use. Most of the hotel
use is off peak-hour traffic. I don't have the traffic figures with
me that were pulled out of the ITE manual but they are in the EIS
checklist and they are not very significant at all. In fact, there
are a number of industrial uses out here that would exceed the traffic
impacts of this particular use.
I guess just one other comment, the staff report suggests taking a
what and see attitude until some of the improvements are in. Since we
are paying for most of these improvements that are going in, we would
rather not wait and see what happens until they get in, we are paying
a substantial amount of West Valley Highway lid, several miillion
dollars; 64th Avenue we will pay a major portion of, S. 228th Street,
across the river, as well as on site, we will pay a major portion of
15
Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
and in some cases have already paid major portions. So we would
prefer not wait until they are built before we respond. Assuming that
you approve this rezone request, some of the comments have no problems
with most of the comments within the staff report, the conditions; the
only one that is on some of the LIDS that we agree, we have no
problems with those provided they are in conformance with the new
State law 1817 which would amend some of the no-protest LID covenant
language. I think that's all my comments unless you have any
questions.
VanDerbeek: No, I don't think I do, thank you very much. Any
further comments from the applicant, anyone else on behalf of the
applicant. No? Any public testimony in questions with this proposal?
(1-2901) Chris Crumbaugh: My name is Chris Crumbaugh, attorney, PO
Box 90, Renton, I represent Corporate Property Investors. They are
the property owners, I don't have the view graph, they are the
property owners to the east of the site, who are developing Green
River Square. That, as stated, was the first rezone done under the
new M1-C zone. I participated extensively in the development of the
Comprehensive Plan change to allow these M1-C zones at these key nodal
intersections from the time of its inception until it was passed
through the City Council. Additionally, I participated in the rezone
of the Corporate Property Investors site at Green River Square. I
find myself in an unusual position here today. Speaking against a
project. My comments are not going to be against Union Pacific
Railroad and Upland Industries. They are very good developers and
they have a marvelous proposal to the south. We have a concern,
though. When this zoning was being adopted, it was clearly stated
policy of the staff, the City Council, and all their people that
approved this, that this was to be limited to these key intersection
areas. We, at the time, had argued and fought for expansion of this
zone. There have been many applicants come to the City of Kent and
request conditional use permits and that was a big item at the time
this was adopted. They were requesting conditional use permits for
retail use along 212th. We didn't succeed in our comments and
arguments at that time and it was definitely limited to the
intersection areas on West Valley Highway when they adopted the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
I don't have much disagreement with the staff report. In fact, we
pretty much support the staff report. Again, the area shown on the
Comprehensive Plan for allowing this development are 180th, 212th and
228th. Those are the intersection areas of West Valley Highway, not
other streets, it's West Valley Highway. I guess I don't have any
further comments other than to say that we have gone ahead and got our
rezone and developed our project based upon the Comprehensive Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance that was adopted and it would impact us if now we
were going to expand wildly the interpretation of that. . .those laws to
now allow development of this type all up and down 212th. Thank you.
16
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. Further public
testimony. Rebuttal comments from staff. I thought of another
question for staff, too? That I will just ask now and you can either
answer it now or answer it later during the rebuttal period. How far
from the intersection of 180th is the development known as Home Club
Warehouse that was supposed to be an industrial uses but is clearly a
commercial/retail use?
-- (1-3104) McCormick: Oh, its got to be a mile. . .
VanDerbeek: Twelve hundred feet?
McCormick: A mile. It's about a mile, from 180th, 180th South, but
that's on East Valley not West Valley.
VanDerbeek: Right, no, I understand that, but I just remember some
very similar arguments in connection with that rezone proposal, that's
why I don't. . .a quarter of a mile, all right. All right.
McCormick: O.k. I would just like to start out with a few general
comments about the Uplands projects and the City of Kent. If you've
had an opportunity to drive through there, you'll notice they are a
very high quality. . .high quality developer, a very good neighbor in
the City of Kent. Many of their development standards exceed what the
City requires in terms of landscaping, both on the street and
internally. So, the City can only say good things about the projects
that Uplands has developed in the City of Kent. But, still the
staff's feeling on this particular rezone and not. . .staff' s not taking
the position that this would constitute a strip commercial
development. You know, we have confidence in Uplands that they would
provide another quality development but its more the precedent that it
sets extending that M1-C node beyond the original intention and what
is actually indicated on the Comprehensive Plan that might open the
door, if you will, to future requests of a similar nature extending
that M1-C zone in all directions from the designated intersection for
the C suffix zone. And, I guess that concludes staff 's rebuttal.
VanDerbeek: All right. I just have a question. One thing that was
suggested by the applicant in the event that I deemed it appropriate
to recommend approval of the rezone request was an indication that if
construction was not commenced on this particular project within a
certain period of time that the zoning would revert back. I was just
wondering if staff has any opinion on that suggestion and, if so, what
is that opinion? And, specifically, what would staff deem to be an
appropriate time frame?
McCormick: Myself, I don't have an opinion on a time frame that would
be realistic for Uplands to meet. I don't know. . .a year, I guess that
would be a nice round figure.
17
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you. Any further rebuttal comments from
the City. Any rebuttal comments from staff. . .City staff, I should -
say? Any more comments on traffic or anything.
Morris: I would just like to comment. Ken Morris, City Traffic
Engineer. I would just like to comment on the use. A retail
establishment such as a restaurant will attract a certain amount of
traffic that is already on the system and in our trip generation
calculations, we did take that into account that there would be a
certain percent passing traffic. However, a hotel, if someone lives
and works in the area, they're typically not going to go and stay at a
hotel, so it is attracting people from outside the area, more than
using that passing traffic on the arterial and so the percent passing
traffic just there that is going to hotel facility is going to be
relatively small.
VanDerbeek: All right, thank you for your comments. Any rebuttal
comments from the applicant or the applicant' s representative.
Knapp: Just one and that on the time frame, one year would be a
little bit tight with the. . . if the Hearing Examiner would going to go
that way, it's. . . By the time you get the project together and
designed and so forth, I would like two years would be a minimum to be
reasonable time frame. Other than that, I have no comments.
VanDerbeek: All right. Thank you for your comments. At this time I
will closed the public hearing with respect to RZ-88-2 , Van Doren' s
Landing II. I will issue my written findings of fact and conclusion
of law within 14 days of today's date.
18
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
_. FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF MAY 41 1988
FILE NO: #RZ-88-2 VAN DOREN'S LANDING II
APPLICANT: UPLANDS INDUSTRIES
REQUEST: Rezone 7. 1 acres of land from M1, Industrial Park,
to M1-C, Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Greg McCormick
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The applicant is requesting a rezone of 7 . 1 acres of land
from a current zoning designation of M1, Industrial Park, to
M1-C, Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix, to allow the
development of a motel/restaurant complex.
B. Location
The property is located on the south side of S. 212th Street,
approximately 1, 200 feet west of West Valley Highway.
C. Size of Property
The site is approximately 7 . 1 acres in size.
D. zoning
The current zoning designation for the property is M1,
Industrial Park.
E. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land
Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community
intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and
the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive
Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator,
Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to
guide growth , development , and spending decisions .
Residents, land developers, business representatives and
1
Staff Report
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City's
intentions concerning future development.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans
that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City.
Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy
guides for future land use in the City of Kent. This site
lies within the area covered by the Valley Floor Plan. This
Plan also includes goals, objectives, and policies which
apply to the area and complement the overall City-wide
Comprehensive Plan. The following is a review of each of the
above referenced Plans as they relate to the proposed rezone.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
GOAL 2 : Assure retail and commercial developments are in
suitable locations.
Objective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of
strip commercial development.
Policy 3 : Restrict strip commercial development to
areas already so developed.
Planning Department Comment
In September 1986, the Kent Planning Department completed the
West Valley Industrial Study which examined the changing
trends of development in the west valley area. The study
reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, transportation
policies, the surface water utility, recent industrial
development, and potential areas of conflict. In response to
the findings of this study, staff set forth alternative
policy directions for zoning in the west valley. The
alternative that was ultimately adopted and implemented
through amendments to the Zoning Code, was the establishment
of a commercial overlay zone. The study identified nodes at
the intersection of West Valley Highway and the major
east/west arterials. These nodes were determined appropriate
locations for more intensive commercial uses than were
allowed under the M1, Industrial Park, zone. These nodes
were not tied to specific property lines, however. One
concern the staff had was the potential of a strip commercial
situation being created if the Ml-C zoning were extended
along the roadways. The planning staff feels that extending
2
Staff Report
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
the commercial suffix zone 1,200 feet from the intersection
goes beyond the scope of the M1-C overlay zone.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL.
GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient routes
and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within
and through Kent.
Objective 1: Provide adequate trafficways for both
local and through traffic, separating the
systems when possible.
Policy 1: Provide better and easier east-west
traffic flow.
Planning Department Comment
The City Traffic Engineer has commented that the current
average daily traffic count on S. 212th is approximately
29,900 trips per day. The current level of service of the
intersection of 212th and West Valley Highway is "F" . This
project is estimated to generate an additional 1, 472 daily
traffic trips and an additional 121 p.m. peak hour traffic
trips. This will further burden the road network in the
vicinity and add to a very congested situation particularly
during the peak hours. The City is currently going through
the environmental review process for intersection
improvements at 212th and West Valley Highway. These
improvements include additional turn lanes, acceleration and
deceleration lanes on 212th and West Valley Highway. Work is
scheduled to begin later this year on this project. On a
broader scope, improvements to West Valley Highway from
James Street north to approximately 190th are planned and
have through the environmental review process. These
improvements will consist of additional through lanes,
turning lanes, and deceleration/acceleration lanes.
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
3
Staff Report
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
GOAL 2 : Assure suitable locations for commercial
developments.
Objective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of
strip commercial developments.
Policy 1: Encourage planned retail commercial
business developments.
Planning Department Comment
As discussed in the section above, the proposed rezone goes
beyond the scope of the original M1-C zoning boundaries. The
extension of commercial uses in a lineal fashion from the
designated commercial nodes would set the precedent of
creating strip commercial areas in this part of the City.
This area of west valley has a number of large employers
including the Boeing Company which is located directly north
of the proposed rezone site. Boeing employs a large number
of people at this location. The intersection of West Valley
Highway and 212th currently operates at a level of service
"F" . The additional traffic generated by a commercial
development would further aggravate the present traffic
situation.
Additional Comments
The basic function of the Comprehensive Plan is to guide land
use decisions by anticipating and influencing the development
of land and to ensure that the health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of the community are safeguarded.
The Kent Fire Chief has made the following comment concerning
the requested rezone:
"Currently there is inadequate pumping
and staff capacity in this area for
emergency response. This comment is
based on the fact that there is no full
time staffed engine on the north end and
the increased calls for service,
simultaneous and back-to-back alarms are
significantly reducing our ability to
respond in a timely fashion. Although
some fire protection can be built in,
such development will continue to place a
strain on our ability to provide an
adequate level of service. This zoning
in itself is not the only demand.
Construction over the last five to six
years has all contributed to an increased
level of demand for service. "
4
Staff Report
"m Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
II. HISTORY
A. Site History
The subject site is currently vacant. The site was annexed
to the City of Kent in 1959 as part of a 1,900 acre
annexation. INitially, the property was zoned MA, Industrial
Agriculture. The site was reclassified in 1973 to M1,
Industrial Park, with the adoption of the present Zoning
Code.
B. Area History
Historically, agriculture dominated as the land use in the
valley area. The Boeing Company was developed directly north
of this site in 1965. Since that time a number of industrial
developments have occurred in the west valley area.
The first rezone (#RZ-87-1) utilizing the M1-C overlay zone
was approved in 1987 for the property immediately adjacent to
the east of the subject property. The project known as Green
River Square, will consist of retail stores, a restaurant,
motel, convention center, and automobile center. Recently
the City received development plans for the first multitenant
commercial building within the Green River Square complex.
III. LAND USE
The site is currently vacant. Land uses in the vicinity include
the following:
North - Boeing Company
South - Vacant, King County Humane Society, Kent Sewer Lagoon
East - Vacant, however the City has received development plans
for Phase I of the Green River Square development.
West - Vacant, existing recreational vehicle park
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment
A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued March
31 1988 for the proposed rezone with the following
conditions:
1. The developer of the Van Doren' s Landing Rezone II shall
do a traffic study to identify all traffic impacts upon
the City of Kent road network and traffic signal system.
5
Staff Report
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
The study shall identify all intersections at level of
service "E" or "F" or which will be at level of service
"E" or "F" due to increased traffic volumes from the
development. These intersections are at a threshold
level for traffic mitigation.
The study shall then identify what improvements are
necessary to mitigate the development impacts thereon.
Upon agreement by the City with the findings of the
study and mitigations measures outlined in the study,
implementation and/or construction of said mitigation
measures shall be the conditional requirement of the
issuance of the respective development permits.
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study,
constructing and/or implementing the respective
mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree to
the following conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts
due to the Van Doren's Landing Rezone II development.
A. The developer shall execute an environmental
mitigation agreement (in the form of a no-protest
LID agreement) to participate in the formation of an
LID to construct the S. 224th/228th Street corridor
project. The minimum benefit to the above
development is estimated at $25,480 based upon 26
p.m. peak hour trips entering and leaving the site
and the capacity of the S. 224/228th Street
Corridor.
The execution of this agreement will serve to
mitigate traffic impacts to the above mentioned
intersections and road system by committing funding
for the S. 224th/228th Street Corridor which will
provide additional capacity for traffic volumes
within the area of the above mentioned development.
B. The developer shall execute an environmental
mitigation agreement (in the form of a no-protest
LID agreement) to participate in the formation of an
LID to construct the S. 192nd/196th Street corridor
project. The minimum benefit to the above
development is estimated at $38, 400 based upon 64
p.m. peak hour trips entering and leaving the site
and the capacity of the S. 192nd/196th Street
corridor.
The execution of this agreement will serve to
mitigate traffic impacts to the above mentioned
intersections and road system by committing funding
6
Staff Report
-- Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
for the S . 192nd/196th Street corridor which will
provide additional capacity for traffic volumes
within the area of the above mentioned development.
2 . The developer shall agree to participate in the
construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of
West Valley Highway and S. 216th Street when traffic
signal warrants are met.
3 . The developer shall execute a no protest LID covenant
for the installation of street lights along S . 212th
Street.
4 . The construction of 64th Avenue S. is also necessary to
adequately handle the traffic generated by the proposed
project. A no protest LID agreement shall be executed
for the construction of 64th Avenue S. Said agreement
will stipulate minimum benefit assessments to be
adjusted annually for inflation from here on. The
improvements will include pavement, four-lanes with
left-turn pocket at S. 212th Street, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, storm drainage, street lights, underground
utilities and related appurtenances.
5. The owner shall agree to participate in a proposed ULID
to construct a regional storm water detention facility
capable of providing at least 275 acre feet of live
storage together with the necessary conveyance channels,
etc. in accordance with the City' s Comprehensive Storm
Drainage Utility Plan. Said agreement shall stipulate a
minimum benefit assessment amount to be adjusted
annually from here on for inflation.
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
The site is relatively flat with slopes of less than two
(2) percent. There are no apparent hydrologic problems
with the site.
2 . Vegetation
The site is currently undeveloped and covered with
native grasses, shrubs, and trees. When development
occurs on this property the native vegetation will be
replaced with formal landscaping to meet Zoning Code
requirements.
7
Staff Report
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property has access to S. 212th Street which
is classified as a minor arterial. The street has a
public right-of-way width of 80 feet while the actual
width of paving is 58 feet. The street is improved with
five lanes of asphalt paving and curb and gutter. The
average daily traffic count on the street is 21, 900
vehicle trips per day.
2 . Water System
An existing 12-inch water main adjacent to the property
in S . 212th is available to serve the subject property.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
An existing 12-inch sanitary sewer in S. 212th and a
36-inch line in 64th Avenue S . are available to serve
the subject property.
4 . Storm Water System
If the rezone is approved and this development occurs,
the developer will be required to participate in ULID #1
which is to construct a regional storm water detention
facility.
5. LID's
The subject property is covered by the following LIDS:
Existing LID' s - ULID #1 - Storm water detention .
facility
Proposed LID' s - 306 - Storm drainage & detention
330 - Street Improvements
V. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Work Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building Official City Clerk
8
Staff Report
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies
within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and
of the May 4, 1988 public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where
applicable.
VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation
to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street
system, flood control problems and comments from other departments
and finds that:
A. The City Wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject
property as I, Industry. The Valley Floor Plan Map
designates the property as IBP, Light Industrial/Business
Park.
B. The site is currently zoned M-1, Industrial Park.
C. The site is currently vacant, surrounding land uses include
industrial, vacant, quasi-public, and recreational vehicle
park.
D. The site has access to S. 212th Street which is classified as
a minor arterial.
E. There are no apparent flood control problems on the site.
F. The following standards and criteria shall be used by the
Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for
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.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the
site would be compatible with development in the
vicinity.
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.
9
Staff Report
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant
the proposed rezone.
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Kent.
The staff has responded to these statements and made the
following findings.
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Planning Department Finding
The City-Wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject
property as I, Industry while the Valley Floor Plan Map
designates the property as IBP, Light Industrial/Business
Park. As a result of the West Valley Industrial Study, The
City has added the C-Suffix nodes to the Valley Floor Plan
Map which identifies the intersections that have designated
as appropriate locations for commercial development. The
intention of this overlay zone was to concentrate the
commercial development at the identified intersections and
not to extend the commercial designation in such a way as to
create a strip development situation in the valley. Although
the boundaries of the M1-C overlay zone are not well defined,
the subject property is 1, 200 feet from the intersection
designated as a potential commercial node.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the
site would be compatible with development in the
vicinity.
Planning Department Comment
As noted in the Land Use Section of this report, the
surrounding land uses are a mixture of industrial, vacant
land, proposed commercial, and a recreational vehicle park.
The proposed commercial development on the southwest corner
of S. 212th and West Valley Highway will consist of a
restaurant, motel, convention center, retail shops, and auto
center. The proposed development would be consistent with
proposed land uses to the east of the subject property but
would encourage a long strip commercial development along
South 212th Street rather than a compact commercial node
which was the original intent of the Ml-C zoning designation.
3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the property
10
Staff Report
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated.
Planning Department Comment
The City Traffic Engineer has estimated that the proposed
development would generate approximately an additional 1,472
daily traffic trips and an additional 121 p.m. peak hour
trips. The current traffic count on 212th is 21,900 trips
per day. The current level of service of the intersection of
212th and West Valley Highway is "F" . The additional traffic
generated would further burden the transportation system in
the valley and would add to an already congested situation
particularly during the peak hours. The City is currently in
the pre-construction phase of major intersection improvements
to the intersection of 212th and West Valley Highway. The
planned improvements will include an additional left turn
lane north and southbound, right turn lanes and an additional
through lane. More extensive improvements are planned for
West Valley Highway between James Street and 190th which will
improve traffic circulation in the area. Granting this
rezone before these improvements are made and their
effectiveness analyzed would be premature.
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant
the proposed rezone.
Planning Department Finding
The current zoning designation was established in 1973 with
adoption of the current zoning code. Since 1973 , the valley
has changed dramatically. An area that was once
agriculturally oriented has evolved into a rapidly growing,
viable industrial area. Recognizing the change and the need
to address the changing complexion of the west valley area,
the planning staff undertook the West Valley Industrial Study
in 1986 which looked at the changes that have occurred in the
valley. The study identified alternative approaches to
address the changes. The ultimate outcome of the study was
that several zoning code amendments were adopted to implement
the adopted alternatives. The requested rezone goes beyond
the intended scope of the subsequent amendments. Although
the development appears to be a high quality project and
would be a welcome addition to the city, this rezone is
premature. The City would like to adopt a "wait and see"
attitude about expanding the M1-C designation until the
impacts of allowing commercial nodes into this area can be
evaluated and the West Valley Highway improvements are made.
_. 11
Staff Report
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Kent.
Planning Department Finding
The proposed rezone would not appear to adversely affect the
health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Kent.
However, the undesirable precedent that this rezone would set
in terms of the promotion of strip commercial development
along 212th would adversely affect the transportation system
in the area and would likely adversely affect people
travelling in this area of the City.
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing the merits of the requested rezone in light of
applicable plans, goals, policies, objectives, and comments from
other departments, the Kent Planning staff recommends that the
requested rezone be DENIED.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 22, 1988
12
t-
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:
n
Councilmember -� _ moves, Councilmem e
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through e a pr ved.
Discussion
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes .
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
June 21, 1988 .
3B. Approval of Bills .
Approval of payment of the bills received through July 7, 1988
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
8 : 30 a .m. on July 15 , 1988 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/9 - 6/15 61711 - 61723
6/16 - 6/27 62030 - 62059 $ 167, 623 . 39
6/15 61724 - 62029 1, 116 , 351 . 99
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/20/88 105564 - 106193 $ 632, 671. 27
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
June 21 , 1988
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00
p.m. by Mayor Kelleher at Kent United Methodist Church. Present: Council-
members Biteman, Dowell, Houser, Johnson, Mann, White and Woods, City
Administrator McFall, City Attorney Driscoll, Planning Director Harris
and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Also present: Fire Chief Angelo
and Police Chief Frederiksen. Finance Director McCarthy was not in atten-
dance. Approximately 50 people were at the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR HOUSER MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through S
be approved, with the exception of Item C which was
removed by Councilmember Biteman and Item S which
was removed at the request of City Administrator
McFall . White seconded and the motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of June 7 , 1988.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J)
Clark/Hango Agreement. ACCEPTANCE of the Clark/
Hango Water System improvement agreement and author-
ization for the Mayor to execute same , as approved
by the Public Works Committee.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3M)
Public Works Trust Fund (Kent Springs Transmission
Main) . ACCEPTANCE of the amended agreement and
authorization for the Mayor to execute same, as
approved by the Public Works Committee .
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F)
Cornucopia Days Street Use Permit. ADOPTION of
Ordinance 2784 granting a street use permit to
the Kent Lions Club for a public festival called
Kent Cornucopia Days .
( CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K)
LID 297 - Assessment Nos. 3 and 18. AUTHORIZATION
for the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to
segregate Assessment No. 3 and Assessment No. 18
on LID 297.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L )
_Puget Power Agreement. ACCEPTANCE of the Puget
Power Agreement for the Smith Street underground
power conversion, and authorization for the Mayor
to execute same, as approved by the Public Works
_. Committee.
- 1 -
June 21 , 1988
FIRE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3N)
Ring County Fire District #37 Contract Amendment.
AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the amendment
to the agreement for services with King County Fire
District #37.
RESIDENTIAL Residential Recycling. City Administrator McFall
RECYCLING noted that the Council had authorized him to nego-
tiate with Kent Disposal (Rabanco) for a contract
for residential recycling and that the City Attorney
has prepared a contract for the Mayor ' s signature.
WHITE MOVED to refer the matter to the Operations
Committee for consideration and recommendation to
the Council. Mann seconded and the motion carried.
ANIMAL CONTROL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 30)
Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs. ADOPTION
of Ordinance 2787 regulating dangerous and potenti-
ally dangerous dogs .
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3P)
Sergeant Position. AUTHORIZATION to create an
additional Sergeant ' s position within the Detective
Unit.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3Q)
WTSC Grant Funds. AUTHORIZATION to use WTSC grant
funds for an additional part-time position for
the Drinking Driver Task Force.
CITY PROPERTY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3R)
Sale of Property Adjacent to Golf Course. AUTHORI-
ZATION to sell five acres of commercial property
adjacent to the Riverbend Golf Course at the corner
of Russell and Meeker. This property was reserved
out of the Golf Course Project for future commer-
cial development. The City Administrator has nego-
tiated the sale of the property to Young Development
and Construction Company for the purpose of construc-
tion of a hotel/motel and other compatible uses .
Sale price is $5. 50 per square foot.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3S)
REMOVED BY CITY ADMINISTRATOR MCFALL
Surplus Property - North of S. 244th Street. AUTHOR-
IZATION for the Public Works Department to have an
appraisal made of City-owned property north of
S . 244th between Summit and 94th Avenue, in order
to start the process to declare the property surplus.
At McFall ' s request, the word appraisal was changed
- 2 -
June 21 , 1988
CITY PROPERTY to evaluation and JOHNSON MOVED to approve this
item, with the change. Mann seconded and the
motion carried.
HEARING EXAMINER Amendment to Ordinance 2233 - Hearing Examiner.
The Hearing Examiner has requested that Ordinance
2233 , Section 14 , be amended to enable Hearing .
Examiner decisions including findings and conclu-
sions to be sent to the applicant and other parties
of record via first class mail rather than by
certified mail . This change would save the City
the extra postage and staff time expended in pre-
paring certified mailings. WOODS MOVED to amend
Ordinance 2233 , Section 14 as recommended by the
City Council Planning Committee and to instruct
the City Attorney to prepare the amending ordinance.
Biteman seconded. Driscoll clarified for White
that State statutes would allow this change and
the motion carried.
AUTOMATION PLAN (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D)
General Government Software Contract. AUTHORIZA-
TION for the Mayor to sign a contract with Manage-
ment Advisory Group, not to exceed $350, 000, sub-
ject to the approval of the City Attorney.
( CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E)
ACCESS/WACIC/NCIC Agreement. AUTHORIZATION to
sign an agreement between the State and the Police
Department for establishment of a computer to com-
puter interface.
ANNEXATION ZONING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C)
REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER BITEMAN
LeBlanc Annexation. Councilmember Biteman requested
that the ordinance for the zoning of the LeBlanc
Annexation be postponed until the next Council
meeting. Mr. Coluccio stated that he would like
to have time to meet with the Public Works and Plan-
ning Departments to clarify the matter of the roads .
BITEMAN MOVED to postpone this item to the July 5
meeting. Dowell seconded and the motion passed.
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H)
MAP AMENDMENT Valley Floor Plan Map Amendment. ADOPTION of
Resolution 1170 incorporating the amendments to the
Valley Floor Plan that were recommended in the East
Valley Study.
ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G)
AMENDMENT Adult Entertainment. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2785
amending the Zoning Code to add adult entertainment
establishments to the list of adult uses.
- 3 -
June 21 , 1988
ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I )
AMENDMENT East Valley Study. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2786
incorporating the recommendations from the East
Valley Study for amendments to the Zoning Code.
These include: ( 1 ) establishing a landscape corri-
dor along East Valley Highway, ( 2 ) changing the
front yard setback in the M2 zone, ( 3 ) instituting
screening requirements for dock-high loading areas
in M2 and M3 zones , ( 4 ) establishing transition
area requirements in the East Valley, and ( 5 ) clarif-
ication of solid waste use regulations .
