HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 06/20/1989 w@ City of Kent
City
Council Meeting
@= Agenda
ff
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Jim White, President
Berne Biteman Steve Dowell
XX
Christi Houser Jon Johnson
Paul Mann Judy Woods
June 20, 1989
Office of the City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 20, 1989
Summary Agenda
�iw caA City of Kent Council Chambers
Office of the City Clerk 7 : 00 p.m.
NOTE: Items on the Consent Calendar are either routine or
have been previously discussed. Any item may be
removed by a Councilmember. The Council may add and
act upon other items not listed on this agenda.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Annual Reporting Award
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Mortensen Annexation
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
B. Bills
le. Voters Pamphlet Participation aog
,D. Cornucopia Days Permit - Resolution 1
,E. Investment of City Property Tax Receipts - Resolution laoR
.-F. Lake Fenwick Restoration Project
-G TIB - 84th Ave. So. - 180 to 192nd
3i. TIB - 104th & S .E. 256th
_ 1 . TIB - Central, Willis to Smith
-J. Property Exchange - Union Pacific Realty
�K. LID 330 - 64th Ave. S . - Interim Financing
�-L. Puget Power Agreement for Undergrounding - LID 331
IM. East Valley Zoning Implementation - Ord & Res d,g5o lalo
LID 330 - Segregation Authorization
�O. Banking Service Agreement
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
.K. Capital Improvement Program
Centennial Building Lease,
rBIDS
--A: Telescopic Aerial Manlift
--S. Television Datalog Unit & Power Transporter
5 .
C. LID 331 - (S .E . 240th)
6 . REPORTS
y CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT f(a t
AC-) (,u ll 5.l
Leu�nc,�l
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. Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Annual
Financial Reporting
^n� Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20, 1989
Category Public Hearing
1. SUBJECT: MORTENSEN ANNEXATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for a public
hearing on annexation of approximately nine (9) acres in the
vicinity of 98th Ave. So. and So. 218th. The City Clerk has
given the proper legal notification of this hearing. -Fh e-_
�Y1a�Or d o't G e[ +h P- p u b i c c, {') eri 4r i oq U p e n . i eke We' -
ct
po C �mrnrnts row i-N�e �,rcted ce aoev WHIr"E MCvic)
6�of �h� �i� � � , e C( r , ,�� br C1 sec( - JOhV)5c, 0 Seconc(�d
0 Vid f--61e An
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Diyector of Public Works
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL MPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NO Reco ended Not Recommended
r
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING: /
/
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING: tl,
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: J
Councilmember moved, w seconds
the City Attorney be authorized to prepare the ordinance
approving the Mortensen annexation of approximately nine (9)
acres in the vicinity of 98th Ave. So. and So. 218th St.
�}Jh+fie Secco � ed). -Dig, C-arfk'e-d .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 14, 1989
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Mortensen Annexation
This date has been set for the public hearing on the proposed
annexation of approximately 9 acres located in the vicinity of 98th
Avenue South and S. 218th Street.
In November, 1988, Council authorized staff to file a notice of
intent with the Boundary Review Board. We were notified that the
Boundary Review Board approved this annexation as of April 23 ,
1989 .
The existing use of the property is residential and the East Hill
Plan designates the subject property as single family, 4-6 dwelling
units per acre. There is an existing population of 8 single family
residences. The property is within the City's sewer franchise and
within the Soos Creek Sewer and Water District water service area.
Fire service is provided by Fire District 37 , police protection by
King County and is in the Kent School District. The 1988 King
County Tax Valuation is $892 , 100 ($250, 300 for land; $641, 800 for
improvements) .
The City Clerk has given the proper legal notification of this
hearing.
1��;6 1!III
i
I
}
Washington State Boundary Review Board
For King County
36001361h S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone (206) 296-7096
March 20, 1989
CITY OF KENT
.MAR 2 2 1989
ENGINEERING DEPT.
i
i
i TO: GARY GILL, CITY ENGINEER
CITY OF KENT
i FwArk. PAULA ANNE RUSSELL, Adm. Asst.
i IN RE: NOTIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FILING
FILE NO. 1584 CITY OF KENT
i Annexation
(Mortenson)
i The Notice of Intention transmitted to this office is now acceptable for filing
and has been filed effective March 91 1989 and assigned
File No. 1584 ,You will be kept advised of all transactions affecting this action.
As you are aware, a copy of your Notice was transmitted to the King County Council
by this office. This was under date of March 9, 1989
Any revisions to the legal description subsequent to that date must be incorporated
in your final ordinance/resolution filed with the King County Council.
PAR
CC: Clerk of the Council, ATTN: Helene Moclulski
Dept. of Public Works, ATTN: Rex Knight
Dept. of Assessments, ATTN: Diane Murdock
Mr. James C. Tracy, Manager, Building and Land Development
Ms. Dorothy Owens, Clerk of the Council
Ref. 9-26-88
Washington State Boundary Review Board
For King County
36(X) 13601 S.E., Suife 122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Telephone (206)296-709G
April 27, 1989
CITY OF KENT
TO: GARY GILL, CITY ENGINEER APR 2 8 1989
CITY OF KENT ENGINEERING DEPT.
FROM: G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary
IN RE: CLOSING LETTER
FILE NO. 1584 CITY OF KENT
Annexation
(Mortenson)
You have been advised that the above file was formally filed effective as of
March 9, 1989
The Board has received no request for review as specified in RCW 36.93. Therefore,
the 45-day filing period having now elapsed, this notice Is hereby deemed approved
as of April 23, 1989 . The proposal could be subject
to approval by the County Council. If there are changes by the Council, the
Board may be required to review the action at that time.
In order for the proposed action to be finalized, it is necessary that you complete
the other statutory requirements or procedures specified in your Notice of
Intention. Where required, please file one certified copy of your final resolution
or ordinance accomplishing this action with the Office of the Clerk of the Council,
Room 402 King County Courthouse, Seattle, Washington 98104, ATTN: Ms. Helene
Mociulski, together with a copy of this letter.
GBM/pr
CC: Office of the Clerk of the Council, ATTN: Helene Mociulski
Mr. James C. Tracy, Manager, Building and Land Development
K.C. Dept. of Public Works, ATTN: Rex Knight
K.C. Dept. of Assessments, ATTN: Diane Murdock
K.C. Dept. of Records and Elections
E-911 Program
Dorothy Owens, Clerk of the Council
Ref. 9-26-88
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:
-� 9; tuber
Councilmember_ move Co�1 i me !'
,,aeerfd-s- that Consent Calendar Items A through O be approved?
' Zj En� e�c e ' , tj l L�, �
Discussion �vS vey, veb
e Uaoc,I YY�emf�erS•
Action
USPr- SG'cunive
a,oa j'he Wc)-ho
Carded
3A. -pDA roval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
June 6, 1989.
v"3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through June 22 , 1989
r1nr�� after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
v 2 : 30 p.m. on June 30, 1989.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/1 - 6/13 80483 - 80506 $ 196, 817.41
6/14/89 80507 - 80927 1, 588 , 549 . 19
$1,785, 366. 60
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/05/89 120051 - 120723 $ 705, 327 . 01
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
June 6, 1989
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem White. Present: Councilmembers Biteman,
Dowell , Houser, Johnson, Mann, White and Woods, City Administrator
Chow, City Attorney Driscoll , Planning Director Harris and Public
Works Director Wickstrom. Also present: Fire Chief Angelo, Police
Chief Frederiksen, Information Services Director Spang and Assistant
City Administrator Hansen. Finance Director McCarthy was absent.
Approximately 40 people were at the meeting.
PRESENTATIONS Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem White
announced that Marty Mulholland of the Information
Services Department has been selected as the
Employee of the Month for June. White noted that
Ms. Mulholland is the computer support person
responsible for the development of new Hewlett
Packard systems. He commended her for her positive
attitude , infectious enthusiasm and dedication, and
presented her with the Employee of the Month plaque.
Herb Mutschler. Kind County Library System Week.
Mayor Pro Tem White read a proclamation declaring
the week of June 4 - 10, 1989 as Herb Mutschler
Week. White noted that Mr. Mutschler has served as
the Director of the King County Library System since
1963 , during which time 28 new King County Library
buildings were constructed. He stated that Mr.
Mutschler has been an integral part of the growth of
our library and a strong advocate and supporter of
the new Kent/King County Library due for completion
in 1990 . Members of the Kent Library Board also
expressed appreciation to Mr. Mutschler.
Flag Day. Mayor Pro Tem White read a proclamation
declaring June 14 , 1989 as Flag Day and urged all
citizens of Kent to pause at 7 : 00 p.m. EDT on this
date and recite with all Americans the Pledge of
Allegiance to our Flag and Nation.
Historical Preservation. Mayor Pro Tem White read a
proclamation declaring the week of June 11 through
17 as Historical Preservation Week in Kent. Linda
Van Nest, an activist in historical preservation,
accepted the proclamation.
1
June 6 , 1989
PRESENTATIONS Certification. The City Clerk noted that Brenda
Jacober, Deputy City Clerk for the City has- recently
completed courses at the University of Washington
qualifying her as a Certified Municipal Clerk.
Education, service and experience standards are set
by the International Institute of Municipal Clerks.
Certification recognizes the competency of Ms.
Jacober to serve in the professional capacity of
either City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk. Council
President White presented a plaque to Ms. Jacober
and congratulations were offered from all in
attendance.
CONSENT BITEMAN MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR 0 be approved. Item 3L was removed by Councilmember
Houser, Item 3P was removed by Councilmember Mann,
and Items 3R and 3S were removed by Councilmember
Dowell. Woods seconded and the motion carried.
Item 3Q was handled separately.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR 3A)
Approval of Minutes. Remove from the table and
approve the minutes of the May 2 meeting.
Approval of the minutes of the May 16 meeting.
HEALTH AND (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F)
SANITATION Water Main Extension. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of
sale and warranty agreement for the continuous
operation and maintenance of approximately 247 feet
of water main extension constructed in the vicinity
of 102nd Ave. S.E. and S.E. 268th Street and release
of cash bond.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G)
Bay Club Apartments. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale
and warranty agreement for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 1, 132 feet of water
main extension and 393 feet of sanitary sewer
extension constructed in the vicinity of 99th Ave.
south of the Bay Club Apartment project and release
of cash bond after expiration of the one year
maintenance period.
2
June 6, 1989
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H)
LID 327/328 Bus Pull Outs. AUTHORIZATION for the
Mayor to sign an agreement with Metro to participate
in the cost of constructing bus pull outs in
conjunction with the City' s West Valley Highway
improvement project, as approved by the Public Works
Committee.
Bids 1989 Asphalt Overlay. Bid opening was held May 31,
and two bids were received. The low bid was
submitted by M.A. Segale, Inc. in the amount of
$193., 275 . 80. The Public Works Director recommends
the low bid be accepted. JOHNSON MOVED that the bid
of $193 , 275 . 80 from M.A. Segale be accepted for the
1989 Asphalt Overlay. Biteman seconded and the
motion carried.
STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3M)
VACATION 3rd Avenue South. ADOPTION of Resolution 1206
setting July 5, 1989 for a public hearing on the
application for vacation of a portion of 3rd Ave.
So.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3N)
Glacier Park. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2847 approving
the Glacier Park Street vacation of a portion of
80th Avenue South. The public hearing was concluded
on February 21st and the conditions have now been
fulfilled.
TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K)
CONTROL Master Signal Control Computer. As recommended by
the Public Works Committee, AUTHORIZATION to pay
$21, 730. 15 in settlement of a claim on the sales tax
issue for the Master Signal Control Computer Project
and for funds to come from the Street Operating
Budget with the understanding that it is highly
probable said budget may be overrun by that amount.
ANNEXATION Hehr Annexation Zoning No AZ-89-1. This is the
ZONING first of two public hearings to consider the Hearing
Examiner' s recommendation of initial zoning of
R1-7 . 2 , single family residential for the Hehr
3
June 6, 1989
ANNEXATION Annexation area. The property is approximately 4 . 6
ZONING acres in size and is located on the west side of
116th Ave. S .E. approximately 150 feet south of
S . E. 227th Place. The second hearing will be held
on July 18 , 1989 . Mayor Pro Tem White declared the
public hearing open. There were no comments from
the audience, and WOODS MOVED to continue the public
hearing to July 18 , 1989 . Mann seconded and the
motion carried.
SUBDIVISION (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3S)
CODE REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL
Lot Line Adjustment. Ordinance 2849 has been
prepared amending the Kent City Code 12 . 04
(Subdivision Code) to incorporate administrative
procedure for lot line adjustment application
submittal and review, and to clarify the definition
of accumulative short subdivision.
It was determined that this issue had been approved
by the Planning Commission and that the Council had
approved it on November 15, 1988 and had ordered the
ordinance. At Mr. Morford' s request, the ordinance
was removed from the February 7 , 1989 Council
meeting agenda to allow time for Mr. Morford to
discuss his concerns with Mr. Satterstrom of the
Planning Department.
On April 4 , this item was referred to the Planning
Committee and the committee now recommends that the
ordinance be adopted.
Upon Dowell ' s question, Carol Proud of the Planning
Department noted that administrative guidelines were
needed for the application, submittal and review
processes. In response to Morford' s question about
a $25 fee, Proud explained that the Planning
Department did not charge but that a title company
charged a service fee of approximately $25 .
Upon questions from Biteman and Houser, Harris and
Proud explained that the lot line adjustment
4
June 6 , 1989
SUBDIVISION procedure had become complex and consistent
CODE procedure could be assured by having an ordinance to
cover it. It was determined that Larry Frazier of
Lot Line Master Builders had been consulted over the course
Adjustment of drafting this ordinance and that he had no
Ordinance problem with it. The City of Auburn has a similar
lot line adjustment ordinance in their code. WOODS
MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2849 and Mann seconded.
Morford objected, stating that the ordinance would
make the procedure rigid and difficult. He noted
that some title company fees were $350 and Proud
noted that transfer of title fees were $350 but the
service fee mentioned was only to verify title. She
noted that the form proposed would simplify the
process. Leona Orr noted that she had attended the
committee meeting and concluded that this procedure
could protect the small person. She pointed out
that Morford was the only one objecting.
Woods commended the staff for their work on this
project and noted to Morford that he had never been
denied access to speak at committee or council
meetings, whether or not items were listed on the
agenda. Houser suggested that a simple notarized
form might be used to establish ownership.
Mann concurred with Woods ' motion and comments and
suggested an amendment to guarantee that the fees
would not be up to $150 or more.
At Driscoll ' s suggestion, Mann changed the wording
to "should the fee be excessive, staff will bring
the ordinance back to the Council for
reconsideration" . This was accepted as a friendly
amendment.
Houser ' s motion to table failed for lack of a
second. Jim Orr stated that the City had an open
policy toward developers and that maybe it was time
to listen to staff. Biteman suggested that the
amendment did not change the requirement of
involving the title company and that he would prefer
5
June 6 , 1989
SUBDIVISION a shorter form of the ordinance. Upon a show of
CODE hands, the motion to adopt Ordinance 2849 as amended
carried with Woods, Johnson, Mann and White voting
Lot Line in favor and Dowell , Houser and Biteman voting
Adjustment against.
Ordinance
PRELIMINARY Eastwood Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-1. This
SUBDIVISION public meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner' s
recommendation of conditional approval of a 21 lot
single family residential subdivision submitted by
W. F. Holmberg. The property is 4 . 36 acres in size
and is located at 100th Ave. S .E. and S . E. 244th St.
Mary Duty of the Planning Department noted that all
lots meet or exceed the 7200 square feet lot size.
WOODS MOVED to adopt the findings of the Hearing
Examiner and to concur with the Hearing Examiner' s
recommendation of approval of Eastwood Preliminary
Subdivision No. SU-89-1 with five conditions as
clarified. Dowell seconded and the motion carried.
EAST VALLEY East Valley Zoning Implementation No. CPZ-89-1.
IMPLEMENTATION White noted that this item has been removed from the
agenda by Planning Director Harris. Harris noted
that a quorum was not present at the last Planning
Commission meeting, so no action had been taken on
this item. The Commission, consisting of nine
members, requires five members for a quorum. This
has become difficult since at present two
commissioner seats are vacant. White asked that
City Administrator Chow check into the possibility
of modifying Planning Commission rules regarding
quorum. Upon Dowell ' s question, Driscoll pointed
out that the Planning Commission must make certain
findings of fact before the necessary resolution and
ordinance come to the Council .
HOUSING AND (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I)
COMMUNITY Sidewalk Development Project. ACCEPTANCE as
DEVELOPMENT complete of the Juarez Construction contract for the
Housing and Community Development sidewalk
improvement project and release of retainage after
receipt of release from the state.
6
June 6 , 1989
REGIONAL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J)
WATER ASSOC. Regional Water Association. APPROVAL to prepare a
letter to the Regional Water Association naming the
Director of Public Works as the City ' s
representative and the Operations Manager as his
alternate, as recommended by the Public Works
Committee.
INITIATIVE AND (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3Q)
REFERENDUM Initiative and Referendum Powers. Ordinance 2848
adopting initiative and referendum powers for the
citizens of of the City of Kent has been prepared
and is presented for Council consideration. JOHNSON
MOVED TO ADOPT Ordinance 2848 . Houser seconded and
the motion carried.
CITY PROPERTY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3R)
Campbell Land Exchange - Ponssen House.
AUTHORIZATION for staff to pursue a land exchange
proposed by Larry Campbell, with conditions. Dowell
noted that his questions regarding this had been
answered at the Planning Committee meeting of this
date and MOVED to authorize staff to pursue a land
exchange proposed by Larry Campbell, with
conditions. Woods seconded. Dowell noted that
Council is not authorizing a purchase, but
recommending that discussions with Mr. Campbell be
pursued. Assistant City Administrator Hansen
clarified that should the land exchange occur, it
would have to be of equal value which would be
determined by two M.A. I . appraisals. He noted that
the City would select one of the appraisers, but
that the cost would be paid by Esquire Court Ltd.
He also stated that any and all other issues which
might arise will be worked out with the City
Attorney and any items not covered will come back to
Council . The motion carried.
FINANCE 1990 - 1994 Capital Improvement Program CIP . A
hearing has been scheduled for this meeting to
receive public input on the proposed CIP for
1990 - 1994 . It was noted that the City mailed out
7
June 6 , 1989
FINANCE questionnaires in the utility bills and 644 were
returned. Departments submitted their capital
Capital improvements requests in priority order, totaling
Improvement over $48 million dollars over five years. The
Plan results of the questionnaire and the projects listed
were presented in a Council workshop on May 2nd.
The Council gave direction at the workshop with
their own questionnaire. The IBC reviewed the
priorities and funding resources to create the
balanced CIP presented tonight.
John Marchione of the Finance Department presented
the CIP, a copy of which was included in the agenda
packet. The material includes the results of the
citizen and the Council questionnaires, the
Councilmanic debt schedule, and the recommendation
of the CIP Balancing Committee, based upon the
Council priorities and target issues, the citizen
survey, the department head priorities and the
revenue dedicated for this purpose.
The public hearing was declared open and Dee Eklund
noted that the Chamber of Commerce continues to
support transportation issues as its number one
priority. Maureen McNamara stated that arterials
leading to residential areas should not be
considered extensions of freeways. Dowell noted
McNamara 's concern especially regarding James Street
and noted that she was welcome to attend Public
Works Committee meetings. White noted that the
corridor project recommendation came after review by
the Green River Transportation Action Plan, that the
east/west traffic problem was critical and that the
City of Auburn was also involved. There were no
further comments from the audience, and JOHNSON
MOVED to close the hearing. Woods seconded and the
motion carried. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt the
1990 - 1994 CIP Plan as presented and Biteman
seconded.
Dowell objected to the fact that the Parks
Department had no CIP fund allocation for 1990 and
pointed out that Kent Parks Department was rated the
8
June 6, 1989
FINANCE best in the nation for a city this size. Upon his
question, Chow identified the members of the
Capital Internal Budget Committee and it was noted that the
Improvement same group comprised the CIP committee.
Plan
Dowell asked if the furniture allocation of $250 , 000
was time sensitive for 1990. Hansen explained that
the furniture figure was conservative and covered
three departments - Public Works, Planning and Code
Enforcement. He further noted that these furniture
expenditures would come back to the Council after
having been to committee.
Hansen noted further that the committee had been
charged with addressing immediate needs first, and
pointed out that the City was carrying considerable
debt related to previous park projects. Marchione
noted that the proposed county open-space bond issue
includes $3 . 7 million for Kent, and that Kent
supports the County' s acquisition of Clark Lake.
Woods also expressed concern about the lack of
allocation of funds for parks . She noted that parks
were especially needed on East Hill . Biteman
concurred that individual communities need to have
their park needs considered. White noted that the
Council was facing tough times and priorities had to
be set. WOODS MOVED to table the item for two weeks
and Dowell seconded. Motion carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills
received through June 7 , 1989 after auditing by the
Operations Committee at its meeting at 2 : 30 p.m. on
June 15, 1989 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
5/12 79481 - 79483 $ 996 . 61
5/15 - 5/30 79884 - 79913 206 , 803 . 54
5/31/89 79914 - 80482 541 , 495 . 64
$749 295 . 79
9
June 6 , 1989
FINANCE Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
5/22/89 119366 - 120049 $211, 598 . 76
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L)
REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER HOUSER
Printing Graphics Equipment. AUTHORIZATION to use
$55 , 505 of Central Services fund balance of $107 , 479
to acquire a new press, plate maker and graphics
work station. These pieces of equipment will save
City expenditures in the long run by making printing
and graphics equipment more efficient, will allow
the City to do printing that is now done outside and
will allow each graphic artist her own machine,
eliminating unproductive time.
HOUSER MOVED that this item be referred to the
Operations Committee to be reconsidered June 30.
Johnson seconded. White noted for Dowell that the
department head has recommended this action. The
motion then carried. A letter from the Chamber of
Commerce relating to this subject has been filed.
LIBRARY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3P)
Library Design. Approval has been requested of the
latest design/development plan for the new library
as recommended by the Operations Committee on May
15 . Mann requested that more information be given.
Jim Hansen noted that Pat Shelby was the project
architect for Henry Klein Associates. Hansen
displayed the drawings showing elevations, parking
areas and traffic patterns as well as the inside
design. Hansen described the skylights and the
curved walls and a berm which will deflect the noise
from traffic and from the railroad. Biteman
expressed concern that the parking for the library
might act as a barrier to parking for Kaibara Park.
Hansen noted that the landscape design would take
this into consideration. Dowell questioned the
severity of the spike-like look of the roof and Herb
Mutschler commented that the architect had noted
that this will be brought down some to relieve the
stark look.
10
June 6, 1989
LIBRARY It was noted that the Kent Library Board and the
King County Library Board have already approved the
plans. Hansen explained that last December the
Council had approved plans very similar to these.
It was determined that the contract did not include
a model of the building. Upon questions about
parking, Hansen clarified that the municipal parking
lot was not a part of this project. The library
project provides for 124 parking stalls and this
will be carefully considered during the permit
process. MANN MOVED to approve the latest
design/development plans for the new library as
recommended by the Operations committee on May 15
with special consideration of the concerns expressed
at this meeting. Biteman seconded and the motion
carried.
POLICE DEPT. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C)
Drinking Driver Task Force. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of a
donation of $200 from the Kent Valley Youth Services
to the Task Force.
FIRE DEPT. Remodel of Station 71. Bids were received on
Bids Friday, June 2 . Chief Angelo stated that the two
bidders who bid low enough to be within the budget
with a reasonable contingency; are Logan
Construction of Kent and C.E. Skinner Construction.
He pointed out that Logan Construction may not
desire to enter into a contract, as he may have left
some items off his bid. He stated that the bid
should be awarded as soon as possible and asked that
it be awarded to the low bidder who is willing to
enter into a contract. He said that the other bids
were over the budget and noted that if Logan chooses
not to execute a contract, the bid bond situation
would be worked out with the Attorney. BITEMAN
MOVED for approval for the fire department to enter
into contractual agreement with the low bidder who
is willing to enter into a contract, as long as the
amount of the base bid does not exceed $737 , 684 . 13
which includes sales tax for the remodel/
construction of Station 71. Houser seconded and the
motion carried.
11
June 6 , 1989
FIRE DEPT. North End Station. Biteman noted that the
dedication ceremony for the North End Fire Station•
has been postponed because construction is not
complete. Angelo stated that it will be rescheduled
for mid-July.
West Hill Station. Biteman noted that citizens had
expressed some safety concerns at the ground
breaking for the West Hill Station. Angelo noted
that fencing curbing. and a built-in protection
screen were alternate bids to be considered later.
The Planning Department urges that the curbing be
added and the safety factor would indicate that the
fencing should be added to the project. These items
would cost an additional $19 , 614 .75 including tax
and could be taken from the existing contingency,
depleting it by only 2% , leaving a 4% contingency.
BITEMAN MOVED to add Alternates #41 6, and 9 as
described above to the Kosmo contract, at a cost of
$19 , 614 .75 . Mann seconded and the motion carried.
PARKS DEPT. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 30)
City Art Plan. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1207
amending the guidelines for development and
implementation of the City Art Plan.