20 Percent Reduction in Multifamily Density. Mayor
Kelleher noted that on March 15, the City Council
referred the Planning Commission ' s recommendation
for a graduated scale reduction in Multifamily den-
sities to the City Council Planning Committee.
The Planning Commission recommendation also
included maintaining Single Family Residential
guidelines in new annexations, reviewing the CBD
to consider increasing densities in that area and
reviewing "overzoned" areas in the City to examine
whether those areas should be reconsidered. The
Planning Committee reviewed the Planning Commission ' s
recommendation at their meetings of April 19,
June 7 and June 21 .
Councilmember Woods, Chair of the Planning Com-
mittee, MOVED for an ordinance to be prepared to
reduce Multifamily densities of the Kent Zoning
Code per the Planning Commission' s recommendation,
including an addendum to the 6-16-88 Multifamily
Density Memo. Biteman seconded. Woods explained
that the addendum, adopted by the Planning Com-
mittee today and distributed this evening, provided
for adding Sections A. 1 , C and D to the Planning
Commission ' s recommendation, as follows :
A.l. Interim Measure
The 20% "graduated scale" reduction city-wide is intended to be
an interim measure which would remain in effect until the
completion and adoption of the area-by-area residential analysis
described in section C, below.
C. Area-by-Area Residential Study
The Planning Department staff is directed to conduct an update of
the Housing Element of the city's comprehensive plan. Within
this context, an area-by-area analysis of multifamily residential
density „would_ ' be completed for, the East Hill, West Hill, and
Valley Floor planning areas. This analysis would determine areas
which are appropriate for density increases (or potentially new
multifamily areas) and those that are appropriate for density
4 -
June 21 , 1988
ZONING CODE reductions. The goal of the analysis would be to achieve an
AMENDMENT 'average"•:20% reduction overall. In addition, this study would
explore ways of encouraging, new single-family development and
-- protecting existing single-family neighborhoods. The results of
this area-by-area study would be implemented through zoning
amendments to be;.initiated within one year.
g_ Following action of the City Council on the interim
reduction policy, sthe Planning Department will work with:'the City
Council'•'-to develop a 'work'.program"for*the* area-by-area inaiysis
outlined in section"C, above:
Woods noted that there have been many changes
since Resolution 1123 was sent to the Planning Com-
mission approximately 18 months ago. Input had
been received from groups of citizens as well as
businesses and compromises have been made. She
pointed out that the 20% reduction scale was to be
an interim measure until the area by area study is
completed and acted upon. Upon the Mayor ' s request,
Harris explained the actual reductions proposed for
each classification of multiple zoning.
Bill Carey of 11236 S.E. 244th, stated that when
his area was annexed to the City, the zoning was
downgraded, making it impossible to sell his land
for development. He concluded therefore that it
appeared that the City was already implementing .
the 20% reduction proposal. He stated that traffic
congestion and overcrowding of schools was caused
by those outside the City as well as inside, and
this City action would not solve the problem. He
noted that housing had to be affordable and that
for many, this meant apartments . Carey compared
the differences in the zoning assigned to the
LeBlanc Annexation with that of the East Hill Annex-
ation. He filed a map showing the properties on
S.E. 244th and on S.E. 240th between 112th S.E.
and 114th S.E. comparing the zoning shown on the
Comprehensive Plan and the Soos Creek Plan as well
as the City ' s current zoning. He stated that the
Hearing Examiner did not comply with the Comprehen-
sive Plan when recommending the zoning for Area C
of the East Hill Plan. He referred to Ordinance
2469 relating to the zoning of annexed areas .
Johnson noted that consideration had to be given
to both the property owner and to the wishes of
the other residents of the area. Mann noted that
the proposed reductions would be as follows:
5
June 21 , 1988
ZONING CODE MRH reduced from 40 to 28 units
AMENDMENT MRM reduced from 23 to 19 units
MRG reduced from 16 to 14 units
MRD reduced from 10 to 9 units
He pointed out that although developers did not con-
sistently build to the hig:zest density allowed,
this reduction would insure lower densities . He
pointed out that the Council had kept
an open mind and had done its homework on this
issue.
Martin Welch of 11223 S.E. 240th, referred to the
Mayor ' s letter noting that in the past eight years
4400 units of apartments and condominiums had been
built, as compared with only 250 single family
homes during the same time period. Welch stated
that he doubted that building fewer apartments
would mean that more homes would be built. He
opined that the annexations of East Hill areas
occurred because of the need for City water and that
development was a matter of economics .
Luella White of 10005 S.E. 235th stated that she
lived in an apartment complex, but that Kent ' s mix
of single/apartment dwellingshad changed over the
past few years . She favored the reduction and
stated that affordable housing could mean houses,
not necessarily apartments . Grace Studer of 25227
West Valley Highway favored the reduction proposal .
Elmira Forner of the Planning Commission stated
that the Commission had considered the quality of
life while looking at the overall picture. Planning
Commission Chairman Bob Badger stated that the
Commission had found that other cities had taken
similar action and favored the additions proposed
by the Committee. He pointed out that Commission
members served without salaries and that the posi-
tions were not political . Jack Cobsy of 525 Van de
Vanter stated that if it was true that developers
were already building 20% less than their zoning
allowed, then the City should now be asking for
more than 20% reduction.
Dorothy Petersen of 23127 100th Avenue S.E. stated
that although she owned some undeveloped land, she
supported the density reduction proposal. Frank
Chopp also favored the reduction and noted that Kent
had the highest vacancy rate in the State. Tom
- 6 -
June 21 , 1988
ZONING CODE Miskel•1 of 25175 Frager Road stated that his pro-
AMENDMENT perty was across from the Signature Pointe develop-
ment and that he had put his property in land pre-
servation. He favored allowing no new apartment
building. Tom Lampe of 720 Prospect questioned
whether 20% was enough, noting the traffic problems
and the turnover at the schools. Gene Larcom,
10057 S.E. 244th stated that he favored the reduc-
tion of apartment sites although he has five acres
adjacent to the Fred Meyer development. Leona Orr
presented a petition containing 35 signatures in
support of 20% reduction. Laurie Sundstedt of
24805 114th S.E. also favored the reduction. Donna
Stewart of 26407 West Valley Highway favored the
reduction and noted that parking regulations in
apartment complexes were already being ignored.
Jim Orr favored 50% reduction and stated that a
group of citizens had initiated a petition to have
such a measure on the ballot, and that copies of
the petition were available. Mayor Kelleher noted
that he favored the initiative method to submit
measures to the electorate, but that thus far Kent
had not passed an ordinance to allow this . Larry
Frazier of Seattle Master Builders Association
stated that apartment dwellers are also citizens
and that the Comprehensive Plan is subject to change.
He supported the proposals made by the Planning
Committee as well as the Planning Commission.
Lila Raabe of 24302 111th Avenue S .E. stated that
the citizens had made their wishes known many times
and that the message of not wanting any more apart-
ments was clear. Mary Williams of 25331 West Valley
Highway stated that not many residents knew what
the valley was like 40 years ago. She pointed out
that citizens had to keep coming to the City Hall
to voice their objections to new developments .
Joan Hertel of 25421 West Valley Highway stated
that the City should encourage the building of
small affordable homes instead of apartments.
Dee Moschel noted that she had followed this pro-
posal since its inception and particularly favored
the area-by-area approach. Carol Stoner of the
Planning Commission favored the reduction and noted
further that Kent ' s action on this matter would
influence more than just the City of Kent area.
Dawn Turnham of 23830 98th Avenue South favored
the reduction and especially noted the traffic con-
gestion on the East Hill .
7 -
June 21 , 1988
ZONING CODE Upon questions , Dan Stroh of the Planning Department
AMENDMENT explained that present zoning allows for about 9000
more apartments and the 20% reduction would lower
this to 7200 units .
After all who wished to speak had done so, Woods '
motion carried unanimously.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills
received through June 22, 1988 after auditing by
the Operations Committee at its meeting at 8: 30 a .m.
on July 1 , 1988.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
5/13 - 5/16 60790 - 61292
5/17 - 5/26 61293 - 61320 $ 250,260.16
6/1 61325 - 61693 743 ,997.16
994,257.32
5/27 61321 - 61324
6/1 - 6/8 61694 - 61710 68,759.89
6/15 61724 - 62029 1,128,492.74
$1,197,252.63
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/5/88 104938 - 105536 $ 621,881.45
REPORTS President's Report. Council President White noted
that there would be no workshop next week, and fur-
ther that he had just become a grandfather ! Con-
gratulations were given.
Public Works Committee. Johnson noted that the
Public Works Committee would meet on Tuesday,
June 28 at 4 : 00 p.m.
Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the Parks Com-
mittee would meet on Wednesday, June 22 at 4 : 00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 15 p.m.
Marie Jensen, CMC
City Clerk
- 8 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CONTRACT WITH RABANCO DBA KENT DISPOSAL FOR
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING SERVICES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign a
contract with Rabanco dba Kent Disposal for residential recycling
services for a period not to exceed 18 months from the date of
execution of the contract . Rabanco will provide residential
recycling services to all voluntarily participating single family
households and multifamily households up to fourplexes . Service
will be provided at no cost to the participant . Cost of the
program will be paid by the City of Kent through its
Environmental Mitigation Fund which is financed through utility
taxes levied on garbage collection service.
3 . EXHIBITS: Contract document
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 6/30/88
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: approximately $65 000 depending upon
participation
SOURCE OF FUNDS : Environmental Mitigation Fund
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
-- Council Agenda
TT_am No _ 3C
•r
KENT DISPOSAL COMPANY
PROPOSAL FOR CITY-WIDE, SINGLE FAMILY
CURBSIDE RECYCLING
A) DESCRIPTION OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM:
Kent Disposal Company will provide to each single family
recycling program participant a 90 gallon plastic wheeled
container with lid commonly called a "Mobile Toter"..
Participants will be asked to place all their recyclable
materials into the toter and wheel that toter out to the
curb once a month on the designated collection day. Kent
Disposal trucks will then dump the toters and transport the
collected recyclables to the Rabanco Recycling Center at
2733 - 3rd Avenue S. , in Seattle. The materials will then
be sorted, packaged, and eventually shipped to buyers.
Prior to delivery of the toters, a mailing will be made to
participating customers . The mailing will explain the
operation of the program and the types of materials to be
recycled. A telephone number will be provided to those
customers who may have additional questions.
B) RECYCLING EXPERIENCE:
Kent Disposal is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rabanco
Companies . Rabanco is the recognized leader in recycling in,
King County with over 15 years experience. At present,
Rabanco processes over 50 , 000 tons of recyclables a year .
The new Rabanco Recycling Center at 2733 - 3rd Avenue S. , in
Seattle is a 60 , 000 square feet State-of-the-Art facility
( 1. 4 acres under roof) .
Past recycling experience of Rabanco Companies includes the
following:
. 1 ) City of Seattle pilot residential recycling project
using semi-automated toters 1986-1987 .
2 ) City of Seattle "Sort" pilot curbside residential
recycling collection project 1978-1979 .
3 ) City of Kent pilot residential recycling project
using semi-automated toters 1987-1988 .
4 ) City of Clyde Hill residential newspaper recycling
collection project 1986-1987 .
5 ) Collection of newsprint and _ glass from
various
"drop-off site" locations through-out King County, on-going
for the last ten years .
In addition, the City of Seattle has recently awarded
Rabanco Companies two recycling contracts :
1) City of Seattle, southend residential curbside
recycling project utilizing semi-automated toters . Contract
will start February 1 , 1988 , and potentially involve 80 ,000
residential customers .
2) City of Seattle Environmental Allowance Program
utilizing semi-automated toters and dumpster containers .
Approximately 2 , 500 tons per year of mixed waste paper will
be collected at curbside from apartment complexes and small
businesses in the City of Seattle. The project will start
approximately March 1, 1988 .
C) IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
The timetable for implementing curbside recycling city-wide
will depend on whether the City chooses mandatory or
voluntary participation. If voluntary participation is
selected, then mailings will be involved to residents asking
them to respond as to willingness to participate. A time
lag will be involved as responses come in, deliveries of
toters are scheduled and routes are developed. If mandatory
participation is selected, however, one informational
mailing can be made and toters can then be delivered
immediately thereafter.
1) Voluntary Participation Timetable:
Delivery of toters to commence within 30 days of
Council approval of contract and will be completed within
three months of delivery start date.
2) Mandatory Participation Timetable:
Delivery of toters to commence within two weeks of
Council approval of contract and will be completed within
three months of delivery start date.
3 ) Timetable for Start of Recyclable Collection:
Actual collection of recyclable materials from the
toters will commence approximately 30 days from delivery of
toters . For example, if the initial delivery of toters was
made the first week of April 1988 , the first day of
collection from those residents would start within the first
week of May 1988 . Some leeway may have to be granted to
complete routing for full neighborhoods but in most cases
the delay would be minimal.
D) COST TO CITY OF KENT
1) Mandatory Participation
a. Cost per home - $1 . 09/month
b. Minimum cost to City per month - $5 , 000 .
2 ) Voluntary Participation with participation rate
between 91% and 99%
a. Cost per home - $1 . 20/month
b. Minimum cost to City per month - $5 , 100 .
3 ) Voluntary Participation with participation rate
between 61% and 90%
a. Cost per home - $1. 35/month
b. Minimum cost to City per month - $5 , 200 .
9 ) Voluntary Participation with participation rate
rate between 31% and 60%
a. Cost per home - 1 . 82/month
b. Minimum cost to City per month - $5 , 300.
_.. 5) Voluntary Participation with participation rate
between 0% and 30%
a. Cost per home - $3 . 96/month
b. Minimum cost to City per month - $5 ,700 .
6 ) Because the Washington Utilities and Transportation
commission has not yet ruled on the impact of re-
cycling on garbage rates, Kent Disposal will
continue billing residential garbage customers
the full tariff rate for garbage service. We
propose that $1.00 per month credit to partici-
pating customers would be given by the City through
its utility billing system.
E) LENGTH OF CONTRACT
Five year agreement effective with execution of the
contractual agreement.
F) COST INCREASES IN FUTURE YEARS
Minimum monthly costs and costs per home would be adjusted
annually starting in the 13th month of the five year
contract by 80% of the percentage increase in the Consumer
Price Index for the Seattle area.
G) UNANTICIPATED CHANGES IN LAWS OR TAXES
During the term of the contract, if any laws and/or taxes
are imposed on Kent Disposal that would adversely affect
contract costs , Kent Disposal would then be able to pass
those increased costs on to the City.
38-25
r
4 �
WASTE REDUCTION AND COLLECTION OF SOURCE SEPARATED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
CONTRACT
This contract'is entered into by and between the City of Kent, a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington (hereinafter called the "City" ) , and
Rabanco dba Kent Disposal , a Washington State corporation (hereinafter called
the "Contractor" ) .
Whereas, it is essential that residential solid waste be reduced and properly
recycled in order to avoid adverse environmental and social effects; and
Whereas, the Contractor is qualified to provide collection and processing
services for the collection of source separated residential recyclable
materials, including distribution of the materials to end markets, in
accordance with the terms of this contract; and
Whereas, the Contractor agrees, for the consideration stated, to collect and
distribute recyclable materials to end markets for all residential recycled
materials within the City of Kent in accordance with this contract; NOW,
THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, the City and the
Contractor agree to the terms and conditions set forth herein.
I. GENERAL AGREEMENTS
SECTION 1 . GENERAL DESCRIPTION
1 .1 The work to be performed consists of collection of residential recyclable
materials in accordance with this contract and the Contractor' s response
to the City's requests for proposal , both of which are attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference. The work excludes all
dangerous wastes or hazardous wastes as defined in RCV1 70.105 and RCW
70.105A and solid waste intended for disposal in a landfill or solid
waste disposal facility defined under Washington Administrative Code
Chapter 173-304.
1 .2 It is the intent of this contract that the Contractor shall supply all
labor, material , equipment, facilities, financial guarantees , liability
insurances and lands as may be necessary to provide the service as
described in this contract.
SECTION 2. DURATION OF CONTRACT
2.1 The terms of this contract shall be for 18 months, effective on the last
date of execution of this contract, Provided, However, that this contract
can be extended by mutual agreement of the City and Contractor if agreed
to in writing; and provided, further, that the Contractor will apply
immediately upon execution of this agreement to the Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission for the inclusion of this or a similar
residential recycling program within its current temporary or succeeding
permanent solid waste collection WUTC franchise for the purpose of
inclusion of the costs of this program into the WUTC approved rate base.
This agreement shall terminate within 30 calendar days of the effective
date of such approval by the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission. The Contractor shall make its best and most diligent efforts
to obtain such approval .
2.2 Upon the effective date of this contract, the Contractor shall mail to
all single family residences in Kent, up to and including residences with
four or fewer units, a description of the recycling program. The
Contractor shall do so within thirty (30) calendar days from the
effective date of the contract. No later than thirty (30) days after the
effective date of the contract, the Contractor shall begin to deliver
recycling containers to each residence that chooses to participate in the
program. Implementation of the program shall be fully phased in and
implemented and each residence requesting service shall have received
service no later than one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days from the
effective date of this contract.
SECTION 3. NOTICES
3.1 All notices shall be in writing and shall be delivered or mailed to the
following respective addresses:
3984L-02L - 2 -
CITY: City of Kent
220 fourth Ave. S.
Kent, Washington 98032-5895
c/o City Administrator
RECYCLER: Rabanco dba Kent Disposal
Attn: Steve Caputo, General Manager, Kent Disposal
22010 76th Ave. South
Kent, WA 98032
Other such respective address as either party may from time to time
change and designate in writing to the other party.
SECTION 4. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
4.1 This contract consists of these 32 pages together with any attachments,
appendices which may be attached hereto or incorporated herein by
reference. This contract contains all of the covenants, promises,
agreements and conditions , either oral or written, between the parties.
SECTION 5. EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
5.1 If during the life of this contract additional territory of any amount
whatsoever is acquired by the City through annexation or any other
procedure, the City reserves the right, upon ten (10) calendar days
written notice to the Contractor, to order the Contractor to make
collections in such additional area in accordance with all provisions of
this agreement. The Contractor shall have thirty (30) calendar days
within which to fully implement the program within the new area(s) .
5.2 Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the program
participants, the City , its agents , or other contractors from using
collected materials for resource recovery salvage (e.g. pick and sort)
and recycling.
5.3 Waste generators within the City maintain the right to continue to
accumulate, buy, sell , or give recyclable and reuseable materials with
companies other than the Contractor herein. Therefore, a portion of the
current recyclable materials waste stream may be diverted from the
Contractor.
3984L-02L - 3 -
II . RECYCLING COLLECTION
SECTION 1 . COLLECTION AREA
1 .1 The Contractor will collect all home-separated newsprint, glass
containers, ferrous and non-ferrous cans, and mixed wastepaper from
residences with four and fewer units within the City of Kent boundaries.
The City reserves the right to expend the collection of other materials
determined by the City to constitute recyclables or reuseable material .
1 .2 All work will be performed in a thorough and professional manner in full
compliance with this agreement.
SECTION 2. PLACE OF COLLECTION
2.1 Collection shall be performed at curbside and/or alley, as determined by
the City. Backyard collection shall not be performed except under
special circumstances as determined by the City, (i .e. , elderly and
disabled participants, assumed to be less than 10% of the residences) .
2.2 The Contractor is not awarded an exclusive right to collect recyclables
in the City.
SECTION 3. TIME AND FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION
3.1 Collection from City residences with four and fewer units (commonly
called single-family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes)
shall be made monthly according to the hour and days as specified by Kent
City Code or regulation for solid waste collection, as is now in force or
as may be hereafter amended. The City Administrator may authorize a
change of hours if requested in writing by the Contractor.
SECTION 4. SCHEDULING OF COLLECTION
4.1 The Contractor shall divide the contract area into areas or routes in a
manner that spreads collection over the work month. Collection shall be
made from residences on a regular schedule on the same day of the month.
_. The Contractor shall show on a chart the day of the week recyclables
shall be collected from each area or route. A map of such shall be
furnished to the Administrator a minimum of one month prior to the first
3984L-02L - 4 -
day of contract collection and shall be updated every six months. The
Contractor may change the regular day of collection by giving notice to
the Administrator and the affected customers at least fourteen (14)
calendar .days prior to the effective day of such change. The form of
notice to the customer shall be subject to the approval of the
Administrator.
4.2 The Contractor, at the Administrator' s request, shall supply additional
collection maps within ten (10) working days of the Administrator' s
request. The maps shall clearly delineate collection areas and routes,
and day of collection.
4.3 The Contractor shall provide the services under this contract for the
Kent municipal government at all designated municipal facilities at times
and frequencies established by the City.
SECTION 5. HOLIDAY AND MAKE-UP COLLECTIONS
5.1 When the day of regular collection falls on a legal holiday, as defined
by State law, the Contractor may reschedule the regular collection to the
earliest succeeding workday. Saturday collections will be permitted to
collect recyclables collected regularly on a Friday if such collection
has been deferred because of the holiday. The Contractor shall notify
the Administrator in writing sixty (60) calendar days in advance of each
holiday that the Contractor will not make regularly scheduled
collections. The Contractor shall notify each affected customer of
scheduled changes in writing not more than ten (10) nor less than seven
(7) calendar days of the change and publish such changes in a local
newspaper of general circulation.
5.2 When snow or ice are on the streets, requiring closure of roadways that
provide access to the residences, or other disruption beyond Contractor' s
control prevents collection on the scheduled day, the Contractor shall
make collection on the nearest proximate weekday. If such conditions
continue for an entire collection cycle or more the Contractor shall
collect all the recyclables amassed for collection up to the maximum
volume a customer could properly leave for collection during the interval
when collections were missed. When Contractor resumes scheduled service,
3984L-02L - 5 -
it shall take bags, boxes, and other secure wrappers and shall empty
temporary receptacles that customers have used when the recycling cans
and containers have been filled.
5.3 Should the Contractor fail to make collection on a scheduled day for
other causes within the Contractor's control , the Contractor shall
promptly, within one working day, make a special collection without
charge to the City or the customer. The collection shall include excess
recyclables accumulated during the interval between the scheduled
collection day and the special collection.
SECTION 6. COLLECTED MATERIAL
6.1 All recyclable material shall be simultaneously collected.
SECTION 7. SUPPLYING CONTAINERS
7.1 The Contractor, not later than one week prior to the start of collection
for each residence, shall provide each City residence participating in
the collection service a 90 gallon container as described in its proposal
for the storage and curb set-out of recyclables for collection.
Residences electing to participate in the collection service subsequent
to the initial thirty (30) day enrollment period provided herein shall be
provided a container by the Contractor within fourteen (14) calendar days
of participation sign-up.
.,. 7.2 The containers provided for recycling collection must be distinguishable
from garbage or refuse containers by use of a recycling decal, that will
be difficult to remove, or other methods, all of which shall be subject
to prior approval by the Administrator.
7.3 Containers remain property of the Contractor unless purchased by the
resident.
7.4 The Contractor shall make available to participating residents at cost
containers to replace those damaged, destroyed, lost by the resident, or
stolen.
- 3984L-02L - 6 -
7.5 Contractors may retrieve their containers from residences that have
ceased participating in the collection program because they have failed
to place recyclables at the curb for three successive collection periods.
SECTION 8. CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY
8.1 The Contractor shall be responsible for furnishing all labor, materials,
equipment, and supervision to perform the collection, processing,
marketing services described in these specifications.
SECTION 9. CONDUCT: I .D. , SPILLAGE
9.1 Employees collecting recyclables shall be courteous, exercise due care,
and do their work, without delay, unnecessary noise, and without damage
to private property; they shall close all gates that they open.
Employees shall follow the regular pedestrian walkways and paths while on
private property, but may, with the owners ' consent (express or
apparent) , cross open lawns. Employees shall not cross flower beds or
cross through hedges. While collecting, employees shall wear a standard
uniform and carry identification supplied by the Contractor that is
approved by the Administrator.
9.2 The Contractor shall pick up any material scattered or spilled during
collection and clean up the area affected. Each truck shall carry
equipment such as broom and a shovel for this purpose.
SECTION 10. REPLACEMENT OF CONTAINERS
10.1 The Contractor shall , without expense to the City or the resident,
replace containers, taken or damaged by collectors, or damaged due to
normal wear and tear, within forty-eight (48) hours after notice.
SECTION 11 . DECLINING SERVICE
11 .1 The Contractor may decline to make collection :
(a) Of material that is improperly prepared or is contaminated.
(b) Of material that is not placed at the curbside or alley.
3984L-02L - 7 -
The Contractor shall notify residents utilizing a "correction card" on
their collection day of the reasons for any refusal to collect the
resident's material . After the third month of Contract collections the
Contractor shall also notify the City within one working day of each
address where the contractor declined to collect the material .
SECTION 12. CUSTOMER GRIEVANCES
12.1 The Contractor will designate a representative to adjust customer
grievances. At the Administrator's request, the representative will join
the City's representative in meeting with an aggrieved customer within 24
hours of notification to resolve a complaint about damage or spillage;
taken or damaged recycling containers; a refusal to serve or a missed
pick-up; and/or other deficiency in service or a need for special
service. The decision of the City's representative shall be final on
nonmonetary matters, such as adequacy of service, correctness in refusing
service, and the need for a make-up collection.
SECTION 13. VEHICLES USED IN COLLECTION
13.1 All vehicles used in recycling collection and disposal shall be
registered with the State of Washington Department of Motor Vehicles, and
shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and a state of good
appearance and repair, and shall be painted in a uniform manner.
13.2 Collection vehicles shall be painted in Contractor's color or colors
subject to approval by the Administrator, numbered, and shall have
painted in letters in a contrasting color, at least four inches high, on
each side of each vehicle and on the rear of the vehicle, the number of
the vehicle. No advertising shall be permitted other than
the name of the Contractor. Approved program promotion is allowed and a
City logo. All vehicles shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
13.3 The number and size of collection equipment shall be of sufficient
capacity to service all participating dwellings once a month.
13.4 All such vehicles shall be operated in conformity with Washington State
laws and the Kent City Code.
3984L-02L - 8 -
SECTION 14. VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
14.1 All vehicles used in recycling collection shall be new or reconditioned
in good operating order. All collection equipment used under this
contract•shall meet all applicable city, state and federal safety
standards and Contractor shall obtain all required operating permits.
SECTION 15. OWNERSHIP OF EQUIPMENT
15.1 The Contractor shall own or lease all vehicles, containers and equipment
required by this contract.
SECTION 16. NOISE
16.1 The maximum noise level of motor vehicles during travel , or while
operating shall not exceed those requirements of Kent City Code as is now
or may be hereinafter amended.
SECTION 17. GRATUITIES
18.1 Neither the Contractor nor its employees nor any subcontractor, nor any
agent, shall request or accept any gratuities from any person, firms or
corporations for services required to be performed under this contract.
III. OWNERSHIP AND MATERIAL PROCESSING
SECTION 1 . OWNERSHIP OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL -
1 .1 Recyclable material set out for collection on the regularly scheduled
collection day shall belong to the Contractor from the time of its set
out, subject to the right of a customer to claim lost property of value.
SECTION 2. PROCESSING CAPABILITIES
2.1 The Contractor is responsible for the processing of recyclables collected
and the proper and legal disposal of any nonrecyclable materials that may
be collected.
3984L-02L - 9 -
- IV. TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING
SECTION 1 . ARRANGEMENTS
1 .1 The Contractor is responsible for establishing transportation and
marketing arrangements for the source separated materials. Equipment
utilized for storage and transport of materials to markets may be owned
or leased by the Contractor or the market sources.
SECTION 2. DISPOSAL PROHIBITION
2.1 The Contractor shall endeavor to prevent the collection of recyclables
that have been contaminated. In the event Contractor collects any
contaminated recyclables, it shall be required to dispose of said
contaminated materials at no cost to the City.
SECTION 3. PUBLICITY
3.1 The Contractor publicity and education efforts shall encourage the
maximum level of citizen recycling and waste reduction. The publicity
and educational will be designed to maintain continued citizen use of
existing recycling facilities and maximize participation in the
residential collection program. Publicity activities must emphasize all
materials to be collected.
SECTION 4. TECHNICAL INFOR14ATION SHEET
4.1 The Contractor will prepare and print a technical information sheet
concisely explaining' the operation of the program, material preparation
procedures and prudent fire hazard reduction procedures, as approved by
the Kent Fire Department, pertaining to use of storage containers. The
sheet shall be enclosed with an official City of Kent letter briefly
explaining the project background, the project implementation schedule,
and the responsibility of the participants. This letter will be
prepared, printed and mailed by the Contractor, but approved by the
Administrator, and shall be mailed one month prior to collection start up.
3984L-02L - 10 -
SECTION 5. CONTAINER DELIVERY
5.1 Contractor delivery of storage and set-out containers shall include
concurrent delivery of the official City letter, technical information
sheet, and collection schedules.
SECTION 6. PARTICIPANT SIGN UP
6.1 A Contractor shall develop a method for signing up participants in the
program. A City approved, contractor prepared and printed sign up form
shall be completed for each program participant.
SECTION 7. CONTRACTOR SPOKESPERSON
7.1 A Contractor spokesperson shall be available for City scheduled
- interviews with the press and radio and television stations.
SECTION 8. CITY APPROVAL
8.1 The content and development of all public education materials and
activities is subject to the approval of the Administrator.
SECTION 9. MONTHLY PROJECT REPORTS
9.1 The recycling Contractor shall submit monthly project reports for the
duration of the Contract period commencing upon effective date of the
Contract. These reports shall be due within ten working days before the
end of the month. At a minimum, the reports shall include:
a. A report of tonnage of all materials collected, by material ;
b. A report of tonnages of all materials sold, by material ;
C. A report of weight of materials collected and disposed of due to
contamination;
d. Material market prices;
e. Resident participation rates in terms of monthly set-out counts on
each collection route with a description of the methods used to
determine these rates.
f. Description of progress in meeting the implementation schedule
including any problems encountered and 'now they were resolved.
3984L-02L
SECTION 10. QUARTERLY PROJECT STATUS REPORTS
10.1 The recycling Contractor shall provide quarterly project status reports.
These reports will be due within fifteen (15) calendar days of the close
of the quarter being reported. The first quarter shall commence on the
effective date of this agreement.
10.2 At a minimum, the reports shall include:
a. A report of all program revenues, tonnages recovered by material ,
participation rates and details of expenditure of City funds;
b. Progress in meeting the implementation schedule;
C. Detailed data to allow analysis of collection and processing
efficiencies;
d. Discussion of education and publicity efforts and their results.
10.3 These monthly and quarterly reports shall include any other information
requested by the City.
SECTION 11 . ANNUAL REPORTS
Annual Reports
11 .1 The Contractor shall provide year-end annual reports for each year the
project is in operation. These reports will be due within 30 calendar
days of the end of the calendar year.
11 .2 At a minimum, the report shall include:
a. A cumulative report of the detailed revenue information contained in
the quarterly reports, and a cumulative report of participation
rates and recovered materials tonnages.
b. A discussion of public awareness activities and their impact on
participation and recovered volumes.
C. A discussion of highlights and problems and measures taken to
resolve problems and increase efficiency and household participation.
d. A summary that highlights the Contractor' s mitigation efforts and
programs.
3984L-02L - 12 -
11 .3 This report shall include any other information requested by the city.
V. GENERAL CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
SECTION 1 . CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY
1 .1 Procurement of all equipment and assumption of all start-up, operating
and maintenance costs for collection, processing and if necessary storage
and transportation shall be the Contractor' s responsibility.
1 .2 The Contractor shall supervise and provide labor to perform all
Contractor publicity and education, collection, processing, and marketing
tasks.
1 .3 The Contractor shall provide proper safety equipment and appropriate
insurance for vehicles and workers.
1 .4 The Contractor shall market all collected materials and report market
prices.
1 .5 The Contractor shall perform publicity and education functions as
specified herein.
1 .6 The Contractor shall submit all documents and plans for publicity and
public information to the City for approval prior to distribution.
SECTION 2. CITY RESPONSIBILITY
2.1 The City shall be the authority that provides final approval on all
Contractor activities relating to performance of this contract.
2.2 The City shall be the authority that provides approval of publicity and
education components as specified herein.
2.3 The City shall develop a review procedure for evaluating publicity
documents and plans.
3984L-02L - 13 -
2.4 The City may elect to perform promotion activities that exceed the City
responsibilities listed otherwise herein. The City shall cooperate with
the Contractor' s public education efforts.
VI. COMPENSATION
SECTION 1 . BILLS OF CITY DEPARTMENTS - NOW PAID
1 .1 The Contractor shall pay all lawful bills rendered against it by any City
department. If the Contractor fails to pay any such bill within thirty
(30) calendar days, the City may pay such bills and deduct the amount
thereof from monthly payments due the Contractor.
SECTION 2. BASIS OF PAYMENT
2.1 The Contractor shall be paid according to the monthly schedule set forth
below. The Contractor shall receive payment within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt and approval of the invoice from the Contractor according
to the schedule set forth herein.
2.2 The initial payment shall be due within thirty (30) calendar days of
receipt and approval of an invoice from the Contractor for the first
thirty (30) days of collection.
Participation Compensation
0% - 30% $3.96/per home or min. $5,700
31% - 60% $1 .82/per home or min. $5,300
61% - 9001. $1 .35/per home or min. $5,200
91% - 99% $1 .20/per home or min. $5,100
100% S1 .09/per home or min. $5,000
SECTION 3. WAGE INCREASES FOR EMPLOYEES
3.1 All wage increases for collectors or any other employees or agents of the
Contractor granted during the term of this contract shall be the sole
responsibility of the Contractor. Any benefits or added costs resulting
from changes in technology, laws and regulations, labor practices,
availability of equipment, and other foreseeable business risks that may
affect the performance of this Contract shall be to the Contractors
advantage or expense respectively, except as noted herein.
"" 3984L-02L - 14 -
SECTION 4. PAYMENT PROCEDURE
4.1 The Contractor shall submit monthly invoices to the City Administrator
within ten working days from the end of the month. These invoices shall
itemize the recyclable material tonnage collected and marketed for
recycling under the terms of this Contract and the number of residences
serviced.
4.2 The City shall , within 30 calendar days of receipt and approval of the
invoice, pay to the Contractor an amount equal to such statements, less
any sums retained to cover any verified claims filed with the City, due
to or arising out of this Contract, and also less any sums that have been
deducted as provided in this contract.
SECTION 5. INDEMNITY
5.1 The Contractor shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its elected
and appointed officials, employees, and agents, (including reimbursing
the City for all costs and attorney's fees) from any and all damages,
claims, or demands, of any kind, on account of injury to or death of any
and all persons (including but not limited to the'Contractor, its agents,
employees, subcontractors and their successors and assigns as well as the
City or the City's employees, elected and appointed officials and agents,
and all third parties) , and/or on account of all property damage of any
kind, whether tangible or intangible, including loss of use resulting
therefrom, in connection with the work performed under this Contract, or
caused or occasioned in whole or in part by reason of the presence of the
Contractor or its subcontractors, or their property, employees or agents,
upon or in proximity to the property of the City, except only for those
losses resulting solely from the negligence of the City.
5.2 This indemnification agreement includes the promise that the Contractor
shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its elected and appointed
officials, employees and agents (including reimbursing the City for all
costs and attorney ' s fees) from any and all damages, claims, or demands
of any kind on account of a violation of city, county, state or federal
laws relating to environmental health except only for a loss resulting
solely from the negligence of the City.
3984L-02L - 15 -
SECTION 6. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
6.1 If any City property of any kind is damaged by reason of the Contractor' s
operations under this Contract, the Contractor shall repair or replace
same after being notified in writing of the damages or, failing to do so
promptly, the City may cause repairs or replacements to be made and-the
cost of doing so shall be deducted from the Contractor' s payment from the
City.
6.2 The City shall not be liable to the Contractor for any loss or damage,
other than any loss or damage occurring directly and solely as a result
of the sole negligence of the City, its elected officials, officers,
employees or agents.
-• 6.3 The Contractor shall not be liable to the City or any other person for
the damage done to privately owned garbage cans other than loss or damage
occurring directly as a result of deliberate actions of the Contractor,
its employees or agents.
SECTION 7. COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES
7.1 Care shall be taken in the loading and transportation of recyclables so
that any leaking, spilling or blowing is prevented. The Contractor shall
immediately clean up any spills upon notice from the City to do so.
7.2 The Contractor shall transport at its cost all recyclables collected to
any such site as may be designated by the Contractor. The Contractor
shall furnish written evidence that it has approval and necessary permits
and/or licenses to utilize any site chosen for the duration of this
contract. It further agrees that it will operate under applicable laws,
rules and regulations that may be a requirement of transporting the
mi-Aerials, collecting the materials and/or using said facilities.
SECTION 8. FINAL PAYMEIJT
8.1 Thirty (30) calendar days after the expiration of this Contract, all
_ monies due the Contractor held by the City in excess of the total of (a)
sufficient sum retained to cover any claims and related costs and
attorney' s fees filed with the City related to or arising out of this
"� 3984L-02L - 16 -
contract; (b) a sufficient sum to meet and discharge the claims of
material , equipment and supply men, laborers, and costs of actions due to
or arising out of this contract; and (c) a sufficient sum to pay any
bills due the City from the Contractor, shall be paid to the Contractor.
SECTION 9. PAYMENT RENEGOTIATIONS
9.1 During the term of the contract, should the City implement programs such
as recycling credits, disposal bans or other major waste reduction
incentives which can reasonably be related to an increase in the tonnage
actually collected above the Contractor' s projections, the Contractor and
the City shall renegotiate payments to the Contractor to enable the City
to capture potential net program benefits.
SECTION 10. TAXES, PERMITS AND FEES
10.1 The Contractor shall obtain at its own expense all permits and licenses
required by the City or any other governmental authority and maintain the
same in full force and effect during the term of this agreement. The
Contractor shall pay promptly and before delinquency any and all taxes,
fees and charges of every type required by law and, upon request by the
City, furnish evidence of such timely payment.
SECTION 11 . CONTRACT INTERPRETATION AND DISPUTES
11 .1 To prevent disputes or eventual litigation, all questions arising as to
the proper performance and the amount of work to be paid for under this
Contract shall be subject to the decision of the City. Any unresolved
disputes shall be resolved by King County Superior Court under the laws
of the State of Washington and the City of Kent. Unless otherwise
provided herein , Attorney' s fees and costs shall be paid to the party
that has substantially prevailed on the disputed issues presented to the
court, as determined by the court, by the nonprevailing party.
VII . SPECIFIC CONTRACTOR 'S OBLIGATIONS
SECTION 1 . CONTRACTOR EXAMINATION
1 .1 The Contractor shall make its own examination, investigation, and
research regarding the proper method of doing the work, all conditions
3984L-02L - 17 -
affecting the work to be done, the labor, equipment, and material needed
thereon, the quantity of work to be performed and all applicable
_. ordinances and state laws. The Contractor agrees that it has satisfied
itself by its own investigation and research regarding all of such
conditions, and that the Contractor's conclusion to enter into the
proposed contract is based upon such investigation and research, and that
the Contractor shall make no claim against the City because of the
estimates, statements, or interpretations made by an officer or agent of
the City which may prove to be, in any respect, erroneous.
1 .2 The Contractor assumes the risk of all conditions foreseen or unforeseen,
and agrees to continue the work without additional compensation under
whatever circumstances that may develop other than as herein provided.
SECTION 2. PERFORMING ALL AGREED UPON WORK
2.1 The Contractor shall furnish all skill , labor, equipment, and materials
required for the complete performance of the contract, and shall fully
perform the work in accordance with the specifications included herein.
Failure to fully perform these specifications shall be considered a
default of this Contract.
SECTION 3. INSURANCE
3.1 Prior to the execution of this contract, the Contractor shall , at its own
expense, obtain and file with the City of Kent a Certificate of Insurance
for a primary policy of general comprehensive liability insurance
(including all of the coverages set forth below) . This Certificate of
Insurance shall be subject to approval by the City as to company, terms
and coverages.
3.2 Such liability insurance must specifically name the City of Kent as an
additional insured thereunder and must fully protect the City from any
and all claims and risks and losses in connection with any activity
performed by the Contractor by virtue of this Contract.
'� 3984L-02L - 18 -
3.3 Such liability insurance must be maintained in full force and effect at
the Contractor's sole expense throughout the entire term of this
contract. The City shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice
of any cancellation, reduction or modification of such insurance. Should
such cancellation, reduction or modification occur, the contractor shall
obtain such other insurance to meet the requirements herein, at its own
expense.
3.4 Said insurance policy and/or an endorsement thereto as evidenced by the
Certificate of Insurance, must provide the following minimum coverages
and limits and contain the following provisions:
COVERAGES:
- Extended Bodily Injury
Employees as Additional Insured
- Premises/Operations Liability (M&C)
- Owners and Contractors Protective Liability
- Products and Completed Operations Liability (through guarantee
period)
- Blanket Contractual Liability
- Broad Form Property Damage Liability (including completed operations)
- Personal Injury, including coverages A, B, C, with no employee
exclusion
- Stop Gap or Employers contingent Liability
- Automobile Liability, including coverage for owned, nonowned, leased
or hired vehicles
- Explosion, Collapse, Under.ground damage ( referred to as "X.C.U. )
MINIMUM LIMITS:
All coverages:
$2,000,000 per occurrence, no deductible;
$2,000,000 annual aggregate, no deductible.
Providing of coverage in these stated amounts shall not be construed to
relieve the Contractor from liability in excess of such limits.
3984L-02L - 19 -
3.5 REQUIRED ENDORSEMENTS:
These endorsements shall be included in all applicable policies and on
the Certificate of Insurance:
The insurance company or companies designated on the front of this
Certificate certify that the policy or policies described include the
following minimum coverages and limits:
STANDARD COVERAGES:
Extended Bodily Injury
Employees as Additional Insured
Premises/Operations Liability (M&C)
Owners and Contractors Protective Liability
Products and Completed Operations Liability (through guarantee period)
Blanket Contractual Liability
Broad Form Property Damage Liability (including completed operations)
Personal Injury, including coverages A, B, C, with no employee exclusion
Stop Gap or Employers Contingent Liability
Automobile Liability, including coverage for owned, nonowned, leased or
hired vehicles;
STANDARD LIMITS:
$2,000,000 per occurrence, no deductible;
$2,000,000 annual aggregate, no deductible.
ENDORSEMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL INSURED
The City of Kent is an additional insured for all coverages provided by
this policy of insurance and shall be fully and completely protected from
all claims and risks by this policy and for any and every injury, death,
damage and/or loss of any sort whatsoever, including consequential
damages , sustained by any person, organization or corporation in
connection with any activity performed by the Contractor by virtue of the
provisions of that Contract between the City of Kent and Rabanco dba Kent
Disposal entitled Waste Reduction and Collection of Source Separated
Recyclable Materials, dated June 1988.
3g84L-02L - 20 -
The coverages provided by this policy to the City shall not be
terminated, reduced or otherwise modified in any respect without
providing at least thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice to the
City of Kent.
The coverages provided by this policy are primary to any insurance
maintained by the City.
If an "ACORD" form of Certificate of Insurance is provided to the City
pursuant to this section, it must be modified in the following manner:
Wording At Top of Acord Form - .This Certificate is issued as matter of
information only and confers no rights upon the Certificate holder" -
Shall Be Deleted In Its Entirety.
Wording At Bottom of Acord Form - "Should any of the above described
policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing
company will endeavor to mail _ days written notice to the below named
Certificate holder, but failure to mail such notice shall impose no
obligation or liability of any kind upon the company. - Shall Be Changed
To Read - Should any of the above described policies be cancelled or
reduced as to coverage before the expiration date thereof, the issuing
company will mail thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the below
named Certificate holder and Additional Insured, The City of Kent.
3.6 The above corrections to the "ACORD" Form will be waived only if a copy
of a signed blanket additional insured endorsement from the insurance
company is submitted and provides for Notice to the City of Kent in the
event coverage is changed, reduced, altered or cancelled.
3.7 Failure of the Contractor to fully comply with any and all of the terms
of the foregoing insurance provisions shall be considered a material
breach of this Contract and cause for its immediate termination at the
option of the City.
3984L-02L - 21 -
SECTION 4. PERFORMANCE BOND
4.1 The Contractor shall provide and maintain at all times a valid
Contractor's Performance and Payment Bond in an amount equal to 25% of
the estimated annual City payment to the Contractor. The bond shall be
issued for a period of not less than one year and the Contractor shall
provide a new bond, or evidence satisfactory to the City of its bond
renewability, no less than 180 calendar days prior to the expiration of
the bond then in effect.
4.2 The bond shall be for the use and benefit of the City, with a surety
company authorized to do business in the State of Washington and
acceptable to the City. Said bond shall be conditioned that such
Contractor shall faithfully perform all of the provisions of this
contract and pay all laborers, mechanics, subcontractors, materialmen and
all persons who shall supply such Contractor or subcontractors with
provision and supplies for the performance of this Contract, and shall be
further conditioned that any person(s) performing such work or services,
or furnishing material to any subcontractor shall have the services, or
material was furnished to the Contractor, said bond shall contain
appropriate recitations that it is issued pursuant to this Section of
this Contract, that it shall be construed to meet all requirements
specified herein and that any condition or limitation in such bond which
-- is in conflict with the conditions and requirements of this Section is
void. Such bond shall be submitted to, and subject to approval of the
Administrator prior to its effective date.
4.3 Failure of the Contractor to furnish and maintain said Performance and
Payment Bond shall be considered a material breach of this Contract and
grounds of its immediate termination at the option of the City.
SECTION 5. ASSIGNMENT OF MONIES BY THE CONTRACTOR
5.1 The Contractor shall not assign or pledge any of the moneys due under
this Contract without securing the written approval of the surety on the
performance bond and providing at least thirty (30) calendar days ' prior
notice to the Administrator of such assignment or pledge together with a
copy of the surety' s approval thereof. Such assignment or pledge,
3984L-02L - 22 -
however, shall not release the Contractor or its sureties from any
obligations or liabilities arising under or because of this contract.
SECTION 6. PAYMENT FOR LABOR AND MATERIALS
6.1 The Contractor shall pay as they become due all just claims for labor
performed on or about said work, and all skill or labor and materials and
equipment purchased for or furnished in the execution of the contract.
If any person furnishing supplies, equipment or materials or performing
labor on this contract who is not paid when their claim becomes due files
a claim for such amount, the City shall immediately notify the Contractor
thereof and, subject to the limitations set forth below, shall withhold
the amount of such claim plus an amount for reasonable attorney' s fees
and costs from one or more payments that subsequently become due the
Contractor under this Contract; provided, however, that the City shall
cease to withhold, and shall pay the withheld amount to the Contractor,
unless the claimant fails to perfect such claim or lien as may be
required by law.
SECTION 7. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE AND MEDICAL AID
7.1 The Contractor shall pay to the Department of Labor and Industries of the
State of Washington, in cash, the amounts required to be paid to the
State of Washington, in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act,
or any other payments due the State of Washington in the form of taxes or
fees as required by law on account of this Contract before payment is
made the Contractor by the City on any monthly statement of amount due,
and final payment shall not be made until the Contractor shall have
complied with the provisions of this Section.
SECTION 8. CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE
8.1 The Contractor shall be required to maintain an office within the City
limits provided with telephones and such attendants as may be necessary
to take care of complaints, ,orders for special service, or instructions
from the Administrator. This office shall be in operation between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday, or as otherwise
approved by the Administrator.
3984L-02L - 23
SECTION 9. WORKERS
9.1 All workers employed or agents or independent contractors shall be
competent and skilled in the performance of the work to which they may be
assigned: Failure or delay in the performance of this Contract due to
the Contractor' s inability to obtain workers of the number and skill
required shall constitute a default.of the contract.
9.2 If any person employed on the work by the Contractor is, in the opinion
of the Administrator, incompetent, disorderly, or otherwise
unsatisfactory, the Administrator shall document such unsatisfactory
action in writing and transmit same to the Contractor with a demand that
such unsatisfactory action be corrected. If the unsatisfactory action is
not corrected within 24 hours, or if the action is repeated, the person
-• shall upon demand of the Administrator be removed from performing
additional work under this contract.
SECTION 10. EMPLOYEES
10.1 The Contractor shall require all of its employees, agents or independent
contractors to be courteous at all times, not to be use loud or profane
language, and to do their work as quietly as possible. All employees,
agents or independent contractors of the Contractor, while collecting
material , shall be required to wear a uniform and carry an identification
badge supplied by the Contractor and approved by the City.
10.2 Employees, agents or independent contractors, in collecting source
separated material , shall follow the regular walks for pedestrian while
on private property. They shall also replace all containers used for the
storage of source separated material , and close all gates opened by them
for those residences designated as special collection beyond curbside.
10.3 Employees , agents or independent contractors shall not trespass , litter,
- cross property to adjoining- premises, or meddle with property which is
not specifically the subject of this contract.
3984L-02L - 24 -
SECTION 11 . NO ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLETTING OF CONTRACT
11 .1 The Contractor shall not assign or sub-contract any of the work or
delegate any of its duties under the contract without the prior written
approval of the Administrator.
11 .2 The term "assignment" includes the following changes in the Contractor' s
organization:
(a) The cumulative transfer of 50% or more of its voting stock
outstanding when this contract is signed, if the Contractor is a
corporation with unlisted securities.
(b) Any transfer or effective control over the Board of Directors or of
corporate affairs, if the Contractor is a corporation, the stock of
which is either (i ) listed on a national securities exchange or (ii )
actively traded "over the counter" and is the subject of published
quotations supplied by the National Association of Securities
Dealers (NASDAQ) ;
(c) The transfer of an aggregate of 50% or more of the ownership
interest, if the Contractor is a partnership.
(d) If the Contractor is a limited partnership or joint venture, a
withdrawal of the general partner, a transfer of the general
partnership interest, or, if incorporated, a corporate
reorganization of. the general partner or transfer of its voting
stock meeting the criteria of sub-sections (a) or (b) .
11 .3 The term "transfer" includes a sale, merger, or change in ownership by
operation of law, the issuance of new shares, or conversion of shares
without voting rights to voting shares. "Voting stock" means the shares
entitled to vote for election of the directors of the corporation.
11 .4 When requested, approval by the Administrator of a subcontract or
assignment shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event of an
assignment, sub-contracting or delegation of duties, the Contractor shall
remain responsible for the full and faithful performance of this Contract
and the assignee, sub-contractor, other obligor shall also become
responsible to the City for the satisfactory performance of the work
assumed. The Administrator may condition its approval upon the delivery
- to the City an agreement to fully and faithfully complete the work or
responsibility undertaken.
SECTION 12. LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS
12.1 The City reserves the right to construct any improvement or to permit any
such construction in any street or alley in such manner as the City
authorities may direct, which may have the effect for a time of
preventing the Contractor from traveling its accustomed route or routes
for collection.' The Contractor shall , however, by whatever method it
elects, continue to collect the source separated material to the same
extent as though no interference existed upon the streets or alleys
formerly traversed. This shall be done without extra cost to the City.
SECTION 13. SAFETY REGULATIONS
13.1 The Contractor shall comply with all provisions of the "Occupational
Safety and Health Act" and the "Washington Industrial Safety Act"
applicable to the work under this Contract now or as hereinafter amended.
SECTION 14. PERMITS AND LICENSES
14.1 The Contractor shall acquire all the necessary operating permits and
licenses, including those that may be required by the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission, and assume the costs thereof.
SECTION 15. AUDIT
15.1 The Contractor shall maintain in its office in the City full and complete
accounting records, prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles , reflecting Contractor' s work on this Contract.
The City may require an audit of the Contractors ' books and records at
any reasonable time for verification of collected recyclable tonnage and
residences served, for compliance with the provisions contained in this
agreement to verify reporting requirements herein, and for purposes of
determining the adjustments contained herein.
_ ?nani _n9l
15.2 Audit information will be kept confidential , except as disclosure may be
required by public disclosure laws.
SECTION 16. PERSONNEL PRACTICES
16.1 During the performance of this contract, the Contractor agrees that the
Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, religion, creed, color, sex, marital status,
national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical
handicap, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.
16.2 Failure to comply with any of the terms of these provisions shall be a
material breach of this contract.
SECTION 17. DEDUCTION FROM PAYMENTS BECAUSE OF CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO MAKE
COLLECTIONS
17.1 In the event the Contractor, for any reason, fails to perform the
collections called for in the Contract for any period, with the result
that any portion of the scheduled collection is not completed within a
given calendar week, the Contractor shall not be paid for the work not
performed. Whenever such failure occurs, the City shall deduct, for such
non-performance, a reasonable amount from the Contractor' s next monthly
payment(s) , which amount shall be based on, among other factors, the
number of residences from which collections have not been made, the
duration of such failure of collection, the additive and deductive
adjustments that would have been applied to such prices had the
collections been made, and special costs, including administrative
expenses, incurred by the City as a consequence of such failure.