Special Populations Resource Center Kitchen
Renovation. Bids were opened on Friday, June 2 , for
work associated with the kitchen renovation at the
Special Populations Resource Center. Dowell noted
that the bids had come in over budget, and asked
that this item be pulled from the agenda to be
discussed at a later time. There were no objections
and it was so ordered.
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D)
Saturday Market Advisory Board. CONFIRMATION of the
Mayor ' s appointment of Judie Sarff to the Saturday
Market Advisory Board replacing Janette Nuss. The
appointment will be effective immediately and
continue through October 1990 .
12
June 6, 1989
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E)
Library Board. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s
appointment of Ted Ripley to replace Morgan
Llewellyn. The appointment will become effective
immediately and will be continued until December 31,
1992 .
REPORTS Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the Parks
Committee will meet at 3 : 30 p.m. on Wednesday, June
21st.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
�z� \
Marie Jens6n-r-�CMC
City Clerk
13
.. .............
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20, 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: VOTERS PAMPHLET PARTICIPATION .
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the City to participate
in King County's regional voters pamphlet for the November 1989
election. Kent candidates and issues will be included in South
King County pamphlet along with Federal, State and County
candidates and issues.
i
3 . EXHIBITS• None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL'NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUUED: approximately $500
SOURCE OF FUNDS: audaeted item
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
Oil Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20 , 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CORNUCOPIA DAYS
cf
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt�Oil
Resolution No. ��.® establishing
a street use permit for the 1989 Cornucopia Days. The permit
would be for July 13 , 1989 through July 16, 1989.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4. RECOMMENDED BY: June 15, 1989, Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCWPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
RESOLUTION NO.
AN RESOLUTION of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to Kent Cornucopia Days;
granting a street use permit• to Kent Lions Club
for a public festival; specifying terms and
conditions for such street use.
WHEREAS, Kent Cornucopia Days has been an annual festival
celebrating the heritage of the Kent community; and
WHEREAS, the Cornucopia Days festival continues to grow
in size annually; and
WHEREAS, Cornucopia Days is a result of the efforts of a
number of private volunteers, citizens, civic groups, and
nonprofit organizations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent is not the sponsor nor operator
of the Kent Cornucopia Days festival; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to clarify the rights,
responsibilities and relationships of those parties involved in
the Kent Cornucopia Days' activities; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A street use permit is hereby authorized from
Thursday, July 13, 9:00 p.m. until Sunday, July 16, 11:00 p.m. for
the following described public areas and right-of-ways:
(A) Meeker Street from 6th Avenue to Railroad Avenue
(4th Avenue to remain open) ,
(B) 2nd Avenue from Meeker Street to Gowe Street,
(C) lst Avenue from Smith Street to Titus Street (Gowe
Street to remain open) ,
(D) 2nd Avenue from Gowe Street to Titus Street,
(E) 2nd Avenue from Meeker Street to Smith Street for
the purposes of Saturday Market.
(F) Municipal parking lot between Smith and Harrison and
2nd and 4th Avenues; provided, however, that such closure shall be
for the purposes of Cornucopia Carnival from 6:00 a.m. , Sunday,
July 9, 1989 through 2:00 p.m. , Monday, July 17, 1989.
(G) 4th Avenue from James Street (240th Avenue S.E.) to
Saar Street for parade and parade assembly; and the two eastbound
lanes of James Street from 1st Avenue to 4th Avenue; and First
Avenue from Smith Street to James Street; provided, however, that
such closure shall be for the purposes of the Cornucopia Parade on
Sunday, July 16, 1989 from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
Section 2. The street use permit provided in Section 1
above is granted to the Kent Lions Club (hereinafter referred to
as the "User") . By this permit, the User is authorized to conduct
a public festival on said public property and right-of-way, to
erect booths, conduct lawful and licensed games, provide
entertainment, operate or authorize food and beverage services,
and conduct such other activities consistent with a public
festival.
Section 3. The permit granted hereby is conditioned upon
User's satisfaction of the following conditions:
3.1. LICENSES AND TAXES. The User shall be liable for,
and shall pay throughout the term of this use, all license and
fees covering the business and activities conducted on the
premises, and all unemployment insurance, social security,
workers' compensation and other obligations applicable to its
activities, and otherwise fulfill all fiscal obligations imposed
by law or contract.
3.2. UTILITIES. The User, at the User's sole expense,
shall provide, or shall otherwise pay for, when due, all costs for
providing all utilities and other services and installation
occasioned by the User's requirements. The City shall not be
liable for any injury, loss or damage caused by the resultant from
any interruption or failure of utility services due to any causes
whatsoever, except the City's sole negligence.
3_3. LIABILITY.
3.3.1. Indemnification: The User shall indemnify
and hold the City harmless from any and all claims, actions,
and/or judgments whatsoever arising out of the use and occupation
of said public property and right-of-way including claims arising
2 -
by reason of accident, injury or death caused to persons or
property of any kind unless caused by the City's sole negligence.
3.3.2. Assumption of Risk: The placement and
storage of personal property on said public right-of-way shall be
the responsibility, and at the sole risk, of the User.
3.3.3. Insurance: During the term of this permit
and any extension thereof, the User shall secure and maintain a
policy of standard form comprehensive general liability insurance
with an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of
Washington, providing protection and indemnification against any
and all claims for injury to person or property or for loss of
life, including the liability of the City for such to the User and
any of the User's officers, employees and agents, and any
liability of the User as such to the City, its officers, employees
and agents, arising out of or in connection with the occupancy and
use of the public right-of-way as well as any and all claims and
risks in connection with any acts or omissions performed by User
by virtue of the rights granted pursuant to this permit. Said
policy limits shall be in the amount of one million dollars
($1,000,000) for injury to or loss of life of, any individual
person; in the aggregate for personal injuries suffered in each
occurrence; and for property damage suffered in each occurrence.
Said policy must specifically name The City of Kent, its officers,
employees and elected officials as additional insured parties
thereunder and must stipulate that the coverages provided by said
policy shall not be terminated, reduced, or otherwise changed in
any respect without providing at least thirty (30) days prior
written notice to The City of Kent. Notwithstanding any provision
herein to the contrary, the failure of the User to comply with the
provision of this section shall subject this Street Use Permit to
immediate termination without notice and without recourse by any
person in order to protect the public interest.
3.3.4. Adjustments of Claims: The User shall
provide for the prompt and efficient handling of all claims for
bodily injury, property damage or theft arising out of the
activities of the User under this permit. The User agrees that
all such claims, whether processed by the User or User's insurer,
either directly or by means of an agent, will be handled by a
person with a permanent office in the Kent-Seattle area.
3 -
3.4. USE AND CARE OF PREMISES.
3.4.1. General Condition: The premises shall at
all times be kept in a neat, clean, safe and sanitary condition,and kept and used in accordance with the laws of the State of
Washington and ordinances of The City of Kent, and in accordance
with all authorized rules and regulations of the King County
Health Department, Kent Fire Marshal, Kent Building Inspector, and
other proper officers of The City of Kent, at the sole cost and
expense of the User. The User shall not permit any waste, damage,
or injury to the public property or right-of-way; shall not permit
any objectionable noise or odor to escape or to be admitted from
said public areas or permit anything to be done upon said premises
that in any way will create a nuisance.
3.4.2. Alterations: The User shall not make, or
cause to be made, any alteration, addition or improvement in said
public right-of-way other than those authorized above without
first obtaining the written consent of the City for such work.
3.4.3. Access: The City reserves for itself, its
officers, employees, agents and contractors, free access to said
premises at all reasonable times for the purposes of emergency
response and other public safety demands, in cleaning, or
other City responsibilities.
3.5. NON DISCRIMINATION. The User shall comply with all
federal, state and local laws and ordinances prohibiting
discrimination in employment or public accommodation with regard
to age, sex, race, color, creed, national origin, or physical or
mental handicap.
3.6. RELATIONSHIP. In no event shall the City be
construed, or held to have become in any way or for any purpose a
partner, associate, or joint venturer of the User or any party
associated with the User in the conduct of the User's activities
relating to Cornucopia Days. This permit does not constitute the
User the agent or legal representative of the City for any purpose
whatsoever.
3.7. AMENDMENTS. The City expressly reserve the right
to amend the terms of this permit from time to time as may be
necessary to preserve the public health, safety and welfare.
Provided, however, that no amendment, alternation or modification
of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be valid and
binding unless made in writing to the User within fourteen (14)
- 4 -
days of the effective date of said amendment, alternation or
modification.
3.8. NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The City does not waive full
compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit by
acceptance of the permit fees. No waiver of default by the City
of any of the terms, covenants and conditions hereof to be
performed, kept and observed by the User shall be construed as, or
operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the
terms, covenants and conditions herein contained, to be performed,
kept and observed by the other party.
3.9. SURRENDER OF PREMISES. At the expiration or
termination of this permit, including any extensions thereof,
whichever is earlier, the User shall quit and surrender said
premises, without notice and in as good condition as received at
commencement of the term, ordinary wear and tear uncontrollable by
the User excepted.
3.10. ADJUDICATION.
3.10.1. Jurisdiction: This street use permit shall
be construed under all the applicable laws, statutes, ordinances,
rules and regulations of the United States, State of Washington,
County of King and the City of Kent in case of a dispute between
the parties.
3.10.2. Costs and Attorney Fees: If, by reason of
any default or breach on the part of the User in the performance
of any of the provisions of this permit, a legal action is
instituted, the User agrees to pay all reasonable costs and
attorney fees in connection therewith. In the event of any legal
action brought under the terms of this permit may be in King
County, Washington.
3.11. The User shall not interfere with the City's
maintenance and use of the right-of-way, or the operation of the
Kent Saturday Market or other licensed businesses and premises.
The User shall also be responsible for obtaining necessary permits
for use of property administered by the Department of Parks and
Recreation.
3.12. The City of Kent, its agents and employees, will
perform no maintenance, repair work of any kind on User's
installations, equipment, or appurtenances without first obtaining
- 5 -
permission from the User. Provided, however, the City may perform
such maintenance, repair or work in an emergency.
3.13. INVALIDITY OF PROVISIONS. Should any term,
provision, condition or other portion of this permit be held to be
inoperative, invalid or void, the same shall not affect any other
term, provision, condition or other portion of this permit; and
the remainder of this permit shall be effective as if such term,
provision, condition or portion had not been contained herein.
Section 4. FEES AND CHARGES
4_1. FEE. The fee for the above identified permit shall
be twenty-five dollars ($25.00) payable in advance to the City
Treasurer at Kent City Hall, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent,
Washington 98032-5895 on or before July 6, 1989, plus five percent
of gross receipts from street fair booth sales, not to exceed five
hundred dollars ($500.00) payable to the City Treasurer on or
before September 22, 1989.
". AUDIT. The User shall permit the City, as City
deems necessary, to inspect and audit in Kent, Washington at any
and all reasonable times, all pertinent books and records of the
User and any subcontractors or other person or entity that is in
connection with, or related to the User under this permit to
verify the accuracy of accounting records, including trust
accounts if any; and shall supply City with, or shall permit the
City to make, a copy of any books and records and any portion
thereof, upon the City's request.
4.3. The User shall have the right to charge user fees
or festival permits for the areas described in Section 1, above.
The User shall also be granted the authority to charge user fees
or festival permits to street vendors and merchants within two
blocks of the area described in section 1 above. The User's right
to charge festival permit and user fees shall extend only for the
term of this street use permit, and shall not apply to merchants
and businesses with current business licenses within the areas
designated herein.
Section 5. An authorized representative of user shall
execute an agreement with the City confirming acceptance of the
conditions herein. The Mayor is authorized to execute said
agreement and such other documents necessary to the administration
of this ordinance.
- 6 -
Section 6. Two hour parking restrictions as provided in
Chapter 10.06 Kent City Code are eliminated during the period of
Cornucopia Days, and shall not be enforced during said period.
Section 7. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1989.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of , 1989.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the day of , 1989.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
7370-260
- 7 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20. 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: INVESTMENT OF CITY PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS6 - W:LdT1-CN-
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt!oResolution No. �� �r' relating to
the investment of City property tax receipts in the custody of
the County Finance Manager.
roc � � � C� �i(,S
� ci,�itit S Ct� ��t� i � S
-�f i VVl t"\ mac__
C J S N i h t.' Y1 3
4 1C1+ t 1/-k i s L L 4 5 r
�N\(�' A A L I f
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: June 15 1989 Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agend
Item No. 3E
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, relating to the
investment of city property tax receipts in
custody of King County finance manager.
WHEREAS, as required by state law, the King County
Finance Manager collects property taxes for and on behalf of the
City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.29.020 provides that the City Council may
authorize and direct the King County Finance Manager to invest
property tax receipts which are collected prior to the
disbursement of such receipts to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has directed such investment
and the State Court of Appeals has upheld the City's right to earn
interest on money invested; and
WHEREAS, the King County Finance Manager has proposed the
automatic investment of city tax receipts in a manner set forth in
a letter dated April 21, 1989, a copy of which is attached as
_. Exhibit A and to make a lump sum payment retroactive to October
24, 1988; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of
the City of Kent that city tax receipts in the custody of the King
County Finance Manager be invested in the manner proposed; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The King County Finance Manger is authorized
and directed to invest tax receipts in the manner proposed in the
letter attached as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The City shall accept a lump sum payment
calculated according to the system proposed by the King County
Finance Manager, retroactive to October 24, 1988, in complete
satisfaction for all past claims for earnings on City tax receipts.
Section 3. The City agrees to hold King County, its
Finance Manger, and other officers and employees harmless from
claims for damages or loss of funds resulting from investments
made in accordance with the system proposed by the King County
Finance Manager pursuant to the standard set out 1i_n{RCW 39.58.140.
RESOLVED this day of \ 1989.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1989.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1989.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the day of 1989.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
7350-260
2 -
Exhibit A
King COuniy
Fin.ince Divis1O11
n Fnce of
Financial Management
600 King Counly Administration Building
500 Fourth Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98104
April 21, 1989
FINANCE MANAGER
City of Kent
220 South 4th ��iZ
Kent, WA 98032
n Ucirn8.
Dear City Finance Officer: Ll� Y
As you may know, the State Court of Appeals issued a decision last fall
regarding interest earnings on property tax receipts. That case,
Seattle, et al vs. King County, et al , has now become final . The general effect
of this decision is that cities now have the right to earn interest on taxes
collected for them by the County up to the date the taxes are disbursed. The
purpose of this letter is to explain the way in which we intend to implement
this decision.
1. Automatic Investment Earnings - In order to realize the greatest overall
return and to minimize administrative burdens for all of us, we will combine
all city tax receipts for investment with other residual County cash. We
will then provide an automatic prorata distribution of the earnings to each
fund at month end. In addition to increasing our mutual investment power,
this will eliminate the need for you to give, and for us to receive,
individualized investment directions.
The formula by which earnings will be prorated is complex, but fair. It
duplicates the formula agreed to between Seattle and the County for purposes
of the litigation (see enclosure) . You should contact Garry Holmes of this
office at 296-7333 if you would like a detailed explanation of the formula.
2. Investment Service Fee - The County will charge and deduct an investment
service fee for all investments made pursuant to this letter as provided in
RCW 36.29.020. This fee is 5 percent of the earnings up to a maximum fee of
$50 per year for each transaction for each city. For purposes of computing
the fee, all collections, deposits and investments for each city on a given
day will be considered a single transaction.
3. Retroactive Earnings - Subject to and upon receipt of appropriation
authority from the County Council , we will make a lump sum retroactive
payment to all cities which have elected to participate in this system. The
payment will represent the earnings which would have accrued under the
formula between October 24, 1988 (the date of the court decision) , and the
date the new automatic system is fully implemented. Retroactive payments
will be made only to those cities from which a resolution as described below
has been received .
City Finance Officer
April 21, 1989
Page 2
4. Resolutions - Each city wishing to participate in the system described above
must adopt a resolution which:
1. References and adopts the terms of this letter,
2. Directs investment according to the terms of the letter,
3. Accepts the lump sum payment in satisfaction of all claims for earnings
on tax receipts.
4. Expressly holds the County harmless from any damage or loss of funds
resulting from investments made pursuant to this letter.
I have enclosed a draft resolution for your consideration which contains the
elements required. Cities which have previously adopted resolutions which do
not contain the above elements must submit either a new or an amended resolution
containing the required elements.
The effective date for beginning the interest earnings calculation will be
October 24, 1988 for those cities from which we have received a resolution by
June 30, 1989 . Resolutions received after June 30, 1989 will be effective on
the date received.
I believe the system described above will work smoothly and fairly, although I
anticipate there will be some period of adjustment necessary. If you have any
questions on how the system will operate, please contact Scott Matheson, Cash
Management Supervisor, at 296-7310 or me at 296-7326.
Sincerely,
D. Lee Dedrick
Finance Manager
DLD:ja
Enclosures
r • w w w w w w w w m51 w 9 w
O o o ee
N r �i P ti Q O 6 s
T -CL m S s Y M ~ P O m m0
m � C
S O c 6 o O O
O
C ry O :- ^ m N O O •
N
J >O S J J N < d
J F e
O r C b O J O r
p N O • d e K ^ r--.
O v m + O Z
r i n
J O
N P ti
m Z
N N O m
O ^ ~
O O
y T m
O O O
U N A D
rlr N A
O
O
2
O
Il O fl O
^ m J O
O
v ^ v m P P a
N 9 A N P O N K
O
Z t d c
C O < 4
y0i O O O N yr O O O O O Vr O m
R
lf•r u 4 ^ w O j � O
t
^ T 4 P�
rr rr rr N m rr r� r• m rr ��
M M N Gn O P
r
m m o u
April 20, 1989
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
1 City of
Washington relating to the investment of
2 city property tax receipts in custody of
the county finance manager.
3
4 WHEREAS, as required by state law, the King County Finance Manager
5 collects property taxes for and on behalf of the City of
6 and
7 WHEREAS, RCW 36.29.020 provides that the City Council may authorize and
8 direct the King County Finance Manager to invest property tax receipts
9 which are collected prior to the disbursement of such receipts to the city,
10 and
11 WHEREAS, the King County Finance Manager has proposed the automatic
12 investment of city tax receipts in a manner set forth in a letter dated
13 April 21, 1989, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A and to make a lump
14 sum payment retroactive to October 24, 1988, and
15 WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of the city of
16 that city tax receipts in the custody of the King
17 County Finance Manager be invested in the manner he has proposed;
18 NOW, THEREFORE,
19 The city council of the city of Washington,
20 hereby resolves as follows:
21 Section 1. The King County Finance Manager is authorized and directed
22 to invest tax receipts in the manner proposed in the letter dated
23 , a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.
24 Section 2. The city shall accept a lump sum payment calculated
25 according to the system proposed by the King County Finance Manager,
26 retroactive to October 24, 1988, in complete satisfaction for all past
27 claims for earnings on city tax receipts.
28 Section 3. The city agrees to hold King County, its Finance Manager,
29 and other officers and employees harmless from any claims for damages or
30 loss of funds resulting from investments made in accordance with the system
31 proposed by the King County Finance Manager
32 RESOLVED this day of 1989.
33 CITY OF
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20, 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LAKE FENWICK RESTORATION PROJECT,
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to establish a budget of
$65, 000 and transfer of funds from the unencumbered sewer funds
to the Lake Fenwick Restoration Project.
3. EXHIBITS: Copy of Internal Budget Committee's information and
excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONUL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $65 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Unencumbered Sewer Fund
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JUNE 13, 1989
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON MARTY NIZLEK
BERNE BITEMAN FRED SATTERSTROM
JUDY WOODS TERRY MCALEER
DON WICKSTROM MAY MILLER
BILL WILLIAMSON LYLE PRICE
GARY GILL JOHN MARCHIONE
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORS
South King County Area Transportation Benefit District
Wickstrom explained the agreement related to the City's
participation in the development of a financial plan for formation
of a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) . Participating agencies
include Auburn, Renton, Tukwila, Kent, and King County. The
Committee unanimously approved participation and authorization for
the Mayor to sign the Agreement.
Lake Fenwick Restoration - Allocation of Funds
Wickstrom explained this project is one for which we have received
Centennial Clean Water grant funds. The total project cost is
about $240, 875; $65, 000 of that would come from the drainage
utility funds with the remainder of the project supported from the
grant. The project will enhance the water quality in Lake Fenwick
and will be managed by the Parks Department. Wickstrom requested
the $65, 000 be transferred from the unencumbered drainage utility
funds for this project. The Committee unanimously approved.
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Prospectus
Wickstrom stated that TIB (formerly Urban Arterial Board) has a
final allocation of $15 million for projects statewide. Kent has
received grant offers from them for three projects:
1) 84th Avenue (180th to 192nd) to widen to a 5-lane facility. The
project will be about $2 .9 million and TIB has offered a grant of
$900, 000. Kent's matching funds would come from the drainage
utility and formation of an L.I .D.
2) 256th & 104th Intersection Improvements - The project would
construct a dedicated double southbound left turn lane plus a
westbound right turn lane from 256th to go north on 104th and a
northbound right turn lane from 104th Avenue to go east on SR 516.
The project cost would be approximately $400, 000. TIB has offered
City of Kent, Washington Kent City Council Meeting
Date: June 1 1989
Category
SUBJECT: Lake Fenwick Restoration
SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to establish a budget of $65, 000
and transfer funds from the unencumbered sewer funds to the Lake
Fenwick Restoration project to provide for City' s share of project
funding.
EXHIBITS: Application for Federal Assistance
RFECOMMENDED BY:
NO X YES
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL 2 x Not Recommended
y AL:D�'DONNE � NOTE: Recommended�
The CIP
50 000 is scheduled for the IQQn Draina e Uti;us an it Paddition
8r t w, i be moved up one year to 198511, ves The ltsc
S 5 000 will_ be used from_ unencumbered
ecommends moving the p oiect to 1989 and using reserves for the
remaining S15 000.
EXPE ^TTURE REQUIRED: $65, 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS• Unencumbered Sewer Funds
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
moves Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 21 1989
TO: ED CHOW
FROM: DON WICKSTRO11
RE: LAKE FENWICK RESTORATION PROJECT
Attached is a copy of the Committee Agenda Item sheet and Fiscal
Analysis sheet for the Lake Fenwick Restoration project.
$50, 000 was requested in the 1990 CIP for this project; however,
due to the reduced contribution from the State Department of
c will be required -to contribute an additional
Ecology, the ity
Ec5,ogy, The total funding is needed at this time and thus, if the
this time the 1990 cIP request can be
$65, 000 is approved at
removed .
you have any additional questions.
Please let me know if
cc: Helen Wickstrom
�i
City of Kent, Washington
Fiscal Analysis Sheet
Fund:nrai_ n___ aa?—
Denart t:public Works
Eggpo.osall Title (Ob�ecti
..e anA Cost) : Cost• $6_ 5� 00O
City Funding Participation for Lake Fenwick Restoration
Proposal Do��ription:_
tY of Lake
Fenwick by
This project will improve
welleas enhance fishhabit t and fishery
improving water thus
clarity
swimming and fishing uses of the
opportunities; thus p
Lake.
..a ..�...i vrinritieS:
Egiationship to Cc ; � Taraet Issues and opera on
This project will protect our investment
i n the open natural and resource
in accordance with City goals to provide
park
facilities to the Citizens of Kent.
Fiscal Impact•
The total cost of the project is $240, 875 . This cost includes
estimated restoration costs of $234 ,500 as well as consultant grant
negotiation and miscellaneous administrative costs of $6, 375.73$)
EPA and State Department of Ecology are providing $175, 875
of the funding, requiring the City to provide $65, 000 (27%) .
The request will have no impact on the General fund since all fundto
s
will be provided from the Unencumbered sewer e ted fromevenues the Sewer
support the Unencumbered sewer funds are g
and Drainage Utilities.
i
O tions and Alternatives:
P
roject a
Not proceed with the t this time and risk loosing 73% of
the project funding
Kent City Council Meeting
" Date June 20, 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: TIB-84TH AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (180th TO 192ND),
2 . As recommended by the Public Workp.-'
c Commit ,tee uthorization for the Mayor to sign the
Transportation Improvement Board prospectus for grant funding
for this projects
3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of the IBC informatio and excerpt from the
Public Works Committee minutes //
i ,
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff I
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, t, ommission, etc. )
1
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNE IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Rec mmended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
t
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
i
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JUNE 13, 1989
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON MARTY NIZLEK
BERNE BITEMAN FRED SATTERSTROM
JUDY WOODS TERRY MCALEER
DON WICKSTROM MAY MILLER
BILL WILLIAMSON LYLE PRICE
GARY GILL JOHN MARCHIONE
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORS
South Kincl. County Area Transportation Benefit District
Wickstrom explained the agreement related to the City' s
participation in the development of a financial plan for formation
of a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) . Participating agencies
include Auburn, Renton, Tukwila, Kent, and King County. The
Committee unanimously approved participation and authorization for
the Mayor to sign the Agreement.
Lake Fenwick Restoration - Allocation of Funds
Wickstrom explained this project is one for which we have received
Centennial Clean Water grant funds. The total project cost is
about $240,875 ; $65, 000 of that would come from the drainage
utility funds with the remainder of the project supported from the
grant. The project will enhance the water quality in Lake Fenwick
and will be managed by the Parks Department. Wickstrom requested
the $65, 000 be transferred from the unencumbered drainage utility
funds for this project. The Committee unanimously approved.
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Prospectus
Wickstrom stated that TIB (formerly Urban Arterial Board) has a
final allocation of $15 million for projects statewide. Kent has
received grant offers from them for three projects:
1) 84th Avenue (180th to 192nd) to widen to a 5-lane facility. The
project will be about $2 .9 million and TIB has offered a grant of
$900, 000. Kent' s matching funds would come from the drainage
utility and formation of an L.I.D.
2) 256th & 104th Intersection Improvements - The project would
construct a dedicated double southbound left turn lane plus a
westbound right turn lane from 256th to go north on 104th and a
northbound right turn lane from 104th Avenue to go east on SR 516.
The project cost would be approximately $4001000. TIB has offered
City of Kent, Washington Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT:
TRANSPORTATION PROSPECTUS
T SI
IMPROVEMENT
AVENUE BOARD SOTH TO 192ND AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: TIg has requested the
The Transportation Improvement Board 1989 �prospectus on this
City prepare and submit by July 3
project. The project has been included in our Six Year TIP.
and will construct a five lane section with drainage,
landscaping, underground
sidewalks, curb & gutter, lighting, There is adequate
utilities, bridge improvements and signing.
support for formation of an L.I.D. through L.I•o tau ing the
This project was one which received citizen supp
CIP meetings.
Total Estimated Project cost _ $2 ,900, 000 $ 900, 000
TIB Grant $ 350, 000
Drainage Utility Participation $1, 650, 000
LID
3 . EXHIBITS.
tation Improvement Board and TIP
Copy of letter from Transpor
material.
4 vs r n�rrrtFNDED BY
Don Wickstrom
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X
YES
Not Recommended_
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE_: Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $LIOD00, 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Councilmember
moves, Councilmember seconds
that staff be authorized to re are the ros ectus for the
84th Avenue 180th Street to 192nd Street.)ro ' ect as
described a d the Ma or be authorized to si n same.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
_ State of Washington
rill,
Transportation Imp_ roTransporvement Board
01yinpa, Wan Building 504
Otympia, Washington 98504
(206)753-7198 SCAN 234-7198
May 26, 1989
Mr. Don Wickstrom, PE
Public Works Director
City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue south
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Proposed Trans. Improvement Project
Project No- 8-1-1O64th) Ave
East Valley Hwy / 8
18Oth St to 192nd St
City of Kent
Dear Mr. Wickstrom: lye 1989
The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Kent
its May
of Kent to request Urban
meeting took action that allows the cityrovement of the subject
UATF) for the imp ram,
Arterial Trust Funds ( our Six-Year Construction program,
project as outlined in y
Supplemental Section.
The Board adopted rules in 1987 that revise the Novemcopiesber 9of
edition i the
rulesGuide-lines
revised Urban
sampleeprospectusrial amare attached
the revsed
for your review.
scribe the process thst ,will be ured or
quir
The revised rules de study ed
implementing value engineering (VE) . A VE udy will be e
cost is over $1, 0001000 .
on this project since the total project must be done prior to
In accordance with the rule, the VE study If the project is
TIB funding for the Preliminary Phase.
approved for TIB funding, the expenses incurred fpro tostudy
and the preliminary design necessary to bring the j
30% designed stage will be reimbursable.
base of the project being considered for funding
The first P engineering, right of way appraisals, right
preliminary act analysis. only these
includes p under the
of way acquisition and enviibleenfor impact
activities will be eligible
preliminary phase authorization.
i
i
Mr. Don Wickstrom, PE
May, 26 , 1989
Page 2
fired on the type of
A detailed explanation wllro ect.be reExplain in detail how the
improvement Proposed for the p 7 s eed an
project will a d pavement condition
lleviate the operating P In preparing
ou will be completing a revised project
deficiencies identified as the selection criteria.
the attached prospectus y requested
estimate. This is used to determine the amount of funds to e
programmed for this project. The total amount of UATF req
Construction Program was $900, 000.
in your Six-Year project
request prospectuses for more
The Board has estimated the available revenue for new
starts. They have decided to rcan experienced
projects (over-obligation) than can be funded without causing
construction phase delay. in the past, projects that
base held UATA funds unused
delay in the design and right of way P roach to funding
was
months. This over-obligation approach between
for many timely
taken to promote competition for construction funding
rocess, it is imperative that
agencies and to allow use of the construction funds in a
manner. Because of this funding region engineer to see when
in contact with y project.
you keep become available for your p j
construction funds may
Remember, the project that is submitted for construction funding
first will be first in line to be funded. July 31 1989 to _.
The preliminary prospectus should be rece1989 board meeting. if
approval at the Auotherl8, 1 meeting dates, please
be ready for app John Tevis at
you have questions concerning
engineer, Mr.
do not hesitate to call y
(206) 586-6263 .
sincerely,
?xreorcutM
yFay,ve Director
JMF:gjc
DIVE
Attachment
cc: John Tevis
Bill Garing
w Y. .....
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20. 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: TIB-104TH AVENUE AND S .E. 256TH_STREET_INTERSECTION
.
IMPROVEMENTS ,
2 . �SrUFII�IARY S NT _ As approved by the PubIi Works;
Committee uthorization for the Mayor to sign the
Transporta ion Improvement Board prospectus for grant funding
for this project
1
f
3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of the IBC information and excerpt from the
Public Works Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL I ACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recomm nded Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JUNE 13 , 1989
JON JOHNSON MARTY NIZLEK
PRESENT: FRED SATTERSTROM
BERNE BITEMAN TERRY MCALEER
JUDY WOODS MAY MILLER
DON WICRSTROM LYLE PRICE
BILL WILLIAMSON JOHN MARCHIONE
GARY GILL PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORS
South Kin Count Area Trans o ation Benefit District
Wickstrom explained the agreement related to the City' s
participation in the development of a financial plan for and King formation
of a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) . Participatingount The
include Auburn, Renton, Tukwila, Kent, Y•
Committee unanimously approved participation and authorization for
the Mayor to sign the Agreement.
Lake Fenwick Restoration - Allocation of Funds
M Wickstrom explained this project is one for which we have received
Centennial Clean Water grant funds. The total project cost is
about $240, 875 ; $65, 000 of that would come from th d from the
e drainage
utility funds with the remainder of the project support
e project will enhance the water quality in Lake Fenwick
grant. Th
and will managed by the Parks Department. Wickstrom requested
the $65, 000 be transferred from the unencumbered drainage utility
funds for this project. The Committee unanimously approved.
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Prospectus
Wickstrom stated that TIB (formerly Urban Arterial Board) has a
final allocation of $15 million for projects statewide. Kent has
received grant offers from them for three projects:
1) 84th Avenue (180th to 192nd) to widen to a 5-lane facility. The
project will be about $2 .9 million and TIB has offered a grant of
$900, 000 . Kent' s matching funds would come from the drainage
utility and formation of an L. I.D.
2) 256th & 104th Intersection Improvements - The project lus la
construct a dedicated double southbound left turnAvenue
ane and a
i�estbound right turn lane from 256th to g on SR 516.
Rorthbound right turn lane from imately $400 , OOO. TIB has offered
The project cost would be app
Public Works Committee
June 13 , 1989
Page 2
a grant of $200,000 . Kent' s matching fund would come from
commitments from development in the area.
3) Central Avenue Improvements (Willis to Smith) - The project
consists of widening Central and constructing a right turn lane at
Central and Gowe to allow west bound traffic to turn north on
Central. The project is approximately $1, 516, 000. TIB has offered
a grant of $1, 000, 000. Kent' s matching funds would
nom from
drainage utility funds; WSDOT overlay p P
and a
reallocation of 1991 CIP funds from the 84th Avenue project.
The Committee unanimously approved the Mayor' s signature on the
prospectus for these grant offers.
Property Exchanue - Union Pacific Realty
Wickstrom explained that when the property was rezoned from MA to
M1, the owners had to deed right of way along 64th Avenue from
216th to 212th plus extra right of way for a future drainage
channel. In working with the Fisheries department on the lagoon,
it may be possible to put the outlet into an existing channel on
the west side of the lagoon. Union Pacific is willing to trade the
equivalxchange for
release of rightnt
of therightw alongay channel
of wayalong 64th. Thecommitteeeunanimously
approved the exchange.
L.I.D. 330 ue Improvements - Interim Financinu
Wickstrom stated the original approval for interim financing was
just for right of way acquisition. We now need to hire
consultants for design of the signal system for the project which
will be approximately' $49, 000. Wickstromrequested the interim
financing be amended to include funds for the signal design. The
Committee unanimously approved.
L.I.D. 330 - 64th Avenue Improvements
Williamson stated he had previously prepared a statement as to how
the Public Works Committee could accept the Environmental Task
Force report without interfering with the SEPA process. After
meeting with Sandra Driscoll and Dan Stroh of Planning, Williamson
stated he felt the committee should not make a recommendation to
Council but rather to the city' s SEPA official, Jim Harris. Based
on this, Will
presented the action (copy attached) on which
he would recommend Committee approval. The Committee approved
Williamson's recommendation.
City of Kent, Washington Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1, SUBJECT: - AUTHORIZATION
TRANSPORTATION IMPROV104TH AVENUE ANDEMENT BOARD SSEE.rU256TH INTERSECTION
FOR MAYOR TO SIGN
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: has requested the
The Transportation Improvement Board 19898)prospectus on this
City prepare and submit by July 31
project. The project has been included in our Six Year TIP.
The project would add a double southbound left turn lane at
the intersection as raffic signal ell asnorthbound
ions.
Matching turn nfunds
provide necessary provided through developer
for the project would be p
commitments.
Total Estimated Project Cost - $250, 000 $200, 000
TIB Grant 50, 000
Matching City Funds (Developer Commitments) $
3 . EXHI______B_ITS_
-- rtation Improvement Board. Copy
Copy of letters from Transpo
of TIP material.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
Don Wickstrom
PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL __X__
YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended
Not Recommended,_
50, 000
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $Developer Commitments
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds
for the
that staff be authorized to re are h h Street e Intersection
104th Avenue S .E. and S.E.
Improvement ro 'ect as described and the Ma or be authorized
to sign same._
DISCUSSION:
1 ACTION:
j
r
State of Washington
rJTransportation ImprovementBoard CITY OF NTH"
Transportation Building XF-01
Olympia, Washington 0504 MAY 3 0 1989
(206)753-7198 SCAN 234.7198
F-NGINF.FR!NG nFPL
May 26, 1989
Mr. Don Wickstrom, PE
Public Works Director
City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Proposed Trans. Improvement Project
Project No. 8-1-106 (21)
104th Avenue (SR 515)
SE 256th Street Intersection
City of Kent
Dear Mr. Wickstrom:
The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) at its meeting on
May 19 , 1989 took action that allows City of Kent to request
ent of the
Urban Arterial Trust Funds (UATF) fourthsix-YearVemconstruction _.
subject project as outlined in y
Program, Supplemental Section.
The Board adopted rules in 1987 that revise the November 1985
rial Progr .
thetirevisedhrulesdandnaopies of
s revised for bsample an eprospectusamare Cattached
for your review.
being considered for funding
The first phase of the project
includes preliminary engineering, right of way appraisals, right
of way acquisition and environmental impact analysis. Only these
activities will be eligible for reimbursement under the
preliminary phase authorization.
ed pe of
A detailed explanation will be requDlo
how
ththetyproject
improvement proposed for the project. Detail and high aaaidet
will alleviate the operating p preparing the
rate identified as the selection criteria. In
ill be completing arevised project
attached prospectus you w
estimate which will be used to determine the amount of funds to
be programmed for this project. The total arouect wasnt u$200a000n
your. Six-Year Construction Program for this p j
Mr. Don Wickstrom, PE
May. 26, 1989
- Page 2
new project
est prospectuses for more
The Board has estimated the available revenue or
be funded without
starts. They have decided than canucurrent. pro: that
projects (over-obligation) in the past, P UATA
base delay. right of way phase held to
causing construction P n and rig ation approach
experienced delay in the design oblig
months. This over-obligation
funding
funds unused for many promote competition for
funding was taken to P it is imperative
between agencn a
ies. This allows use of the funds When
b Because of this funding P
our region engineer to see
timely manner. the project
that you keep in contact with y Remember,
construction funds may
become available, first will be first in
that is submitted for construction funding
line to be funded. July 3r 1989 to
ectus should be received by if
The preliminary Prosp ust 18, 1989 board meeting- if
for approval at the Aug dates, please
be ready questions concerning other board meeting
Tevis at
you have q our region engineer,
do not hesitate to call y
586-6263 .
Sincerely, •�
J r M. Fay, PE
Executive Director
JMF:gjc
D1
Attachment
cc: John Tevis
Bill Garing
i
1
K nt City Council Meeting
ate June 20, 1989
1� Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: TIC AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS (WILLIS TO SMITH)
2 . S -_ A�._�proved by__t�e Public'Wor _
o ittee uthorization for the Mayor' to sign`the
/' a ion Improvement Board pros6ectus for gr t funding
f'or this,project r
1
3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of the IBC information and excerpt from the
Public Works Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONI*L IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
Public Works Committee
June 13 , 1989
Page 2
a grant of $200, 000 . Kent' s matching fund would come from
commitments from development in the area.
3) Central Avenue Improvements (Willis to Smith) - The project
consists of widening Central and constructing a right turn lane at
Central and Gowe to allow west bound traffic f to turn north on
has offered
Central. The project is approximately $1,
a grant of $110001000 . Kent' s matching funds would come from
drainage utility funds; WSDOT overlay participation and a
reallocation of 1991 CIP funds from the 84th Avenue project.
The Committee unanimously approved the Mayor' s signature on the
prospectus for these grant offers.
Property Exchange - Union Pacific Realty
to
Wickstrom explained that when the property ion rezonedas 64th Av nueMfrom
M1, the owners had to deed right of way for ga future drainage
216th to 212th plus extra right of way
channel . In working withput the outlet into department
existing the
channellagoon,
on
it may be possible to pnion Pacific is to trade the
the west side of the lagoon• the drainage channellin exchange for
equivalent right of way along
release of the right of way along 64th. The Committee unanimously
approved the exchange.
L.I.D. 330 - 64th Avenue Im rovements - Interim Financing
Wickstrom stated the original approval for interim financing hire
was
just for right of way acquisition. We now need nal system for the et which
consultants for design o49FOOO.the g Wickstrom request d the interim
will be approximately' $
financing be amended to include funds for the signal design. The
Committee unanimously approved.
I, I D 330 64th Avenue Improvements
Williamson stated he had previously prepared a statement as to how
the Public Works Committee could accept the Environmental Task
Force report without interfering with the SEPA process.Williamson
meeting with Sandra Driscoll and Dan Stroh of Planning, to
stated he felt the Committee should not make a recomm
Jim Harris.Council but rather to the city' s SEPA official,
on this, Williamson presented the action (copy attached) on which
approval. The Committee approved
he would recommend Committee
Williamson' s recommendation.
City of Kent, Washington Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT:
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
FOR MAYOR TO SIGN - CENTRAL AVENUE WILLIS TO SMITH
HORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT:
The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) has requested the
City prepare and submit by July 3 , 1989 prospectus on the
Central Avenue (Willis to Smith) Improvement project. The
project has been included in our Six Year TIP and will widen .
Central and provide northbound right turn lane at entryl and
the
Gowe, storm drainage and channelization. To provide
city's matching funds for this project, it is proposed to
reallocate the $250, 000 approved in the CIP for 1991 for the
East Valley Highway (192nd to 180th) project to this project.
In addition, the State will be providing funds for the overlay
portion of the project. There will also be contributions from .
the Drainage Utility and Water Utility as well as formation
of an L.I.D.
Total Estimated Project Cost - $1, 516, 000 $1, 000, 000
TIB Grant $ 250, 000
Reallocation of CIP Funds -
State Overlay Funds - Remaining
Drainage Utility Participation -
Water Utility Participation -
L.I.D. Formation -
3 . EXHIBITS•
Copy of letters from Transportation Improvement Board and TIP
material.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY;
Don Wickstrom
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended X Not Recommended_
Because of the significant amount of matching funds
($1, 000, 000) and the high priority the Council gives to this
project (Target Issues 1J, 1L, 1M, and 1N) , the IBC recommends
the reallocation of funds. ($1, 000, 000 TIB, $110, 000 DOT
overlay, $250, 000 1991 CIP reallocation, $156 , 000 Utility
participation) -
$516, 000 of CIp funds; State
6. �n�,an7TiJRE RE4UIRED: Reallocation e Utility
SOURCE OF FUNDS . Overlay funds, Drainage
participation, 'water
foyationty
participation, L•I•D'
7 , CITY COUNCIL ACTION seconds
moves, council-member os�— o t e
Councilmember a e a e t e a to s s
e utho to
t t st or be autho
o ' ect s described a d t e Ma
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
State of Washington
Transportation ImprovementBoard
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206)753-7198 SCAN 234-7198
May 26, 1989
Mr. Don Wickstrom, PE
Public Works Director
City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Proposed Trans. Improvement Project
Project No. 8-1-106 (22)
SR 516 / Central Avenue
Willis St to Smith St
City of Kent
Dear Mr. Wickstrom: 1989
at its May 19,
The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB request
meeting took action that citimy of the subject
rovement of Kent to req Urban
Arterial Trust Funds (Un
TF)
project as outlined in your Six-Year Construction Program,
Supplemental Section.
copies of
The Board adoGuidelines forlUrbanhArterialeProgram the ovembep 198
edition of the prospectus are attached
the revised rules and a revised sample p
for your review. for
process that will be used
A VE study will be required
The revised rules describe the p 1 000, 000.
implementing value engineering (VE) .
ro ect since the total project cost is over $ ' rior to
on this p j the VE study must bthe°nproject is
In accordance with the rule,
TIB funding for the Preliminary Phase. If the
approved for TIB funding, the expenses incurred fpro project tostthe
and the preliminary design necessary to bring the p j
30% designed stage will be reimbursable.
base of the project being considered for funding
The first P en ineering, right of way appraisals, these
includes prht
eliminary g act analysis. only the
of way acquisition and environmental imp under
activities will be eligible for reimbursement
preliminary phase authorization.
Mr. Don Wickstrom, PE
May 26 , 1989
Page 2
required on the type of
explanation will boa ect. Explain in detail how the
p, detailed p and high
improvement proposed for the p j speed deficiency
project will alleviate the operating P In preparing
ou will be completing a revised project
accident rate identified as the selection criteria• to be
the attached prospectus y
oThe total amount of UATF requested
estimate. This is used to determine the amount of funds
programmed for this project- was $1+000+ 000 .
in your Six-Year Construction Program ro ect
est prospectuses for more
The Board has estimated the available revenue for new p
starts. They have decided to requcausing
r-obligation) than can be funded
projects (ove past, projects that without experienced
construction phase delay. In the
delay in the design and right of. way phase held h to funds unused
for many months. This over-obligation approach to funding was
taken to promote competition for construction funding between
timely
rocess, it is imperative that
agencies and to allow use of the construction funds in a
manner. Because of this funding ing region engineer to see when
you keep in contact with yproject-
construction
funds , may become available for your
Remember, the project that is submitted for construction funding
first will be first in line to be funded. board meeting.1989 to
The preliminary prospectus should be received by July If
he August 18 , 1989 ting• lease
be ready for approval at t other board meeting dates, P
you have questions concerning
engineer, Mr. John Tevis at
do not hesitate to call
(206) 586-6263 .
Sincerely,
e Fay, PE
Executive Director
JMF:gjc
DIVE
Attachment
cc: John Tevis
Bill Garing
Kent City Council Meeting
(� Date June 20. 1989
\ Category Consent Calendar
J. SUBJECT: PROPERTY EXCHANGE - UNION PACIFIC REALTY
2 . �4ARY -----/As- .approved by the Public Works '
--- T
Committee;, uthorization for the staff to proceed with the
property exchange and authorization for the Mayor to sign the
necessary papers effecting same, n,
3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of the IBC information and excerpt from the
Public Works Committee minutes
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
Public Works Committee
June 13 , 1989
Page 2
a grant of $200, 000 . Kent' s matching fund would come from
commitments from development in the area.
3) Central Avenue Improvements (Willis to Smith) - The project
consists of widening Central and constructing a right turn lane at
Central and Gowe to allow west bound traffic to turn north on
Central. The project is approximately $1,5161000. TIB has offered
a grant of $1, 000, 000. Kent' s matching funds would come from
drainage utility funds; WSDOT overlay participation and a
reallocation of 1991 CIP funds from the 84th Avenue project.
The Committee unanimously approved the Mayor' s signature on the
prospectus for these grant offers.
Property Exchange - Union Pacific Realty
Wickstrom explained that when the property was rezoned from MA to
M1, the owners had to deed right of way along 64th Avenue from
216th to 212th plus extra right of way for a future drainage
channel . In working with the Fisheries department on the lagoon,
it may be possible to put the outlet into an existing channel on
the west side of the lagoon. Union Pacific is willing to trade the
equivalent right of way along the drainage channel in exchange for
release of the right of way along 64th. The Committee unanimously
approved the exchange.
L.I.D. 330 64th Avenue Improvements - Interim Financing
Wickstrom stated the original approval for interim financing was
just for right of way acquisition. We now need to hire
consultants for design of the signal system for the project which
will be approximately' $49, 000. Wickstrom requested the interim
financing be amended to include funds for the signal design. The
Committee unanimously approved.
L.I.D. 330 - 64th Avenue Improvements
Williamson stated he had previously prepared a statement as to how
the Public Works Committee could accept the Environmental Task
Force report without interfering with the SEPA process. After
meeting with Sandra Driscoll and Dan Stroh of Planning, Williamson
stated he felt the Committee should not make a recommendation to
Council but rather to the city' s SEPA official , Jim Harris. Based
I on this, Williamson presented the action (copy attached) on which
he would recommend Committee approval. The Committee approved
Williamson' s recommendation.
City of Kent, Washington Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT_
Property Exchange - Union Pacific Realty
2 . SUDuiARY STATEM�FNT::
As part of the original rezone of this property to industrial
zoning, the City required the property owner deed right of way
on 64th between 212th and 216th for a proposed drainage
channel. It now appears the drainage channel will be
constructed further west of this property in an alignment with
the existing Drainage District #1 drainage channel. As such,
release the excess
Union Pacific wants us to right equivalent drainage
along 64th Avenue in return for an
drainagechannel right of
easement paralleling the existing
way.
3 . EXHIBITS:
None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
Don Wickstrom
5.
R+ r /PERSONNEL IMP C NO X YES
UNBUDGE ED FISCA
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended_
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: None
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION
moves Councilmember seconds
Councilmember ,
the exchange be approved and the Mavor be authorized to sign
the necessary papers effecting same.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20. 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 330 - 64TH AVE. IMPROVEMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to a end the interim
financing for LID 330 to include funds the signal design
work.
3 . EXHIBITS: excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS*
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
Public Works Committee
June 13 , 1989
Page 2
a grant of $200, 000 . Kent' s matching fund would come from
commitments from development in the area.
3) Central Avenue Improvements (Willis to Smith) - The project
consists of widening Central and constructing a right turn lane at
Central and Gore to allow
west bound traffic to turn north on
Central. The project roxmately $1 51,, 00o. TIB has offered
0 . app Kents matching funds would come from
a grant of $1, 000, 000 participation and a
drainage utility funds; WSDOT overlay P ro ect.
reallocation of 1991 CIP funds from the 84th Avenue p j
The Committee unanimously approved the Mayor' s signature on the
prospectus for these grant offers.
property Exchange - Union Pacific Realty
Wickstrom explained that when the property was rezoned from MA to
M1, right of way along 64th Avenue from
the owners had to deed of way for
216th to 212th plus extra right r a future drainage
channel. In working withput the
the outlet into an texistingment on tchannelhe oon
it may be possible to pon Pacific is to trade the
the west side of the lagoon. the drainage hannellin exchange for
equivalent right of way along
release of the right of way along 64th. The Committee unanimously
approved the exchange.
L I D 330 64th Avenue Improvements Interim Financing
original approval for interim financing was
Wickstrom stated thesitio way acquin. We now need to hire
just for right
system for the
consultants for design of the signal e project which will be approximately' $49 , 000. Wickstrom ; requested the interim
financing be amended to include funds for the signal design. The
1 Committee unanimously approved.
L.I.D. 330 - 64th Avenue Im rovements
Williamson stated he had previously prepared a statement as to Task
how
the Public Works Committee could accept the Environmental After
' Force report without interfering with the SEPA process.Williamson
meeting with Sandra Driscoll and Dan Stroh of Planning, to
stated he felt the Committee should not make a J m Harrisatigased
Council but rather to the city' s SEPA offic�ioal, attached) on which
on this, Williamson presented the action (copy roved
he would recommend Committee approval. The Committee app
Williamson' s recommendation.
{ .M
i
City of Kent, Washington Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT:
L.I.D. 330 - Amend Interim Financing
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT:
interim financing was established to proceed with
In April, ect. In order
right of way acquisition for this o roceed with thetsignal
this project on track, we need to p
designs. We will be contracting with a consultant for the
design of the signal system at 64th & S. 228th; 64th & James
Street; 64th and Meeker and 64th & S . 212th for a cost not
to exceed $48 , 888 .