SECTION 18. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE
18.1 The Contractor and subcontractors shall secure a City Business License.
UIII. ENFORCEMENT
SECTION 1 . DEFAULT OF CONTRACT
1 .1 Should the City determine that the Contractor unnecessarily delayed the
performance of the terms and conditions of this Contract, or in any
3984L-02L - 27 -
manner refuse or fail to comply with the instructions of the City
relative thereto, the City shall notify the Contractor in writing of such
abandonment, delay, refusal , failure, or neglect, and direct the
Contractor to comply with all provisions of the contract.
1 .2 Should the Contractor fail to justify why it has abandoned, delayed,
refused, failed, or neglected to comply with the terms of the Contract,
to the satisfaction of the City, the City may declare a default of the
Contract and notify the Contractor and the surety on the performance bond
of such declaration of default, or the City may take such other action as
may be deemed advisable by the City.
1 .3 Upon receipt by the Contractor of such declaration of default, the
Contractor shall discontinue the work, whereupon the City may transfer
such work to the surety on the performance bond who then shall assume the
work that the City has ordered discontinued.
1 .4 Upon such declaration of default, all payments due the Contractor shall
be retained by the City and applied to the completion of the Contract and
to any damages suffered and expenses incurred by the City by reason of
such default. If the Contractor is declared in default and the surety on
the performance bond assumes the Contract at the discretion of the City,
in which event all payments remaining due the Contractor at the time of
default, less amounts due the City from the Contractor and less all sums
due the City for damages suffered and expenses incurred by reason of such
default, shall be due and payable to such surety. Thereafter, such
surety shall receive monthly payments equal to those that would have been
paid the Contractor had such Contractor continued to perform the Contract.
1 .5 If such surety fails to assume the performance of the Contract so
transferred, or the City does not request the surety to assume such
performance, the City may complete the Contract or any part thereof, and
the City shall have the right to take possession of and use any or all of
the vehicles , material , equipment, facilities , and property of every kind
provided by the Contractor for the performance of this Contract, and to
procure other vehicles , material , equipment, facilities and property of
3984L-02L - 28 -
every kind provided by the Contractor for the performance of this
Contract, and to procure other vehicles, equipment and facilities
necessary for the completion of the same, and to charge the cost of same
to the Contractor and its surety together with the cost incident
thereto. In such event, however, the Contractor shall be entitled to
receive reasonable compensation for its material and property so taken.
1 .6 In the event that the City completes the Contract at a lesser cost that
would have been payable to the Contractor under such contract, if the
same had been fulfilled by said Contractor, then the City shall retain
such difference. Should such cost to the City be greater, the Contractor
and its surety shall be liable for any pay the amount of such excess to
the City.
1 .7 Should the Contractor fail at any time to perform all or any part of the
Contract for whatever cause or reason, the City may take possession of
all of the Contractor' s equipment, vehicles, and facilities, and employ
such force as it may deem advisable to continue the work; and the cost of
labor, materials, and equipment necessary for such work shall be paid by
the City out of monies then due or to become due the contractor under and
by virtue of the Contract for the work herein specified.
SECTION 2. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
2.1 Since a breach of the service provided by this Contract would cause
serious and substantial damage to the City and its citizens , and the
nature of this Contract would render it impracticable or extremely
difficult to fix the actual damage sustained by the City by such breach,
it is agreed that in case of breach of service, the City may elect to
collect liquidated damag--s for each such breach, and the Contractor will
pay to the City, as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, the amounts
set forth below, such sums being agreed to as the amount which the City
will be damaged by the breach of such service. An election to seek such
remedies shall not be construed as a waiver of any legal remedies that
the City may have as to any subsequent breach of service under this
contract.
3984L-02L - 29 -
2.2 Violation of any section of this Contract shall be subject to a fine of
$50 per occurrence unless otherwise indicated.
A truck beginning residential $75 per occurrence
collection prior to 7:00 a.m.
Contractor' s employee found without $100 per occurrence
proper uniform, identification and/or
safety equipment.
Failure of Contractor to maintain, $100 per occurrence
wash and clean collection vehicles.
Same customer missed three (3) times $100
in a six month period through no
fault of the customer.
The repetition of complaints on $150
a route after notification to
replace cans or containers in
designated locations, spilling, not
closing gate, crossing planted areas,
or similar violations.
Failure to comply with Holiday $150
Schedule.
Failure of Contractor to collect $200 after 24 hours
a missed pickup within 24 hours $400 after 48 hours
of notification provided the miss $200/24 hours for each
was reported within 48 hours of the additional 24 hours.
miss.
2.3 Such liquidated damages as the City shall elect to collect will be
deducted from the monthly payments due the Contractor.
SECTION 3. FORCE MAJEURE
3.1 Contractor shall not be in default under this Contract where its failure
to perform is due to force majeure events. For the purposes of this
Contract, force majeure events do not include strikes, but do include
without limitation, acts of God, civil disorders, earthquake, fire and
other events beyond Contractor' s control .
iopai _n9i - 'n -
IX. EMPLOYMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
1 .1 The Contractor warrants that it has not employed or retained any company,
or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the
Contractor, to solicit or secure the contract, and that it has not paid
or agreed to pay any company or person, any fee, commission, or
percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contingent
upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach
or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul
this Contract without liability. Contractor warrants that it has no
apparent or real conflict of interest with any other firm, entity,
jurisdiction or person in conducting services under this contract. In
the event such conflict is discovered following execution of this
contract, Contractor agrees to immediately report such conflict to the
City. Should the City alone determine that such conflict presents or
poses circumstances that will adversely affect or compromise the work to
be performed under this contract, the City shall be entitled to terminate
this agreement immediately without cause and to demand and receive full
payment from Contractor of all monies received to date by the
Contractor. The Contractor shall pay to the City all the City ' s
attorney' s fees and costs necessary to enforce these provisions.
Contractor agrees to provide the City all reasonable requests for
documents and records, including all notes and information whether
written or stored in an electronic memory or medium. The City shall be
entitled to request and receive any and all documents and records
establishing a relationship between the Contractor and third party
determined or believe to represent a conflict of interest by the City.
At the option of the City, should the City determine that a substantial
conflict of interest exists adversely affecting the work to be performed
under this agreement, the Contractor shall terminate its relationship
with its existing or prospective client to remove such conflict under
terms and conditions approved by the City of Kent.
IAOAI „oi
Entered into on the dates set forth below.
CITY OF KENT RABANCO dba KENT DISPOSAL
By: By:
Date: Date:_--e� -7 —
By:
Date :
3984L-02L -32-
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: INCREASE IN INTERIM FINANCING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
GOLF COURSE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to increase the interim
financing loan from the City' s General Fund to the golf course.
_ Oniginal anticipation with the establishment of the loan amount
to a maximum of $1, 000, 008 was that the bonds would be sold early
in 1988 . Presently bonds are anticipated for sale in late July
with the City receiving the proceeds in August . Interim
financing is requested to be authorized to the maximum of bond
authorization approximately $5 , 250,000. The City is not
anticipating using this maximum authorization but it is
established so that reauthorization will not be needed. In this
interim period the City is actually benefited by being able to
finance interim construction at a lower short-term interest rate
as opposed to the higher long term bond rate.
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ n/a
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
TtPm No_ 3D
Operations Committee Minutes
June 17, 1988
Page 2
INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE GOLF COURSE
Finance Director McCarthy told the Committee that they had authorized in September
of 1987 an interim financing loan to the golf course up to $1 ,600,000.
Anticipation at that time was that the bonds would be sold in early 1988. Present
plans call for selling the bonds in July of 1988 with proceeds received in August,
therefore, the amount of the interim financing needs to be increased to the amount
of the construction funds needed ($4,250,220) . This increase will not been
detrimental to the property since the interim financing rate is a lower rate than
the long term bonding rate. The Committee approved this item for inclusion on the
consent calendar for the first meeting in July.
AUTOMATION PLAN CONTRACT
City Administrator McFall and Information Services Director Spang told the
Committee of the process that had been undertaken since the demise of Infocomp, the
City's general government software vendor. With the help of a consultant and
substantial work by staff, the City has located a substitute vendor, the Washington
Community College Computing Consortium (WCCCC) . This organization located in
Redmond provides financial , payroll/personnel , and park systems that meets the
City's needs, with relatively few modifications. They are a fairly large
organization with 65 employees and are the third largest Hewlett-Packard system in
the State next to Boeing and Weyerhaeuser. Reference checks and site visits have
found them to be a quality provider of services. The installation for the City of
. Kent will be their first in local government and therefore the City is receiving
some discounts from their stated prices. The overall cost of their system will be
less than $350,000 which is slightly more than the same systems would have cost
from Infocomp.
Following some discussion about the systems to be provided by WCCCC and the use of
other systems on tape received from Infocomp, the Committee approved the
authorization to sign a contract with WCCCC and their marketing group the
Management Advisory Group (MAG) .
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS FUEL TANKS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with
Gaston Brothers for the Public Works underground fuel tank
project for the final contract price of $75, 129 . 50 and release of
retainage after receipt of the necessary releases from the State.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $75, 129. 50
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Budget
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Ttcm Mn 1F
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 30, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom'.N"3
RE: Public Works Underground Fuel Tank
Gaston Brothers was awarded the contract to replace the underground
fuel storage tanks at the City shops for the bid amount of $79,453
on March 15, 1988 .
The project replaced the City's existing four underground steel
tanks with reinforced plastic tanks and brings us into compliance
with the Federal guidelines for underground storage tanks. A
budget of $100, 000 was established with final construction costs
being $75, 129. 5 and project costs paid to date of $88, 860. 61. It
is recommended the project be accepted as complete and the
retainage released after receipt of the State releases.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CITY OF KENT SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to establish July 19 as date
for public hearing on the annual update of Kent ' s six-year
transportation improvement plan.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
-- Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CITY ' S SELF-INSURED WORKERS COMPENSATION
ADMINISTRATION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign a
Professional Services Agreement with Scott Wetzel Services, Inc . ,
for Workers Compensation Claims Administration. This is an
annual review of our existing agreement.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Mike Webby, Assistant City Administrator
and attachments
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $10,750
SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1988 Budget
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
,•• Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 30, 1988
TO: May r Kelleher, and Council Members
FROM: Mi ebby, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Self-Insured Workers' Compensation
Claims Administration
The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the renewal of
our workers ' compensation claims administration service
agreement. We have managed our self-funded program since July,
1979, and Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. has provided claim services
during that period. We wish to continue our relationship with
Scott Wetzel Services at this time and such recommend the Mayor
be authorized to sign the renewal agreement for 1988 .
The renewal recommendation is scheduled for review by the
Council Operations Committee at its meeting of June 30, 1988.
The cost of claim services will be approximately $10,750.
Funding for services is contained within the 1988 budget. You
will note in the attachment to my memorandum our savings for this
past year have been approximately $100, 000. We have saved about
$775, 000 since we moved to self insurance.
If for any reason the Operations Committee wish to delay
action on this item stall will request it be pulled from the
Consent Calendar. If you have any questions on concerns
regarding this request, please contact me prior to Tuesday
evenings Council meeting.
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUN 13 1988 JUN 1988
CITY ADMINISTRATION CITY ADMINISTRATION
Scott Wetzel Services Inc orporated
500 Pacific Avenue • Seventh Floor • P.O.Box 418 • Bremerton,Washington 98310
Phone:(206)479-0200
June 8 , 1988 _.
Mr. Michael Webby
Assistant City Administrator
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent , Washington 98032-5895
Re: Self-Insured Workers ' Compensation
Service Agreement Proposal,
July 1 , 1988 to July 1 , 1989
Dear Mike:
I enjoyed the opportunity to chat with you by phone and I am
sorry we probably won' t be able to get together for two or
three weeks . As you requested, however, the following will
briefly recap the claims experience for the City of Kent for ,
the current year, projected for one (1) month, and also a
proposal for Service Agreement renewal .
The Workers ' Compensation losses for the year 1987 - 1988 con-
tinue to show a slight tendency to increase and we are pro-
jecting approximately 77 claims by the time everything has
been filed, and including the incurred, but not reported factor.
Also, of significance is the Medical Only to Indemnity ratio,
which is gone from 82/18% in 1985 , to 81/19% in 1986 , then to
76/24% in 1987 , and for the current year , would appear to be
about 73/27% .
Savings for the current year are projected as slightly in ex-
cess of $100 , 000 in claims costs . For all years, the savings
are in the range of $775, 000 . Even with the program costs for
quarterly assessments to the State , excess insurance and surety
and SWS service fees , the program is still proving to be highly
beneficial to the City of Kent, especially when considering the
cash flow advantage.
With regard to Medical Bill Adjusting, we enclose a report sum-
mary of medical payments for the period 4/01/87 to 4/01/88 . These
Mr. Michael Webby
Assistant City Administrator
City of Kent
June 8 , 1988
Page Two
show, by virtue of our automated bill payment system, a savings
to the City of 17 . 39% of the total amount billed, which equates
to $10, 382 .47 .
As you know, Mike , the steady increase in the Indemnity percent
necessitates considerably more work to administer the claims .
We should like to propose for the coming year a minimum annual
fee of $10 ,750 , payable quarterly in advance, to administer up
to 60 claims with claims excess of 60 at $125 per claim. This
fee would also include 50 hours of loss prevention assistance
with excess hours at $65 per hour for standard Loss Control and
$80 per hour for Industrial Hygiene. This would represent a
4% increase in the minimum annual fee, but would also increase
the charge for claims excess of 60 within the contract year.
We will be pleased to discuss this with you at your early con-
venience.
We also send our warmest wishes for a speedy and uneventful re-
covery from your forthcoming surgery.
Sincerely,
L. Bishop
Washington W/C Manager
BLB:dg
Enclosure
4/20/88 REPORT SYSTEM BISHOP
.6 : 40 : 26 MEDICAL PAYMENTS BY CLIENT SEA
4/01/87 - 4/01/88
CLIENT NAME: CITY OF KENT
TOTAL AMOUNT BILLED 59 ,716 . 23
TOTAL AMOUNT PAID 49 , 333 . 76
TOTAL SAVINGS 10 ,382 . 47
PERCENT OF TOTAL 17 . 39 %
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: GETTYSBURG SQUARE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the Bill of Sale Warranty
Agreement for continuous operation and maintenance of
approximately 340 feet of pavement widening and 300 feet of new
street construction, constructed in the vicinity of Meeker Street
and Washington Avenue and release of cash bond after expiration
of the one year maintenance.
3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
r
r �
t
1 S
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LEBLANC ANNEXATION - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance zoning the
LeBlanc annexation in accordance with Council action on June 7.
3 . EXHIBITS: Hearing Examiner ' s recommendations, minutes of June 7
Council meeting
4 . RECO14MNDED BY: Hearing Examiner and City Council
(Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to land use and zoning,
establishing the zoning of the LeBlanc
Annexation generally located in the vicinity of
112th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 236th Street from
R1-20, Single Family Residential, to MRG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential Eight
Units, and R1-9.6, Single Family Residential.
WHEREAS, the property above described, known as the
LeBlanc Annexation, was annexed to the City of Kent on June 15,
1987 under Ordinance 2727 and was automatically zoned R1-20,
Single Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 1987 the Hearing Examiner held a
public hearing to consider the initial zoning of the area
described as:
The Northwest one quarter of the Northeast one quarter in
Section 17, Township 22 North, Range 5, EWM in King
County, Washington EXCEPT that portion lyn within the
Plat of Park Orchard Division #4 as recorded in Vol. 68
of Plats Pages 58 thru 60 AND EXCEPT the North 30.00 feet
thereof;
and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner recommended to the City
Council that the property be rezoned from R1-20, Single Family
Residential, to MPG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with
a maximum density of 12 units per acre for the 5,85 acres known as
LeBlanc Gardens and R1-9.6, Single Family Residential for the
remainder of the site consisting of approximately 10 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner attached two conditions to
the recommendation for zoning as follows:
1. If the applicant makes a significant change to the
conceptual site plan, the initial zoning designation
on the newly annexed land should be brought back to
the Hearing Examiner for review. For purposes of
this condition, a significant change includes, but
shall not be limited to:
A. Landscape buffer of less than 30 feet;
B. Two different size or configuration of buildings
on the site; and, or
C. Different percentage of site coverage.
2. The owners of the property adjacent to 112th Avenue
S.E. shall deed to the City of Kent sufficient
property for street purposes such that 30 feet of
right-of-way exists as measured from the north-south
centerline on the southeast quarter of Section 17,
Township 22, Range 5, W.M. ;
I
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on
May 3, 1988 and June 7, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the City Council examined the impact of high
density occupancy on streets, schools, and traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that a higher
density for this property will significantly impact the traffic in
the area requiring street improvements prior to the addition of
such higher density;
and
WHEREAS, it is recommended by the Public Works Department
to the Council that the second condition be revised so that the
i
right-of-way need not be deeded to the City until prior to
issuance of a development permit as follows:
- 2 -
Prior to the issuance of a development permit (building,
zoning, etc. ) for a permitted use for any properties
within the LeBlanc Annexation area, the owner shall deed
to the City of Kent sufficient property for street
purposes such that 30 feet of right-of-way exists as
measured from the north-south centerline of the southeast
quarter of Section 17, Township 22, Range 5, W.M. ;
- NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Findings, Recommendations, and
Conclusions of the Hearing Examiner as set forth in the LeBlanc
Annexation zoning Findings and Recommendations of the Hearing
Examiner for the City of Kent, which is on file with the Kent City
Clerk, are adopted and the findings concurred with for this site
except as modified below.
Section 2. Zoning for this site, generally located on
approximately in the vicinity of 112th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 236th
Street and legally described as:
The Northwest one quarter of the Northeast one quarter in
Section 17, Township 22 North, Range 5, EWM in King
County, Washington EXCEPT that portion lyn within the
Plat of Park Orchard Division #4 as recorded in Vol. 68
of Plats Pages 58 thru 60 AND EXCEPT the North 30.00 feet
thereof,
is hereby changed from R1-20, Single Family Residential, to MPG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential, limited to eight units per
acre for the LeBlanc Gardens area consisting of approximately 5.85
acres and R1-9.6, Single Family Residential, for the remainder of
the site consisting of approximately ten acres.
Section 3. The zoning is subject to the following
-.- conditions:
- 3 -
1
1. If the applicant makes a significant change to the
conceptual site plar, the initial zoning designation
on the newly annexed land should be brought back to
the Hearing Examiner for review. For purposes of
this condition, a significant change includes, but
shall not be limited to:
A. Landscape buffer of less than 30 feet;
B. Two different size or configuration of buildings
on the site; and, or
C. Different percentage of site coverage.
2. Prior to the issuance of a development permit
(building, zoning, etc. ) for a permitted use for any
properties within the Leelanc Annexation area, the
owner shall deed to the City of Kent sufficient
property for street purposes such that 30 feet of
right-of-way exists as measured from the north-south
centerline of the southeast quarter of Section 17,
Township 22, Range 5, W.M.
3. A development permit shall not be issued for the
entire site until 112th Avenue is fully improved
from 240th to 232nd with sidewalks on both sides of
the street.
Section 4. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KFLLEHER, NAYCR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
- 4 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS PROPERTY NORTH OF S. 244 STREET - RESOLUTION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Public Works Dept.
to have an evaluation made of City-owned property north of
S. 244th between Summit and 94th Ave. in order to start the
process to declare the property surplus .
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution, Public Works Committee minutes and
related correspondence
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
RESCLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, declaring city
utility property, in the vicinity of north of
244th Street, between 94th and Summit Avenue,
located in Kent, to be surplus to the City's
needs and not required for continued public
utility services; and setting a public hearing
pursuant to RCW 35.94.040 for July 19, 1988.
WHEREAS, the City Council confirms the Public Works
V .
Committee recommendation to declare the property described in
Exhibit A situated in Kent in King County, Washington, as surplus
to the City's needs and not required for providing continued
public utility services; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.94.040 requires a public hearing before
the City may cause such property to be sold and conveyed; and
WHEREAS, an appraisal in the amount of $100.00 has been
obtained by the Department of Public Works; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL CF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The property described in Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference situated in Kent in King
County, Washington is no longer required for continued public
utility service and is surplus to the City's needs.
Section 2. A public hearina is set for July 19, 1988 at
7 p.m. in the Kent City Hall.
Section 3. Notices of said hearing shall be placed at
three conspicuous locations on or adjacent to the subject property
and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of
Kent.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1988.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING -
20 PERCENT REDUCTION IN CERTAIN MULTIFAMILY DENSITY
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On March 15, the City Council referred the
Planning Commission' s recommendation for a graduated scale
reduction in Multi Family Densities to the City Council Planning
Committee. The Planning Commission recommendation also included
maintaining Single Family Residential guidelines in new
annexations, reviewing the CBD to consider increasing densities
in that area and reviewing "overzoned" areas in the City to
examine whether those areas should be reconsidered. The Planning
Committee reviewed the Planning Commission' s recommendation at
their meetings of April 19, June 7 and June 21. On June 21, the
City Council voted to reduce Multi Family Densities of the Kent
Zoning Code per the Planning Commission' s recommendation
including any amendments which the Planning Committee may
recommend at the meeting of 6/21/88 , and instructed the City
Attorney to prepare the amending ordinance.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
i
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, amending Kent City Zoning Code
Chapters 15.04.040, 15.04.050 and 15.04.060
reducing multifamily residential densities for
lots of more than 15,000 square feet in size.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
i
HEREPY CRDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Kent City Zoning Code Section 15.04.040 is
amended as follows:
15.04.040. GARDEN DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL -
MR-G. Purpose: It is the purpose of this district to provide
locations for garden apartment densities suitable for suburban
living.
A. Principally Permitted Uses.
i
1. Single-family dwellings and two-family
dwellings or duplexes.
2 . Multiple family dwellings including apartments
and townhouses.
3. Crop or tree farming.
,. B. Special Permit Uses. The following uses are
permitted provided that they conform to the development standards
listed in Section 15.08.020.
1. Churches.
2. Nursery school and day care centers.
C. Accessory Uses.
1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily
appurtenant to a permitted use, such as garages, carports, minor
structures for storage of personal property.
2. Rooming and boarding of not more than three (3) I1
persons.
3. Customary incidental home occupations subject
to the provisions of Section 15.08.040.
4. Offices incidental and necessary to the conducts
of a principally permitted use.
I
i
I
D. Conditional Uses. General Conditional Uses as
listed in Section 15.08.030.
E. Development Standards. I
1. Single-family dwelling and duplexes. The
development standards of Section 15.04.020 and Section 15.04.030
shall apply.
I
2. Multifamily dwelling units: !
I
a. Minimum lot. 8,500 square feet for the
first two-dwelling units; 9759B-seeare-feet-fer-eaeh-additier.a}
dwe}linq-unit.
b. Minimum lot width. 80 feet. i
C. Density. }6-dwe}}ing-Waits-gee-aete:
i
i
i For lots 15 000 square feet or
smaller: 16 dwelling units per acre.
i
ii For lots greater than 15 000 square
feet: 14 dwelling units per acre.
I
d. Maximum site coverage. 45 percent.
e. Minimum yard requirements
i. Front yard. 20 feet. i
ii. Side yard. Each side yard shall be a min-I
imum of ten (10) percent of the lot width; however, regardless of
lot width, the yard width need not be more than thirty (30) feet.
iii. Rear yard. 20 feet.
iv. Side yard on flanking street of corner
! lot. 15 feet.
f. Distances between buildings
i. An inner court providing access to
double-row building shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet.
ii. The distance between principle buildings
shall be at least one-half (1/2) the sum of the height of both
buildings; provided, however, that in no case shall the distance
be less than twelve (12) feet. This requirement shall also apply
to portions of the same building separated from each other by a
court or other open space.
a. The landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07
shall apply.
h. Height limitations. Three (3) stories, not
i
exceeding 40 feet.
i. Additional standards. See Chapter 15.08,
General and Supplementary Provisions, for requirements concerning
accessory buildings and additional standards.
2 _
I
i
I
j. Multifamily Transition Areas. The requirements;
of Section 15.08.215 shall apply in any Multifamily Transition
Areas, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within
100 feet of a Single-Family District or within 100 feet of a
public street right-of-way.
F. Signs. The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 shall
apply•
G. Off-Street Parking.
1. The off-street parking requirements of Chapter i
15.05 shall apply.
I
2. Off-street parking may be located in required yards
except for the front ten (10) feet abutting any public right of
way which must be landscaped. No off-street parking is permitted
in the required open green area.
H. Development Plan Review. Development plan review is
I
required as provided in Section 15.09.010.
i I
Section 2. Kent City Zoning Code Section 15.04.050 is
amended as follows:
I
15.04.050. MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL - MR-M. j
Purpose: It is the purpose of this district to provide for
locations for medium density residential districts suitable for I
urban-surburban living.
i
A. Principally Permitted Uses.
• i
1. Single-family dwellings and two family dwellings on
duplexes.
2. Multiple family dwellings.
i3. Crop and tree farming.
B. Special Permit Uses. The following uses are permitted
provided that they conform to the development standards listed in
Section 15.08.020.
1. Churches.
2. Nursery schools and day care centers.
I
C. Accessory Uses.
1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurte-
nant to a permitted use, such as garages, carports, or minor
structures for storage of personal property.
2. Rooming and boarding of not more than three (3)
' persons.
3. Customary incidental home occupations subject to
the provisions of Section 15.08.040.
ji - 3 -
I
i
4. Offices incidental and necessary to the conduct of
a permitted use.
D. Conditional Uses. General Conditional Uses as listed
in Section 15.08.030.
E. Development Standards.
1. Single-family dwellinqs and duplexes. The develop-ii
Invent standards of Section 15.04.020 and 15.04.030 shall apply.
2. Multifamily dwelling_ units
I
a. Minimum lot. 8,500 square feet for the first
two dwelling units; }T699-squae-€eeE-€er-eaek-add#t#ena}-dwe}}#pal
dn3•c-
b. Minimum lot width. 80 feet.
C. Density. �3-dr+e}}#ng-unite-gen-aere:
i. For lots 15,000 square feet or smaller:
23 dwelling units per acre.
ii For lots greater than 15,000 square feet:
I19 dwelling units per acre.
d. Maximum site coverage . 45 percent.
e. Minimum yard requirements
i . Front yard. 20 feet.
ii. Side yard. . Each side yard shall be a min-
imum of ten (10) percent of the lot width; however, reqardless of
lot width, the yard width need not be more than thirty (30) feet.
iii. Rear yard. 20 feet.
iv. Side yard on flanking street of corner
Ilot. 15 feet.
f. Distances between buildings
i
i. An inner court providing access to
double-row building shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet.
ii. The distance between principal buildings
shall be at least one-half (1/2) the sum of the height of both
buildings; provided, however, that in no case shall the distance
be less than twelve (12) feet. This requirement shall also apply
to portions of the same building separated from each other by a
court or other open space.
a. The landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07
( shall apply.
h. Height limitation . Three (3) stories, not
exceeding forty (40) feet.
I
4 _
i
i. Additional standards. See Chapter 15.08,
General and Supplementary Provisions, for requirements concerning
accessory buildings and additional standards.
j. Multifamily Transition Areas. The requirements,
of Section 15.08.215 shall apply in any Multifamily Transition
Areas, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within'
100 feet of a Single-Family District or within 100 feet of a
public street right-of-way.
F. Signs. The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 shall
apply.
G. Cff-Street Parking.
1. The off-street parking requirements of Chapter
15.05 shall apply.
2. Off-street parking may be located in required yardsi
except for the front ten (10) feet abutting any public right of
_., way which must be landscaped. No off-street parking is permitted j
in the required open green area.
H. Development Plan Review. Development plan review is
required as provided in Section 15.09.010. ,
Section 3. Kent City Zoning Code Section 15.04.060 is
amended as follows:
15.04.060. HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -
Purpose: It is the purpose of this district to provide for loca-
tions for high density residential districts suitable for urban
living.
A. Principally Permitted Uses.
1. Single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings or,l
duplexes.
2. Multiple-family dwellings. I
3. Crop and tree farming.
B. Special Permit Uses. The following uses are permitted
_•- provided that they conform to the development standards listed in
Section 15.08.020.
I
C. Accessory Uses.
1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurte-
nant to a permitted use, such as garages, carports, or minor
structures for storage of personal property.
2. Rooming and boarding of not more than three (3)
persons.
I
3. Customary incidental home occupations subject to
the provisions of Section 15.08.040.
- 5 -
i
4 . Offices incidental and necessary to the conduct of
a permitted use.
D. Conditional Uses. General Conditional Uses as listed
iin Section 15.08.030.
E. Development Standards.
1. Sinqle-family dwellings and duplexes . The develop-
ment standards of Section 15.04.020 and Section 15.04.030 shall
apply-
2. Multifamily dwellinq units
I I
a. Minimum lot. 8,500 square feet for the first
two dwelling units; 999-square-feet-€er-eaeb-additional-dwe}}¢eg
b. Minimum lot width. 60 feet.
I i
C. Density. 4B-dwe}}#ng_en}ts-per-aere-
i. For lots 15,000 square feet or smaller:
40 dwelling units per acre.
ii. For lots greater than 15,000 square feet:
I26 dwelling units per acre.
i
d. Maximum site coverage. 50 percent.
I
e. Minimum yard requirements
i. Front yard. 20 feet.
ii. Side yard. Each side yard shall be a min
-imum of ten (10) percent of the lot width; however, regardless of
lot width, the yard width need not be more than thirty (30) feet.
'I
iii . Rear yard. 20 feet.
iv. Side yard on flanking street of corner
lot. 15 feet.
i
f. Distances between buildings
i. An inner court providing access to
Idouble-row building shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet.
ii. The distance between principal buildings
shall be at least one-half (1/2) the sum of the height of both
buildings; provided; however, that in no case shall the distance
be less than twelve (12) feet. This requirement shall also apply
Into portions of the same building separated from each other by a
court or other open space.
I I _
g. The landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07
shall apply.
h. Height limitation. Four (4) stories, not exce- i
eding 50 feet.
I
- 6 -
I I
i
i . Additional standards. See Chapter 15.08,
General and Supplementary Provisions, for requirements concerning
accessory buildings and additional standards.
j. Multifamily Transition Areas. The requirements)
of Section 15.08.215 shall apply in any Multifamily Transition
Areas, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within
100 feet of a Single-Family District or within 100 feet of a
public street right-of-way.
F. Signs. The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 shall
apply.
G. Off-Street Parking.
1. The off-street parkins requirements of Chapter
15.05 shall apply.
2. Off-street parking may be located in required yards
except for the front ten (10) feet abutting any public right of
way which must be landscaped. No off-street parking is permitted
in the required open green area.
H. Development Plan Review. Development plan review is
required as provided in Section 15.09.010.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
I
ATTEST:
I
I
I
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY I;I
PASSED the day of 1986.
APPROVED the day of , 1988.
I
PUBLISHED the day of , 1988.
I
7
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT RESOLUTION REGARDING UPDATE OF
THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY' S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
INCLUDING A STUDY OF SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING DENSITIES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: See also Summary Statement of Zoning Code
Ordinance. On June 21st the City Council approved a 20 percent
zoning reduction for certain multifamily residential zones . The
Council also deemed that such action would be an interim measure
to be followed by a area by area analysis of the Housing Element
of the City' s Comprehensive Plan, the results of which would be
implemented as each step is completed . Planning Department is
directed to establish a work program to carry out the analysis .
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
i
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding housing,
directing an update of the Housing Element of
the City's Comprehensive Plan, including a
area-by-area study of single-family and
multifamily housing densities.
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced
a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily
housing developments through revision to Kent's comprehensive plan
and zoning code; and
WHEREAS, there is an increasing imbalance between
multifamily and single-family housing within the City, and a lack
of availability of a mix of housing options for Kent resident;and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned with the City's
ability to provide, in a timely manner, the public facilities and
services necessary to support the increase in multifamily
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1145, endorsed
options B and C of the Planning Department's July, 1987 "Report on
Multifamily Density", and directed the Planning Department,
Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner to undertake actions
necessary to proceed with those options including gathering input
from the public on the report and options; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held Public Hearings on
the multifamily density reduction on November 23, 1987, January
25, 1988 and February 29, 1988; and referred its resulting
recommendation to the City Council.
WHERFAS, on April 19, 1988 and June 7, 1988 the Kent
Planning Committee discussed the matters related to reduction in
the density of multifamily developments; and received additional
_. public input.
i
WHEREAS, the Council Planning Committee, on June 21,
1988, submitted to the Kent City Council it's recommendations and
accompanying addendum for implementing Council Resolution 1123;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY CCUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. City of Kent Ordinance , passed
contemporaneous to this resolution, amending the Kent City Zoning
Code to achieve a reduction of multifamily residential housing by
20 percent is incorporated by reference into their resolution.
The City-wide graduated scale reduction referenced in that
ordinance shall be an interim measure, to remain in effect until
the completion and adoption of an area-by-area residential
analysis, as described more fully in Section 2 below.
Section 2.
A. The Planning Department shall conduct a study and
proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan, including an area-by-area analysis of multifamily
residential density for the East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor
planning areas.
B. The analysis shall determine those areas which are
appropriate for density increases, for potential new multifamily
areas, or for density reductions. The goal of the analysis shall
be to present to the Council a plan to achieve an average 20
percent reduction in total multifamily residential density.
C. The study shall explore ways to encourage new
single-family residential development and to maintain existing
single-family neighborhoods.
D. The study shall be conducted in steps, area by
area. As each step is concluded, the results of the analysis
shall be implemented. The results of the area-by-area study are
to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning
2 -
amendments to be presented to the Council within one year of the
adoption of their resolution.
E. The step by step analysis shall include a review of
the Central Business District and surrounding area in order to
consider the potential for increasing residential densities in
that area, either through proposed rezoning or revising of the
zoning in that area. The review is for the purpose of encouraging
implementation of Valley Floor residential densities increases
that are needed as one element of successful implementation of a
commuter rail program.
F. Two city neighborhoods, an area south of Willis and
a small section of North Park, shall be reviewed to consider
revising the zoning of these areas, in order to maintain the
neighborhoods' existing single-family residential character and to
,., encourage single-family home ownership for, among other things,
low and moderate income residents.
G. The densities of future annexation areas shall be
considered as annexations are presented to the Council for
consideration, with the intent of ensuring that single-family
housing continues to play a major role in the City's housing mix.
Section 3. The Planning Department shall work with the
City Council to develop a work program for the area-by-area
analysis described in Section 2.
Section 4. The Planning Department shall present to the
Council proposed revisions to the City's Planned Unit Development
Ordinance, in order to consider the retention of availability of. a
20 percent multifamily density bonus, and in order to encourage
and increase of the applications for Planned Unit Developments.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1988.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of , 1988.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
_.. _ 3 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 2233 - HEARING EXAMINER
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This ordinance enables Hearing Examiner
decisions including findings and conclusions to be sent to the
-" applicant and other parties of record via first class mail rather
than by certified mail . An affidavit of mailing would be filed
attesting to the mailing.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
- 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3M
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, amending Ordinance 2233, Section 4,
and Kent City Code 2.54.140 deleting the
— requirement that Hearing Examiner decisions be
sent by certified mail, and adding
authorization of use of first class postage
prepaid mailings and Vfidavits of mailings.
i
I
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.170 authorizes the Kent City Council
to adopt a Hearing Examiner System, and to proscribe procedures t
be followed by the Hearing Examiner; and
WHEREAS, the Rent City Council has previously proscribed
procedures for the Hearing Examiner System by adoption of
Ordinance 2233, as codified in Kent City Code Chapter 2.54; and III
�I WHEREAS, the Council now determines that there exists
1 good cause to modify one procedure contained therein, namely, the
I
requirement that the Hearing Examiner findings and conclusions be
�I transmitted by certified mail, return receipt, should be deleted,
and replaced with a less costly procedure wherein first class
mailinqs and affidavit of mailings are authorized; NOW, THEREFORF,I
1 1
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTCN DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Kent City Code 2.54.140, is amended as
I follows: _ li
2.54.140. EXAMINER'S DECISICN AND
RECCNMENDATICN--FINDINGS RFQUIR£D. When the Examiner renders a
Idecision or recommendation, the Examiner shall make and enter
written findings from the record and conclusions therefrom which i
IIsupport such decision, which decision shall be rendered within
fourteen calendar days of the conclusion of the hearing. The copy
i
of such decision including findings and conclusions, shall be
transmitted by eetti€ied-irailT-return-teeeipt-fequesEed first
i
I f
t
t
i
class mail, postage prepaid, to the applicant and other parties ofi
record in the case requesting the same. There shall be kept on � ••
file in the Planning Department a signed affidavit which shall
attest that each mailing was sent in compliance with this
provision.
In the case of applications requiring Council approval,
the Examiner shall file a decision with the City Council at the
IIexpiration of the period provided for a rehearing or within
fourteen days of the conclusioq of a rehearing, if one is
conducted. (0.2233, 914)
Section 2. That portion of previously enacted
Ordinance 2233 which required mailing by certified mail return i
receipt requested, and which conflicts with this ordinance is
repealed to the extent of the conflict. _
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, I
approval and publication as provided by law.
I
iI I
iDAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
II ATTEST:
ill MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNFY
PASSED the day of , 1988.
APPROVED the day of , 1988.
PUBLISHED the day of , 1988.
i
I
I �
2
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: L. I .D. 297 ASSESSMENT NO. 3 - RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Resolution segregating assessment No. 3
on L. I .D. 297 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves , Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3N
Portion of Tract 29
MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT LOT 2 TGW E
30 FT & S 270 FT OF LOT 1 AND LOT 3 EXCEPT THE
SOUTH 12.4 FT OF THE WEST 164.07 FT KC SP
1/7501100471 SD SP DAF - BEG AT SE COIL TR 28 SO
ADD TH S 89-37-13 W ALG N MGN W MEEKER ST
(KENT-DES MOINES RD) 819.17 FT TO TPOB TH N 00-22-47 W. 540.89 FT TO NXN WITH WLY EXT OF S MGN
SHINN ST TH S 89-37-13 W ALG SD EXTD LN TO ELY LN OF W 30 FT SD BLK 29 TH SLY ALG SD ELY LN TO S
ALN So PPROVEDKAUG 23, 1982KAND AKAELOT02NES RD OF KENTH ELY BDRY LNG So N MGN TO ADJ APPROVED 7P0 A LOT 2 KENT DORY LN ADJ
1-86.
I� y- 0,
�jl 1 llgl 6 n '
A PORTION OF LOT 2 OF CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO. SPC-74-11 RECORDED
JANUARY 10, 1975 UNDER RECORDING NO. 7501100471 AND AS RECORDED BY
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTHENT RECORDED JULY 10, 1986 UNDER RECORDING NO.
8607100973;
BEING A PORTION OF BLOCK 29, SUPPLEMENTAL , PLAT OF MEEKER's FIRST
ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF KENT. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED
IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PACE 96, RECORDS OF .KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COKKE14CING AT THE SOUTHEAST .CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE SOUTH "
89037'13" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH MARGIN OF WEST MEEKER�ROAD, 30.00 FEET
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89037'13" WEST
ALONG SAID NORTH MARGIN 138.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00022147" WEST 125.00
FEET; THENCE NORTH 89037'13" EAST 138.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00022'47"
\�AST 125.00 FEET TO SAID NORTH MARGIN AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
" EXHIBIT C a
Portion of Tract 29
MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT LOT 2 TGW E
30 FT & S 270 FT OF LOT 1 AND LOT 3 EXCEPT THE 8
SOUTH 124 FT OF THE WEST 164.07 FT KC SP
#7501100471 SD SP DAF - BEG AT SE C014 TR 28 SD
ADD TH S 89-37-13 W ALG N MGN W MEEKER ST
(KENT-DES MOINES RD) 819.17 FT TO TPOB TH N 00-22-47 W. 540.89' FT TO NXN WITH WLY EXT OF S MGN
SHINN ST TH S 89-37-13 14 ALG SO EXTD LN TO ELY LN OF W 30 FT SD BLK 29 TH SLY ALG SD ELY LN TO S
LN SU BLK 29-& N MGN KENT - DES MOINES RD TH ELY ALG SO N MGN TO TPOB AKA LOT 2 KENT DORY LN ADJ
APPROVED AUG 23, 1982 AND AKA LOT 2 OF KENT DORY LN ADJ APPROVED 7-1-86. t4(CE PT - OL, Fo(-. ParY,
A PORTION OF LOT 2 OF CITY OF KENT SNORT PLAT 110. SPC-74-11 RECORDED
JANUARY 10, 1975 UNDER RECORDING NO. 7501100471 AND AS RECORDED BY
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED JULY 10, 1986 UNDER RECORDING NO.
8607100973;
BEING A PORTION OF BLOCK 29, SUPPLEMENTAL , PLAT OF MEEKER'S FIRST
ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF KENT. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED
IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 96, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE SOUTH
89037'13" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH MARGIN OF WEST HEEKERBROAD, 30.00 FEET
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BECINNINGt THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89037'13" WEST
ALONG SAID NORTH MARGIN 138.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00022147" WEST 125.00
FEET; THENCE NORTH 89037'13" EAST 138.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00022'47"
\AST 125.00 FEET TO SAID NORTH MARGIN AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5 , 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: L. I .D. 297 ASSESSMENT NO. 18 - RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Resolution segregating assessment
No. 18 on L. I .D. 297 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE RE UIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 30
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: HYTEK FINISHING TEMPORARY STREET USE PERMIT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance amZMftTrg_ —
authorizing the Public Works Director to allow
temporary parking in no-parking areas on S . 200th Street from
80th Avenue S . to 84th Avenue S . and on 81st Avenue South from S.
200th Street to S . 196th Street, subject to the terms and
conditions established by the Public Works Director .
3 . EXHIBITS:
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 3P
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
June 27, 1988
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON KEN MORRIS
BERNE BITEMAN TIM HEYDON
JUDY WOODS KAREN SIEGEL
DON WICKSTROM BONNIE FELL
BRENT MCFALL MAY MILLER
GARY GILL PRISCILLA SHEA
TONY MC CARTHY CLIFF JOHNSON
Hytek Finishing
Cliff Johnson indicated that during their last phase of the closure
plan they will need to use the existing employee parking lot for
construction staging. They are requesting the temporary use of the
street to provide for employee parking during this time period
which he estimates to be between July 5 ' and October 31. A map
(copy attached) of the proposed use and number of required parking
stalls was distributed to the Committee. Wickstrom indicated the
Public Works Department has no problems with allowing this other
than we would need to develop conditions protecting the City from
any liability for this on-street parking . The Committee
unanimously approved the request subject to the conditions which s
will be developed by the Transportation Division of the Public
Works Department.
Green River Levee Improvement - S. 212th Street Bridge
Wickstrom indicated that the project fund is currently $200, 000 and
- the low bid received on June 27 was $289, 431. 80. Wickstrom noted
that $150, 000 for levee work near Meeker Street was budgeted but
because of the need for a 404 permit no work will be done this
year. Wickstrom proposed transferring the $150, 000 to the Green
River Levee Improvement S. 212th Street Bridge fund so that we can
proceed with construction and meet the time limitations of our
Fisheries permit. The Meeker Street levee work would then be
budgeted next year. The Committee unanimously approved the
request.
� S ,
I �-- ,r
gcaF acans ,a + 'log W4a 5 SCAR.
S 200T H ST
D ❑co -n d
zm ;rN P
� cn
}� `
1v to h A e }
kQ
CN
131 co
(n
F - m
n J
cn
ZZ p
� ws � c
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: MORTENSON ANNEXATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public
meeting with the initiators of the proposed annexation of
approximately 10 acres in the vicinity of south 218th St, and
98th Ave. South. The City Clerk has given the proper legal
notice.
Mayor to ask for comments from the audience.
3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map with memorandum from the Director of
Public Works .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCI ON:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
that Council onjr with the proposed annexation and authorizes
the circulation the 75 percent petition subject to the
--s.�Cisting bonded indebtedness to the City and the land use plan
✓ If7 the annexation area.
� L
'''_ CUSSION: -�
ACTION: cj r '
r
Council Agenda
Ttnm Aln AA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 30, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom&i
RE: Mortenson Annexation
The proposed annexation area is a 10-acre parcel in the vicinity of
98th Avenue S. and S. 218th Street.
The 1988 land valuation is $267,700 and improvement valuation is
$335, 800 . 1988 King County general taxation is $8,212 . 52 .
The area is in the Kent School District and Fire District 37 . It
is in Kent ' s Sewer Franchise area and an 8-inch sewer main is
- approximately 10 feet from the southwest corner of the proposed
annexation area. The property is currently in the Soos Creek Water
and Sewer District franchise area for water service.
The current King County zoning is SR 9600 and Kent's Comprehensive
Plan designates Single Family Residential with R-1 20, 000 zoning
for the area.
.f.y ..-. . I
17.'A:g._
P
3
ti
r 42
I� m ,
LOT 4
in
ti.
o �ol � � ;
to lu
n
p 329.4 N U D n
AI n N F
II I MAY 2 5 1988
OI N
` LOT 3CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK y AP%C w Q'
\„ 2
0 p X .34• Q V.
0) _ lIB9-59-27E 298.oa 0
:�— 9.3232 - _ —
N u
Q
LOT Z LOT 1 LOT Q- 00
w
Lo 105 KC SP 12840 5-8612151217
cn
ri r.
929.2 N
0 �
x. L0T 2 LOT 3 "a �a
N v� f
LOT I
AG Ln ^
Bf Ac' r 09
e s Z �� 1• R„v��// � ....
,(Evr oap �er�, 218TH.
:. ST.
--i3 —
__ ..._•A ��._---- - - . . _ Imo- [ - - - _ - - - - ,-e .. � \��•I .
rA
o
I
•i
^� j � ✓ _ n,0 lip
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: SALT AIR HILLS PETITION FOR DEANNEXATION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: On May 26 , 1988 the City of Kent received
a petition for deannexation from the Salt Air Hills area (Kent
Des-Moines Road to South 252nd St. on the west side of Pacific
Highway South) . The Council Planning Committee will consider the
request for deannexation at its July 5 meeting and the Chair of
the Committee will present a report of their recommendation.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report to Planning Committee, Western City
Boundary Report, petition for deannexation, Council minutes of
June 7, 1988
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee, July 5, 1988
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
to be made by Planning Committee Chairperson
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to accept the Planning Committee ' s recommendation of
regarding the Salt Air Hills petition for deannexation.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Tram Mn dA
June 7, 1988
_.,flATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3P)
Regional Water Association. APPROVAL for the
City ' s continued participation in the association
and for payment of annual dues in the amount
of $8, 100.
DRAINAGE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I )
Mill Creek Detention Facility. ADOPTION of
Ordinance 2782 providing for the taking of an
easement for ingress and egress in the area of
the upper Mill Creek drainage facility for
maintenance of the detention facilities in the
vicinity of 106th Ave. S .E. and S.E. 268th block.
"PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3Q)
The Lakes. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign release of
covenants for The Lakes project, as approved by the Public
Works Committee. The improvements for which the covenants
were executed have been constructed.
,,,SALT AIR HILLS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3W)
ANNEXATION TO REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER HOUSER
DES MOINES Salt Air Hills Annexation to Des Moines .
City Administrator McFall stated that the City
has received a valid petition for de-annexation
of an area of Kent known as Salt Air Hills .
He noted that the petition has been reviewed
by the County Prosecuting Attorney ' s office.
McFall recommended that the Council. acknowledge
receipt of the petition and refer it to the
Council Planning Committee where the matter
could be studied and a recommendation made to
the Council . HOUSER MOVED that the petition
be accepted and referred to the Planning
Committee as well as other committees , such as
Public Works and Public Safety which would be
involved. Mann seconded. The motion carried.
SURPLUS PROPERTY Scenic Way. Bid opening for sale of the surplus
property on Scenic Way was held May 18 . One
bid was received from Jack Bigford in the
amount of $3 , 300 . The bid exceeds the minimum
required bid, therefore it is recommended the
bid be accepted and the staff proceed to transfer
ownership of the property. JOHNSON MOVED that
the bid in the amount of $3 , 300 be accepted and
staff proceed with transfer of ownership in the
3 -
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
June 28 , 1988
MEMO TO: Judy Woods, Chair and City Council Planning Committee
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: PETITION TO DE-ANNEX THE SALT AIR HILLS AREA
On May 26, 1988 Kent recieved a valid petition to de-annex the
area of the City lying on the west side of Pacific Highway South and
between Kent-Des Moines Road on the north and S. 252nd Street on the
south. This de-annexation proposal is called the Salt Air Hills de-
annexation even though it covers a wider area than just the Salt Air
Hills subdivision.
The City Council formally accepted the petition at the regular City
Council meeting held on June 7, 1988 . The Council referred it to the
Planning Committee as well as to the Public Works and Public Safety
Committees. A Planning Committee meeting will be held on July 5, 1988
and the Public Works and Public Safety Committees will be invited to
that meeting.
Following is background information concerning the history of this de-
annexation effort.
1. Late 1986 City of Des Moines Councilpersons contacted Kent City
Councilpersons to discuss the possibility of de-annexing the
Salt Air Hills area.
2 . March 1987 - The Kent Planning Department prepared the document
titled, Western City Boundary Report.
3 . May 5, 1987 - The Kent City Council adopted Resolution 1133
which, in part, states, "No 'de-annexation' of any area within
Kent should occur at this time. " This resolution also states
that, "the City of Des Moines has failed to offer a
demonstrable advantage to the City of Kent from the de-
annexation of certain areas of west Kent. . . "
4 . February 18, 1988 - Kent Mayor and City Council members met
with citizens in Salt Air Hills area. The pros and cons of
being in the City of Kent were discussed.
5. April 25, 1988 - second meeting between Kent' s Mayor and City
Council members and citizens in the Salt Air Hills area.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department makes the same recommendation at this time,
concerning the proposed de-annexation of the Salt Air Hills area, as
was made in March 1987 in the Western City Boundary Report. That is:
It is recommended that Kent not de-annex the
area on the west side of the Pacific Highway
corridor. This is a valid part of the City
and has been for many years. It is not a
Judy Woods, Chair
City Council Planning Committee
detached part of the City. Each new land use
has been carefully reviewed by the City staff
and the City is proud to have the commercial
and residential units in this area as part of
the City. Moreover, City services are provided
to the area in an efficient and satisfactory
manner.
JH:ca
2
WESTERN 'CITY BOUNDARY REPORT
CITY OF KENT
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MARCH, 1987
Va am
s
13
3 CCU W D A RY
q t-ea t s id e Ke„� N (SPT,t)
� aI-t vilest sideof
PAC, h+I.Svv. ND ST p It
s 1. _
No'f To ScAt.t 34TH ST
_ ry
I> > > > r63
m > l a Q a a Fire \
_ Station
+
go
N
N N_Athletic H �
S 236TH ST 00000
Field
N
• W ,
Z < HIGHLIM w
CO �O
� MMUNt�� < � '�
COLLEGE MIDWAY
...arricade N x
D H S m 240TH 16 15 ST
= N to to owl N iN a. > 21 22
... C0 a =W .. rn< Q
Q > N Q w F
a N r. Drive-In
S
N W H N L Theater
.� > %0
N
S 24�D Q N
ST W S EL
2 2ND ST 99
= S 244ST 3 a
S
244TH = 244TH w S 2 4TF
M d ST > ST
in
N F N V
PARKSIDE N m
ELEMENTARY S 246TVI
246TH PL SCHOOL L[NI)A
iC III.'Il.It N
J I-,AI(K
1 v a 24
S y 248TH ST I r l S
y a Sanitary Landfill I
W
!'and
H S u� S J
S 250TH ST T r r_ 9 pA a
- ^,7' /.
�1; D F..
O N $ J., •• ..1.•�,��. m> m
1ST �, ... %.'•':I S 25 TH a S
N j �� •:� '..• PL y 251 r
� ,,���� ;..! 2 1ST ST
^ ST ��.t PL S 2521
o zil> f s ,� sr
a?N
\ S 253RD ST , S 253RD ST S P4
\ S 253RD C TY LI M ITS N I 253Ro
> PL (Pvt) N N ST J
S a S 2541 1 ST 7a ' y S 21
H ?ggTh J F h
...r y A a �. J m 0L m a =t
Qw4 N > • 74 m
CITY OF KENT
WESTERN BOUNDARY AREA
I . Purpose of this Study
Recently, City of Des Moines Councilpersons contacted City of Kent Councilpersons
concerning the possibility of Kent deannexation of the west side of Pacific Highway
South between Kent-Des Moines Road and S. 252nd Street.
This study carries out a brief statistical review of the area and divulges facts
and figures that are germane to a logical discussion of Kent's role in the Pacific
Highway corridor.