It is ested the terim financing design.
LID be amended
to include funding for the signal des
3 . EXH�S:
Copies of consultant contracts
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
Don Wickstrom
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT
NOS_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended_
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $48 ,888
SOURCE OF FUNDS- Interim Financing LID 330
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Councilmember
movest Councilmember _seconds
the interim financina for LID 330 be amended to include
$48 888 for sianal desian work.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20 , 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 331 - S.E. 240TH ST. IMPROVEMENT.
•asc—r•vx L�----"""`
2 . UMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committel,
uthorization for the NTayor to sign agreeme—ri�wi Puget Power
or undergrounding of LID 331 S.E. 240th St. project
3 . EXHIBITS: excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes
4 . RECOHMENDED BY
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
Public Works Committee
June 13 , 1989
Page 4
- S.E. 240th St eet Im ovemen�puqet Power A ree ent
. L I.D. 33 rounding
agreement with Puget is for underg
Wickstrom explained the ag approved the
within the project area. The cost of $63,836. 20 has been include
in the project budget. The Committee unanimously PP
ture on the Agreement.
Mayor' s signa
Budaet Review
The Committee proceeded to review the 1990 Public Works budget
proposal.
1
1
'1
City of Kent, Washington Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT:
L.I.D. 331 - S.E. 240th Street Improvement
Undergrounding Agreement with Puget Power
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT:
Puget Power has submitted an agreement to the City for
undergrounding of the power system on S.E. 240th in
conjunction with ,the City' s L.I.D. 331 - S.E. 240th Street
Improvement project. The costs for said work are estimated
to be $63 , 836.20 which have been included in the project
financing.
It is proposed the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement
with Puget Power.
3 . EXHIBITS:
Copy of agreement.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
Don Wickstrom
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended_
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $63 ,836.20
SOURCE OF FUNDS: LID Funds
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement with Puget Power
for undergrounding of L.I D. 331 - S E. 240th Street project.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
t�f
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20, 1989
Category Consent Calendar
�7
1. SUBJECT: EAST VALLEY ZONING IMPLEMENTATION NO. CPZ-89-1,W(
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: / Ordinance No. '• �
appdd� Resolution No. approving the East—Valley zoning
U./implementation No. CPZ- -1 including zoning code text amendment
and application of zoning as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
At the City Council meeting of April 4 , 1989 this matter was
-•remanded to the Planning Commission, and heard again by the
C/ Commission on June 19.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance No. , Resolution No. , Planning
Commission findings and conclusion, staff memo, Planning
Commission minutes (January 30, February 13, March 20, 1989)
East Valley Zoning Study, staff memo dated March 20, 1989 ,
traffic summary, City Council minutes of April 4, 1989
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning commission,.. June 19_ 1989
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Ordinance No. and Resolution No.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3M
I
I J tJt y
,
I
1
ORDINANCE NO.
I
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to land use and zoning,
creating a Gateway Commercial (GWC) district
II establishing a new Section 15.04.195.
I
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
! HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
I I
IIi
Section 1. The Kent City Code is amended to establish
Ilnew Section 15.04.195 creating the Gateway Commercial (GWC)
idistrict as follows:
jl 15.04.195. GATEWAY COMMERCIAL (GWC) ..DISTRICT. It is the
Ilpurpose of the Gateway Commercial District to provide retail !
! commercial uses appropriate along major vehicular corridors while
Itencouraging appropriate and unified development among the
1properties within its district. It is designed to create unique,
Iiunified and recognizable streetscapes while ensuring land use
( compatibility and the exclusion of inappropriate uses. It is also
intended to promote flexibility in appropriate areas of site
! design and to encourage mixed-use developments.
it The Gateway Commercial district recognizes the
!! significance of the automobile while simultaneously minimizing its
II dominance in commercially-developed areas and avoiding unsightly
Ilhighway strip-commercial development. Gateway Commercial's
Idevelopment standards promote land uses which minimize physical
and visual impacts normally associated with highway commercial
! developments. Landscaping, parking and sign standards have all
been enhanced as compared to the current commercial and industrial
; zoning districts. These standards will promote a viable, unique
and recognizable commercial area along East Valley Highway.
Moreover, the Gateway Commercial district will encourage the
development of commercial uses capable of benefitting and ensuring
! the long-term enhancement of properties throughout the study area.
i,
I
I
I,
i,
i,
i
i Ij
A. Principally Permitted Uses.
1. Retail establishments wherein all sales,
�Istorage, display occur within enclosed buildings. Such uses
i
include the sale of food, clothing, furniture, appliances,
hardware and similar "hard" and "soft" goods.
2. Personal services such as barber and beauty
shops, shoe and clothing repair, funeral and crematory services,
Illaundering and dry cleaning and photographic studios.
3. Office uses and professional services such as
medical, dental and optometric offices, legal, architectural,
engineering, real estate, banking and financial services and
similar uses.
4. Business services such as blueprinting,
( photocopying, advertising and consulting services and similar uses
I I
5. Restaurants, taverns and nightclubs, provided
( that, any restaurant with drive-in or drive-through facilities
shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from any other drive-in
restaurant use.
l6. Repair services wherein all repair and storage
occurs within an enclosed building. Such uses include radio,
television and small appliance repair, watch, clock and jewelry
( repair and similar uses but not automotive or vehicular repair.
7. Educational services and facilities such as art
and music schools, barber and beauty schools and business schools.
8. Miscellaneous services such as animal grooming
parlors, business, civic, social and fraternal associations,
welfare and charitable services, and veterinary clinics and animal
,( hospital services when located no less than one hundred fifty
(150) feet from any residential use, provided the animals are
housed indoors and the building is soundproofed.
9. Hotels and motels.
ii
ii 10. Cultural, entertainment and recreational
I
Ilfacilities including art galleries, museums, motion picture
litheaters, video arcades, athletic clubs, bowling alleys and
lenclosed skating rinks.
1 11. Governmental offices and facilities, except for
i1such uses and buildings subject to Section 15.04.200.
12. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and
otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory buildings for
existing dwellings may be constructed. Such buildings include
!! garages, carports, storage sheds and fences.
I
l - 2 -
I
�,1
i
I
II
i'
13. Crop and tree farming.
III 14. Any other use that is determined by the
j, Planning Director to be the same general character as the above
I
permitted uses and is in accordance with the stated purpose of the
,. district.
'I
� B. Special Permit Uses.
The following uses are permitted provided that they
1conform to the development standards listed in Section 15.08.020.
I 1. Churches.
li2. Nursery schools and day care centers.
C. Conditional Uses.
1. Gasoline service stations, automobile repair
(excluding auto body repair) and car washes.
2. Multiple family dwellings as permitted in
Section 15.04.050.
3. Public assembly facilities such as
amphitheaters, arenas, auditoriums and exhibition halls.
4. General Conditional Uses as listed in Section
15.08.030.
D. Accessory Uses.
Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant
Ito permitted uses. Accessory uses shall include vehicular
drive-through, drive-in or service bay facilities.
E. Development Standards for Proposed Gateway
( Commercial District
1. Minimum lot. 10,000 square feet
2. Maximum site coverage. Forty (40) percent
3. Front yard. There shall be a front yard of at
least fifteen (15) feet in depth.
� 4. Side yard. A. A side yard of at least five
(5) feet in depth shall be provided along the
side property line(s) , except no side yard
l shall be required between adjacent properties
where a common, shared driveway with a
i; perpetual cross-access easement is provided to
ii serve the adjoining properties. B. Where a
side yard abuts a residential district, a side
I
I
- 3
i
yard of at least twenty (20) feet shall be
III provided.
5. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot.
II Fifteen (15) feet.
6. Rear yard. A rear yard of at least five (5)
feet in depth shall be provided, except when a
rear yard abuts a residential district, then a
rear yard of at least twenty (20) feet in depth
shall be provided.
7. Height limitations. Three (3) stories or forty
(40) feet. An additional story and/or building
height may be added, up to a maximum of five
(5) stories or sixty (60) feet, with one (1)
additional foot of building setback for every
additional foot of building height over forty
(40) feet.
8. Vehicular drive-through, drive-in and service
I bays. All vehicular drive-through, drive-in,
service bay and similar facilities shall be
designed so that such facilities, including
vehicular staging or stacking areas, shall be
oriented away from the adjacent street.
Additional landscaping and/or fencing may be
required to ensure visual screening of these
facilities from the adjacent street or
properties.
9. The landscape requirements of Chapter 15.07
shall apply.
F. Landscaping Requirements shall include:
1. Where buildings abut the required front yard, a
landscape strip at least fifteen (15) feet in
depth shall be provided. Where vehicular
parking areas abut the required front yard, a
landscape strip at least twenty (20) feet in
depth, with an earth berm at least 36" in
height, shall be provided.
2. A landscape strip at least five (5) feet in
II depth shall be provided along the side property
line(s) of all independent development sites.
I
I
- 4 -
�I
I
I
No landscaping along the side property line(s)
shall be required between adjacent properties
where a common, shared driveway with a
perpetual cross-access easement is provided to
serve the adjoining properties. Where side
property line(s) of a commercial use abuts a
residential district, a landscape strip at
least ten (10) feet in depth shall be provided.
3. A landscape strip of at least fifteen (15) feet
in depth shall be provided along side property ''
lines flanking the street of a corner lot.
'I
�I
Where vehicular parking areas abut the required
i
side yard, an earth berm at least 24 inches in
height shall be provided.
4. A landscape strip of at least five (5) feet ini
depth shall be provided along all rear property,
lines. Where rear property line(s) of a
commercial use abuts a residential use, a
landscape strip of at least ten (10) feet in it
i depth shall be provided. �
5. All general provisions of Section 15.07, i
Landscaping Regulations, shall apply.
j� G. Sign Regulations:
1. Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area
for any lot shall not exceed one (1) square
foot for each foot of street frontage.
Aggregate sign area for corner lots shall not i
exceed three fourths (3/4) square foot for each
I foot of street frontage. The permitted signs
enumerated below shall be subject to the total
i aggregate sign area.
A. Identification signs: Occupancies. Each
business establishment may have one (1)
I
freestanding sign per street frontage (if
not located in a shopping center) and one
(1) wall sign per street frontage.
i. Freestanding signs. Freestanding
signs shall not exceed a height of
fifteen (15) feet. The maximum sign
i
11
i
- 5 -
it
i'
j area permitted is one hundred (100)
square feet for the total of all
i faces. No one face shall exceed
fifty (50) square feet. Said sign
may be illuminated. Freestanding
signs shall not rotate.
ii. Wall signs. One wall sign per street
frontage shall be permitted. The I
total area of all signage, graphics, �
or other advertising shall not exceed
ten (10) percent of the building i
facade to which it is attached.
•II
� B. Identification signs: Shopping centers.
One freestanding or one wall shopping
�i center identification sign shall be
j permitted for each street frontage of the
i
shopping center. The maximum sign area ;i
i permitted for a freestanding sign is one
hundred (100) square feet. No one face
I
shall exceed fifty (50) square feet. 1,
i
Freestanding signs shall be limited to
fifteen (15) feet in height. Said sign i
may be illuminated. Freestanding signs I
shall not rotate. One wall sign shall be
�I permitted per occupancy, except anchor
i tenants (business establishments with a
store frontage of at least one hundred
i
(100) feet in length) shall be allowed two.
wall signs. The aggregate wall sign area
shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the
building facade to which they are attached.I I!
2. All general provisions of Section 15.06, Sign i
Regulations, shall apply.
Section 2. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
: and confirmed.
i
i
i
6 -
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its
passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
'.' MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
!I
i
I
PASSED the day of 1989.
,I APPROVED the day of 1989.
I,
PUBLISHED the day of 1989.
i
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance,
11 No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
i
it Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon
indicated.
I
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
i
7220-260
7 -
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending the City's
Comprehensive Plan Map by changing the area
designations by institution of new Gateway
Commercial Zone to an area along the East
Valley Highway between S.R. 167 overpass to
212th Street; and by amending one mobile home
park designation to Office Zone designation in
area of approximately 13.2 acres at the
northeast corner of the S.R. 167 and South
212th Street interchange.
WHEREAS, changes to the Valley Floor Subarea Plan Map, a
part of the Comprehensive Plan and Map, changing certain
designations within the East Valley were recommended to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
35A.63.073 of the Revised Code of Washington and Kent City
Ordinance No. 2809, hearings were held before the Planning
Commission of the City of Kent on February 13, 1989 and March 20,
1989 to consider the proposed changes; and
WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning
Commission and its final deliberations, Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and the proposed amendments of the Planning
Commission were recommended to the City Council for adoption
pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No. 2809; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law recommendations of the Planning
Commission at a public meeting on June 6, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
adopted by the Kent Planning Commission on June 5, 1989 are
adopted by reference in totality by the Kent City Council.
Section 2.
a. Area one is located along the East Valley Highway
approximately between south of the S.R. 167 overpass, and
extending 300 feet north of 212th Street, and is legally described
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
b. Area Two is located east of S.R. 167, between South
208th and South 212th Street, and is legally described in Exhibit
"B" attached hereto.
Section 2. The Kent Valley Comprehensive Plan Map is
amended to change the designation for areas No. 1 and 2 as
indicated on Exhibit "C" - "Valley Floor Plan Map - East Valley
area" incorporated herein by reference as follows:
a. Amend Area No. 1 designation from General
Commercial, M-2, and M-3, to Gateway Commercial zone (GWC) .
b. Amend Area No. 2 designation from Mobile Home
Park to Office zone.
C. Gateway Commercial zone and office zone uses are
defined in the Kent Zoning Code.
Section 4. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, Valley
Floor Subarea Plan and their appendices and maps are amended to
provide that all references to said areas No. 1 and No. 2 shall be
in conformity with the changes in those area designations as set
out in Section Three.
Section 5. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,
Valley Floor Subarea Plan, and associated Map amendments shall be
filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning
Department and made available for public inspection upon request.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1989.
2 -
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1989.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the day of 1989.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
5760-190
3 -
- ----- "EXHIBIT A r,
AREA ONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That portion of the following sections:
Northeast Quarter and Southeast Quarter of Section 12-22-41
Northeast Quarter of Section 13-22-41 Northwest Quarter of Section
18-22-4 and the Southwest Quarter and Northwest Quarter of Section
7-22-4 all in King County, Washington and described as follows:
Beginning at a point lying 441. 5 feet north of the centerline of
S. 212th Street and the easterly margin of the Northeast Quarter
of Section 12 , Township 22N, Range 4 E W.M. ; thence N89 .04 ' 38" W
a distance of 30. 00 feet to the westerly margin of 84th Avenue S. ;
thence N89 ^04138" W to the easterly margin of a railroad easement
as recorded under Auditor File No. 7512150580; thence continuing
in a southerly and westerly direction along the southerly margin
of said railroad easement to a point lying 80.0 feet due west of the
easterly margin of said Northeast Quarter; thence due south to the
centerline of S. 212th Street; thence easterly along the centerline
of S. 212th Street to a point lying 256. 00 feet west of the
easterly margin of said NE Quarter; thence SO1.13140" W to the
northerly boundary of the South One-Half of the South One-Half of
said Northeast Quarter; thence easterly along said northerly
boundary to a point lying 156 . 00 feet west of the easterly boundary
of said Northeast Quarter; thence S01.13128" W a distance of 290.00
feet; thence N88 .22158" W a distance of 49 . 00 feet; thence
S01^ 13128" W, a distance of 373 . 59 feet to the southerly boundary
of said Northeast Quarter; thence continuing S01.13128" W to the
northerly .boundary of lot 3 , Kent Five Acre Tracts 'as recorded in
Volume 10 of Plats, Page 19 ; thence westerly along said northerly
boundary to a point lying 350. 00 feet west of the easterly boundary
of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12 , Township 22 N, Range 4 E
W.M. ; thence southerly and 350. 00 feet parallel to the east
boundary of said Southeast Quarter to a point lying 493 . 6 feet
north of the northerly boundary of S . 222nd Street; thence westerly
to the northeast corner of Lot 5, Shinn' s Valley Home Addition to
Kent as recorded under Volume 7 of Plats, Page 22 ; thence southerly
along the easterly margin of said Lot 5 extended to the southerly
boundary of said Southeast Quarter; thence easterly along said .
southerly boundary to the northeast corner of Parcel one of City
of Kent Short Plat #SPC-75-8 as recorded under King County
Recording No. 7811200752 ; thence continuing along the easterly
margin of Parcel One and Parcel Two of said short plat, a distance
of 170 . 84 feet; thence continuing along the easterly boundary of
Lots 1 and 2 extended to the northerly margin of SR167 ; thence
northeasterly and easterly along the boundary of SR167 to the
westerly margin of 84th Avenue S . , thence easterly to the southwest
corner of Lot 1, Kent Short Plat Number $SPC-86-7 as recorded under
King County Recording No. 8704231175 ; thence S77 -59149" E, a
distance of 69 . 82 feet; thence N51. 27 ' 07" E to the northerly
boundary of the Northwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 22 N,
Range 5 E W.M. and the southeast corner of Lot 1, Shinn' s
Cloverdale Addition to Kent as recorded in Volume 61 Page 52 of
Plats; thence northerly along the easterly boundaries of Lots 1 and
2 of said Shinn' s Cloverdale Addition to the northeast corner of
said Lot 2 ; thence northerly along the easterly boundary of said
Lot 2 extended to the centerline of S. 222nd Street; thence
westerly along said centerline to a point lying 518 . 00 feet east
of the westerly boundary of the Southwest Quarter of Section 71
Township 22 N, Range 5 E W.M. ; thence northerly and parallel 518 . 00
feet to said westerly boundary to the southerly boundary of Lot 5,
Shinn' s Cloverdale Addition to Kent as recorded in Volume 61 Page
52 of Plats; thence westerly along said southerly boundary to a
point lying 380. 0o feet east of the westerly boundary of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 7 , Township 22 N, Range 5 E W.M. ;
thence north parallel to and 380. 00 feet east of said westerly
boundary to the southerly boundary of Lot 6 of said Shinn' s
Cloverdale Addition; thence westerly along said southerly boundary
to a point lying 330 . 00 feet east of the westerly boundary of said
Southwest Quarter of Section 71 Township 22 , Range 5 E; thence
northerly parallel to. and 330. 00 feet east of said westerly
boundary to the centerline of S . 218th Street (aka Alder Lane) ;
thence easterly along the centerline of S . 218th Street to a point
lying 673 . 30 feet east of said westerly boundary; thence north and
673 . 30 feet parallel to said westerly boundary to the northerly
boundary of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7 , Township 22 N,
Range 5 E, W.M. ; thence westerly along said northerly boundary to
a point 497 .73 feet east of said westerly boundary; thence
N01.13143" E to a point lying 767 . 62 feet north of the southerly
boundary of the Northwest Quarter of Section 7 , Township 22 N,
Range 5 E W.M; thence easterly to a point lying 767 . 62 feet north
of said southerly margin and 540. 64 feet east of the westerly
boundary of said Northwest Quarter of Section 7 ; thence N01^ 15' 10"
E to the centerline of S. 212th Street; thence westerly along said
centerline to a point lying 210. 00 feet east of the westerly
boundary of said Northwest Quarter of said Section. 7 ; thence
N01.13142" E, a distance of 235 . 00 feet; thence easterly to a point
lying 250 . 00 feet east of the westerly boundary of said Northwest
Quarter of said Section 7 ; thence N01^13142" E to the northerly
margin of a railroad easement as recorded under Auditor File No.
7512150579 ; thence westerly to the Point of Beginning.
" EXHIBIT B"
AREA TWO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
; That portion of the NW 1/4 of Section 7, T 22
N, R 5 E, W.M. , in King County, Washington,
being described as follows :
Commencing at the NE corner of said NW 1/40.
` .thence S .01001025" W, along the . east line of
:.said NW 1/4, • a distance of 219 .95 : feet, to the
: . southerly margin of S 208th Street -and the True
: .Point of Beginning; Thence continuing S '
Ol°O1 ' 25" W, along said east line, a distance
:of 1,058 .34 feet, to the north margin of S
. •' . 212th Street; Thence S 89°59 ' 23" .W, along said.
margin, a distance of 244.57 feet, to an
existing fence;
.Thence N 01°22 ' 30" W, along said fence, a
distance of 198 .13 feet;
Thence N 04°35149" W, along said fence, a
distance of 167 .46 feet;
`.-Thence N 88°301.18". W, along said fence, a
.. , ! distance of 157 . 91 feet;
" Thence S 04.°35 ' 29" W, along said fence, a
distance of 90 .34 feet;
Thence S 00°49 ' 01" W, along said fence, a
distance of 169 .47 feet;
Thence S 08*47159" E, along said fence, a
.. :. .distance of 110 . 94 feet, to said north margin
. .. : Of S 212th Street; Thence .S 89°59 ' 23" W, along
: 'said margin, a distance of 131 .09 feet , to the
easterly margin of State Hwy. N.. 5 (S.R. 167 -
.Valley Freeway) ; Thence N 01°33 ' 53" W, along
said margin, a distance of 1, 116 .97 feet , to .
State Hwy. Sta . 960+00; Thence N 88°26 '07" E,
perpendicular from said station, a distance of
465 .06 feet, to the southwesterly margin of
said S 208th Street; Thence S 46°10 ' 48" E,
along said margin, a distance of 44 .42 feet;
Thence along said margin on a curve to the left
with •a radius of 144 .60 feet , a central angle ' "
of 42°31 ' 23" , and an arc length of .107 .32 feet,
to the True Point of Beginning .
�c 81
� 11
•
er �
a®
R w �" • 1
YV
�F`E
VI ;
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF KENT
EAST VALLEY ZONING IMPLEMENTATION
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Planning
and Public Works Departments and all evidence elicited during the
public hearing, the Planning Commission enters the following
findings and conclusions as a basis for its recommendation on the
East Valley zoning implementation:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. City Council directed the Planning Department to analyze and
make recommendations regarding the East Valley' s existing
zoning in response to the East Valley Study amendments to the
Valley Floor Plan, adopted in June 1988, and the development
pressures throughout the area.
2 . The Planning Department recommended three proposed actions--
1) Create a new commercial zoning district entitled Gateway
Commercial (GWC) complete with its own landscaping and sign
regulations; 2) apply this new zoning district to the area
recently designated Commercial in the Valley Floor
Comprehensive Plan, hereinafter referred to as Area 1; and 3)
rezone an area from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Office (0) as
designated in the East Valley Study amendments to the Valley
Floor Comprehensive Plan, hereinafter referred to as Area 2 .
3 . The subject site Area 1 includes all properties adjacent to,
or within a maximum range of 700 ' from the East Valley Highway
right-of-way, bounded on the south by the State Route 167
overpass and on the north by an east-west line approximately
300 ' north of S . 212th Street. The area is approximately 87 . 3
acres in size.
4 . The properties in Area 1 are currently zoned Commercial
Manufacturing (CM) , General Commercial (GC)' , Limited
Industrial (M2) or General Industrial (M3) ; the Area' s
Comprehensive Plan designation is Commercial.
5 . The existing uses in Area 1 vary widely from heavy industry
to scattered residential structures.
1
Easta Vally Zoning Implementation
Findings and Conclusions
6 . The Planning Department' s zoning boundary objectives for Area
1 include the following:
1) Follow natural/physical boundaries wherever
possible.
2) Follow existing Commercial zone boundaries wherever
possible.
3) Follow existing property boundaries wherever
possible.
4) Encourage land assembly.
5) Maintain compatibility with existing land uses and
avoid the creation of nonconforming uses wherever
possible.
7 . Area 1 is fully serviced by City sewer and water lines. No
improvements are scheduled since the lines currently servicing
the area are designed to handle intensive uses compatible with
the existing commercial and industrial zones.
8 . The subject site Area 2 is located north of South 212th St. ,
south of South 208th Street, east of S .R. 167 and west of 92nd
Avenue. The area is 13 . 2 acres in size.
9 . The parcel in Area 2 is currently zoned Mobile Home Park
(MHP) ; the Area' s Comprehensive Plan designation is Office.
10. Area 2 was partially graded in anticipation of a mobile home
park, but further development never occurred; the site is
currently vacant.
11. The Comprehensive Plan' s Economic Element promotes controlled
economic growth with orderly physical development, resource
conservation and preservation as its overall goal. Within
this framework, the Economic Element seeks to assure that
retail and commercial developments are located in suitable
locations.
12 . State Route 167 is a limited access highway with access at the
entrance and exit ramps at South 212th Street and South 228th
Street. East Valley Highway is the primary arterial for
access to sites throughout Area 1.
13 . Traffic volumes along East Valley Highway currently range
around 23 , 000 vehicles per day with high levels of congestion
during p.m. peak hours. The City' s Engineering' Department
currently estimates the number of peak-hour trips along East
Valley Highway between South 212th Street and South 224th
Street at 2300 vehicles/hour. This figure compares with 1400
vehicles/hour between South 180th Street and South 192nd
2
Easta Vally Zoning Implementation
Findings and Conclusions
Street, and 2700 vehicles/hour between South 192nd Street and
South 212th Street.
14 . Levels of service (LOS) at the controlled intersections in the
study area are currently at or near capacity, and range from
C to F, with A being the best of conditions and F being the
worst. These intersections include:
South 212th Street LOS F
South 224th Street LOS C
South 228th Street LOS C
Northbound S .R. 167 LOS C
Southbound S .R. 167 LOS D
15. The East Valley Zoning Study is incorporated herein by
reference as though set forth in full. In addition, the East
Valley Study is incorporated herein by reference as though set
forth in full.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The recommendations addressed in the East Valley Zoning Study
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map amendments
adopted by Council pursuant to the East Valley Study.
2 . The proposals recommended in the East Valley Zoning Study
further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan' s Economic Element
by providing an orderly transition from industrial to
commercial zoning districts. One specific objective of the
Plants Economic Element is to minimize adverse physical
impacts of strip commercial development. The Gateway
Commercial zoning district accomplishes this objective through
stricter development standards and somewhat more limited uses
than those permitted in the existing General Commercial zone.
3 . It is the intention of the Gateway Commercial district to
recognize the significance of the automobile while
simultaneously minimizing its dominance in commercially-
developed areas and avoiding unsightly highway strip-
commercial development. Gateway Commercial ' s development
standards promote land uses which minimize physical and visual
impacts normally associated with highway commercial
developments. Landscaping, parking and sign standards have
all been enhanced as compared to the current commercial and
industrial zoning districts. In addition, automotive-related
uses such as drive-through bays must be oriented away from the
adjacent street in order to reduce their visual impacts.
These standards, as well as others described in this study,
will promote a viable, unique and recognizable commercial area
3
Easta Vally Zoning Implementation
Findings and Conclusions
along East Valley Highway. Moreover, the Gateway Commercial
district will encourage the development of commercial uses
capable of benefitting and ensuring the long-term enhancement
of properties throughout the study area.
4 . In light of the current traffic situation along East Valley
Highway, the potential effects from the proposed Gateway
Commercial zone on traffic levels are of significant concern.
Planning Department staff has reviewed available land to
determine the buildout traffic levels possible with no zoning
changes, with implementation of the original East Valley
Zoning proposal and with the implementation of a scaled-back
rezone. After conducting this review of traffic impacts,
staff modified its proposal. The modified proposal is
expected to generate 1097-1667 peak-hour trips as compared
with 1707-2470 peak hour trips in the original proposal
(figures are adjusted accordingly for linked trips) . These
modifications include the following:
1) A reduction in size of the Gateway Commercial area
by 15. 2 acres (87 . 3 acres net) . This reduction
would take place on both the east and west sides in
the area originally proposed for deepest application
of the new zone.
2) A 1000-foot separation requirement on drive-through
restaurants designed to limit the number of fast
food uses occurring within the rezone corridor. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip
generation rates for this use are over three times
the rate for the next most intensive generator
surveyed for the rezone analysis.
5 . Additional traffic mitigation conditions are being applied
through the SEPA environmental review process. It is expected
that these SEPA conditions will address much of the
Commission' s concerns about the traffic impacts of the Gateway
Commercial zoning.
6. A small number of existing developments would become
nonconforming uses upon adoption of the proposed Gateway
Commercial zone. However, for the City to be able to respond
to current conditions and particularly to upgrade land use
standards in an area, the creation of nonconforming conditions
is a necessary tradeoff. Under the Kent Zoning Code, existing
nonconforming developments are permitted to continue and
indeed to expand with the securing of a Conditional Use
permit. 5/15/89
4
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to land use and zoning,
creating a Gateway Commercial (GWC) district
establishing a new Section 15.04.195.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Kent City Code is amended to establish
new Section 15.04.195 creating the Gateway Commercial (GWC)
district as follows:
15.04.195. GATEWAY COMMERCIAL (GWC) DISTRICT. It is the
purpose of the Gateway Commercial District to provide retail
commercial uses appropriate along major vehicular corridors while
encouraging appropriate and unified development among the
properties within its district. It is designed to create unique,
unified and recognizable streetscapes while ensuring land use
compatibility and the exclusion of inappropriate uses. It is also
intended to promote flexibility in appropriate areas of site
design and to encourage mixed-use developments.
The Gateway Commercial district recognizes the
significance of the automobile while simultaneously minimizing its
dominance in commercially-developed areas and avoiding unsightly
highway strip-commercial development. Gateway Commercial's
development standards promote land uses which minimize physical
and visual impacts normally associated with highway commercial
developments. Landscaping, parking and sign standards have all
been enhanced as compared to the current commercial and industrial
zoning districts. These standards will promote a viable, unique
and recognizable commercial area along East Valley Highway.
Moreover, the Gateway Commercial district will encourage the
development of commercial uses capable of benefitting and ensuring
the long-term enhancement of properties throughout the study area.
A. Principally Permitted Uses.
1. Retail establishments wherein all sales,
storage, display occur within enclosed buildings. Such uses
include the sale of food, clothing, furniture, appliances,
hardware and similar "hard" and "soft" goods.
2. Personal services such as barber and beauty
shops, shoe and clothing repair, funeral and crematory services,
laundering and dry cleaning and photographic studios.
3. Office uses and professional services such as
medical, dental and optometric offices, legal, architectural,
engineering, real estate, banking and financial services and
similar uses.
4. Business services such as blueprinting,
photocopying, advertising and consulting services and similar uses
5. Restaurants, taverns and nightclubs, provided
that, any restaurant with drive-in or drive-through facilities
shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from any other drive-in
restaurant use.
6. Repair services wherein all repair and storage
occurs within an enclosed building. Such uses include radio,
television and small appliance repair, watch, clock and jewelry
repair and similar uses but not automotive or vehicular repair.
7. Educational services and facilities such as art
and music schools, barber and beauty schools and business schools.
8. Miscellaneous services such as animal grooming
parlors, business, civic, social and fraternal associations, -
welfare and charitable services, and veterinary clinics and animal
hospital services when located no less than one hundred fifty
(150) feet from any residential use, provided the animals are
housed indoors and the building is soundproofed.
9. Hotels and motels.
lo. Cultural, entertainment and recreational
facilities including art galleries, museums, motion picture
theaters, video arcades, athletic clubs, bowling alleys and
enclosed skating rinks.
11. Governmental offices and facilities, except for
such uses and buildings subject to Section 15.04.200.
12. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and
otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory buildings for
existing dwellings may be constructed. Such buildings include
garages, carports, storage sheds and fences.
2 -
it I
13. Crop and tree farming.
14. Any other use that is determined by the
Planning Director to be the same general character as the above
permitted uses and is in accordance with the stated purpose of the
district.
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.
C. Conditional Uses.
1. Gasoline service stations, automobile repair
(excluding auto body repair) and car washes.
2. Multiple family dwellings as permitted in
Section 15.04.050.
3. Public assembly facilities such as
amphitheaters, arenas, auditoriums and exhibition halls.
4. General Conditional Uses as listed in Section
15.08.030.
D. Accessory Uses.
Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant
to permitted uses. Accessory uses shall include vehicular
drive-through, drive-in or service bay facilities.
E. Development Standards for Proposed Gateway
Commercial District
1. Minimum lot. 10,000 square feet
2. Maximum site coverage. Forty (40) percent
3. Front yard. There shall be a front yard of at
least fifteen (15) feet in depth.
4. Side yard. A. A side yard of at least five
(5) feet in depth shall be provided along the
side property line(s) , except no side yard
shall be required between adjacent properties
where a common, shared driveway with a
perpetual cross-access easement is provided to
serve the adjoining properties. B. Where a
side yard abuts a residential district, a side
- 3 -
yard of at least twenty (20) feet shall be
provided.
5. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot.
Fifteen (15) feet.
6. Rear yard. A rear yard of at least five (5)
feet in depth shall be provided, except when a
rear yard abuts a residential district, then a
rear yard of at least twenty (20) feet in depth
shall be provided.
7. Height limitations. Three (3) stories or forty
(40) feet. An additional story and/or building
height may be added, up to a maximum of five
(5) stories or sixty (60) feet, with one (1)
additional foot of building setback for every
additional foot of building height over forty
(40) feet.
8. Vehicular drive-through, drive-in and service
bays. All vehicular drive-through, drive-in,
service bay and similar facilities shall be
designed so that such facilities, including
vehicular staging or stacking areas, shall be
oriented away from the adjacent street.
Additional landscaping and/or fencing may be
required to ensure visual screening of these
facilities from the adjacent street or
properties.
9. The landscape requirements of Chapter 15.07
shall apply.
F. Landscaping Requirements shall include:
1. Where buildings abut the required front yard, a
landscape strip at least fifteen (15) feet in
depth shall be provided. Where vehicular
parking areas abut the required front yard, a
landscape strip at least twenty (20) feet in
depth, with an earth berm at least 36" in
height, shall be provided.
2. A landscape strip at least five (5) feet in
depth shall be provided along the side property
line(s) of all independent development sites.
4 -
No landscaping along the side property line(s)
shall be required between adjacent properties
where a common, shared driveway with a
perpetual cross-access easement is provided to
serve the adjoining properties. Where side
property line(s) of a commercial use abuts a
residential district, a landscape strip at
least ten (10) feet in depth shall be provided.)
3. A landscape strip of at least fifteen (15) feet,
in depth shall be provided along side property )
lines flanking the street of a corner lot.
Where vehicular parking areas abut the required
side yard, an earth berm at least 24 inches in
height shall be provided.
4. A landscape strip of at least five (5) feet in
depth shall be provided along all rear propert
lines. Where rear property line(s) of a
commercial use abuts a residential use, a
landscape strip of at least ten (10) feet in
depth shall be provided.
5. All general provisions of Section 15.07,
Landscaping Regulations, shall apply.
G. Sign Regulations:
1. Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area
for any lot shall not exceed one (1) square
foot for each foot of street frontage.
Aggregate sign area for corner lots shall not
exceed three fourths (3/4) square foot for each,
foot of street frontage. The permitted signs
enumerated below shall be subject to the total
aggregate sign area.
A. Identification signs: Occupancies. Each
business establishment may have one (1)
freestanding sign per street frontage (if
not located in a shopping center) and one
(1) wall sign per street frontage.
i. Freestanding signs. Freestanding
signs shall not exceed a height of
fifteen (15) feet. The maximum sign
5 -
area permitted is one hundred (100)
square feet for the total of all
faces. No one face shall exceed
fifty (50) square feet. Said sign
may be illuminated. Freestanding
signs shall not rotate.
i;. Wall signs. one wall sign per street
frontage shall be permitted. The
total area of all signage, graphics,
or other advertising shall not exceed
ten (10) percent of the building
facade to which it is attached.
B. Identification signs: shopping centers.
One freestanding or one wall shopping
center identification sign shall be
permitted for each street frontage of the
shopping center. The maximum sign area
permitted for a freestanding sign is one
hundred (100) square feet. No one face
shall exceed fifty (50) square feet.
Freestanding signs shall be limited to
fifteen (15) feet in height. Said sign
may be illuminated. Freestanding signs
shall not rotate. One wall sign shall be
permitted per occupancy, except anchor
tenants (business establishments with a
store frontage of at least one hundred
(100) feet in length) shall be allowed two
wall signs. The aggregate wall sign area
shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the
building facade to which they are attached.
2. All general provisions of Section 15.06, Sign
Regulations, shall apply.
Section 2. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
6 -
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
Ileffect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
i
I
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of 1989•
APPROVED the day of 1989.
PUBLISHED the day of 1989.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon
indicated.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
i
i
7220-260
7 - I
I,
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 29, 1989
M MEMO TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: Dan Stroh, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: EAST VALLEY ZONING AMENDMENTS
The Planning Commission at its meeting of March 20, 1989
recommended amendment of the Kent Zoning Code text and map. These
proposed actions are linked to last year' s passage of the East
Valley amendments to the Valley Floor Plan.
The Commission recommendation is based on staff studies and
includes the following actions:
(1) Amendment of the Zoning Code text to create a new zoning
district, "Gateway Commercial" (GWC) , complete with
development standards for setbacks, landscaping, and
signage.
(2) Amendment of the Zoning Map to apply the Gateway
Commercial designation to an area of approximately 87 . 3
acres, as reduced from the original staff proposal and
presented in the March 20 memo from Fred Satterstrom to
Linda Martinez ; and
(3) Amendment of the Zoning Map to apply the Office
designation to an area of approximately 13 . 2 acres at the
northeast corner of the SR 167/S. 212th Street
interchange.
These actions are designed to encourage high quality development
and redevelopment of the East Valley area, and if passed, should
help address the "image problem" referred to in the East Valley
Study.
DS:ca
Enclosure
SYNOPSIS OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
ON EAST VALLEY ZONING
Recommendation I : Creation of Gateway Commercial (GWC) District
Gateway Commercial ' s purpose is to provide retail commercial uses
appropriate along major vehicular corridors while encouraging
appropriate and unified development among the properties within its
district. It is designed to create unique, unified and
recognizable streetscapes while ensuring land use compatibility
and the exclusion of inappropriate uses. It is also intended to
promote flexibility in appropriate areas of site design and to
encourage mixed-use developments .
The Gateway Commercial district recognizes the significance of the
automobile while simultaneously . minimizing its dominance in
commercially-developed areas and avoiding unsightly highway strip-
commercial development. Gateway Commercial ' s development standards
promote land uses which minimize physical and visual impacts
normally associated with highway commercial developments.
Landscaping, parking and sign standards have all been enhanced as
compared to the current commercial and industrial zoning districts.
These standards will promote a viable, unique and recognizable
commercial area along East Valley Highway. Moreover, the Gateway
Commercial district will encourage the development of commercial
uses capable of benefitting and ensuring the long-term enhancement
of properties throughout the study area.
A. Uses for Proposed Gateway Commercial District
Principally Permitted Uses
1 . / Retail establishments wherein all sales, storage, display
occur within enclosed buildings. Such uses include the
sale of food, clothing, furniture, appliances, hardware
and similar "hard" and "soft" goods.
2 . Personal services such as barber and beauty shops, shoe
and clothing repair, funeral and crematory services,
/ laundering and dry cleaning and photographic studios.
3 . Office uses and professional services such as medical,
dental and optometric offices, legal, architectural,
engineering, real estate, banking and financial services
and similar uses .
4 ./ Business services such as blueprinting, photocopying,
advertising and consulting services and similar uses.
5 . / Restaurants, taverns and nightclubs, provided that, any
restaurant with drive-in or drive-through facilities
shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from any other
drive-in restaurant use.
6 .,,;' Repair services wherein all repair and storage occurs
within an enclosed building. Such uses include radio,
television and small appliance repair, watch, clock and
jewelry repair and similar uses but not automotive or
vehicular repair.
7 . Educational services and facilities such as art and music
SYNOPSIS OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
ON EAST VALLEY ZONING
schools, barber and beauty schools and business schools.
8 . Miscellaneous services such as animal grooming parlors,
business, civic, social and fraternal associations,
welfare and charitable services, and veterinary clinics
and animal hospital services when located no less than
one hundred fifty (150) feet from any residential use,
provided the animals are housed indoors and the building
is soundproofed.
9 . Hotels and motels.
10 . Cultural, entertainment and recreational facilities
including art galleries, museums, motion picture
theaters, video arcades, athletic clubs, bowling alleys
and enclosed skating rinks.
11 . Governmental offices and facilities, except for such
uses and buildings subject to Section 15. 04 .200.
12 . Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise
changed for human occupancy. Accessory buildings for
existing dwellings may be constructed. Such buildings
include garages, carports, storage sheds and fences.
13 . Crop and tree farming
14 . Any other use that is determined by the Planning Director
to be the same general character as the above permitted
uses and is in accordance with the stated purpose of the
district.
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
Conditional Uses
1. Gasoline service stations, automobile repair (excluding
auto body repair) and car washes.
2 . Multiple family dwellings as permitted in Section
15 . 04 . 050 .
3 . Public assembly facilities such as amphitheaters, arenas,
auditoriums and exhibition halls.
4 . General Conditional Uses as listed in Section 15 . 08 . 030 .
Accessory Uses
Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to
permitted uses . Accessory uses shall include vehicular
drive-through, drive-in or service bay facilities.
B. Development Standards for Proposed Gateway Commercial
District
1 . Minimum lot. 10 , 000 square feet
2
SYNOPSIS OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
ON EAST VALLEY ZONING
2 . Maximum site coverage. Forty (40) percent
3 . Front yard. There shall be a front yard of at least
fifteen (15) feet in depth.
4 . Side yard. A. A side yard of at least five (5) feet in
depth shall be provided along the side property line(s) ,
except no side yard shall be required between adjacent
properties where a common, shared driveway with a
perpetual cross-access easement is provided to serve the
adjoining properties. B. Where a side yard abuts a
residential district, a side yard of at least twenty (20)
feet shall be provided.
5. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Fifteen (15)
feet.
6 . Rear yard. A rear yard of at least five (5) feet in
depth shall be provided, except when a rear yard abuts
a residential district, then a rear yard of at least
twenty (20) feet in depth shall be provided.
7 . Height limitations. Three (3) stories or forty (40)
feet. An additional story and/or building height may be
added, up to a maximum of five (5) stories or sixty (60)
feet, with one (1) additional foot of building setback
for every additional foot of building height over forty
(40) feet.
8 . Vehicular drive-through, drive-in and service bays. All
vehicular drive-through, drive-in, service bay and
similar facilities shall be designed so that such
facilities, including vehicular staging or stacking
areas, shall be oriented away from the adjacent street.
Additional landscaping and/or fencing may be required to
ensure visual screening of these facilities from the
adjacent street or properties.
9 . The landscape requirements of Chapter 15. 07 shall apply.
Additional Gateway Commercial landscaping requirements shall
include:
�� Where buildings abut the required front yard, a landscape
strip at least fifteen k.,15) feet in depth shall be
provided. Where vehicular parking areas abut the
required front yard, a landscape strip at least twenty
(20) feet in depth, with an earth berm at least 36" in
height, shall be provided.
2 . A landscape strip at least five (5) feet in depth shall
be provided along the side property line(s) of all
independent development sites. No landscaping along the
side property line(s) shall be required between adjacent
properties where a common, shared driveway with a
perpetual cross-access easement is provided to serve the
3
SYNOPSIS OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
ON EAST VALLEY ZONING
adjoining properties . Where side property line (s) of a
commercial use abuts a residential district, a landscape
strip at least ten (10) feet in depth shall .be provided.
3 . A landscape strip of at least fifteen (15) feet in depth
shall be provided along side property lines flanking the
street of a corner lot. Where vehicular parking areas
abut the required side yard, an earth berm at least 24"
inches in height shall be provided.
4 . A landscape strip of at least five (5) feet in depth
shall be provided along all rear property lines. Where
rear • property line(s) of a commercial use abuts a
residential use, a landscape strip of at least ten (10)
feet in depth shall be provided.
5 . All general provisions of Section 15. 07, Landscaping
Regulations, shall apply.
Gateway Commercial Sign Regulations:
1. Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area for any lot
shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of
street frontage. Aggregate sign area for corner lots
shall not exceed three fourths (3/4) square foot for each
foot of street frontage. The permitted signs enumerated
below shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area.
A. Identification signs: Occupancies. Each business
establishment may have one (1) freestanding sign per
street frontage (if not located in a shopping
center) and one (1) wall sign per street frontage.
i. Freestanding signs. Freestanding signs shall
not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet. The
maximum sign area permitted is one hundred
(100) square feet for the total of all faces.
No one face shall exceed fifty (50) square
feet. Said sign may be illuminated.
Freestanding signs shall not rotate.
ii. Wall signs. One wall sign per street frontage
shall be permitted. The total area of all
signage, graphics, or other advertising shall
not exceed ten (10) percent of the building
facade to which it is attached.
B. Identification signs: Shopping centers . One
freestanding or one wall shopping center
4
SYNOPSIS OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
ON EAST VALLEY ZONING
identification sign shall be permitted for each
street frontage of the shopping center. The maximum
sign area permitted for a freestanding sign is. one
hundred (100) square feet. No one face shall exceed
fifty (50) square feet. Freestanding signs shall
be limited to fifteen (15) feet in height. Said
sign may be illuminated. Freestanding signs shall
not rotate. One wall sign shall be permitted per
occupancy, except anchor tenants (business
establishments with a store frontage of at least one
hundred (100) feet in length) shall be allowed two
wall signs. The aggregate wall sign area shall not
exceed ten (10) percent of the building facade to
which they are attached.
2 . All general provisions of Section 15. 06, Sign
Regulations, shall apply.
Recommendation II : Rezone of approximately 87.3 acres to Gateway
Commercial (GWC) District. These properties, in the vicinity of
East Valley Highway, are shown on the attached map. (The existing
zoning in the area appears on page 9 of the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission. ) For mitigation of traffic impacts, the
original staff proposal for rezoning 102 .5 acres has been reduced
by approximately 15 . 2 acres.
Recommendation III: Rezone of approximately 13 .2 acres to Office
(0) District. This area is situated at the northeast corner of the
SR 167/S . 212th Street Interchange, and is shown on the attached
map.
This parcel was approved as a mobile home park by the City Council
in September of 1984 (case no. #RZ-83-2) . The parcel was partially
graded, but it was never developed and remains vacant at present
with no prospect for development as a mobile home park. As such,
recent changes and growth in the surrounding area have placed
development pressures on this vacant parcel. In responding to
these pressures, the East Valley Study recommended an Office
designation for the area. The Study cited, among other things, the
need for and compatibility of an Office designation with adjacent
land uses .
5
FAST VALLEY ZONING ST ODY,
Planning Commission
Recommendation :
Proposed Gateway
th t. Commercial Zone (GWC)
n
4'
5'
SCALE
1 : 8400
KENT GIS
�� JAN . 1989
EAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY
i Planning Commission
Recommendation :
h 2th t. Proposed Office Zone
Lj
ld
5'
SCALE
1 : 8400
KENT GIS
JAN . 1989
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 20, 1989
The meeting of the Kent- Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Martinez at 7 : 30 p.m. on Monday, March 20, 1989 in the Kent
City Hall, City Council Chambers.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Martinez , Chair
Elmira Forner
Greg Greenstreet
Carol Stoner
Raymond Ward
Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Robert Badger, excused
Anne Biteman, excused
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director
Dan Stroh, Senior Planner
Kathy McClung, Senior Planner
Ken Astrein, Planner
Scott Williams, Planner
Lois Ricketts , Recording Secretary
LEGAL DEPARTMENT:
Sandra Driscoll , City Attorney
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
Marty Nizlek, Transportation Engineer
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1989
Approval of the February 27 , 1989 minutes was deferred until the
March 27 , 1989 meeting.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED to reopen the hearing on the East Valley
Zoning Study. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried.
Kent Planning commission Minutes
March 20 , 1989
EAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY (GWC)
Dan Stroh reviewed the three actions before the Commission: 1)
creation of the Gateway Commercial District, uses and development
standards ; 2) application of the Gateway Commercial District to an
area along the East Valley Highway; 3) application of Office
designation to an area at the northeast corner of SR 167 and the
South 212th interchange. The public hearing of February 13 , 1989
was continued in order to conduct additional study and consultation
on the issue of traffic. The SEPA Decision Document of the East
Valley Zoning Study (#ENV 89-1) includes several conditions . The
first SEPA condition is that the staff recommendation for the
proposed . rezone to Gateway Commercial be reduced by approximately
15 . 2 acres. The second SEPA condition is that the staff
recommendation for Gateway Commercial be modified to require a
1, 000-foot separation between drive-through restaurant uses. Fast
food uses generate AM and PM peak-hour traffic at the rate of three
to four times the next highest, most intensive generator that was
surveyed for the Gateway Commercial area. The third SEPA condition
is that mitigation of traffic impacts associated with new
developments will be applied to site specific cases. The SEPA
condition requires the applicant to participate in the East-West
Corridor project, which is required for new developments within the
city. The applicant shall also conduct a study to identify and
address trips generated by the proposal, specifically identifying
the number of trips over and above those which could be generated
under the zoning in effect prior to the rezoning to Gateway
Commercial . Examples given in the SEPA condition include capital
improvements at the entrances to the rezone area, purchase of
development rights in the vicinity, and participation in a North-
South 88th Corridor Project. The fourth SEPA condition directs
staff to develop a proposed Transportation System Management
ordinance which would address alternative methods of
transportation, including ridesharing, transit, van-pooling and
related approaches .
Based on these changes, the modified GWC proposal presented to the
Commission includes : 1) reducing the area of the Gateway
Commercial District by 15 . 2 acres . Approximately 10 . 3 acres are
currently vacant or undeveloped; 2) imposing a 1, 000-foot
separation limitation on drive-through restaurant uses within the
Gateway Commercial District. This would be an amendment to the
development standards proposed for the new Gateway Commercial
District.
Commissioner Stoner asked about the requirement of participation
in the North-South 88th Corridor project. Mr. Stroh explained that
2
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
March 20, 1989
this was only an example of a condition; it has not been placed on
any developments at the present time.
Commissioner Forner asked what was meant by limiting the drive-
through fast-food restaurants . Mr. Stroh explained that the
traffic impacts of the fast-food uses were extremely high and that
a 1, 000-foot separation between drive-through restaurant uses would
limit the number of fast-food sites that could occur within this
corridor area. Based upon this limitation, the traffic projections
were modified to show no more than 10 percent of the available land
could be used for fast-food uses. This would be an addition to the
development standards, and the language would state that drive-
through restaurants would have to observe at least a 1, 000-foot
separation. There is currently one fast-food service etablishment
in this area. Four others could be added for a total of five in
the area.