II . Physical Setting
The Pacific Highway corridor between Kent-Des Moines Road and S. 252nd Street
is fairly level . On the north/south axis, there is a gentle upward slope southerly
of Kent-Des Moines Road (368 feet above sea level) to a point approximately 1 ,200
feet south, where an elevation of 400 feet is reached. This 400-foot elevation
holds steady to approximately S. 240th Street. At this point, the topography
begins to dip down to the 350-foot level to a point 1 ,800 feet south. This elevation
holds fairly constant to S. 252nd Street.
Along Kent-Des Moines Road, westerly of Pacific Highway South to the City boundary,
there is a downward slope of 93 feet.
In the Saltair Hills Subdivision, there is a downward slope of 100 feet westerly _.
of Pacific Highway South.
There are 107 acres inside the Kent corporate limits on the west side of Pacific
Highway South.
III. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Kent's West Hill Plan, adopted in 1984, indicates that the land use in the Pacific
Highway corridor will be commercial . In addition to the land use designation,
the plan contains goals, objectives and policies that are germane to the Pacific
Highway area. These are:
GOAL: Implement West Hill 's Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies
through effective, efficient and aesthetic land use patterns.
OBJECTIVE: Promote effective, efficient and well-designed commercial areas that
are aesthetically pleasing and logically placed.
POLICY: Recognize the Highway 99 (Pacific Highway South) area as a major commercial
district with special problems and attributes.
-2-
CITY OF KENT
WESTERN BOUNDARY AREA
PAGE TWO
The plan also has a number of recommendations to help implement these statements.
These are:
"A study of the Highway 99 commercial corridor should be performed. Such a study
should include but not be limited to:
1 ) Establishing specific areas and regulations permitting temporary, seasonal ,
and mobile vending ( i .e. , fruit stands, cordwood sales, etc. ) .
2) Determining methods to decrease the number of ingress and egress points to
decrease automobile and traffic accidents.
3) Increasing the aesthetic qualities of the commercial area (i .e. , street trees,
landscaping, sidewalks) . ,,
Zoning along the corridor is primarily GC, General Commercial . This district
permits a wide range of commercial land uses. Each use is required to do a moderate
amount of landscaping, provide a specified number of off-street parking stalls
and fit their signage into stated standards. The Saltair Hills area is zoned
111-7.2, Single Family Residential . (The condominiums to the north of Saltair
Hills are zoned MR-H, High Density Multifamily Residential , 40 units per acre) .
IV. Annexation History
The Pacific Highway South area came into the City at two different times. The
area south of S. 246th Street was annexed in 1958 while the area between S. 246th
and Kent-Des Moines Road was annexed in 1962. Thus, Kent's involvement with
this area extends over a period of between 29 and 25 years.
In many places along the west side of Pacific Highway South, Kent's boundary
does not extend westerly of the highway. This causes a "jigsaw" appearance in
the area. This situation came about through annexation procedures which permitted
property owners who wanted to annex to do so while those who did not desire to
annex did not do so.
Historically, the community of Midway existed, primarily centered around today's
Kent-Des Moines Road/Pacific Highway South intersection. It is approximately
18 miles from Seattle and 18 miles from Tacoma. Many businesses in this area
still preface their names with Midway. The U.S. Postal Service still carries
Midway as a valid place name. However, its zip code is 98032, the same as Kent's
western zip code.
-3-
CITY OF KENT
WESTERN BOUNDARY AREA
PAGE THREE
V. Transportation System
The transportation system is dominated by Pacific Highway, a north/south prin-
cipal arterial with an average daily traffic count (ADT) of 29,000 vehicles
south of Kent-Des Moines Road. Kent-Des Moines Road, east of Pacific Highway
to Interstate 5, is a major arterial with an ADT of 25,000 vehicles. Kent-Des
Moines Road provides access to Pacific Highway from the Green River Valley,
I-5, and the Des Moines area to the west.
There are no other through east-west streets, although S. 240th Street and
S. 252nd Street extend westerly for quite some distance. They each have a
lesser extension to the east, being cut off by I-5. South 252nd Street will
soon be signalized with a five phase traffic signal with a $115,000 estimated
cost. Kent's share will be approximately $48,600.
VI. Utility System
Kent is not responsible for sewage and water operations in the Pacific Highway
corridor. The sewage system is operated by the Des Moines Sewage District
while the water system is operated by Water Disrict 75.
Kent has formed a City-wide storm utility which affects this western part
of the City. At this time, only the maintenance and operations aspects of
the utility are in effect along the Pacific Highway corridor. However, capital
improvements are planned for the storm drainage system lying within Pacific
Highway.
VII . Land Use
Land use along the western side of Pacific Highway South is characterized
by automotive services (13 businesses) , fast food outlets (7 businesses) ,
and a wide array of other retail and service businesses (43) for a total of
63 commercial uses. There are also five single family dwellings, two apartment
complexes, four condominium buildings and a rest home. The Saltair Hills
Subdivision is also located along the west side of Pacific Highway South and
is inside Kent's boundary. (See accompanying list of business names and the
land use map. )
VIII. Population
The 1985 population for that part of the west side of Pacific Highway South
in Kent was 809 persons residing in 333 dwelling units. Excluding Saltair
Hills, the population was 211 persons living in 147 multifamily building units.
The population has probably not changed significantly from the 1985 census
(Kent did an actual census count in 1985, not an estimate) .
-4-
CITY OF KENT
WESTERN BOUNDARY AREA
PAGE FOUR
IX. Calls for Service
The Pacific Highway corridor in Kent is served by the Kent Fire and Police
Departments.
Kent's nearest fire station is locatd on 252nd Place just off Military Road.
In 1985 the Fire Department responded to 39 emergency medical calls, 32 fire
and hazard calls, and 32 other types of calls.
During 1986, the Kent Police Department responded to 575 calls on the west
side of Pacific Highway South and to 670 calls on the east side, for a total
of 1 ,245 calls which was approximately 5% of the total 1986 call volume for
the department.
X. Economics
The assessed valuation for the area west of Pacific Highway South is
$42,037,500. The loss of revenue that can be anticipated if the west side
of Pacific Highway were to be deannexed is $324,484. The spread sheet shows
this loss by revenue category. The numbers in parentheses beside the loss
of revenue figures are related to the sheet of footnotes which are on the
page following the spread sheet.
-5-
LOSS OF REVENUE WITH DEANNEXATION
WEST OF HIGHWAY 99
1987 City Increased
Final Revenue Property
Budget Loss Taxes
General Fund I
Taxes:
Property 5,671,735 111,168 (1)
Sales and Use 5,918,834 82,968 (2)
Utility 1,786,650 32,874 (3)
Other 180,000 23,776 (4)
Licenses and Permits 518,536 8,460 (5)
Intergovernmental Revenues 2,530,825 25,062 (6)
Charges for Services 1,014,201
Fines and Forfeitures 365,000 10,317 (7)
Interest Income 600,000 9,321 (8)
Miscellaneous 379,847
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 18,965,628 303,946
Street Fund
Gas Tax 590,144 16,682 (9)
Voted Debt Service Fund
Property Taxes 1,582,508 29,006 (10)
Sewerake Fund
Drainage 1,620,000 3,856 (11)
TOTAL 324,484 29,006
STATISTICS
Population West of Highway 99 809
Assessed Valuation West of Highway 99 $42,037,500
-6-
TOSS OF REVENUE WITH DEANNEXATION
{VEST OF HIGHWAY 99
OOTNOTES
(1) Based on 1986 assessed valuation of all property West of Highway 99 plus a 7.5%
increase to arrive at an estimated 1986 assessed valuation. 1986 estimated
assessed valuation West of 99 tames 1987 General Fund levy rate of $2.46 per
$1,000 of assessed valuation equals $111, 168.
2) Based on collections in May & June of 1986 times 6(see Business West of Highway
99) less Department of Revenue Administration Fee and County portion of sales and
use tax.
3) Based on the percentage of assessed valuation West of Highway 99 assuming utility
tax revenue per $1,000 of assessed valuation West of 99 is characteristic of the
rest of the City:
42,037,500/2,284,807,926 1.84%
1.84% X 1,786,650 = 32,874.36
(4) Gambling tax 1986 actuals from Midway Tavern and Windward Inn(see Businesses West
of Highway 99) .
'Y5) Based on loss of Business License revenue(see Businesses West of Highway 99) plus
a percentage of the remaining budget for Licenses and Permits.
$1,412.50 + (42,037,500/2,284,807,926) X (518,536-135,500) = $8,460
!6) Auto excise, liquor excise and liquor profits are distributed to the City on a
per capita basis($22.68 per capita) . $22.68 times population West of Highway 99
= $18,348. The EMS levy is based on assessed valuation. EMS revenue will
decline by the percentage of assessed valuation West of 99(1.84%) times EMS
revenue of $364,893 = $6,714.
(7) Based on percentage of population West of Highway 99.
;8) Based on percentage of General Fund interest income to General Fund total
i.ncome(600,000/18,965,628) times revenue loss:
(600,000/18,965,628) X 294,626 = $9,321
(9) Gas tax is distributed based on population and fuel consumption which is
estimated by the State to he $20.62 per capita.
(10) No revenue loss to the City, however, property taxes for voted general obligation
bonds will have to be redistributed to the rest of the City. The levy for the
voted general obligation bonds is $.69 per $1,000 of assessed valuation.
Assessed valuation for property West of Highway 99 is $42,037,500. $.69 times
$42,037,500 = $29,006. The $29,006 would be paid by property owners East of
Highway 99.
'(11) Drainage charges based on January '87 billing for the businesses West of Highway
99 times 12(see Businesses West of 99) plus number of residential accounts, 84,
times average monthly residential drainage bill, $.92, times 12.
-7-
CITY OF KENT
WESTERN BOUNDARY AREA
PAGE FIVE
XI . Conclusions
Kent has had a presence in the Pacific Highway South area for at least 25
years. Although there are some gaps in the City's boundaries along the west
side of Pacific Highway South, for the most part the area between Kent-Des
Moines Road and just south of S. 252nd Street lies within Kent's boundary.
Both the Police and Fire Departments respond, on a regular basis, to calls
for service. Public streets in the area are maintained at an acceptable -.
level . The West Hill plan specifically mentioned the Pacific Highway corridor
as a viable area of the City. The City-wide storm utility plans capital
improvements in the area and bonds have been sold to finance drainage improve-
ments. The City's zoning code has caused an improvement to the aesthetics
of the area through landscaping and sign control .
By no means is this an area of the City that is being neglected. A positive
attitude toward Kent has been noted from residents and businesses in the
area.
XII. Recommendation
It is recommended that Kent not deannex the area on the west side of the
Pacific Highway corridor. This is a valid part of the City and has been for
many years. It is not a detached part of the City. Each new land use has
been carefully reviewed by the City staff and the City is proud to have the
commercial and residential units in this area as part of the City. Moreover,
City services are provided to the area in an efficient and satisfactory manner.
The fact that Kent 's codes may be stricter than Des Moines ' is not reason
enough to deannex. The philosophical points offered against being in Kent
(I don't like Kent, etc. ) are not reasons to deannex. Only in the event that
the City Council determines that the City cannot effectively provide services
to the area is there sufficient reason to justify deannexation.
-8-
APPENDIX
I • LAND USE MAPS
I [ • LIST OF BUSINESSES
= N 3 S 225TH ST I GRAND
~ 226T)l Sr
SCHOOL
WES? ERNN7 y o r
( w i S 227TH I '�...'C•.C..r ::�('.r
B w D A a Z I;IIA'Ait 11 l(:�C
L28TH S 22 O i S 227TH = N (PN)ST �;'9 1'AIIK �f I
ST = PL m N
N RICH ' S`228TH ST
�= La
MSS nd e S '' I
N 228TH n W ITMAN •..` ;`, 'i' .! ..
_ ( ;{ 5 HOOL Gat.• .� �••' •. (�'_:V
$ 7r x PL
1 a a a S {. I
11 A __ _ ; Pt.
5T 1p S 2315 (A Gravel Pit
3 23 N ST S y3 VL d hO� a ' (�) AgO�G�aQ,O
516 pI, ty y� S 2 ND ST
C� ST r a a Kent—Highlands Landfill
S 234TH
S S S7 Q�yryt a y w L _� Y � ,►
m sw 234n sW �l o MIDWAY
�r > > >
y m > F < < <I ®e .01
rz= = Station 516 2�� •.
_ _�N a _ � .♦ q S23gtH
S 236TH T y ST
Athletic ' ✓ y w '
Feld
b < HIGHLINg
UNI
COMM EGe0 I MIDWAY { s � s���ry 1
r
Barricade
17 16
h ,p � 2 240TH 16 15 ST rn P d4
20 21 m a �W °' owl may "' " 21 22 s ST y sr
pa W N > Z m w w
~ < = N I N < D re In S 242ND 9
N
> N w L T ater N m m =
N a N S n 243RD 43Rp1�S 243RD ST w S 2 2ND PL ST 'f 99 Sr 1
<y S 244TH ST = _ a > a ` "•' �-
ST m
S 1 L
PW 244TH .. PL < = 244TH S 2 4TH i
y m a sT ^ i = S= >NNrASHINCTON nI = NATIONALeat
PARKSIDE N m m (;UAln ELEMENTARY S 246 1ST _
' S 246TH PL SCHOOL LINDA � SUNNYCREST 241
NJ w 6III;11,01 N ELEMENTARY g
.. IL S SCHOOL
rN 24
> � a st 247 H ST - C
iH ST rn S y 248TH ST Ic I 4 S 248TH ST
p Sanitary Landfill f
w 249THy m >� t7 Sg'tN 91a >
yr 0250TH
fond t > PL w CA> 249THS 2pr'S' p9� _ 2a QV 'L Q�yS 249TH < 5'
< yS ST S 250TH S f __,rl » I 5 Ay a
a �• )J �, 'J f, = S 250TH S'
= S N 251ST �w 4 '•� J+.•i',J, <W N
S 251ST a y e 1 +,.�,Ji.;l,�Yl;•I S 25 TH < S p N 21
N ~ H ;.jJ'J; PL N 251
Q N _O1 a S 252ND gT .r)J S 2 IST ST
._� _ F •W J '`)r PL S 252H S 252ND SL25
> S ST �.PLmtirw SS1 S 253RD ST ' S P( w > --`
S 253RD ITY 1. 5 ?53R y = C
< PL(Pvt) H w N 1 Sr 0 J n S233RD PL 253Rt
t. y S ?S4T G - S 254 ST ti y C y N S 2 In S25 ...
t+� .IO, 'ram•.Q.ry h A N w ,y a M 4. P Water
•y a ! m a H ST x sz3srH eservoirc
S 55TH Q� _ S 256Tt ST S 256TH ST m L Qr
' 29 S y 257TH ST G 3256 H
N N $ CT
H y S237T
-10- o m ; i 2571 T
i
I
_ I
1_ .. •r•�:-- -t.{rii- ._ q'eJ..,- .T•.7-f::.r�:: a:4•:r.._•:.o^�v?-•�. v;;•. _
-J}.p✓T ^'ynFa• J .41.f'.. �.:Li..-..T.:e �., t.a ;.:... 'a.}�..L{1 -.t, .}r.• ..1•. .�' _ ''1�:
i•::...r ��. .; ' ` J CITY OF KENT
.. iJy JTy:-(•.+-iy yL '1'^ •i.J•i•:1• .�.:�':T.Ya^ � ':i .�..�. ...
WESTERN BOUNDARY AREA
ol
i o�S 4
�
2 ��• p
' 9
e . .
i I
i
r——
S. 232ND ST.
\ I I I
•
•
tZ LU =
. . . a � • s.o an or.f>fr ice.rin.M
CT Of D[S fq•1[;
• r
sv sr �••.....•........• I
I
W AN.• ..!w JnY4rit.•
S. 234TH ST. 0
.. I
fl0 •°•"1•w.•.n• i
i
i
co
U r
N N
5 .
• tjl
•
• CrtY 0I R[lR
U-
:
•
S. 236TH ST
i
o .
a :
NYFI1a0F
!.b•W. ;
TO^I feWry �
•
•
• J
• A M
' • G,.W A•IR ....
. b
Fb •
i •• W.N,.
1p •
O • •
>Ca
U • C
• V
•
•
•
•
•
•
• n
........ .... ........
cm or oes Fourts
....................................... •..............:
S. 240TH STREET
• 4re.
1ryk.l ll.. L�
a
E:1
� • r
Cy
io H....1 L.r.
r .
•
,
t..........................
' .......t.
•
y
.. Car,mlrclH pl..r Tr.IriM
N
w
L�^1I I11I
u
O
U
;
U.
• U
T.•r.T•. Q '
........... Q.
• ♦pnm.•I.
: wal.Ir n«rrw. .
' n
i • wi.�.Iu.l•y
' 1o , a
II
....•,`fir..
... • 1....e„•r w.ral '
• U
S. 246TH STREET i �
............................................• \`''
Lrl,.I YIM N.,1.wY....... n•
. In.
• t.a•r.. t' ..aror
• IIL_--JIB
:
i
•
• a
� IMM1IN1 j .
• M.Il.rn I w T
4°•�k.n..r.L.l. a ` N
� 4l 4 Csinlul.r J
• i.l.k.�.�.� 3
• ..1•.rl yb NI
• �J
•
a.. . .o..o . .. .. S.248TH STREET
CITY Or suit
C W.MN..M
A.I.P.A.
E..t.i TI.MM.IIen
Ll
T.r•T
Olrk..
Q�
r Qcg��
/ r1Yy
S. 2SOTli
•O41 iI4.
ST�C�T
r I.ulsm.l%TI.n.M..l.n[.I.k•
C.u.I.Ybr.
J
t ) n
I
...•..•; S. 252ND STREET
w.,e
•
•
•
•
i
,
i
•
cm or•r�r
.u.........•••••.•..•••..•.•........................ ..........e.ro eeum .......
I
i
i
j
BUSINESSES WEST OF HIGHVIAY 99
BUSINESS NAME UTILITY SERVICE ADDRESS
Midway Tavern 23209 Pacific Highway South
Burger King 23221 Pacific Highway South
HAC, Realty 23233 Pacific Highway South
Pizza Hut 23241 Pacific Highway South
Picture Framing
Millers Midway Marine 23257 Pacific Highway South
Howdies Restaurant 23433 Pacific Highway South
Seattle Trust 6 Savings 23435 Pacific Highway South
Midway Mini Storage 23443 Pacific Highway South
Seattle Trust d Escrow 23449 Pacific Highway South
Midway Cleaners 23647 Pacific Highway South
Crystal Apartments 23653 Pacific Highway South
Chris Lamereaz 23655 Pacific Highway South
Hair Design
Mutual Mortgage
Wendco N.W. Limited 23725 Pacific Highway South
Midway Mart 23837 Pacific Highway South
Prestige Stations Inc. 24001 Pacific Highway South
Atlantic Richfield 24017 Pacific Highway South
Midway Tropical Fish 24101 Pacific Highway South
House of Cars 24141 Pacific Highway South
Iblani Apartments 24415 Pacific Highway South
Medalist Marketing Co 24425 Pacific Highway South
Skips Auto Rebuild 24433 Pacific Highway South
Herb Elving 24433 Pacific Highway South
Waynes Auto Repair 24441 Pacific Highway South
SRM Enterprises 24443 Pacific Highway South
Paramount Plastics
Harold Kendall 24453 Pacific Highway South
Evergreen Not Tub S Spa 24605 Pacific Highway South
URS Company 24607 Pacific Highway South
National Accts Machine 24609 Pacific Highway South
Electric Power Tool Repair
Walter Peterson 24609 Pacific Highway South
Allen Sounds 24615 Pacific Highway South
Bernina Sews Best 24617 Pacific Highway South
Evergreen Spa d Pool 24619 Pacific Highway South
United Mobile
Western Mobile Home Brokers
MLM Computer Service
South End Reality
Seattle Driving School
Dave Warner Insurance
Auto Parts
V.6 P Associates 24645 Pacific Highway South
Chinese Midway Restaurant 24645 Pacific Highway South
Sea Tac Transmissions 24805 Pacific Highway South
Kent Properties Inc. 24811 Pacific Highway South
Windward Tavern 24811 Pacific Highway South
Northwest Auto Sound 24811 Pacific Highway South
Kent Properties 24811 Pacific Highway South
Book World 24811 Pacific Highway South I
Temple Kung-Fu -16-
{USINESSES WEST OF HIGHWAY 99
Ioff Store
idult Store
log 10's 24817 Pacific Highway South
:a.,,.,Freeman 24823 Pacific Highway South
wtomatic Transimssion 25009 Pacific Highway South
;A- "_ Enterprises 25013 Pacific Highway South
:a. ide Video
IiMy Frame 6 Wheel 25013 Pacific Highway South
I1 Olesberg/Sal Dena 25017 Pacific Highway South
:a: gay Motors 25045 Pacific Highway South
_e. .ichwab Tires 25101 Pacific Highway South
lew England Divers
i
—17—
Attached are the original petitions for annexation of the area
]maven as Saltair Hills. Please schedule this for a hearing
before the City Council and notify:
Pastor Colvin Caughey
22415 19th Ave. So.
Des Moines, WA. 98198
when any hearing or meeting on this issue is scheduled.
MAY 2 g 1988
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERIC
r OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
CIVIL DIVISION• .
E 550 KING COUNTY COURTHOUSE
NORM MALENG 516 THIRD AVENUE
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98104
-• (206)5834437
April 7, 1988
The City Council
,•• City of Des Moines
Des Moines, Washington 98198
Ms. Dorothy Owens
Clerk of the Council
King County Council
402 King County Courthouse
Seattle, Washington 98104
Re: Petition for Annexation to the City of Des Moines
Dear Councilmembers and Ms. Owens:
On March 18, 1988, this office received a petition calling for an
election to vote upon the annexation of certain territory located
in the City of Kent to the City of Des Moines. Pursuant to RCW
35. 10.217 (1 ) and 35. 13.020, this office must, within twenty-one
days after submission, certify or refuse to certify the petition.
In making a decision on the issue of certification, the
prosecuting attorney is required to review the petition and
determine whether, in the prosecuting attorney's opinion, the city
is legally authorized to take the actions specifically requested
in the petition. This office has concluded that the petition
itself meets the procedural and substantive requirements of
Chapters 35. 10 and 35. 13 RCW.
Among other things, the petition states the number of voters
residing in the area proposed for annexation as nearly as may be
(RCW 35.13.030) ; appears to be signed by qualified voters resident
in the area equal in number to at least 20 percent of the votes
cast at the last election (RCW 35.13.020) ; and particularly
describes the boundaries of the areas proposed to be annexed (RCW
35.13.030) .
Although this office is satisfied that the petition' s legal
description meets the statutory requirements for accuracy, our
review has disclosed three insubstantial errors in the
description. Those errors, together with their corrections, are
attached hereto.
As mentioned previously, the petitioners appear to represent at
least 20 .percent of the votes cast at the last election. Actual
compliance with this element, as well as verification of the
number of registered voters in the territory proposed for
annexation, should be undertaken by the Des Moines City Clerk.
Based on the foregoing analysis, we certify the enclosed petition
for annexation and we hereby return the petition for action by the
Des Moines City Clerk and Council.
Very truly yours,
For NORM MALENG, King County Prosecuting Attorney
KEVIN M. RA MOND
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
i
KMR/sj
Attachment
i
cc: Boundary Review Board
April 11, 1988
To: City Manager
From: City Clerk
Re: Saltair Hills Annexation -. Certification of 20%
I, Denis Staab, City Clerk, verified that the petitions received through
this date, contained 57 signatures of registered voters residing within
the Saltair Hills annexation area. This verification was completed with a
computer printout dated 9/23/87 furnished by W. H. Sanders, III, of King
County Records,•and Election Division.
According to this computer print out there were 346 registered voters in
November of 1986 and of these registered voters, 187 voted in the
November, 1986, General Election.
Based on this information, I, Denis Staab, City Clerk hereby certify that
the 57 valid signatures equal in number to 30% of the votes cast in the
last general election.
Denis Staab, City Clerk
cc: Assistant City Manager
Planning Director
City Attorney
• THE "�I'�" CITY
THE
MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198
N.f 1
March 17, 1987
Kevin Raymond
King County Prosecutors Office
King County Courthouse E550
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
RE: Certification of Petitions for Annexation
Dear Mr. Raymond:
Enclosed you will find copies of petitions submitted to the City of
Des Moines calling for annexation of an area known as Saltair Hills. Such
area is currently within the boundaries of the City of Kent yet is on the
West side of Pacific Highway South and adjacent to the City of Des
Moines. Pursuant to RCW 35.10.217 and 35.13.020 the City of Des Moines
requests that your office certify or refuse to certify the enclosed
petitions.
Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
CITY OF DES MOINES
Alex G. Perlman
Assistant City Attorney
AGP:ds
Enclosures
it Y
CITY HALL POLICE DEPT. MUNICPAL COURT MARINA PUBLIC WORKS 6 BLDG. DEPT.
21630 11TH AVE.SO. 21640 11TH AVE SO. 21630 11TH AVE.SO. 22307 DOCK AVE SO. 21650 11TH AVE.SO.
878.4595 $78.3301 $78.4597 324.5700 978.8626
January 25, 1988
To: Acting City�HJ nag r
From: City Clerk
Re: Saltair Hills Annexation
On January 22, 1988 at 12:30 PM five (5) petitions containing signatures
were received from the "Saltair Hills" Annexation area.
On January 25, 1988, 1, Denis Staab, City Clerk, verified that the
petitions contained 47 signatures of registered voters residing within the
Saltair Hills annexation area. This verification was completed with a
computer printout dated 9/23/87 furnished by W. H. Sanders, III, of King
County Records and Election Division.
According to this computer print out there were •346 registered voters in
November of 1986 and of these registered voters 187 voted in the November,
1986, General Election.