Ken Astrein stated that one of the goals of the mitigation was to
reduce the traffic impacts of the proposed Gateway Commercial zone.
Staff analyzed underdeveloped and undeveloped land throughout the
study area. After identifying that land, staff focused on a two-
stage analysis: 1) review of permitted uses and 2) review of the
boundaries for the proposed zone. Two of the original rules were
to avoid splitting original parcels and to avoid nonconforming uses
whenever possible. Staff reprioritized decision rules in order to
present the "Mitigated Gateway Commercial Proposal" which has
reduced traffic impacts. The end boundaries were not reduced
because one of the original goals of the GWC zone was to have an
identifiable and recognizable Gateway Commercial area. Staff felt
that SR 167 with the overpass and South 212th with its uses was a
primary intersection and these were appropriate physical boundaries
at the present time. The net traffic additions from the existing
zoning to the originally-proposed area of Gateway Commercial are
predicted to be in the range of 745 to 1, 042 trips during the PM
peak hour. Net additions from existing zoning to the Modified
Gateway Commercial (with an area reduction of 15. 2 acres and the
fast-food separation requirement) are predicted to be 135 to 240
trips during the PM peak hour.
Chairman Martinez asked for an explanation of the changes in
traffic totals from the previous meeting. Mr. Astrein explained
that the initial proposal of traffic figures reflected the
conversion of land zoned M1 or M2 , primarily the northern half of
the site. Staff had assumed that a conversion from Commercial
Manufacturing or General Commercial to Gateway Commercial on the
southern half would have had negligible traffic impacts . The
Engineering Department expressed concern that staff had not
addressed the entire zone. Since the last hearing, staff has
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
March 20, 1989
conducted a full land use analysis of vacant or underdeveloped
land. The original figure provided was 32 . 5 acres. The revised
figure is 62 .9 acres which reflects all the vacant or
underdeveloped land. This figure represents a maximum buildout for
the entire zone. Staff felt that five years would be the earliest
date that buildout could occur.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner asked if the boundary had been realigned
to take care of the concerns of the Petzoldt Brothers ' site. Mr.
Astrein responded that staff originally had avoided splitting the
parcel and had accepted the fact that the parcel would .become a
nonconforming use. Now the land has been split between two zones
and the nonconforming use has been avoided.
Chairman Martinez asked for an explanation of the difference
between the 72 , 838 average daily trips and the 46,537 average daily
trips for the reduction in acreage and limited fast food uses. Mr.
Stroh explained the 72 , 838 figure represented the figure presented
for the earlier proposal for the entire 102 .5 acres to be rezoned
to GWC if it were developed to its full potential. The modified
figures show a reduction in the land area by 15.2 acres and a
reduction in trips generated when the 1, 000-fcot separation between
drive-through restaurant uses would be in effect.
Commissioner Stoner asked what the zoning would be for the parcels
of vacant land that would be excluded from the GWC. Mr. Astrein
responded that the western side would be M3 and the eastern side
would be M2 except for the Petzoldt property which would be zoned
Commercial Manufacturing.
commissioner Greenstreet asked if the mini marts had been
addressed. Mr. Astrein responded that staff had not addressed mini
marts because it felt that the reduction in drive-through
restaurant uses was strong enough to reduce the traffic levels.
Most gas stations are located on corners at busy intersections,
and there are already two gas stations at the 212th intersection.
Gas stations and mini marts both require conditional use permits
which are handled through the Hearing Examiner process.
Torgy Torgerson, 24456 164th Avenue SE, Kent, pointed out that the
current zoning in the northern or southern areas allows retail
businesses , but the proposed new zoning, GWC, specifies retail
businesses with no outside storage. Home Club would not be allowed
in the proposed GWC zone. He felt that personal services would not
be suitable for this area and that the landscaping requirement
would hide the retail uses and make them undesirable for many
customers . He pointed out that no nonconforming structures may be
expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally
4
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
March 20, 1989
altered, nor could any major nonconforming building structure or
lot be occupied after discontinuance of use for a period of time.
He felt this would be a hardship on the owner of the building if
it remained unoccupied for a period of time because of loss of a
tenant. Fire or earthquake damage could present a hardship to the
owner of the building. He added that retail uses are permitted in
the southern half of the area and could be rebuilt under the
current zoning.
Chairman Martinez asked for clarification regarding the statement
"existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed
for human occupancy. " Mr. Stroh responded that this is a principal
use within the proposed Gateway Commercial, i.e. , repair and
rebuilding of an existing dwelling would not be a nonconforming
use. For actual nonconforming uses, if the cost to repair is less
than 50 percent of the fair market value of the property, it could
be rebuilt, i.e. , after disasters such as an earthquake, landslide,
fire or hurricane.
Mr. Torgerson expressed concern about a machine shop that would
become a nonconforming "use under the proposed GWC zoning. If a
fire occurred and cost to rebuild was more than 50 percent of the
value of the building, then the structure could not be rebuilt.
The owner could collect the insurance but would be out of business.
Mr. Torgerson did not feel this would be fair. He did not believe
that the City of Kent would be gaining anything by changing the GC
zone in the southern part and the CM zone in the northern part.
He felt that GWC zoning should have been imposed 40 years ago
before all the truck gardens were covered with concrete. He also
pointed out that 40 percent maximum site coverage is lower than the
current zoning requirement. He pointed out that the part of the
site that is not a parking lot or building must be landscaped. He
did not feel that landscaping would be a useful addition to sites
in this area.
Jim Rust, 8619 South 218th, Kent, stated that he saw no value in
changing the zoning to GWC. He suggested that the southern part
be zoned M2 because it is currently industrial. He was concerned
about the increase in traffic. He asked if Kent Nursery came under
the Open Space Act. Mr. Satterstrom responded that it currently
is under the Open Space Taxation Act, but this did not mean that
in the future it could not be developed.
Mrs. Rust, 8619 South 218th, Kent, expressed concern about what is
happening in the downtown area. She could not understand why the
commercial area is being extended to the proposed GWC area.
5
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
March 20, 1989
Chairman Martinez responded that the Commission has been working
on the Downtown Kent Plan which is hoped to help bring a more
diverse community . into the downtown area. She stated that the
Commission has been considering the downtown area at the same time
as it has been considering the proposed GWC zone.
Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Uhlar-Heffner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Commission accept the mitigated
Gateway Commercial proposal for the area shown on -the map.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion.
Commissioner Stoner asked how many nonconforming uses would be
created by the proposed Gateway Commercial zone change. Mr.
Astrein estimated that there would be less than 15.
Commissioner Stoner asked where the trucking uses were located and
if they would be included in the GWC zone. Mr. Satterstrom
responded that DiPietro Trucking and United Trucking would not be
affected by the proposed GWC zoning. It had been recommended that
Petzoldt Brothers be deleted from the proposed GWC zone.
Commissioner Ward expressed concern about the 17 nonconforming uses
that would be created through the proposed GWC zone. Mr. Stroh
responded that the intent of the proposed GWC zone was to create
a uniform commercial area with a high set of development standards
and a focus of a higher-quality type of retail/commercial area. One
of the reasons behind this proposal is to upgrade the appearance
and quality of the East Valley Highway area. The proposed set of
uses, development and landscaping standards are designed to improve
the quality of that area. There are some developments that are
ready to begin developing if this is approved by the Planning
Commission and the City Council . Some of the impacts of the
upgrading may be visible soon. In the meantime there will be some
nonconforming uses and nonconforming development standards. The
Kent Zoning Code is lenient on nonconforming uses. If a business
were established prior to 1984 and remained under the same
ownership, this business could expand and enlarge its use through
a conditional use permit in the City of Kent. This business can
continue as long as there is no interruption in use.
Commissioner Forner agreed that the proposed GWC zone was a good
approach to creating a better atmosphere for the strip along
Central Avenue, but she felt that it did provide one more area of
competition for the downtown area. She felt this was a valid
concern and realized that the downtown area was not flourishing at
the present time. She agreed with the intent of the plan, but
6
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
March 20 , 1989
agreed that it would be another means of drawing business out of
the downtown area.
Commissioner Ward felt that the proposed Gateway Commercial zone
was an innovative approach. If the solution works in this area,
the approach could be applied to other areas in the city. He felt
this should be an encouragement for development in Kent. Limiting
the fast-food uses in the area he felt would help to hold down the
increase in traffic.
Mr. Satterstrom asked if crop and tree farming had been added to
the motion noting that Phyllis Mauritsen had made this request at
an earlier hearing. Commissioner Stoner responded that crop and
tree farming had been included as a permitted use in all zones .
Chair Martinez clarified the motion by stating that
the ciateand
Commercial zoning district will promote "quality"
mixed-use development in an area which is currently without a
dominant, recognizable character. It should help to create a new
and upgraded appearance for East Valley Highway. Implementing the
provisions of Gateway Commercial will encourage development and
redevelopment that will have long-term benefit to the East Valley
Highway and the entire City of Kent.
Carol Stoner MOVED that the mitigated Gateway Commercial zone be
established as recommended by the Planning staff and that it be
applied to the land designated as Area 1. Commissioner Ward
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that tree crop nursery activities be
included in the list of principally permitted uses for the Gateway
Commercial zone. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner SECONDED the motion.
Commissioner Forner felt that tree crop farming and nurseries did
not have any place in this zone because of the use of chemicals for
spraying. Discussion followed. Motion carried.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Office designation be applied
to Area 2 . Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion.
Commissioner Stoner did not feel that the other uses that had been
suggested for Area 2 were appropriate for an area that is so close
to the freeway. She felt the area was more appropriate for Office
designation. Commissioner Greenstreet supported the motion because
the site seemed like a natural solution because of the overpasses
over the freeway and closeness to the other commercial area. He
felt that the Office designation would add more to the city than
vacant land or a mobile home park. He had concern about the
cemetery, but staff had assured him that the preservation of the
7
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
March 20, 1989
cemetery would be addressed with the developer at the time of
development. Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Stoner MOVED to adjourn the public hearing.
Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Pcred N. Satterstrom
ing Planning Director
8
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 1989
The meeting of the Kent Planning commission was called to order by
Chair Martinez at 7 : 30 p.m. on Monday, February 13 , 1989 in the
Kent City Hall , City Council Chambers.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Martinez , Chair
Robert Badger, Vice Chair
Anne Biteman
Greg Greenstreet
Carol Stoner
Raymond Ward
Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner
COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT:
Elmira Forner, excused
PLANNING STAFF -MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director
Dan Stroh, Senior Planner
Ken Astrein, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
Marty Nizlek, Transportation Engineer
Ed White, Assistant Transportation Engineer
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF THE JANUARY 30 1989 MEETING
commissioner Stoner MOVED that the minutes of the January 30, 1989
Planning Commission meeting be approved as printed. Commissioner
Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Chair Martinez reopened the public hearing.
EAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY (GWC)
Mr. Satterstrom entered the Sound Ventures Development Company
letter dated January 30, 1989 as Exhibit 1, and a letter from Hill
Investment Company dated February 8 , 1989 as Exhibit 2 .
Ken Astrein presented the three actions involved in the East Valley
Zoning Study: (1) creating a Gateway Commercial Zoning District
(GWC) complete with design, landscape and development standards ;
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
February 13 , 1989
(2) applying this new zoning district to the area outlined; (3)
rezoning the site located on the corner of SR 167 and South 212th
from Mobile Home Park to Office.
Jim Torina, realtor, 1048 West James Street rr104 , Kent, WA 98032 ,
representing the Pierres ' 4 . 8 acres of property, presented drawings
of the proposed development which have been designed based on the
GWC requirements . He expressed support of the new GWC standards,
because it would allow higher use of the property. He did not
object to the landscaping, sidewalk and setback requirements, but
was concerned about the appearance of inconsistency along the
street if only the new developments had sidewalks, curbs, etc. He
felt that the street improvements should include the entire street.
Torgy Torgerson, 24456 164th SE, Kent, 98042, felt that the area
was industrially oriented, not retail oriented. Only 20 percent
of the area is currently undeveloped. He felt that the sprinkling
of GWC uses would not change the appearance of the area
significantly, and that the GWC landscaping requirement could
eventually restrict the displaying of merchandise. He wished to
use his property for auctions, a use not allowed under the proposed
GWC zoning regulations . He asked that the Commission not recommend
GWC to Council but he encouraged staff to consider CM2 zoning for
Area 1.
Gary Young, The Polygon Corporation, 4020 NE Lake Washington
Boulevard, NE, Kirkland, WA 98033 , developer of the Area 2
property, submitted into the record Exhibit 3 , a letter dated
February 13 , 1989 to Mr. Nizlek from Bell-Walker Engineers, Inc.
The letter stated that additional study showed the impacts created
by the proposed development on the intersection of SE 212th and
East Valley Highway are insignificant; the flow would be opposite
to the peak flow on South 212th Street. He submitted Exhibit 4 ,
a letter dated February 13 , 1989 from Bell-Walker Engineers, Inc.
to Gary Young, explaining the methodology utilized in determining
the length of the right-turn (eastbound) lane on 212th which would
provide right-turn access into the proposed development. The
design would provide 85 feet plus the 50 foot area that follows the
taper, a total of 135 feet. This has been approved by WSDOT. He
rescinded his previous estimate of 150 feet. One-car storage is
required, and they have provided for a three-car storage area.
Because Area 2 is providing its own traffic mitigation which
improves the situation at the interchange of SR 167/212th and is
independent of the East Valley Road traffic situation, he asked
that consideration be given to approving Area 2 , even if Area 1 is
not approved at the present time.
2
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
February 13 , 1989
Gary Griswold, realtor, 5245 West Mercer Way, Mercer Island, 98040,
supported the proposal because it would eliminate the constant
nonconforming applications which are sometimes granted. It will
also enable the Planning Department to plan for the future in a
more realistic way. The aesthetic value of the area could be
controlled and monitored for the benefit for everyone. Since
growth will inevitably occur, he felt it is important to set
guidelines to deal with the growth. He felt that the GWC rezoning
would provide these guidelines. The traffic count could be lowered
by serving the local consumer and eliminating the need to drive out
of the area for goods and services. He felt there would be a
minimum number of people who would come to the area because of the
rezone. He commended the Planning Department for visualizing the
impending growth and dealing with it from an offensive rather than
defensive position.
Phyllis Mauritsen, Kent Nursery, felt the zoning change to GWC
would be a reasonable way to control the growth that is coming.
If this is approved, she asked that crop and tree farming be
included in the code as a permitted use for this zone. All the
other zones in the city include crop and tree farming.
Surinder-Pal Khela, 10818 SE 236th, Kent, 98031, supported the
proposed GWC rezone because Polygon has provided adequate traffic
mitigation. He suggested that Area 2 be approved as an office
district, even if Area 1 were not approved at the present time.
Rick Romney, partner with Spieker Partners, 1746 89th Place NE,
Bellevue, a Kent commercial developer during the past nine years,
explained that the addition of the freeway interchange at South
212th and East Valley Highway has changed traffic considerably.
He has a 100-unit motel development planned for the area at South
206th and East Valley Highway. He foresees this area as a
commercially-oriented corridor. He has been waiting four years for
this rezoning. The Planning Department previously agreed with his
request but had asked him to wait until this study is completed.
He supported the proposed GWC but suggested minor changes.
James Lashbrook, United Truck Lines, Inc, 8801 South 218th, Kent,
98031, supported the GWC proposal and felt this zoning could
support some of the needs of the area. He noted that everything
on the north side of South 218th and on the east side of the
proposed GWC is currently zoned M2 . The south side of South 218th
is currently zoned CMl. He would like to see the south side
changed to M2 .
Lawrence Campbell , Campbell and Associates, 1609 South Central
Avenue, Kent, supports the GWC plan but feels that all properties
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
February 13 , 1969
south of 218th, west of the freeway and east of the GWC zone should
be zoned M2 , which would make the entire strip of land consistent
along the entire length of the . proposed GWC zone. The M2
designation would allow businesses that are now operating in that
area to expand and remain in business rather than relocate.
Don Lundberg, 2310 100th Avenue SE, Bellevue, owner of Tract 8 and
the north half of Tract 7 , stated that he built a high-quality
steel building in strict conformance with the M1 zoning for
Ingersoll Rand Company. This was designed especially for servicing
and sales of heavy machinery. This building is presently occupied
by Petzoldt Brothers Inc. which services and maintains large truck
fleets, such as Lynden Transfer, Coca Cola and other companies.
The use for which this building was designed would not be permitted
under GWC zoning. The boundary for the GWC is on the east side of
this building. He requested that the eastern boundary of GWC be
moved to the west side of his facility so that he would be able to
continue to operate the facility. If he were to lose a tenant and
the building were empty for six months, he would not be able to
rent the building for its present use. He explained that all the
repair and servicing of heavy equipment takes place within the
walls of the building, but parking and storage of large equipment
must take place outside the building, a use not permitted in the
proposed GWC zone. He felt that GWC zoning would be appropriate
for the front portion of his property.
Howard Montoure, Montoure Realty, 21620 84th Avenue South, has been
located in the area 12 years and has been waiting for a rezone.
Sites along this area are too small for industrial facilities. He
would like to place a retail center in this proposed GWC zone
without a conditional use permit.
Jim Torina added that he has located several tenants for a certain
empty building, but business licenses could not be issued because
of the current zoning.
Regarding the suggestion of M2 zoning south of South 218th, Phyllis
Mauritsen commented that there are a number of small businesses in
this area that fit into the CM zoning designation. She felt that
the extension of M2 would be a mistake since there is a mobile home
park located in the area.
Torgy Torgerson expressed concern about the rear setback
requirement of five feet of landscaping. He felt there was no
reason for this landscaping, that it was lost property and a waste
of money.
4
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
February 13 , 1989
Dan Stroh responded to the question of the Petzoldt Brothers site
by stating that existing businesses had been considered when
drawing the proposed boundaries. He had no objection to
withdrawing this building from the GWC zone. He added that
portions of the nursery site are included in the proposed GWC zone.
He saw no reason why crop and tree farming could not be included
in the proposal .
Discussion followed regarding the separation of Area 1 and Area 2 .
Mr. Satterstrom responded that this was an area-wide issue.
Mr. Nizlek submitted Exhibit 5, a memorandum to the Planning
Commission dated February 13 , 1989 , showing present and projected
traffic volumes. There are deficient levels of service that exist
on South 212th Street at East Valley Highway and in the vicinity
of SR 167 . The addition of 200 trips to the present zoning could
be accommodated if South 212th were widened both east and west of
East Valley Highway by one lane in each direction, and East Valley
Highway from the southbound off ramps of SR 167 to 228th. The
signals at South 212th and SR 167 southbound off ramps should be
improved. For the addition of 400 trips, East Valley Highway
th
should be widened north of the southbound off ramp to 224im by one
lane in each direction and the signal at 224th should be improved.
If 800 trips were added, East Valley Highway should be widened
north of 224th with attention to turn lanes and signals as
developments are determined. Kent has been growing approximately
four percent per year. With the growth of 1, 000 trips plus a 15
percent factor representing this growth, SR 167 would become a
problem even though widened by two lanes, the off-ramp would have
congestion problems, and 224th would become a problem. He stated
that truck traffic usually uses off hours for moving goods. He
added that the master plan includes widening of East Valley Highway
to five lanes when funding becomes available.
Commissioner Badger pointed out that the widening of East Valley
Highway could make it increasingly attractive for gaining access
to SR 167 and the north valley area. He asked if the proposal
included a request for dedication of each side of East Valley
Highway for additional lanes. Mr. Stroh responded that it was now
65-80 feet wide and additional widening had not been taken into
consideration in this proposal . Seven lanes and sidewalks would
require more than 100 feet.
Mr. Torina felt that if 20 additional feet were required for roads
and 20 feet more for landscaping, the landscaping requirement
should be reduced.
5
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
February 13 , 1989
Mr. Young asked if the traffic mitigation being discussed affected
Area 1 or Area 2 or both. Mr. Nizlek responded that the traffic
studies involved Area 1, and he did not feel that Area 2 would
contribute to the traffic situation being discussed.
Chair Martinez asked if there were other measures that might
mitigate traffic congestion other than making roadways wider. She
wondered if the proposed rail study would have any effect on the
area, and if cooperation between businesses and Metro to obtain
smaller busses to service the area would help to mitigate the
problem. Mr. Nizlek responded that the most that could be expected
from such other mitigation measures would be a 15 percent
reduction.
Commissioner Stoner asked for a specific mechanism for a traffic
mitigation measure that could be included in this rezone study.
Mr. Nizlek responded that as development occurs, dedication of the
necessary rights of way along the frontage is the standard
procedure.
Commissioner Stoner MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion.
Mr. Satterstrom suggested that staff (1) look at possible ways to
mitigate the proposal by looking at the allowed uses in terms of
reducing the trips ; (2) look at the desirability and mechanism for
adding two lanes; (3) look at some options for the freeway
intersection of SR 167 and the East Valley Highway. He stated that
it is difficult to channel 40, 000 trips underneath the overpass of
SR 167 with the limitation of four lanes. He suggested looking at
options in terms of disallowing certain left-hand turns in the area
and ways of decreasing the delay through intersections.
Commissioner Badger MOVED to continue the hearing to March 20,
1989 . Commissioner Stoner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Badger MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner
Stoner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was
adjourned at 10 : 10 p.m.
Res/peectfullysubmitted,
WIA
(�T/ N G% ice 1
red N. Satterstrom
cting Planning Director
6
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 30, 1989
The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair
Martinez at 7 : 30 p.m. on Monday, January 30, 1989 in the Kent City
Hall, City Council Chambers.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Martinez, Chair
Elmira Forner
Greg Greenstreet
Carol Stoner
Raymond Ward
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Anne Biteman, excused
Robert Badger, absent
Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner, absent
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director
Dan Stroh, Senior Planner
Kathy McClung, Senior Planner
Stephen Clifton, Planner
Lauri Anderson, Planner
Ken Astrein, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Marty Nizlek
APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 12 , 1989
Commissioner Forner MOVED that the minutes of the January 12 , 1989
Planning Commission meeting be approved as printed. Commissioner
Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Chair Martinez opened the public hearing.
EAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY
Ken Astrein presented the East Valley Zoning Study. The basis for
the recommendations are contained in the amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan which were adopted by Council in June 1988 . The
recommendations included (1) create a new commercial zoning
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
January 30, 1989
district entitled Gateway Commercial (GWC) . (2) apply this new
zoning district to the area recently designated Commercial in the
Valley Floor Plan, and (31 rezone an area from Mobile Home Park
(MHP) to Office (0) as designated in the East Valley Study
Amendments to the Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
Gateway Commercial zone is designed to promote commercial
development which would minimize some of the adverse physical and
visual impacts often associated with corridor commercial
development. Two public meetings were held to hear the public ' s
concerns. The new Gateway Commercial zone would provide retail
commercial uses along East Valley Highway and encourage a more
unified development and recognizable image for the area. Among
the permitted uses to be, allowed would be retail establishments
within an enclosed building, personal services, office and
professional services, business services, restaurants, taverns and
night clubs, and repair services. The suggested conditional uses
would include gasoline service stations and automotive repair
facilities. The minimum lot size and maximum coverage would be the
same as required for the General Commercial zone. A side yard
setback of five feet would be required; if adjacent to residential
districts, a 20-foot setback would be required.
Area 1 encompasses all the property adjacent to East Valley Highway
bounded on the -south -by the SR 167 -overpass and extending 300 feet
north of 212th Street, an area of approximately 102 acres. Current
zoning is a mixture of General Commercial (GC) , and Commercial
Manufacturing (CM) in the southern half of the area, and Limited
Industrial (M2) , and General Industrial (M3) in the northern half
of the area. Existing uses range from heavy industrial to
residential.
Criteria used in establishing this zoning change included: 1)
follow the natural and physical boundaries whenever possible; 2)
follow existing commercial boundaries wherever possible; 3) follow
property boundaries wherever possible; 4) encourage land assembly;
and 5) avoid creating nonconforming uses wherever possible.
Nonconforming standards would apply to the existing developments,
which would have to conform to the new standards upon expansion.
Area 2 is adjacent to and east of SR 167 , north of 212th, south of
208th Street and is bounded on the west by 92nd Avenue. This area
is approximately 13 . 2 acres in size and surrounds the Saar Cemetery
on three sides. The site was originally approved for mobile homes
in 1984 , but development never occurred. Land has been zoned MHP,
and there have been minor grade and fill improvements. The
proposed zoning would change the site from MHP to Office. It is
felt that this would be compatible with the surrounding land uses .
Because of its proximity to the interchange at SR 167, noise makes
2
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
January 30, 1989
it inappropriate for residential use. This zoning change would
reduce commercial development pressures and further the economic
goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning staff recommends the
Commission approve the following three actions:
1 . Establish a Gateway Commercial zoning district complete
with use, development and sign standards;
2 . Apply this Gateway Commercial zoning district to the area
labeled "Area 111 ;
3 . Apply Office zoning to Area 2 east of SR 167.
Marty Nizlek, City Traffic Engineer, stated that anticipated uses
of the rezoned area would generate traffic at a much greater rate
than the present buildout of the area. In 1980 this area generated
3,300 trips per day, and 35, 000 could be expected in the year 2000.
Earlier reports showed a projected volume of 24, 000 vehicles per
day on the East Valley Highway along the corridor. The proposed
rezone would at least double the vehicle trips. He felt that the
four-lane facility could not handle 40, 000-50, 000 trips per day.
The existing Mobile Home Park zoning of 13 .2 acres would have
generated 528 trips per day. With the rezone of Area 2 to Office,
he estimated that 3 , 300 trips per 'day would be generated. He l
expressed more concern about Area 1 than Area 2 .
Commissioner Ward asked for current traffic generation figures.
Mr. Nizlek responded that he did not have current traffic counts
but stated that the intersection of 212th and East Valley Highway
would go to level of service F, critical failure. There are no
current plans for a seven-lane arterial at that location.
Commissioner Stoner asked if he could foresee any mitigation
measures. Mr. Nizlek felt that growth in traffic in this area
should be studied. There is no current study model that would
provide this information. When asked if there were any commercial
uses that would have less impact on the roadways, Mr. Nizlek
responded that because he had been in the current position only
since November 1988 , he did not feel he could predict how the
impacts should be handled. He did state that fast food
establishments have the greatest impacts on the roadways. Fast
food facilities create 2 , 300-2 , 850 trips per day per acre;
hotel/motel facilities generate 200-1, 000 ; auto service and repair
facilities generate 500-1 , 200 ; indoor retail commercial facilities
generate 700-900 ; convenience retail generates 270-330 . Fast food
generates five percent of the trips in the evening peak hour. Most
other uses generate 10 percent of the trips in the evening peak
hour. Out of the 32 . 5 acres he felt would be developed, 20 percent
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
January 30, 1989
would be developed into fast food facilities, 20 percent into
office, 10 percent into hotel/motel, 20 percent into auto services
and related repair, 120 percent into retail commercial, and 10
percent into convenience retail . When asked if he had considered
efforts to encourage public transportation, use of HOV lanes, car
pools and a transportation management system in his factoring, he
responded that he had not; but with a well-supported traffic
management system a 10-20 percent reduction could be expected. He
had already reduced his calculations by 45 percent assuming that
this percentage would represent diverted trips. Chairman Martinez
asked that a copy of this report be submitted to the Commission.
The report was copied and submitted to the Commission later in the
hearing.
Gary Young, Polygon Corporation, 4020 Lake Washington Boulevard NE,
Suite 201, Kirkland, developer of the property designated as Area
2 on the plan, submitted into the record a letter Dated January 30,
1989 which supported the staff recommendation. This property is
impacted significantly by freeway noise. Their traffic
consultant's studies conclude that office or commercial development
would be feasible for this site. The proposed development would
provide the following changes in the 212th intersection: (1)
the
northbound off-ramp would be widened to provide a double left-turn
lane and a through lane to 90th Avenue South, the access for the
Valley Freeway Property; (2) an eastbound left-turn lane would be
constructed to provide left-turn access onto 90th Avenue South; (3)
a separate right-turn lane would be provided for westbound traffic
to turn onto 90th Avenue South to enter the Valley Freeway project;
(4) the eastbound South 212th Street approach would be widened to
provide a right-turn lane onto the southbound on-ramp; (5) the
southbound off-ramp would be rechanneled to increase the storage
for left-turning vehicles. These improvements would be provided
by the development. He felt that there is currently an adequate
supply of residential and industrial land, but there is a
noticeable shortage of accessible land designated for commercial
and office use. He felt this site is well suited for this use.
Their additions to the intersection would improve the functioning
of this intersection.
Commissioner Forner expressed concern about the grade and curve of
the hill and the length of the additional lane for slowing traffic.
Mr. Young responded that this lane would be 150 feet long. He
added that they had used Washington State Transportation standards
in determining the length of this lane_
Ted Bell, Bell Walker Engineers, explained that the proposed plan
would improve the present situation.
4
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
January 30 , 1989
Commissioner Stoner asked what plans Polygon had made for the
historic cemetery site. Mr. Young responded that the
cemetery
would continue to be zoned Residential Agricultural, RA, and there
would be a 20-foot setback. On the east side of the cemetery there
would be a significant separation from the project. Polygon would
maintain the separation, and the cemetery would continue in its
present form.
Jim Rust, 8619 South 218th, asked if there were any provisions for
routes around South 218th. At the present time cars enter South
218th and leave by going out the same street.
Bob Millikin, Operations Manager of Van Waters and Rogers, 8201
South 212th, moved from Seattle in 1973 to Kent and has no desire
to change their location. He expressed concern that future
development may not wish to have them remain in this area. He was
also concerned about making a left-hand turnout from this property.
Mr. Satterstrom responded that Van Waters and Rogers conforms to
the zoning code and is one of the most attractive M3 uses in the
East Valley area. He saw no reason for concern.
Torgy Torgerson, 24456 164th Avenue SE, Kent, felt that the present
zoning should remain unchanged or be changed to Commercial
Manufacturing because of the surrounding uses. He was also
concerned about trees obscuring signs in the area.
Lawrence Campbell, 1609 South Central, Kent, supported the proposed
rezone but wondered why all the areas within the East Valley were
not being rezoned to comply with the plan. He felt it would be
unfair to the other property owners if they were required to
individually go through the zoning process. He represented two
clients who wished to rezone their properties. Mr. Satterstrom
responded that these two areas were significantly inconsistent with
the planned designation.
Jim Lashbrook, 8801 South 218th, asked if the traffic mitigation
would be implemented prior to, during, or after the zoning change.
He felt the area between SR 167 and the proposed GWC should remain
M2 .
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Mr. Clifton presented the proposal for the Housing Element Update
as requested by Council Resolution Number 1172 which directed the
Planning Department to conduct a two-phased study. Phase I was to
Update the Housing Element, and Phase II was to do an area-by-area
analysis of the residential densities. The Kent Comprehensive Plan
has not been updated since 1977 . The Planning staff, with the help
5
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
January 30, 1989
of a nine-member advisory committee, reviewed every goal, policy
and objective in the existing plan and unanimously endorsed the
revisions to the Housing Element Update.. Following is a summary
of the five goals.
Goal 1 deals with maintaining and improving the city's existing
residential neighborhoods. There is an emphasis on the retention
of existing residential areas as livable and attractive
neighborhoods. These are considered vital to the overall health
of the city. A survey will take place to analyze the existing
infrastructure deficiencies. one policy addresses protection of
existing single family neighborhoods from incompatible uses or
other intrusions through buffers, landscaping, fencing and density
gradations.
Goal 2, New Housing Element, deals with the integration of new
development with existing housing. The first objective addresses
new residential development in suitable areas of the Valley Floor.
This would help to direct growth close to transportation corridors,
near commercial centers and along major commuter transit routes.
Manufactured housing has been proven to be a cost-effective housing
type and can fit in with existing .single family neighborhoods.
Housing policies for multifamily development include establishing
densities for new growth and for single family development,
limiting multifamily development on East Hill, responsibly guiding
new residential growth and developing areas already served by
utilities and transportation systems.
Goal 3 , Housing Diversity and Affordability, plans for more balance
between multifamily and single family housing. By preserving and
maintaining housing, more affordable housing would become
available. Mixed-use zoning would provide an opportunity to live
closer to transportation, shopping and recreational opportunities .
Infilling under-developed neighborhoods can often strengthen
existing single family neighborhoods by adding new housing to these
areas. By reducing minimum lot sizes, it is hoped that this would
reduce the cost by increasing the supply.
Goal 4 , Housing and the Natural Environment, assures that
environmental quality exists in residential areas by prohibiting
residential development in areas unsuitable for development, such
as wetlands and areas that have steep slopes. Conserving features
such as streams, trees and wetlands, providing for open green areas
in residential neighborhoods, protecting sensitive area such as
woodlands, wetlands, meadows and wildlife habitats also assure
environmental quality. The Hazard Area Development Limitations
Map, which currently includes creeks, waterways, steep and unstable
slopes and ravines, should be updated to include woodlands,
6
EAST VALLEY ZONING TRAFFIC SUM1 ARY
Existing Zoning Buildout - 62 . 9 Developable Acres
Manufacturing Commercial Total
Low # of Trips 1, 091 23 , 333 24 ,423
Low PM Peak 135 828 962
High # of Trips 1, 793 35 , 319 37 , 112
High PM Peak 230 1, 198 11427
Gateway Commercial Buildout - 62 . 9 Developable Acres
Manufacturing Commercial Total
Low # of Trips 0 48 , 119 48, 119
Low PM Peak 0 1,707 11707
High # of Trips 0 72 , 838 72 ,838
High PM Peak 0 21470 21470
Gateway Commercial Buildout W/10 . 3 Developable Acre Reduction &
Limited Fast Food Uses - 52 . 56 Developable Acres
Manufacturing Commercial Total
Low # of Trips 0 28 ,432 28,432
Low PM Peak 0 1, 097 1,097
High # of Trips 0 46, 537 46 ,537
High PM Peak 0 1, 667 11667
SUMMARY OF P.M. PEAK CHANGES
Net Additions from Existing Zoning to Gateway Commercial
Low PM Peak 745
High PM Peak 1,042
Net Additions from Existing Zoning to Modified Gateway Commercial
Low PM Peak 135
High PM Peak 240
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 20 , 1989
MEMO TO: Linda Martinez , Chair, and Planning Commission Members
FROM: Fred Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director
SUBJECT: East Valley Zoning
The East Valley Zoning Public Hearing has been continued to this
date in order to gather additional information about the traffic
impacts of the proposed rezone to "Gateway Commercial. " Planning
Department staff has reviewed available land to determine the
buildout traffic levels possible with no change, with
implementation of the original proposal and with implementation of
a scaled-back rezone. The Traffic Division of Public Works
conducted field studies to determine current utilization of East
Valley Highway in the vicinity of the proposal. Public Works staff
has previously reported to you on a computer model constructed to
identify points of congestion along East Valley Highway and levels
of service under various scenarios of future traffic increases .
The Planning, Public Works and Legal departments have arrived at
a joint proposal which addresses traffic mitigation measures
necessary under SEPA environmental review and the rezone action.
Following is a synopsis of the review and a staff recommendation.
1. Present average daily traffic volumes along East Valley
Highway in the vicinity of the proposal (from 212th
Street to SR 167) range from 23 , 000 to 34 , 000 trips. See
Attachment 1 .
2 . LOS E conditions presently occur at the intersection of
East Valley Highway and 212th Street, and at the SR 167
underpass . See attachment 2 .
3 . Under a no-action alternative, i.e. , maintenance of
existing GC, CM, M1 and M2 zoning, an additional 24 , 423-
37 , 112 average daily trips/962-1, 427 peak-hour trips
(adjusted for linked trips) are projected to be generated
by new uses developing within the 102 .5 acres proposed
for rezoning. These uses would be expected to occur with
no change in zoning. Projections are based on an
identification of vacant and underdeveloped parcels
within the 102 . 5 acre area, an analysis of permitted uses
under current zoning, and trip projection based on
standard ITE rates . _.
4 . Under the original proposal for rezone of 102 . 5 acres
from GC, CM, M1 and 142 zoning to Gateway Commercial , new
development is projected to result in 48 , 119-72 , 838
average daily trips/1, 707-2 , 470 peak-hour trips (adjusted
for linked trips) . The net difference between projected
additional trips under existing zoning and the proposal
is 745-1 , 043 peak hour trips. These are the net new
peak-hour trips associated with the proposed non-project
action.
5 . Mitigating conditions have been identified which would
both reduce the acreage included in the rezone and limit
drive-through "fast food" restaurant uses. Under a
modified proposal for rezone of lesser acreage and a
limitation on fast food uses within the Gateway
Commercial zone, new development is expected to result
in 28 , 432-46, 537 average daily trips/1, 097-1, 667 peak-
hour trips (adjusted for linked trips) . See Attachment
3 . The net difference between projected additional trips
under existing zoning and the mitigated proposal is 135-
240 peak hour trips . These are the net new trips
associated with the modified proposal .
RECO14MENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposal for rezoning to Gateway
Commercial and Office designations, with two changes:
1) a reduction in size of the Gateway Commercial area by 15 . 2
acres, as shown on attachment 3 . This reduction would take
place on both the east and west sides, in the area originally
proposed for deepest application of the new zone.
2) a 1000-foot separation requirement on drive-through
restaurants designed to limit the number of fast food uses
occurring within the rezone corridor. ITE trip generation
rates for this use are over three times the rate for the next
most intensive generator surveyed for the rezone analysis .
Additional traffic mitigation conditions are being applied through
the SEPA environmental review process. It is expected that these
SEPA conditions will address much of the Commission' s concerns
about the traffic impacts of the Gateway Commercial zoning. A copy
of the SEPA Decision Document is attached for your information.
DS/lr
s � `
nl
S. 212TH ST
3 Z,Z oo
0
0 _
rr�
N
0 '
0 .
N
N \61
�e-
O -
o �
oo _ EV CT Vic -
�
. � (� uFl i Lam( T�RA FFfL
S. 228TH /W G�
D
',o S. 22BTH ST /E
Lev V
E NGInE,N IrI(i De YnH Tmrrir
SCMI
newvin_._---
ULLCXin_ 0.
_
w
S. 212TH S7
N
t I'
61
n 5�
• � - Ev�wc -
pi`E6EnI7- Low
�Y L�DC�Tlo�/
S. 226TH AV
S. 220TH ST /E
C / �
Y C� 01t Sl �J CS L irl if
� O-Z
t) PAI<TmCNf
1.
o[acu[o :c.r[
m
n.rt —
[mcx[o
m rr.t„r�:
FAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY
"Gateway Commercial "
Proposed Zoning Doundar
: Proposed Areas
Reduction
J=I
1 Y
SCALE
l : 8400
K" ENT GIS
J AN N . 19 e 9
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DECISION DOCUMENT
EAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY
nENV-89-1
The January 25 staff report on this proposal noted that a final
recommendation was pending while awaiting receipt of comments from
the Public Works Department. Comments have been received from the
Transportation Engineer. Following is additional information on
the existing traffic system and the proposal ' s impacts .
A. GATEWAY COMMERCIAL PROPOSAL
1 . Present average daily traffic volumes along -East Valley
Highway in the area of the proposal (from 212th Street
to SR 167) range from 23 , 000 to 34 , 000 trips . See
Attachment 1.
2 . LOS E conditions presently occur at the intersection of
East Valley Highway and 212th Street, and at the SR 167
underpass during PM peak hours. See attachment 2 .
3 . Under a no action alternative, i . e. , maintenance of
existing GC, CM, M1 and M2 zoning, an additional 24 , 423-
37, 112 average daily trips/962-1, 427 peak hour trips
(adjusted for linked trips) are projected to be generated
by new uses developing within the 102 . 5 acres proposed
for rezoning. These uses would be expected to occur with
no change in zoning. Projections are based on an
identification of vacant and underdeveloped parcels
within the 102 . 5 acre area, an analysis of permitted uses
under current zoning, and trip projection based on
standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
rates.
4 . Under the original proposal for rezone of 102 . 5 acres
from GC, CM, M1 and M2 zoning to Gateway Commercial, new
development is projected to result in 48 , 119-72 , 838
average daily trips/1, 707-2 , 470 peak hour trips (adjusted
for linked trips) . The net difference between projected
additional. trips under existing zoning and the proposal
is 745-1, 043 PM peak hour trips . These are the projected
net new P14 peak hour trips associated with the proposed
non-project action.
5 . Mitigating conditions have been identified which would
both reduce the acreage included in the rezone and limit
drive-through " fast food" restaurant uses . ITE trip
generation rates for the fast food use are over three
times the rate for the next most intensive generator
surveyed for the rezone analysis . Under a modified
proposal for rezone of lesser acreage and a limitation
.. 1
Addendum to Decision Document
East Valley Zoning Study
#Env-89-1
on fast food uses within the Gateway Commercial zone, new
development is expected to result in 28 , 432-46 , 537
average daily trips/1 , 097-1, 667 peak hour trips (adjusted
for linked trips) . The net difference between projected
additional trips under existing zoning and the mitigated
proposal is 135-240 peak hour trips . These are the net
new trips associated with the modified proposal.
6 . The City recognizes that this rezone action will impact
traffic both in the immediate vicinity of the proposal
and in other areas of the City' s transportation system.
Based on this proposal and on other land use and traffic
changes which have occurred since the Citywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan was last updated, the
City is committed to updating its Comprehensive
Transportation Plan in the near future.
B. OFFICE PROPOSAL
The owner of this site, Polygon Corporation, has performed a
site-specific traffic study - through Bell-Walker Engineers,
Inc. In addition, the Washington State Department of
Transportation (DOT) has placed conditions on completion of
the South 212th/SR 167 interchange by the Valley Freeway
property. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed these site-
specific studies . For the rezone action, no additional
mitigation measures beyond the conditions placed by DOT have
been identified as necessary. However, the City reserves the
right to condition specific development proposals on the site
under separate SEPA actions at a later date. The developer
recognizes that participation in the City' s east-west
transportation corridor projects will also be required.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Without imposition of the following terms and conditions,
significant adverse and probable environmental impacts may not be
mitigated and the proposed action may require preparation of an
environmental impact statement. Staff recommends that a Mitigated
Declaration of Nonsignificance be issued for the proposed non-
project action, with the following mitigation conditions:
1. The staff proposal for rezone to Gateway Commercial shall be
reduced by approximately 15 . 2 acres, as shown on Attachment
3 . This is the "mitigated" proposal referred to in item 5
above .
2
Addendum to Decision Document
East Valley zoning Study
#Env-89-1 to
teway commercial
all
2 . The staff proposal for rezon
000efoot aseparation betweenhdrivee
modified to require a 1,
through restaurant uses • This d quireby s t isidesigntens e use
to
limit the number of trips generate
to a level manageable by the street network.
3 : _ At the time of development of sites within the Gateway
r associated wi�h
Commercial zone, mitigation off on amsite-specific basis,
new development shall be applied
'
which at a minimum will include participation in the City' s
east-west transportation corridor projects . In addition, the
applicant shall conduct a study
if caldly identifying the entify and snumber
generated by the proposal, trips
specifically enerated under
of trips over and above those which could rezoning to "Gateway
the zoning in effect p "Gateway
Commercial . " The applicant shall identify and perform
measures, . in addition to participation in the City Is east-west
corridor projects , .for mitigation of such trips. Examples
include but are not limited to capital improvements at the
e of development rights
entrances to the rezone area, purchas
in the vicinity, participation in a north-south 88th Corridor
Project, or similar mitigation measures identified in the
City' s Comprehensive Transportation Plan or Transportation
Improvement Plan.
4 .1 The Planning and Public Works Departments shall develop a
proposed Transportation system Management ordinance that
addresses alternative methods of transportation, including
ridesharing, transit, van-pooling and related approaches.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 17 , 1989
3
EAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY
RENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JANUARY 1989
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The East Valley Zoning Study recommends three proposed actions to
Kent' s Planning Commission and City Council - 1) Create a new
commercial zoning district entitled Gateway Commercial (GWC)
complete with its own landscaping and sign regulations; 2) apply
this new zoning district to the area recently designated Commercial
in the Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan; and 3) rezone an area from
Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Office (0) as designated in the East
Valley Study amendments to the Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan.
These actions will implement a new zone providing for commercial
uses in a portion of the East Valley, in a manner which encourages
high quality development and redevelopment. The proposed
recommendations are based upon Comprehensive Plan amendments
contained in the East Valley Study completed in March 1988 and
adopted. by City Council the following June.
The Commercial zoning study area encompasses all parcels adjacent
to or near the East Valley Highway north of the State Route 167
overpass, up to a line approximately 300' north of S. 212th Street.
The parcel recommended for rezoning to an office designation is
located at the northeast corner of 212th Street and State Route
167 .
The proposed new zone for the study area, Gateway Commercial, is
designed to promote commercial development which minimizes some of
the physical and visual impacts often associated with corridor
commercial development. It will allow for quality commercial and
office development as well as limited mixed-use opportunities and
provide some flexibility to the site planner. The Gateway
Commercial zoning district (GWC) will also promote the creation of
a more unified appearance along East Valley Highway by enhancing
the signage and landscape standards, as compared to the current
Commercial and Industrial zoning districts. The proposal is
designed to address the "image problem" referred to in the East
Valley Study.
-' 1
INTRODUCTION
A. History of Proposal
Much of the East Valley area has traditionally been developed for
industrial uses with scattered commercial sites along East Valley
Highway. In recent years, the nature of development pressures in
the area has been changing, with new interest in contemporary mixed
use developments, and commercial uses. In response to these
changes, City Council directed the Planning Department to analyze
and make recommendations regarding the East Valley's existing
zoning and Comprehensive Plan Policies. The study was presented
in March 1988 , and adopted by Council the following June.
Two of the East Valley Study's recommendations are addressed by
this report: 1) the establishment of commercial zoning (where
industrial zoning currently exists) for properties along East
Valley Highway, in recognition of the area's changing character and
in an effort to improve the visual environment of the East Valley
corridor; and 2) a change of zoning from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to
office (0) for a vacant 12 .73 acre parcel at the northeast corner
of 212th Street and State Route 167. Both of these zoning
proposals are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map amendments
adopted by Council pursuant to the East Valley Study.
B. Process for Developing Proposal
The process for developing the proposals recommended in this report
included public meetings for informing and receiving feedback from
interested parties. The first meeting was held on September 71
1988 , and was attended by land owners within the study area,
developers, realtors and other interested parties. The meeting was
conducted as a scoping session designed to introduce the concepts
of the study. Ideas were gathered from participants regarding the
development and implementation of the proposed Gateway Commercial
zone. In addition, special problems and issues were identified for
the Planning Department' s review.
A second meeting was held on November 3 , 1988 . With a similar
audience attending, the Planning Department presented its
preliminary proposal for a Gateway Commercial zoning district
including permitted uses and development standards. The proposed
boundary lines for implementing the new zone were also discussed,
and concerns from the audience were identified for incorporation
into the final recommendations.
As a result of this meeting, staff made several changes to the
original proposal . For example, the maximum height of freestanding
signs was raised from 12 feet to 15 feet for reasons of safety and
to prevent vandalism. The need for automotive repair facilities
and car washes was also addressed by adding them as conditional
uses with enhanced development standards in order to minimize
adverse visual impacts .
2
The final proposal will be presented before the Planning Commission
at a Public Hearing on January 30 , 1989 . At this time, members of
the public may make additional comments before the Commission
recommends any actions to City Council.
C. Synopsis of proposed Actions
Individual zoning map amendments are normally heard by the City' s
Hearing Examiner prior to Council action. In this instance,
however, the proposed map and text amendments are based upon an
area-wide study, the East Valley Study, and are area-wide in their
implementation. Based on the area-wide nature of the study, City
Council has empowered the Planning Commission to conduct Hearings
for both the zoning map and text amendments proposed in the East
Valley Zoning Project. Specifically, the three actions- which are
being recommended for implementation are: , 1) adopt a zoning text
amendment creating a new commercial zoning district entitled
Gateway Commercial (GWC) complete with its own landscaping and sign
regulations ; 2) approve a zoning map amendment applying
p 1 ing this new
zoning district to the area recently designated Commercial in the
Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approve a zoning map
amendment rezoning an area from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Office
(0) as designated in the East Valley Study amendments to the Valley
Floor Comprehensive Plan.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY AREA
A. Boundaries of study area
This staff report encompasses two study areas in the East Valley
Floor. The area designated Commercial in the Valley Floor
Comprehensive Plan, Area 11 includes all properties adjacent to,
or within a maximum range of 700 ' from the East Valley Highway
right-of-way, bounded on the south by the State Route 167 overpass
and on the north by an east-west line approximately 300 ' north of
S. 212th Street (see enclosed map) . The other area, Area 21 is
designated Office in the Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan and is
approximately 13 . 2 acres in size. This parcel, also known as
Silent Meadows from a proposed mobile home community which was
never built, is located north of S. 212th Street, south of S . 208th
Street, east of S.R. 167 , and west of 92nd Avenue. This study area
also surrounds a pioneer cemetery on three sides along its southern
boundary.
B. Existing uses
Existing uses in Area 1 vary widely from heavy industry to
ajority of parcels facing
scattered residential structures. The m
the road, however, contain uses directly or indirectly related to
commercial and industrial activity. Comprising almost 80
individual parcels of land, the area includes several gasoline
stations , a variety of restaurants, a motel and an inn, numerous
service-oriented businesses (e.g. income tax preparation, real
estate sales) and approximately 20 single and multifamily
3
VICINITY IIAP
EAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY AREAS MAP 1
n T O M , ✓` ,� ...
. `I\ ui II nun.•n n.hroM Urr \vmM1 � 1 '.�\. .
z
�lcanr Cl" u,+lra O 1 FS�.y�J
\ •fin IV.Oo�1 ` �
y 1 p O .A
,\ � Ir• .n I \\ . IMTt RCMAnW
1'.t
ORILUA
o � i
i � a
c 1 i
i • Iwn. n - _ • n
a I 3
mnuiiRu•
AxIA
w.wr-
� t •31
• nn• n31 • .s °I
N 35 36 1 6
N 2
4� IRr• r i
ZI
1 t �n7 C
3 \• 3
.I v; ,'1lu T rw .1 la •�t t .. ».