-•• cc: Planning Director
City Attorney
Kent Boundary Negotiator, Kennedy
E)0•IIBIT "A" TO PFTTTTC K FOR ANNEXATICN
IFJC;AL DESCRIPTION (Page 2)
Thenoa west along said north line to the east line of Mountain Avenue (27th Avenue
South);
Thence north along said east line to the north line of South 240th Street;
Thence east along said north lins.to the west line of Pacific Highway South (SR 99);
1 Thence north along said west line to the SE corner of Lot 28, Block 6, Federal
Highway Addition as recorded in Volume 30 of Plats, page 1, Records of King County,
Washingtcm;
Thence west along the south line of lot 28 to the west line of said Block 6;
Theme north along the west line of sad 6 to the north line of Iot 23, said
Block 6; u
Thence east along said north line the w st 1 of Pacific Highway South (SR 99);'
Thence north along said line to a Po to feet north of, at right angles to,
the south line of lot 17, lock>•of F Highway Addition, according to plat
thereof recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, Pa 1, Records of King County, Washington;
Thence westerly along a 1 to said south line of Lot 17 to the west line
of Block 6 of said plat;
Thence northerly along said west line to the north line of Lat 16, Block 6 of said
Federal Highway Addition,
Thence easterly along said north line to the west line of Pacific Highway South-
(State Route 99);
Thence 'northerly along said west line to a point on the west line of Pacific Highway
South (SR 99) which is 10 feet north of, at right angles to, the south line of Lot
31, Block 6 of Federal Highway Addition, according to plat thereof recorded in
Volume 30 of Plats, page 1, records of King County, Washington;
Thence west parallel to the south line of said Lot 11 to a point 390.04 feet east of
the west line of said Lot 11;
Thence north parallel to the west line of said Lot 11 a distance of 40 feet;
Thence west parallel to the south line of said Lot 11 a distance of 150 feet;
Thence north parallel to the west line of said Lot 11, to the north line thereof;
Thence east along said north line to the west line of Pacific Highway South (SR 99);
Theme north along said west line to a point 50 feet south of, at right "leg to,
the north line of Lot 10, Block 6 of Federal Highway Addition, according to plat
thereof recorded in Volume 30 of Plats, page 1, Records of King County, Washington,
Thence west parallel to the north line of said dot 10 to the west line of said Block
6;
Thence north along said west line to the south line of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of
Section 16, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M.,
Thence west along said south line 395.52 feet to the point of beginning, situated in
King County, Washington-
r
F7OIBIT "A" To PETTTICN FUR ANNEXATICN
IEGAL E SCFUPPICN
Beginning at a point on the south line of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 16,
Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.H., 395.52 feet west of the west line of Block 6,
Federal Highway Addition, as recorded in Volume 30 of Plats, page 1, records of Ring
County, Washington; thence north parallel to the east line of said SW 1/4 of the NE
1 1/4 to the centerline of Dent-Des Moines Road (SR 516); thence easterly along the
centerline of Rent-Des Moines Road (SR 516) to the intersection with the easterly
margin cific Highway South (SR 99); thence southerly along the east margin of
Pacif' South (SR 99) to a point 400 feet south of, at right angles to, the
no line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 21, Township 22 North, Range 4
W.M.;
WCaT
nossh al a line parallel with and 400 feet south of, measured at right
les to, north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 21, Township 22
Nctt2i, 4 East, to the west line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section
21;
Thence north along said west line to the north line of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of
Secticvn 21, Township 22 North, Range 4 Fast, W.M.;
Thence west along said north line to the intersection with the southerly extension
of the east line of Lot 15, Block 8 plat of Salt Air Hills, as recorded in Ring
County Records, Volume 59, pages 39 through 41;
Thence north along said extension a distance of 30 feet, more or less, to the north
margin of South 252nd Street;
Thence west along said north margin of South 252nd Street to the east margin of 20th
Avenue South, also the SW corner of Block 9 of said Salt Air Hills plat;
Thence northerly along the west line of Blocks 9 and 1, said plat of Salt Air Hills,
to the NW corner of Lot 16,16, Block 1, said plat of Salt Air Hills,-
Thence easterly�l8ng fhe' rth line of Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the NE comer of Lot
6, Block 4, sa plat of Air Hills;
Thence north o 141 bd(east the north line of the south 1/2 of said Section 211
Thence easterly along id north line to an intersection with the southerly
projection ofr;;ths;-wrs line of Block 22, Interurban Heights 3rd Section, according
to plat thereofrecorded in Volume 17 of plats, page 87, Records of King County,
Washington;
Thence northerly along the west line and its projection of Block 22, said plat of
Interurban Heights 3rd Section to the NW corner of Lot 42, Block 22 of said plat of
Interurban Heights 3rd Section;
Thence easterly along the north line of Blocks 22 and 21 and Block 21 extended, said
plat of Interurban Heights 3rd Section, to the intersection of the south line of
Birch Street .(South 246th Street) and east line of Mountain Avenue (27th Avenue
South);
Thence north along the east line of said Mountain Avenue (27th Avenue South) to the
north line of Lot 37, Block 17, Interurban Heights 4th Section, as recorded in
Volume 17 of plats, page 86, records of King County, Washington; ;:
Thence east along the north line of Iots 37 and 4, and its extension to the west
line of Pacific Highway South (SR 99);
Thence northerly along said west line to the south line extended of Lot 4, Block 7,
Interurban Heights 5th Section, as recorded in Volume 17 of Plats, page'85, Records
of King 0ounty, Washington; :
Thence west along said south line of Lot 4 and its extension to the east line of
Yukon Avenue (28th Avenue South);
Thence north along said east line to the north line of Maple Street (South 242n3
Street);
l� �`�•ra Isire � •�,
'��K� K •Ri '�'�`�'!' 'tea �
XA ci r�rc
fltgilp `ilMppli�m are � �►
M WSW
Jim p�jsc
i
*n a •� KOM ]dam
E5pMAE
� • � t eau. �i ,r_
A
P' + y � -
• Ch'a �i 44; an
'sc 'ievi
�ii ai c a�\►YNOWMIL 0' 1
mp p !C`�\0 gIIG li
�q!!W..C. �ilp■ I■
• r�!! •w�raa• wnw Im
IN _ Is la
' S`s 1 y,- f f x A6i.aa!'d .,pl ran _ y'''s`A-^'.'f""4,. _ ♦ p �"t'{t`�`�}.�a ty; ,.�.
' '•l .�lY I - :i � , y :kl t 11r' i IY:1., rfM fh-3y<�u.t y,yr ll :x+r; x t ati �'�, �/ !
-6 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF DES NOINES, WASHINGTON q(Fn
o JAN 221988
TO: The City Council of the city of Kent
I` The City Council of the City of Des Moines
t i
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, be Ing qualif led voters resident In the area, equal in number to twenty percent (20%) of the vote ' -
cast at the last election, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Kent and the City Council of the City of Des (((
! r ) Moines, pursuant to Revised Coda of Washington 35.10 as folios: i
. .J i
1 .
' ! 1. The territory which to the subject of this petition (hereinafter "territory") is presently in the City of Kent
wet of the eat margin of Pacific Highway South and contiguous to the City of Des Moines.
2. Petition is made to the City Council of the City of Kent to approve the annexation of this territory to the City
of Des Moines.
3. Pet Rion is made to the City Council of the City of Des Moines to annex this territory to the City of Des Moines
` r by the election method. I 'I
�i 4. The territory which to the subject of this petition is legally described on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by
this reference Incorporated herein.
k j 5. A diagram which outlines the bougdaries of the territory is attached hereto as Exhibit "8", and by this reference
{ ' incorporated herein. I )
,r 6. The number of voters residing 1n this territory as nearly as they may be Is 316. l
7. On annexation to the City of Des Moines, petitioners agree that all property within the territory sought to be
annexed shall be generally assessed and Lazed at the same rate and on the same basis as property.with to the City of Des i _I
- ? Moines and In particular will assume a pro-rate portion of the voter-approved general obligation bonded indebtedness of the I -�
City of Des Moines existing at the date of annexation. Petitioners do not request simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive ) �
-? plan for the area proposed to be annexed but request that current City of Kent zoning remain in effect unless and until {
.l y officiall changed by the City of Des Moines in accordance with the Revised Code of Washington.
j 1
WHEREFORE. petitioners pray as follows:
That this petition shall be submitted to the Prosecuting Attorney for King County, who shall, within twenty-one
1.
I, (21) days after submission, certify or refuse to certify the petition as set forth In RCW 35.13.025.
2. That following such certlf icatien this petition be f Pled with the City Councils of the City of Kent and the City
I1
1 of Des Moines.
3. That the City of Kent officially approve the annexation of the subject terr Rory to the City of Des Moines.
4. That thereafter the City Council of the City of Des Moines by resolution entered within sixty (60). days notify
(:.. petitioners of its approval or rejection of the proposed annexation.
5. That thereafter, this petition and the resolution of the City of Oe Moines be forwarded and filed with the King -
County Council, and that notice of the proposed action be given to the King County Boundary Review Board. •.f�
-'.. 6. That the King County Council set a date for hearing on this petition and thereafter establish a date for an i,
j'.I annexation election In accordance with the Laws of the State of Washington. ��
ss These pages are a group of pages containing an Identical text Intended by the signees of this petition to be
presented and considered as one petition and my be flied with other pages containing additional signatures which
'•' ',' cumulatively may be considered as a single petition. '
iJ .*r
;!:II REGISTERED VOTER'S PRINTED NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS DATE
SIC#TURE I SIGNED .,�.
T . EWIS 2z2 . 2 /l 5 8
' 1
i 4
°� ..
jC.` e Sr sz Io zsar/' z zz-d7 ':<:
41
90
WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of
these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he Is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she to }v'
otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. See RCW 11 r
354.01.040, attached hereto, for special instructions relative to signatures. C
ry
.1
�l
35A.01.010 Title 35A RCW: Optional Municipal Code 35A.01.010 Purpose and policy of this title is accurate legal description of the area proposed for such tr'
terpretation. The purpose and policy of this title s to action;
confer upon two optional classes of cities created hereby
(d) Numbered tuna for signatures with space provided
the broadest powers of local self-government consistent beside each signature for the date of signing and the ad-
with the Constitution of this state.An specific cnumcr-
ation of municipal powers contained in this title or in dress of the signer, �`•-�
F.ry
any other general law shall not be construed in an way (e) The warning statement prescribed in subsection w`J
to limit the general description of power contained in (2) ofthis section.
this title, and any such specifically enumerated powers (2) Petitions shall be printed or typed on single sheets
shall be construed as in addition and supplementary to of white paper of good quality and each sheet of petition '
the powers conferred in general terms by this title. All paper having a space thereon for signatures shall contain
grants of municipal power to municipalities electing to the text or prayer of the petition and the following
be governed under the provisions of this title, whether warning:
the grant is in specific terms or in general terms,shall be
liberally construed in favor of the municipality, 11967 WARNING
cxs: c 119 § 35A.01.010.J
Every person who signs this petition with any other I .
than his true name, or who knowingly signs more 35A.01.0I0 Noncharter code city.A nonchartcr code than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seek-
City is one, regardless of population, which has initially ing an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs - !`
incorporated as a nonchartcr code city, subject to the a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, kk "
provisions of this title,or is an incorporated municipality or who makes herein any false statement, shall be
which has elected, under the procedure prescribed in this guilty or a misdemeanor.
title,to be classified as a noncharter code city and to be
governed according to the provisions of this title under. Each signature shall be executed in ink or indelible
one of Ibc optional forms of government provided for pencil and shall be followed by the date of signing and
nonchartcr code cities, 11967 exs.a 119 § 35A.01.020.) the address of the signer,
(3)The term 'signer' means any person who signs his l'
own name to the petition. - t'
35A.01.030 Charter code city. A charter code city is
one having at least ten thousand inhabitants*at the tie tur To be sufficient a petition must contain valid sig-
of its organization 'or reorganization which has either natures of qualified doctors or property owners, as the 'r+j
initially incorporated as a charter code tit and h case may be, in the number required by the applicable
y as statute or ordinance. Within three working days after
adopted a charter-under the procedure prescribed in this the filing of a petition, the officer or officers whose duty
title; or'which, as an incorporated municipality, has it is to determine the sufficiency of the petition shall
elected to be classified as a charter code city and to be
governed according to the provisions of this lisle and of proceed !o make such a determination with reasonable
its adopted charter. J1967 czs.is provisions
§ this title
an promptness and shall file with the officcr receiving the lel
petition for filing a certificate stating the date upon ;. J 35A.01.035 which such determination'was begun, which daps shall !!
Code city. The term 'code city' means be referred to as the terminal date. Additional pages of I
any nonchartcr code city or charter code city. 11967 one or more signatures may be added to the petition by ! '
ex.s. c 119 § 35A.01.035.J filing the same with the appropriate riling officer prior
to such terminal date. Any signer of a filed petition may '35A.01.040 Sufficiency of petition. Wherever in this withdraw his or her signature by a written request for
title � .Petitions are required to be signed and filed, the withdrawal filed with the receiving officer prior to such
following rules shall govern the sufficiency thereof-
terminal date. Such written.request shall so sufficiently
(I) A petition may include any page or group of pages describe the petition as to make identification of the
containing an identical text or prayer intended by the person and the pctitiog certain. The name of any.person
circulators, signers or sponsors to be presented and con- seeking to withdraw'shall be signed exactly the same as
sidered as one petition and conta
sootiest elements w n ining the following es- contained on the petition and,after the filing of such re- r
elhe applicable, except that the quest for witbdrawal, prior to the terminal date, the sig-
elements referred to in subdivisions (d) and (c) hereof nature of an
p
are essential for petitions referring or initiating Icgisla deemed withdrawn.
on socking such withdrawal shall be
live matters to the voters, but are director as to other Y (5) Petitions containing the required number of signs- '
Petitions:
turn shall be accepted as prima facie valid until their
(a) The text or prayer of the petition which shall be a invalidity has been proved.
-oncise statement of the action or relief sought by (6) A variation on petitions between the signatures on
a, 1
xtitioncrs; •,,,,.
the petition and that on the voter's permanent registra- s' - •r";�
(b) If the petition initiates or refers an ordinance, a tion caused by the substitution of initials instead of the S";4
rue copy thereof; r
first or middle names, or both, shall not invalidate the %r i
(c) If the petition seeks the annexation, incorporation, signature on the petition if the surname and handwriting
withdrawal,.or reduction of an area for any purpose, an are the same. ��CC ,.,..
ride 35A R('1v.__. 71 t• I
� a bSd
77777
full AnM[%AIIDn IU Int WIT ur uq nulnia, wa]ns msronF
MAR 16 198 MAR 1 1988
bu
TO The City Council of the CThe City Council of the cHolnea �;u ur up nimnco CITY OF KENT4r ::._ ....-.: CITY CLERKWE THE UNDERSIGNED, be In voters res ldent 1n the area, equal In number to twenty percent (20%) of the votes a cast at the last election, tition the City Council of the City of Kent and the City Council of the City of Des ETMoines, pursuant to Revised Codegton 35.10 as follows: 3
3
' f y.1 The territory which is the subject of this petition (hereinafter "territory presently y") Is reaenil 1n the City of Kent ,l
is
�,q),y,• weal of the east margin of Pacific Highway South and contiguous to the City of Des Moines. .:
m•,ry 2. Petition 1s made to the City Council of the City of Kent to approve the annexation of this territory to the City
Y G.• of Des Moines.
LS� 11
E c. 3. Petition is made to the City Council of the City of Des Moines to annex this territory to the City of Des Moines
by the election method.
+q 4, The territory which is the subject of this petition 13 legally described on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by -
�' this reference Incorporated herein.
""
N'
5. A diagram which outlines the boundaries of the territory is attached hereto as Exhibit B , and by this reference. m,
.rtau Incorporated herein.
£ � 6. The number of voters residing in this territory as nearly as they may be is 346. ?'
7. On annexation to the City of Des Moines, petitioners agree that all property within the territory sought to be
[9N�; annexed shall be generally assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the City of Des
Moines and to particular will assume apro-rats portion of the voter-approved general obligation bonded indebtedness of the
'r;! City of Des Moines existing at the date of annexation. Petitioners do not request simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive
-:,;•• plan for the area proposed to 6e annexed but request that current City of Kent zoning remain 1n effect unless and until
ta° officially changed by the City of Des Moines in accordance with the Revised Code of Washington. g
tit14 P
r.(y' WHEREFORE, petitioners pray as follows:
,a.
` 1. That this petition shall be submitted to the Prosecuting Attorney for King County, who shall, within twenty-one
_ (21) days after submission, certify or refuse to certify the petition a eat forth In RCW 35.13.025.
2. That following such cortif tcation this petition be filed with the City Counci is of the City of Kent and the City }
of Des Moines. ' -
3. That the City of Kent officially approve the annexation of the subject territory to the City of Des Moines. h
r� 4. That thereafter the City Council of the City of Des Moines by resolution entered within sixty (60), days notify
* petitioners of Its approval or rejection of the proposed annexation.
l S. That thereafter, this petition and the resolution of the City of Des Moines be forwarded and filed with the King .
County Council, and that notice of the proposed action be given to the King County Boundary Review Board.
6. That the King County Council set a date for hearing on this petition and thereafter establish a date for an
, rx• annexation election In accordance with the Laws of the State of Washington.
'hap• These pages are a group of pages containing an Identical text Intended by the signees of this petition to be e
presented and considered as one petition and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which
,., tuna latively may be considered as a single petition.
REGISTERED YO ER'S PRINTED NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS DATE
.� SSIIGNAT SIGNED -
F. Z/
IS !!!
OEVI
y Qy/�
l/ t[
- � Q - Z,
L x Shr e 7 27 v, So 3 (u A
" to .t_�,g j Zfe 9!a H -k ) nvicU )15 -n fl,)eso 3 J1 , 6k
WARNING; Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of
these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he 1s note legal voter, or sigma a petition when he or she Is
otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. See RCV
35A.01.040, attached hereto, for special instructions relative to signatures. ��,
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF DES NOINES WASNIHGiON �I ����•��r° 1 [.
JAN 221988
TO: The City Council of the City of Kent •`�'�` t{
I�•'�, The City Council of the City of Des Moines (y
{4s
ft�6st' WE THE UNDERSIGNEO, being qualified voters resident in the area, equal In number to twenty percent (20%) of the votes ?�-
cast at the last election, hereby 'petition the City Council of the City of Kent and the City Council of the City of Des S
Moines, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington 35.10 as follows:
k•a",
1. The territory which is the subject of this petition (hereinafter "territory") is presently 1n the City of Kent
t•�•'. � west of the east margin of Pacific Highway South and contiguous to the City of Des Moines. ( � -
r 1 I 2. Petition Is made to the City Council of the City of Kent to approve the annexation of this territory to the City hr -
of Des Moines.
t 3. Petition is made to the City Council of the City of Des Moines to annex this territory to the City of :as No Ines I 1
5 by the election method. � y
4. The territory which Is the subject of this petition is legally described on Exhibit "A attached hereto and by
S
this reference incorporated herein. E ,
S. A diagram which outlines the boundaries of the territory is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and by this reference `[ )
'.j incorporated herein.
S. The number of voters residing In this territory as nearly as they may be 1s 346• ri•!'(
{ 7. On annexation to the City of Des Moines, petitioners agree that all property within the territory sought to be f .
annexed shall be generally assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the some basis as property within the City of Des I!f -
k Moines and in particular will assume a pro-rate portion of the voter-approved general obligation bonded Indebtedness of the
I' City of Des Moines existing at the date of annexation. Petitioners do not request simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive
i
jplan for the area proposed to be annexed but request that current City of Kent zoning remain to effect unless and until
officially changed by the City of Des Moines in accordance with the Revised Code of Washington. I,I
1
4 WHEREFORE, petitioners pray as follows:
1. That this petition shall be submitted to the Prosecuting Attorney for King County, who shall, within twenty-one ..
(21) days after submission, certify or refuse to certify the petition as set forth In RCW 35.13.02S.
2. That following such certification this petition be filed with the City Councils of the City of Kent and the City 1'
4, of Des M.
Ines. I i
Y• � 3. That the City of Kent officially approve the annexation of the subject territory to the City of Des Moines.
!� 4. That thereafter the City Council of the City of Des Moines b resolution entered within sixty
t Y Y Y Y (60), days notify
petitioners of Its approval or rejection of the proposed annexation. I 1
S. That thereafter, this petition and the resolution of the City of Des Moines be forwarded and filed with the King
L.i
County Council, and that notice of the proposed action be given to the King County Boundary Review Board. 1
- I 6. That the King County Council set a date for hearing on this petition and thereafter establish a data for an
annexation election in accordance with the Laws of the State of Washington.
These pages are acontainingI, 1
p g group of pages an text Intended by the signees of this petition to be
presented and considered as one petition and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which 'y
cumu latively may be considered as a single petition.
1 REGISTERED VOTER'S PRINTED NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS DATE f
SIGNATURE SIGNED f
e V 2. S Ltk_00
ekr,91Y L. ALIE.v J'o
Yj
WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of �
i these petitions. or signs a p g petition seeking an election when he Is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is
otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. See RCW
17 3II5A.01.040, attached hereto, for special Instructions relative to signatures. -
•.II
♦ i.i l _.,... h? S 'r r n i �, x ♦it J .t'1
f. PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY
OF DES MOINES, VASH(NGTONIE'�?(PIINI/lf+lli e
JAN 221988 !
TO: The City Council of the City of Kent -
The City Council of the City of Des Moines
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being qualified voters resident to the area, equal In number to twenty percent (20K) of the votes r
,at at the last election, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Kent and the City Council of the City of Des 4
Moines, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington 35.10 as follows: I
'I 1. The territory which is the.subject of this petition (hereinafter "territory") Is presently in the City of Kent
.. ''..� r
west of the east margin of Pac if lc Highway South and contiguous to the City of Des Moines.
! 2. Pet It ion is made to the City Council of the City of Kent to approve the annexation of this territory to the City
1 ,
{ { of Des Moines. ex this territory to the City of Des Moines
i
3. Petit4on is made to the City Council of the City of Des Moines to Ann II
by the election method.
1s legally described an Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by
4. The territory which is the subject of this petition
this reference incorporated herein.
f S. A diagram which outlines the boundaries of the territory la attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and by this reference
I
incorporated herein.
6. The number of voters residing to this territory as nearly as they may be Is 346. i
T. On annexation to the City of Des Moines, petitioners agree that all property within the territory sought to be !_.1
"�'• � annexed shall be generally assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the City of Des
h'•� I Moines and In particular will assume a pre-rate portion of the voter-approved general obligation bonded Indebtedness of the
City of Des Moines existing at the date of annexation. Petitioners do not request simu ltanaous adapt ton of a comprehenaiw
that current City of Kent zoning remain to effect unless and until
plan for the area proposed to be annexed but request r
officially changed by the City of Des Moines in accordance with the Revised Code of Washington.
WHERtFORE, petitioners pray as follows:
`FrP , ii
...� 1. That this petition shall be sutwnitted to the Prosecuting Attorney for King County, who shall, within twenty-one
{ (21) days after aubnlaaton, certify or refuse to certify the petition as set forth 1n RCW 3S.13.025.
c.1 2. That following such cart ification this petition be filed with the City Co end the City
uncy la oof the
City of Kent
of Des Moines.
nexation of the subject territory to the City of Des Moines.
3. That the City of Kent officially approve the an
i.r 4. That thereafter the City Council of the City of Des Moines by resolution entered within sixty (60), days notify
petitioners of its approval or rejection of the proposed annexation. I;p '
S. That thereafter, this petition and the resolution of the City of Des Moines be forwarded and filed with the King
County Council, and that notice of the proposed action be given to the King County Boundary Review Board. it.]
6. That the King County Council set a date for hearing on this petition and thereafter establish a date for an ( I
annexation election in accordance with the Laws of the State of Washington. -1
These pages are a group of pages containing an identical text Intended by the stgnees of this petition to be
�.`
presented and considered as one petition and may be filed with other pages containing additional signature which
cumulatively may be considered as a single petition. f�
'RESIDENCE ADDRESS DATE `1
REGISTERED VOTER'S PRINTED NAME SIGNED
{ �� �ItXATURE
oL / co, VT
c- -
1 P ent 1/3-87
ya/_
O 67. f/,f#A01D Ram -Z-7 2Z."'At-f.SO,
1 r a
KL G SCf/atotlSS�S/
�I
f,` c�rlinrr QU �U/1hk/ / lrs
b ra,
r
WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of ..,
these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he Is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is
any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. See RCV
otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein
35A.01.040, attached hereto, for special Instructions relative to signatures. ,
Y '1Zeig
'l Y. a i '„rrs• �lvii`s � ��� }r4t� y`f.�ixi
•.'.r !.�: -v' t xYi tr.;. �'-?7 �r„ I.;'� ..t ..r;:i• $ , tfry L_'
�%t'..1.-x+wrtr...wwee.J
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF DES MOINES, WASHINGTON -�
CY 1
,.•. T0; The City Council of the City of Kent JAN 221988
The City Council of the City of Des Moines 1,
Nil Ur Ubl " DIto
! I WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being qualified voters resident in the area, equal to number to twenty percent (to%) of the votaa.
` cast at the last election, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Kent and the City Council of the City of Dea
I' Moines, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington 35.10 as follows:
1. The territory which is the subject of this petition (hereinafter "territory") is presently In the City of Kent
west of the east margin of Pacific Highway South and contiguous to the City of Des Moines.
2. Petition is made to the City Council of the City of Kent to approve the annexation of this territory to the City
C`I .of Des Moines. 4
3. Petition Is made to the City Council of the City of Des Moines to annex this territory to the City of Dea Moines i 5.
by the election method.
4. The territory which is the subject of this petition is legally described on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by 1
this reference Incorporated herein.
5. A dlagram which outlines the boundaries of the territory Is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and by this reference
Incorporated herein. f-
6. The number of voters residing in this territory as nearly as they may be Is 346.
•i 7. On annexation to the City of Des Moines, petitioners agree that all property within the territory sought to be ! _.
annexed shall be generally assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis sa property within the City of Des
� Moues and In particular will assume a pro-rate portion of the voter-approved general obligation bonded indebtedness of the f
City of Des Moines existing at the date of annexation. Petitioners do not request simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive
f plan for the are& proposed to be annexed but request that current City of Kent zoning remain in effect unless and until
-� officially changed by the City of Des Moines In accordance with the Revised Code of Washington. {
E^.
• � WHEREFORE, petitioners pray as follows:
-!•...� I� ..
r 1. That this petition shell be submitted to the Prosecuting Attorney for King County, who shell, within twenty-one f
C (21) day, after submission, certify or refuse to certify the petition as set forth In RCW 35.13.025.
2. That following such certification this petition be filed with the City Councils of the City of Kent and the City
' of Des Moines, i
3. That the City of Kent officially approve the annexation of the subject territory to the City of Des Moines.
4. That thereafter the City Council of the City of Des Moines by resolution entered within sixty (60), days notify -
°' J petitioners of its approval or rejection of the proposed annexation,
S. That thereafter, this petition and the resolution of the City of Des Moines be forwarded and filed with the King
County Council• and that notice of the proposed action be given to the King County Boundary Review Board. -
j 6. That .the King County Council set a date for hearing on this petition and thereafter establish a date for an �.
annexation election In accordance with the laws of the State of Washiogton. i
I �
1
These pages are a group of pages containing an identical text Intended by the signees of this petition to be i
presented and considered as one petition and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which I
cumulatively may be considered as a single petltlen. i
�• REGISTERED VOTER'S PRINTED NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS DATE
`.t SIGNATURE SIGNED
f' S ,'r -dem,r 2�,275—,Z22 Sj 4 j
, y" �/—y�7 i A
i i l
1 , g
;s, n ` .
® L; � Hx;rl1 -2Y6-_ S JS f ,/Y/�7
T /?k Ant /� l�CCQL/,t)'I P rpo r-ha IYt A "M P a m o JOB // &Lz
s r j
as , �Y
E- 3 f
'r' p
u LTIOGf J7 y y
4�
WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of -
C.— ii these petitions• or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is - '{
;1 otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. See RCW '{
' 35A.01.040, attached hhereto, for special Instructions relative to signatures. `3
h
•_ - _ !.... ...�.._. ,. ... m 4•,a '.'f� (a"�] e� .r`P.O e14f.1'.�4f r,, ..
•, , VLJ r,l/1 mean wnlinlnY1W11 1�=LUt("Ly U lS ;
MAR 16 1988 MAR 1 1988 V
TO: The City Council of the City of Kent
„ ..
The City Council of the City of Des Moines •� -��•�+ CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being qualified voters resident in the area, equal In number to twenty percent (20%) of the votes
cast at the 'last election, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Kent and the City Council of the City of Des r
. . Moines, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington 35.10 as follows:
,�.
1. The territory which to the subject of this petition (hereinafter "territory") 1s presently to the City of Kent +
west of the east margin of Pacific Highway South and contiguous to the City of Des Moines.
2. Petition in made to the City Council of the City of Kent to approve the annexation of thiq territory to the City
� of Deg Moines. �
3. Petition is made to the City Council of the City of Des Moines to annex this territory to the City of Des Moines 1,
by the election method.
r� l 4. The territory which is the subject of this petition is legally described on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by
this reference Incorporated herein. Y
S. A diagram which outlines the boundaries of the territory is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and by this reference
Incorporated herein.
6. The number of voters residing in this territory as nearly as they may be Is 346.
y T. On annexation to the City of Des Moines, petitioners agree that all property within the territory sought to be i
annexed shall be generally assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the City of Des
Me Ines and in particular will assure a pro-rate portion of the voter-approved general obligation bonded Indebtedness of the
J City of Des Moines existing at the date of annexation. Petitioners do not request simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive
plan for the area proposed to be annexed but request that current City of Kent zoning remain in effect unless and until
officially changed by the City of Des Moines In accordance with the Revised Code of Washington.
WHEREFORE, petitioners pray as follo s:
1. That this petition shall be submitted to the Prosecuting Attorney for King County, who shall, within twenty-one
"' •') (21) days after submission, certify or refuse to certify the petition as set forth 1n RCW 35.13.025.
2. That following such certification this petition be filed with the City Counclls,of the City of Kent and the City
of Des Moines.
3. That the City of Kent officially approve the annexation of the subject territory to the City of Des Moines.
4. That thereafter the City Council of the City of Des Moines by resolution entered within sixty (60). days notify
w petitioners of Its approval or rejection of the proposed annexation.
5. That thereafter, this petition and the resolution of the City of Des Moines be forwarded and filed with the King
County Council, and that notice of the proposed action be given to the King County Boundary Review Board. -
6. That the King County Council set a date for hearing on this petition and thereafter establish a date for an
annexation election in accordance with the Laws of the State of Washington.
These pages are a group of pages containing an identical text Intended by the slgnees of this petition to be
presentee and considered as one petition and nay be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which
cumulatively may be considered as a single petition.
REGISTERED VOTER'S PRINTED NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS DATE
SIGNATURE SIGNED
Y.
i
WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of
these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he Is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is
otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. See RCW
35A.01.040, attached hereto, for special Instructions relative to signatures.
• I f
•.,> fM
t.{.... - .'...I�.�ei... ,. .«�, w 4i�rw 'lii...aS1Y ...,.1. .3Y.....
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY-OF DES MOINES. WASHINGTON r , �,I�!•,p2•(r t✓S - .
V. {ej
'30
JAN 22 1988
TO: The City Council of the City of Kent
The City Council of'the City of Des Moines Wfl ur u..v 1,1uiuw
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being qualified voters resident in the area. equal in number to twenty percent (20X) of the votes
". cast at the last election, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Kent and the City Council of the City of Des jy
h4� Moines, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington 35.10 as follows: I
b 1. The territory which is the subject of this petition (hereinafter "terr ttory") is presently to the City of Kent
1•: west of the east margin of Pacific Highway South and contiguous to the City of Des Moines. -
.�: ) 2. Petition is made to the City Council of the City of Kent to approve the annexation of this territory to the City _.
l of Des Moines.
(: 3. Petition Is made to the City Council of the City of Des Moines to annex this territory to the City of Des Moines
11tt{{ I by the election method.
4, The territory which Is the subject of this petition Is legally described on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by Ii
this reference Incorporated herein. -•I
5. A diagram which outlines the boundaries of the territory Is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and by this reference
incorporated herein.
6. The number of voters residing In this territory as nearly as they may be is 346.
7. On annexation to the City of Des Moines, petitioners agree that all property within the territory sought to be ( ..
I annexed shall be generally assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the City of Des I �
j..{ Moines and In particular will assume a pro-rate portion of the voter-approved general obligation bonded indebtedness of the
.� City of Des Moines existing at the date of annexation. Petitioners do not request simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive
1 plan for the area proposed to be annexed but request that current City of Kent zoning remain to effect unless and until
e. officially changed by the City of Des Moines 1n accordance with the Revised Code of Washington.
��- WHEREFORE, petitioners pray as follows: I {
.' 1. That this petition shall be submitted to the Prosecuting Attorney for King County, who shall, within twenty-one _.
(21) days after submission, certify or refuse to certify the petition as set forth In RCW 35.13.025, - 1
2. That following such certification this petition be filed with the City Councils of the City of Kent and the City
J. of Des Moines.
3. That the City of Kent officially approve the annexation of the subject territory to the City of Des Moines. I
4. That thereafter the City Council of the City of Des Moines by resolution entered within sixty (60). days notify :
.) petitioners of Its approval or rejection of the.proposed annexation.
•� S. That thereafter, this petition and the resolution of the City of Des Moines be forwarded and filed with the King
County Council, and that notice of the proposed action be given to the King County Boundary Review Board. -,,
6. That the King County Council set a date for hearing on this petition and thereafter establish a date for an
annexation election in accordance with the Laws of the State of Washington.
a
These pages are a group of pages containing an identical text intended by the slgnees of this petition to be
1 presented and considered as one petition and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which ,
cumu latively may be considered as a single petition. J '
REGISTERED VOTER'S PRINTED HAKE RESIDENCE ADDRESS DATE ` t
I GNATURE SIGNED
S vvl u t S 2491 -Z S 12-Z1
I
t ✓ So 77�
aI 06 c -za. 7lj
A4.1 iz/Z
�_" AlLcde /YloR/ffs oho s5 8 e ' SZ /I,-u k
�;� �oa�fzr �. >OG G��4 � �- Z � Ien,ri�z•ss ` '„
/1r 9 o
rfi o? So. a sr /Cai.�.f-�j�-eye
WARNING: Every person who signs this peH tlon with any other than his true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of he
these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when ha or she la
f otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. See RCW rrs:
f r
35A.01.040, attached hereto, for special instructions relative to signatures.
i T"
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: NORTH END FIRE STATION AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bids were opened on June 30 at 5 : 30 p.m.
3 . EXHIBITS: Executive Summary, Bid Summary Tabulations,
Recommendation will be distributed at the meeting.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Administration, Project Team and Architect
(Committee, Staff , Examiner , Commission, etc . )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: already dedicated - Public Safety Bond
1 7
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: �Z,
Councilmember moves, Councilmembx seconds
that the bid be awarded to in the amount
of
DISCUSSIIO
ACTION:
-• Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 5, 1988
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: GREEN RIVER LEVY IMPROVEMENT - SOUTH 212TH STREET
BRIDGE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held June 27 with three
bids received. The low bid was submitted by R. W. Scott
Construction in the amount of $289, 431. 80. It is recommended
this bid be accepted. Also as approved by the Public Works
Committee it is recommended that $150, 000 be transferred from the
Green River Levy Improvement - Meeker Street Project Fund to this
project fund.
3 . EXHIBITS: Bid summary, memorandum from the Director of Public
Works and excerpt from the Public Works Committee Minutes of
June 28 .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner , Commission, etc. )
5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmembet moves, Councilmember seconds
that the bid S b[ditted by our R. W. Scott Construction in the
- amount of $289,431. 80 for the Green River Levy Improvement -
South 212th Street Bridge project be accepted and that $150,000
be transferred to this project from the Green River 'Levy
Improvement at Meeker Street.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5B
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 30, 1988
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom ,� (D)
RE: Green River Levee Improvement - S. 212th Street Bridge
Bid opening was June 27 with three bids received. The low bid was
submitted by R.W. Scott Construction in the amount of $289,431.80.
The project provides for the improvement of the Green River Levee
at the S. 212th Street Bridge. A budget of $200, 000 has initially
been established for this portion of the levee improvement. It is
proposed and has been approved by the Public Works Committee to
transfer $150, 000 from the Green River Levee Improvement project at
Meeker Street to this project fund so that we can proceed with
construction within the time limitations of our Department of
Fisheries permit . Construction costs are estimated to be
$318, 374. 98 .
It is recommended the bid of $289,431.80 submitted by R.W. Scott
Construction for the Green River Levee Improvement at S. 212th
Street Bridge be accepted.
BID SUMMARY
R.W. Scott Construction $289,431.80
•• IMCO General Construction 306, 671. 05
Dell Johnson Construction 433 , 592 . 04
Engineer's Estimate $306,755. 37
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
June 27 , 1988
\r
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON KEN MORRIS
BERNE BITEMAN TIM HEYDON
JUDY WOODS KAREN SIEGEL
DON WICKSTROM BONNIE FELL
BRENT MCFALL MAY MILLER
GARY GILL PRISCILLA SHEA
TONY MC CARTHY CLIFF JOHNSON
Hvtek Finishing
Cliff Johnson indicated that during their last phase of the closure
plan they will need to use the existing employee parking lot for
construction staging. They are requesting the temporary use of the
street to provide for employee parking during this time period
which he estimates to be between July 5 and October 31. A map
(copy attached) of the proposed use and number of required parking
stalls was distributed to the Committee. Wickstrom indicated the
Public Works Department has no problems with allowing this other
than we would need to develop conditions protecting the City from
any liability for this on-street parking . The Committee
unanimously approved the request subject to the conditions which s
will be developed by the Transportation Division of the Public
Works Department.
Green River Levee Improvement - S. 212th Street Bridge
Wickstrom indicated that the project fund is currently $200, 000 and
the low bid received on June 27 was $289, 431.80. Wickstrom noted
that $150, 000 for levee work near Meeker Street was budgeted but
because of the need for a 404 permit no work will be done this
year. Wickstrom proposed transferring the $150, 000 to the Green
River Levee Improvement S. 212th Street Bridge fund so that we can
proceed with construction and meet the time limitations of our
Fisheries permit. The Meeker Street levee work would then be
budgeted next year. The Committee unanimously approved the
request.
R E P 0 R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE-
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
1.
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
r
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D E E g ,
June 14, 1988 JUN N 1988
PRESENT: Jon Johnson Chief Al Bond CITY OF KENT
Judy Woods Jerry McCaughan CITY CLERK
Berne Biteman Ed White
Don Wickstrom John Bond
Sandra Driscoll Stuart Murphy
Brent McFall Warren Eck
Bill Williamson Jim Klobuchek
Alan Stoick
Marion Zaratkiewicz
Don Wickstrom introduced Ed White to the Committee as the new
Transportation Planner. Ed states there is a concern on S 260th
St - a section of roadway approximately one block long on the
north side is curb, gutter and sidewalk on the south side there
is a gravel shoulder. The roadway is approx 20 ft wide and the
shoulder is approx 10 ft wide. There is a concern about vehicles
when they are parked on the curb side in that they present some
type of restriction for two way traffic. Traffic Division
conducted several studies. During the am and pm the approximate
vehicles that went through the neighborhood in the various
directions from Military Rd onto 260th - the largest was during
the pm with only 36 vehicles there. The am showed 25 vehicles.
A 24 hour traffic count was also conducted. Judging from the
results of all this information and doing visual surveys we do
not really see that there is problem. Any potential conflicts
would be very low in terms of the probability of anything
happening.
Berne Biteman states he has checked this out two or three times
and on a Sunday there were 1/2 dozen cars on the curb side and
recalls there were probably 10 cars on the other side. His
concern is the restrictions do not leave passage way for two cars
thru.
Traffic stipulates that the distance is approximately 700 to 800
feet. Are both sides of the street ever filled with cars?
According to Biteman, one of the problems now is that people are
by-passing the stop sign. However the traffic count shows only a
total of 13 vehicles during the pm peak hours. which is 4 - 6: 00
Mr. Murphy would like the parking to remain. Question to Sandra
- what is the liability to the person who parks their car on the
public right of way and gets hit, by another vehicle. There
would be some liability. Biteman makes a motion to monitor the
area for a while to see what can be done. Seconded by Johnson.
ENTRY INTO CAMBRIDGE
Marian Zaratkiewicz - Concerned about the public right of way.
RE: entrance on 264th off Military Road. There is a meridian in
-2-
the center of the entrance and on both sides we have a public
right of way - at one point in time there was a seating
arrangement . The brick structure (seating arrangement) is now
gone by the man who lives adjacent to the public right of way.
He has assumed responsibility of maintaining - on the left hand
side of the right of way he has chained linked fenced that
portion of the right of way into his property. On the opposite
side he had wired closed the right of way on the right hand side.
He has since taken the wiring down prior to Mrs. Karatkiewicz
attending this meeting. The chain link fence remains in tact on
the left hand, side. Chief Al Bond responds: whatever is the
street right of way of course will be dictated by the Street
Dept. The rest of that area at this time - we plan to do nothing
with it except maintain it the way it is now. The trees are
there and the beauty bark is there and plans are to keep it that
way - if the street gets widened then of course part of the
public right of way will be used up for that. As the Council
gave us permission some time ago, in a future date we may sell
part of that off to single family residences. At that time 'we
would have to survey and find out exactly where the public right
of way is. Wickstrom requests a copy of the letter from Mrs.
Zaratkiewicz to Mayor Kelleher indicating the gentleman's name.
Biteman states that this has always been a good looking entrance
from Military Road. He will stop by and talk to him. Committee
concurs.
USE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT
Entered in as part of record - Petition to Committee (see
attached) from Jim Klobuchek with eleven additional signatures.
Warren Eck, property owner in the area, using easement walkway
(Bristol Court) for access to parking his motor home in his
property. The access that we have is for pedestrian walkway and
the adjacent property owner (Warren Eck) is using it for the
vehicle access to the back of his yard to park his motor home.
There is concern by other property owners about using that
walkway for that purpose. Warren Eck explains his use of the
walkway with his motor home stating he uses it for a total of
three minutes just to get his motor home in and out moving at a
very slow rate of speed. Mr. Klobuchek states that the point is
the walkway was never constructed for motor vehicles - it is for
children and people to use and if he has a motor vehicle he has
to park it in front of his house - it is not safe and it's not
constructed for that use. What happens when Mr. Eck drives his
motor vehicle on the asphalt and because of it's weight it starts
destroying the asphalt - who will have to pay for repairs? A
petition submitted states that it was not constructed for that
purpose.
Bill Williamson clarifies that the ownership is in fee and is
held by the adjoining property owners in Unit 70 and 71 one of
.. -3-
whom would be Mr. Eck. He has the underlying fee. We have a
.. plat dedication whereby this particular access roadway was
granted to the City of Kent for the declared and dedicated
purpose of drainage, open space, and pedestrian walkway purposes
respectively. So we have a priority of drainage, open space and
then walkers for walkway purposes. So we, the City, maintains
that as an access roadway. We have three purposes and the
questions as I see it is the question of whether or not this
applied for use would constitute a conflict of those stated
purposes. On the face of it, it does not appear that it would
conflict - the question is would it interfere with the intent of
that dedication. That's why it is here today. According to Mr.
Eck, he has never had any problem with people walking because he
uses it very early in the morning or late at night and there is
always someone out in front watching. Mr. Eck also submits
letters in his behalf. (See attached) Bill Williamson states the
options: there are perhaps other considerations - Bill, Jerry
McCaughan and Gary Gill, City Engineer inspected the property.
There are some traffic engineering safety issues and that is
whether or not this mobile which is probably 8 to 10 feet tall
would pose a traffic hazard parked in front of the residence
also, it is not against the zoning code to park a vehicle in the
back parking lot. However if it is allowed, we would add certain
terms and conditions and that is we would not want parking in the
walkway. We would want it restricted to the number of times
- where the applicant could exit and enter this gate and for
starters, I have come up with a number of ten that is we would
not want it to be used as a driveway. If it is used at all, we
would want to make sure that someone was watching so that no
children would be entering the roadway. We would also want as a
condition that if there is any damage to the walkway to this
easement area he would be responsible for repairing it. The
other condition is that if the walkway is used by the vehicle
that the vehicle be insured, lastly the permittee would defend
and indemnify the City of Kent. It's a judgement call, frankly,
on whether or not this intermittent use which appears to Mr
McCaughan and myself and the City Engineer to be very periodic,
that is the number of times that the vehicle would actually enter
and exit would be not more than 7 or 8 times a month. This
walkway is only about 9 feet wide and that the vehicle would be
approaching at a very low speed and then to be tuning carefully
and so we don't have any speed problems but we don't want parking
and we don't want more than intermittent use. It could be an
acceptable permitted use if this Committee deems it to be that it
should add at least 10 conditions which I have come up with, with
Jerry McCaughan and the City Engineer.
Biteman asks for the ruling on parking vehicles in front of one's
house. Williamson states that there is a 48 hour rule in the
City and if you park over the 48 hours you will be ticketed. Mr.
Eck states there are also neighborhood covenants on this.
-4-
Biteman states that from letters, and from the Attorney's report
(Bill Williamson) and so forth that a limited access with the
conditions that Bill has stated, would be tolerable and asks Jim
Klobuchek to accept it under conditions. Mr. Klobuchek states
his concerns are if Mr. Eck damages the walkway with his motor
vehicle, Mr. Eck will be held responsible for repair of same.
Jon Johnson asks Mr. Eck if he accepts the conditions outlined by
Bill Williamson to the Committee. Mr. Eck agrees to those
conditions. Woods requests that Mr. Eck receive a list of those
conditions. Bill Williamson states that Mr. Eck would have to
defend and indemnify and hold the City harmless and we would
definitely want to be sure that the vehicle has insurance. Mr.
Eck claims his motor vehicle is fully insured. Also, Bill
Williams states that the City can revoke at any time with or
without cause. If we felt that it turned out to be what we had
not intended we could revoke that.
Woods moves that we accept the Williamson recommendation.
Committee approves.
SURPLUS PROPERTY - ALLEN STOICK
Property in question is located North of S . 244th Street between
Summit and 94th Streets. Don Wickstrom comments - Mr Stoick is
interested in purchasing property that is potentially
subdividable on Summit - duplexed zoned property - submitted a
proposed short plat to create three lots - two of the lots would
access onto a piece of property (30 ft strip) deeded to the City
and specifically mentions no consideration given monetary or
otherwise which makes it not a valid deed. Mr. Stoick wanted to
access however he cannot until that was resolved. We don't have
any use for the property and we are recommending the property be
declared surplus and Mr. Stoick can bid on it.
Biteman so moves - Woods seconds.
City Attorney, Sandra Driscoll states that the State Law mandates
us to do it this way - we don't have options. Mr. Stoick will
keep in contact with Jerry McCaughan for an update on this.
Advertisement of the property will be held in approximately 60
days.
TRAFFIC MITIGATION AGREEMENTS
Don Wickstrom states the new act that is now effective which is a
month earlier than we anticipated and we had to modify our
existing mitigation agreements to reflect the provision in the
new act which puts a limitation on LID covenants and also
prohibits anybody from agreeing that their property is special
benefited. Mitigation agreements have been reviewed - upon
recommendation we proceeded to implement the new act which is
essentially developing a development fee system for road
-5-
improvements in which the development then pays a development
fee. The committee is recommending at least that one condition.
Sandra refers to the changes - people acknowledge that this is to
mitigate the impact but if there is a special benefit the way we
will determine it is the way we have done it in the past - people
who are owners of the property can make an objection to the
assessment according to state law which is something different.
We have added that language to comply to state law. All of
Section 2 basically says you agree to not protest the formation,
you can object at the assessment time as to whether or not you
are specially benefited and whether or not the assessment is the
appropriate assessment however you do have this financial
obligation which goes to meet this particular condition under the
SEPA Compliance and it's for mitigation purposes. One way to
meet that financial obligation would be to participate in an LID
and pay your money thru that. Another way to meet it would be if
we could put together a local transportation program that Don
described. We also added the language that says that this
-. agreement can only last for a ten year period because again,
that's what the State Law requires. Don states that what we have
is several developments that are pending signing a mitigation
agreement. We have some documents in escrow that they are
willing to sign the old one, but now with the new state law the
old one is no longer valid. What the committee agreed to is
essentially the one item that we have concurrence on, is that we
should proceed to a development fee proposal . These conditions
here address the fact that the agreement has to be modified to
meet state law requirements. Sandra states that what we added
_• was that if we do put together a local transportation program you
can meet your obligation in this agreement thru participation on
payment of those impact fees. Don states that with the 10 year
limitation the agreement says that after 10 years if no LID has
been paid you have to pay at that time.
We had to amend the agreement to address the new state law in
order to allow these developments who have committed to executing
-- the agreement. Committee concurs.
LID 335
Wickstrom states that this is for the improvement of 208th Street
from E Valley to the Valley freeway. We have covenants on it,
the road is in need of maintenance so perhaps we should at least
proceed with an LID. We do have covenants that would technically
support formation of an LID but we have also have local property
owners that represent about 20% of the assessment and we want
some indication at this point of formation. 20% is definitely
against the project. Woods suggests a letter to go out regarding
the formation. Biteman suggests sending a registered letter
saying the committee is about to make a decision on this LID.
Committee agrees.
-6-
CLARK/HANGO AGREEMENT
Woods moves to accept the Clark/Hango Agreement. Johnson also
favors.
SEGREGATION OF ASSESSMENT 3 LID 297
Would it be possible to include the segregation of the five acres
at Russell Road. This is on the golf course side at the corner
of Russell Rd and Meeker to be sold off and in fact the City now
has a buyer for that. McFall states that we reserved that for
sale for commercial development and we need to segregate that
assessment out.
Woods so moves to approve this segregation of Assessment #3 plus
the five acres. Seconded by Johnson. Committee approves.
PUGET POWER AGREEMENT
Agreement with Puget Power for undergrounding Smith St. -
Woods so moves - Committee approves
PUBLIC WORKS TRUST FUND
The agreement they had sent back when we asked for an extension
had the wrong date in the agreement and gave us a year shorter
and this just corrects that problem and gives us until 1989 . We
need authorization for the Mayor to sign the extended agreement.
Woods moves - Committee approves.
Biteman makes a correction on minutes of May 10, 1988 Committee
meeting regarding striping - "Biteman moved that twelve
intersections be selected using the post striping and reflective
signs. "
Committee agrees on the correction.
.I
II
4144
c
' Aee �,sc�a��
l�J 6e Cl,
0 eultc lle-S
to (>C,� (O(Rt ieo
✓)02
0?6-2o7- 5-rANGvID CT.,�� Al
---
,. 7t/15 T
��Gn 2 0 .. 7-o THE U(SE OF r�cc s s
P/9 T I-1 13,?4( &A f 2 fiAJ A N..O 'kO 1Z i
I)I i 012 HOME 6Aj Tip � 12 F1I 2 SEC i r --a
T"N k P2 D Pe 12 T o L H19 vE
r� rZ50� JAJ i TIDE S < l3 TIY
Ul/0A) fi/v - TM C,
plr t)E i 8) iU C/i2 e TC% I3c
T/Jf) T TUC rHIOO/ZcAJ RIZ6. � U�- 2 l /U
'�-i� 0��-�
tolTIJ T lfE C'S� or 711E P19 i H AV
P/IICt, lii :16W 8-7- k l6 lC
�15 fi Hol)W 6 ff"R 6017-M ti"
l�oj'l'1 c /Aj S 161-1 T OF- THE srizf i� f
Hll �)F e5 Ho wl) THII i
>i i� 7�2IZ I�I�I ��� �� T�"
��
12 , k 17 1A) ���� �C�� T1-1�,y v�E / T
IMKil
)673z_
AJ7- l J/9 .
�1
June 13th, 1988
To whom it may concern,
Warren and Lori Eck live at the end of a cul de sac
known as "Bristol Court" directly across the street
from us . The Eck ' s have always been overly cautiousl
as we all are on this street , of children and pedestian
traffic due to the fact we have this community easment
at the end of our street . This easment borders theEck ' s
south property line connecting the school grounds with
"Bristol Court" .
The Eck ' s have a very nice motorhome which I suggested
could be parked behind their home out of view of all
property owners . They thought it was a good idea and
very carefully looked things over and checked with other
neighbors for their feedback prior to giving it a try.
All the neighbors I know have no open objection to it .
Warren has since , installed a gate system in the rear
side of his fence to accomodate their motorhome . When
they are going to use the motorhome , which is very
seldom, they very cautiously and carefully drive it up
the paved easement making sure not to interfere with
anyone wanting to use the easement at that time .
My wife and I feel very comfortable with the Eck ' s use
of the easement for this purpose and see no reason why
they spuld not be allowed to continue .
Sincerely
Jim & Nancy Guse
26726 Bristol Court
Kent, Wa . 98032 ( 206) 859-1383
r.
Ci.• i ' �_ �./'' f F ! !7iCVC./r�./ r�`Ct/i. ��j�-C.'"Lr"i-/jJ ��
LCJ C-/r•' t 2�..� �«_!_�.� i�.!<,Cc('-• lam! -C.G"az_C, '�'_� 4�C
Q.
We
r O
j
,
i
I