• rw... r .. i : ior•'
1 6 i e%
Area
a•saicn _ � �',,� •5
Area 1 z - -
i
, g 1
Gn
• ,nnv iAl � T K�SI•�J
u�yiO•A ai ^ ' 1 %
12-7
11 12 13 1g
la l3
rR.
� \ c
K ; O
IMOUaTRIK ARU ,OA
E 1 r .n•, .iy x••l
residences. In addition, approximately 18 lots scattered along the
East Valley Highway are either partially or fully vacant. Several
heavier industrial uses like steel production exist in the study
area, but most do not face directly along the highway.
Area 2 is adjacent to S .R. 167 and is currently vacant. The site
was partially graded in anticipation of -a mobile home park, but
further development never occurred. The only use adjacent to the
parcel is the Saar Cemetery - a pioneer cemetery currently zoned
Residential Agricultural (RA) . Directly east of the site are
steep, wooded slopes which buffer the area from the nearby
residential development.
C. . Environmental constraints
The study areas are located on the floor of- the Green River Valley,
an area characterized by soft, alluvial soils. This type of soil
presents no serious problems to commercial development, although
pilings and filling are sometimes necessary. No known
environmental constraints exist throughout Area 1. A small portion
of Area 2 located in the northeast corner of the site has been
designated a Low Hazard Area on the City' s Hazard Area Development
Limitations Map. Further investigation regarding the exact
boundaries of this area, and any associated restrictions, should
occur prior to actual development.
D. Infrastructure
State Route 167 is the largest arterial within the study area, but
its access is limited to the area 's northern and southern
boundaries. Currently, exit and entrance ramps exist at S. 228th
Street and S . 212th Street. East Valley Highway is the primary
arterial for access to sites throughout the study areas. A cross-
section of the highway shows five lanes of traffic (two northbound,
two southbound and one center left-turn lane) and provisions for
curbs and sidewalks within the right-of-way. While most curbing
is in place along the highway, sidewalks are limited; and bicycle-
specialized circulation systems do not exist. Several property
owners, however, have expressed interest in the creation of a Local
Improvement District (LID) to facilitate the construction of
additional sidewalks . City staff should make additional efforts
to determine the level of interest in creating a Local Improvement
District. Unique public improvement standards could be created to
complement the development standards proposed for the Gateway
Commercial zoning district.
Traffic volumes along the highway currently range around 23 , 000
vehicles per day with high levels of congestion during p.m. peak
hours. The City ' s Engineering Department currently estimates the
number of peak hour trips along East Valley Highway between S .
212th St. and S . 224th St. at 2300 vehicles/hour. This figure
compares with 1400 vehicles/hour between S . 180th St. and S . 192nd
St. , and 2700 vehicles/hour between S . 192nd St. and S . 212th St.
w 5
Levels of service (LOS) at the controlled intersections in the
study area are currently at or near capacity, and range from C to
F, with A being the best of conditions and F being the worst.
These intersections include:
S. 212th Street LOS F
S . 224th Street LOS C
S. 228th Street LOS C
Northbound S.R. 167 LOS C
Southbound S.R. 167 LOS D
Improvements anticipated for East Valley Highway include the
addition of dedicated right-turn lanes at the intersection of S.
212th Street. These lanes will be added without • acquiring
additional right-of-way (ROW) ; however, the Engineering Department
does anticipate future acquisitions to give the East Valley Highway
a uniform 80 ' right-of-way. Since the current right-of-way ranges
from a minimum of 65 ' to the necessary 801 , this adjustment should
have no immediate effects on the study area.
The area is fully serviced by City sewer and water lines. No
improvements are scheduled for the study areas since the lines
currently servicing the areas are designed to handle more intensive
uses compatible with the existing commercial and industrial zones.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The study area is included in Kent's Valley Floor Plan, which
provides both policies and Comprehensive Plan map designations for
the area in question. The Valley Floor Plan currently designates
the study area for commercial uses. As noted above, this is a
result of 1988 amendments stemming from the East Valley Study. The
study, which was presented in March 1988, focused on existing land
use trends and policies in the eastern portion of Kent's Valley
Floor and included both parts of the study area addressed in this
report.
The East Valley Study analyzed existing land uses and policies and
recommended specific actions regarding text and map amendments for
the City-Wide and Valley Floor Comprehensive Plans. The study
concluded that development pressures are occurring throughout the
East Valley, particularly near the S.R. 167 interchange at 212th
Street, and they are not being adequately addressed by the existing
land use designations and zoning. Demands for commercial land uses
are emerging with limited zoning to accommodate them. Furthermore,
the area along East Valley Highway which is addressed in this
report contains some commercial uses, but has no distinct
commercial character. Included in the study ' s recommendations were
a commercially designated area along the southern portion of East
Valley Highway and an office designation for the land adjacent to
S .R. 167 just north of S . 212th Street. These recommendations were
6
adopted by City Council in June 1988 as amendments to the City-Wide
and Valley Floor Comprehensive Plans with specific zoning map and
text changes to follow.
With respect to specific policies, the Plan's Economic Element
promotes controlled economic growth with orderly physical
development, resource conservation and- preservation as its overall
goal. Within this framework, the Economic Element seeks to assure
that retail and commercial developments are in suitable locations .
The proposals recommended in this study further these goals by
providing an orderly transition from industrial to commercial
zoning districts. The proposals also recognize the changes
occurring in the study areas; the zoning amendments should both
guide and relieve development pressures previously cited in the
East Valley Study.
One specific objective of the Plan's Economic Element is to
minimize adverse physical impacts of strip commercial development.
The Gateway Commercial zoning district accomplishes this objective
through stricter development standards and somewhat more limited
uses than those permitted in the existing General Commercial zone.
In order to avoid creating the potential for the area to evolve
into a "strip commercial" character, automotive-related uses such
as drive-up windows must be oriented away from the adjacent street.
Another proposed standard requires developments with parking
abutting front yard setbacks to include an additional 5 feet of
setback and an earth berm no less than 36 inches in height. Shared
vehicular access between developments and reduced curb cuts are
encouraged through reduced sideyard setbacks.
Policies regarding the maintenance of an effective sign ordinance
are also supported by the development standards. Under the
proposed zoning, the maximum height for freestanding signs would
be 15 feet - high enough to avoid vandalism and be seen, but low
enough to avoid adverse visual impacts.
PROPOSAL - Area 1
A. Goals for the Proposed Gateway Commercial District
Staff reviewed Kent' s existing commercial zoning districts with
respect to the East Valley Study goals for establishing commercial
zoning along East Valley Highway. The existing commercial
districts do not adequately address the area ' s needs for mixed-use
commercial developments. Nor would they fully provide for an
orderly transition from industrial to commercial uses along the
East Valley Highway, or adequately address the "image problem"
referred to in the study. Therefore staff recommends creating a
new commercial zoning district - Gateway Commercial.
Gateway Commercial ' s purpose is to provide retail commercial uses
appropriate along major vehicular corridors while encouraging
appropriate and unified development among the properties within its
district. It is designed to create unique, unified and
recognizable streetscapes while ensuring land use compatibility
and the exclusion of inappropriate uses. It is also intended to
promote flexibility in appropriate areas of site design and to
encourage mixed-use developments.
The Gateway Commercial district recognizes the significance of the
automobile while simultaneously minimizing its dominance in
commercially-developed areas and avoiding unsightly highway strip-
commercial development. Gateway Commercial's development standards
promote land uses which minimize physical and visual impacts
normally associated with highway commercial developments.
Landscaping, parking and sign standards have all been enhanced as
compared to the current commercial and industrial zoning districts.
In addition, automotive related uses such as drive-through bays
must be oriented away from the adjacent street in order to reduce
their visual impacts. These standards, as well as others described
in this study, will promote a viable, unique and recognizable
commercial area along East Valley Highway. Moreover, the Gateway
Commercial district will encourage the development of commercial
uses capable of benefitting and ensuring the long-term enhancement
of properties throughout the study area.
B. Area Boundaries for Proposed Gateway Commercial District
The boundaries for the Gateway Commercial zoning district are based
on the East Valley Study amendments to the Valley Floor
Comprehensive Plan and its accompanying land use map. Working from
the conceptual boundaries of the newly designated commercial area,
Planning staff developed a series of objectives which furthered the
goals for the East Valley Highway study area. These objectives
include the following:
1) Follow natural/physical boundaries wherever possible.
People often identify geographic areas and their
characteristics by features which they can easily recognize.
In attempting to achieve the goal of creating a unified
appearance for the study area, distinct physical features such
as the S .R. 167 overpass have been used wherever possible for
marking the entry or exit from the newly proposed zone.
2) Follow existing Commercial zone boundaries wherever
possible. The southern portion of the site is currently zoned
General Commercial and Commercial Manufacturing. Wholly
incorporating these zones into Gateway Commercial (GWC) would
allow for a more unified pattern of development along East
Valley Highway.
3) Follow existing property boundaries wherever possible.
Following existing property boundaries reduces the possibility
8
�'A S T VAL-L-'JE Y ZONING STUDY
MAP 2
i MHP
RA
Existing Zoning
M3 General Industria
M R G M2 Limited Industria
CM Commercial
M 2 Manufacturing
GC General Commercia
MHP Mobile Home Park
MRM Medium Density
Multifamily
MRG Garden Density
Multifamily
RA RA Residential
Agricultural
M3
MH
CM
lY
rb
G C
CM
SCALE
1 : 8400
KENT G1S
LIMFEM JAN . 1989
IPAST VAL � EY ZZONINU STUDY
MAP 3
2 '12th St.
G W C AREA del
Proposed Rezoning to
GWC Gateway
Commercial
6 1 V
Q,.
SCALE
1 : 8400
KENT GiS
JAN . 1989
in
of confusion, as well as nonconforming lots, by minimizing
the number of lots which lie within two zoning districts .
4) Encourage land assembly. Incorporating underdeveloped and
vacant lots with sufficient depth will encourage planned
commercial developments which can more easily provide the
unified character which the new zoning attempts to achieve.
5) Maintain compatibility with existing land uses and avoid
the creation of nonconforming uses wherever possible. While
the creation of a legal, nonconforming land use from a
rezoning typically presents no immediate problem, future
concerns can arise if uses of adjacent properties are in
conflict. The proposed boundaries seek to _ minimize
nonconforming uses wherever possible.
c. Uses for proposed Gateway commercial District'
PrincipallV Permitted Uses
1. Retail establishments wherein all sales, storage, display
occur within enclosed buildings. Such uses include the sale
of food, clothing, furniture, appliances, hardware and similar
"hard" and "soft" goods.
2 . Personal services such as barber and beauty shops, shoe
and clothing repair, funeral and crematory services,
laundering and dry cleaning and photographic studios.
3 . Office uses and professional services such as medical,
dental and optometric offices, legal, architectural,
engineering, real estate, banking and financial services and
similar uses.
4 . Business services such as blueprinting, photocopying,
advertising and consulting services and similar uses.
5. Restaurants, taverns and nightclubs.
6. Repair services wherein all repair and storage occurs
within an enclosed building. Such uses include radio,
television and small appliance repair, watch, clock and
jewelry repair and similar uses but not automotive or
vehicular repair.
7 . Educational services and facilities such as art and music
schools, barber and beauty schools and business schools.
8 . Miscellaneous services such as animal grooming parlors,
business, civic, social and fraternal associations , welfare
and charitable services, and veterinary clinics and animal
hospital services when located no less than one hundred fifty
(150) feet from any residential use, provided the animals are
housed indoors and the building is soundproofed.
9 . Hotels and motels .
10 . cultural , entertainment and recreational facilities
including art galleries, museums, motion picture theaters,
video arcades , athletic clubs, bowling alleys and enclosed
skating rinks.
11 . Governmental offices and facilities, except for such
uses and buildings subject to Section 15 . 04 . 200 .
11
12 . Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise
changed for human occupancy. Accessory buildings for existing
dwellings may be constructed. Such buildings include garages,
carports, storage sheds and fences.
13 . Any other use that is determined by the Planning Director
to be the same general character as the above permitted uses
and is in accordance with the stated purpose of the district.
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
Conditional Uses
1. Gasoline service stations, automobile repair (excluding
auto body repair) and car washes.
2 . Multiple family dwellings as permitted in Section
15. 04 . 050.
3 . Public assembly facilities such as amphitheaters, arenas,
auditoriums and exhibition halls.
4 . General Conditional Uses as listed in Section 15. 08 . 030 .
Accessory Uses
Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to
permitted uses. Accessory uses shall include vehicular
drive-through, drive-in or service bay facilities.
D. Development Standards for Proposed Gateway Commercial
District
1. Minimum lot. 10, 000 square feet
2 . Maximum site coverage. Forty (40) percent
3 . Front yard. There shall be a front yard of at least
fifteen (15) feet in depth.
4 . Side yard. A. A side yard of at least five (5) feet in
depth shall be provided along the side property line (s) ,
except no side yard shall be required between adjacent
properties where a common, shared driveway with a perpetual
cross-access easement is provided to serve the adjoining
properties. B. Where a side yard abuts a residential
district, a side yard of at least twenty (20) feet shall be
provided.
5 . Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Fifteen (15)
feet.
6. Rear yard. A rear yard of at least five (5) feet in depth
shall be provided, except when a rear yard abuts a residential
district, then a rear yard of at least twenty (20) feet in
depth shall be provided.
7 . Height limitations . Three (3 ) stories or forty (40) feet.
An additional story and/or building height may be added, up
to a maximum of five (5) stories or sixty (60) feet, with one
(1) additional foot of building setback for every additional
12
I �
I �
l
I 3 ---
t
l ' � _ w n►r
v
o
foot of building height over forty (40) feet.
8 . vehicular drive-through, drive-in and service bays. All
vehicular drive-through, drive-in, service bay and similar
facilities shall be designed so that such facilities,
including vehicular staging or stacking areas, shall be
oriented away from the adjacent street. Additional
landscaping and/or fencing may be required to ensure visual
screening of these facilities from the adjacent street or
properties.
9 . The landscape requirements of Chapter 15. 07 shall apply.
Additional Gateway Commercial landscaping requirements shall
include:
1. Where buildings abut the required front yard, a landscape
strip at least fifteen (15) feet in depth shall be provided.
Where vehicular parking areas abut the required front yard,
a landscape strip at least, twenty (20) feet in depth, with an
earth berm at least 36" in height, shall be provided.
2 . A landscape strip at least five (5) feet in depth shall
be provided along the side property line(s) of all independent
development sites. No landscaping along the side property
line(s) shall be required between adjacent properties where
a common, shared driveway with a perpetual cross-access
easement is provided to serve the adjoining properties. Where
side property line (s) of a commercial use abuts a residential
district, a landscape strip at least ten (10) feet in depth
shall be provided.
3 . A landscape strip of at least fifteen (15) feet in depth
shall be provided along side property lines flanking the
street of a corner lot. Where vehicular parking areas abut
the required side yard, an earth berm at least 24" inches in
height shall be provided.
4 . A landscape strip of at least five (5) feet in depth shall
be provided along all rear property lines. Where rear
property line (s) of a commercial use abuts a residential use,
a landscape strip of at least ten (10) feet in depth shall be
provided.
5 . All general provisions of Section 15. 07 , Landscaping
Regulations, shall apply.
Gateway Commercial Sign Regulations:
1. Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area for any lot
shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of street
frontage. Aggregate sign area for corner lots shall not
exceed three fourths (3/4) square foot for each foot of street
frontage. The permitted signs enumerated below shall be
14
st �
G l "
w rn
G
D
a,� 3
s 3
0
-° rn
rn
_ N
L;k
to
0 3. P
r
r
i
,e
• n
�e
Q
subject to the total aggregate sign area.
A. Identification signs: Occupancies. Each business
establishment may have one (1) freestanding sign per
street frontage (if not located in a shopping center) and
one (1) wall sign per street frontage.
i. Freestanding signs. Freestanding signs shall
not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet. The
maximum sign area permitted is one hundred (100)
square feet for the total of all faces. No one face
shall exceed fifty (50) square feet. Said sign may
be illuminated. Freestanding signs shall not
rotate.
ii. Wall signs. One wall sign per street frontage
shall be permitted. The total area of all signage,
graphics, or other advertising shall not exceed ten
(10) percent of the building facade to which it is
attached.
B. Identification signs: Shopping centers. One
freestanding or one wall shopping center identification
sign shall be permitted for each street frontage of the
shopping center. The maximum sign area permitted for a
freestanding sign is one hundred (100) square feet. No
one face shall exceed fifty (50) square feet.
Freestanding signs shall be limited to fifteen (15) feet
in height. Said sign may be illuminated. Freestanding
signs shall not rotate. One wall sign shall be permitted
per occupancy, except anchor tenants (business
establishments with a store frontage of at least one
hundred (100) feet in length) shall be allowed two wall
signs. The aggregate wall sign area shall not exceed ten
(10) percent of the building facade to which they are
attached.
2 . All general provisions of Section 15 . 06, Sign Regulations,
shall apply.
PROPOSAL - Area 2
A. Goals for Proposed office District
The area zoned Mobile Home Park (MHP) just northeast of the S .R.
167/212th Street intersection was reviewed by Planning Staff in
light of the recently-adopted amendments to the Valley Floor
Comprehensive Plan. Citing growing development pressures, adverse
noise impacts from S .R. 167 and an excess of land zoned for
multifamily housing throughout the City, the East Valley Study
recommended a change in the area ' s land use designation from Mobile
Home Park (MHP) to Office (0) Using the Valley Floor Plan goals
as criteria, the East Valley Study concluded that an office (0)
16
designation was most compatible with surrounding land uses, offered
potential for high quality development and best advanced the Plan' s
economic goals . Furthermore, the site is naturally buffered from
the nearby residential development by steep, wooded slopes which
provide a visual and physical separation of the two uses.
B. Area Boundaries for Proposed Office District
The "Silent Meadows" property, a 13.2 acre parcel zoned Mobile Home
Park (MHP) , is located at the northeast corner of 212th Street and
State Route 167 . This parcel was approved as a mobile' home park
by the City Council in September of 1984 (case no. #RZ-83-2) . The
parcel was partially graded, but it was never developed and remains
vacant at present with no prospect for development as a mobile home
park. As such, recent changes and growth in the surrounding area
have placed development pressures on this vacant parcel. In
responding to these pressures, the East Valley Study recommended
an Office designation for the area. The Study cited, among other
things, the need for and compatibility of an Office designation
with adjacent land uses.
IMPACTS OF PROPOSAL
A proposal of this nature is bound to have both positive and
negative impacts. The positive impacts which would result from the
proposed zoning and related developments standards are numerous.
First, the East Valley Highway is one of the City' s major
north/south arterials. The proposed zoning changes would allow for
commercial development along East Valley Highway with enhanced
development standards. This would create a much more attractive and
viable area as compared to that which the current M-2 , Limited
Industrial zoning would allow. Second, the creation of a new
commercial area would increase revenues to the City in the form of
increased sales tax. Thirdly, the City hopes to create a unique,
unified and recognizable district in the East Valley area and
screen industrial uses from East Valley Highway.
Secondary impacts of special concern include potential impacts on
the transportation and surface water drainage systems, and impacts
from the unavoidable creation of nonconforming lots and/or uses .
Following is a more specific discussion of these areas of concern.
A. Transportation System
In light of the current traffic situation along East Valley
Highway, the potential effects from the proposed Gateway Commercial
zone on traffic levels are of significant concern. The City
Traffic Engineering Division has indicated that the implementation
of commercial zoning could create up to 10, 000 to 12 , 000 additional
average daily trips (ADT) to the existing 23 , 000 currently on East
Valley Highway. Uses under the existing M-2 zoning would be
expected to increase traffic volumes in the area by approximately
10 percent or 2 , 000 to 3 , 000 .
17
VAL-I-JEY Z ONINU STUDY
HAP 4
7 2th t.
AREA r2
Proposed Rezoning to
0 Office
CO 717'
5'
SCALE
1 : 8400
KENT GIS
stics of traffic generated by industrial uses and
The characteri
traffic generated by commercial uses differ somewhat. Industrial
our , both
traffic tends to be concentrated more during the peak
shigher
a.m and p.m. , whereas commercial traffic tendsThe specific genera
effects ,
volumes but is constant throughout the day. o the types of
however, are unknown and primarily depend up
businesses which locate in the study area. Convenience businesses,
for example, may not increase traffic levels usiness, on thehother hand,
existing traffic. A destinatile to ma]ceba trip into an area which they
specifically requires people
would not enter normally.
will depend a great deal on the
To summarize, the traffic impact
types of uses that actually locate in the study area. The proposal
is expected to result in an overall increase in the traffic volume
along East Valley Highway• wevel because
coo i rci ase al rmay not
ips are
not concentrated at the peak r eak hour slowdowns.
contribute substantially to the critical p
B. Storm Drainage system percent of any site to
The current M-2 zoning standards allow 65 cases, sites in this zoning
b
be covered with buildings. In mostyimpervious surfaces. The
district are covered up to g0 percent by m
proposed development st commercial GWC
erc9ntsbu h ildin coverage of asite. The
district will allow 40 p g
additional landscaping requirements will tend also to lower the
amount of impervious surfaces that are associated with development
. The result would be either n
less in hof aanaimpact on the storm drainage system in the area.additional impact or
C. Nonconformin Uses and Standards
Virtually all the existing d f the me development in the East lst ndards
area would be nonconforming if the proposed
are adopted. The proposed standards include significant ec an er
in landscaping requirements (including eland rrth equire ents for
landscaping and parking lot screening) and
service bays. Many
businesses with drive-through, drive in,
h study
of the existing signso n signagestandards are adopted.area would also In
nonconforming if the proposed
particular, all signs in the area that exceed the 15 foot
limitation would become nonconforming.
Several of the existing bo use ss There are several single family
s on East Valley Highway would
become nonconforming
as and multifamily uses in the study area. These uses would not be
considered nonconforming under the proposal. It is also noted that
several nonconforming uses exist even under the existing zoning.
D. Nonconja=, inq Develo reng ulates nonconforming
de Section 15 . 08 . 100 of the Zonin enlareement, reconstruction,
development in the city. Expansion, g
or intensification of a nonconforming use, while not favored under
_. 19
the Code, is permitted through the Conditional Use permit process.
Any significant rezoning proposed is likely to create some
nonconforming uses and/or lots. However, for the City to be able
to respond to current conditions and particularly to upgrade land
use standards in an area, the creation of nonconforming conditions
is a necessary tradeoff. Under the Kent Zoning Code, . existing
nonconforming developments are permitted to continue and indeed to
expand with the securing of a Conditional Use permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Gateway Commercial zoning district will promote "quality"
commercial, and mixed-use development in an area which is currently
without a dominant, recognizable character. It should help to
create a new and upgraded appearance for East Valley Highway.
Implementing the provisions of Gateway Commercial will encourage
development and redevelopment that will have long-term benefit to
the East Valley Highway and the entire City of Kent.
Accordingly, staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend
the following actions to the City Council:
1. Establish a Gateway Commercial zoning district, complete
with use, development and sign standards.
2 . Apply the Gateway Commercial zone to Area W1.
3 . Apply the Office zone to Area n2 east of S.R. 167 .
Kent Planning Department
January 1989
20
. ...........
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20 . 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 330 - 64TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, authorization to segregate out that portion of
LID 330 lying between 226th and 216th Streets in order to
proceed with construction of the improvements on the remaining
portions between Meeker Street and S. 212th Street.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee Environmental Task
Force
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3N
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 15, 1989
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: L.I.D. 330 - 64th Avenue Improvements
The Public Works Committee has requested that you be apprised as
to what has transpired with this project prior to it coming to you
for further action.
As you will recall, the public hearing on the project was opened
March 7 . At that time, because of the environmental issues that
were raised, the hearing was continued to the March 21 meeting and
the Attorney was directed to prepare the ordinance for
consideration at that time. We were at that time working with the
Environmental Task Force on mitigation of the impacts to the
lagoon. At the March 21 meeting, the Planning Department noted
that SEPA compliance would be required and a determination made
whether an environmental impact statement would be necessary.
Action on formation of the L. I._D. was delayed until SEPA compliance
was completed.
Staff continued working with the Environmental Task Force to
develop mitigation of the impacts on the lagoon area. On May 23 ,
Carol Stoner, chair of the Task Force, presented the Task Force
recommendations to the Public Works Committee. A copy of those
recommendations is attached. Their recommendation was to segregate
out that property immediately adjacent to the lagoon and form a
separate LID for those improvements once SEPA compliance was met.
That would allow the remainder of the project to proceed with
construction this year. The Public Works Committee directed Bill
Williamson to prepare the motion for Committee action which would
indicate their intent for the project to be constructed and to
address the wildlife and drainage issues consistent with SEPA. At
the June 13 Committee meeting, this motion was presented to the
Committee for their approval . The motion called for the Committee
to accept the Environmental Task Force report dated May 11 and to
approve that the model boating activities be prohibited in the
lagoon upon award of the contract for improvements to the
reconfiguration of the lagoon or construction of the buffer to
accommodate 64th Avenue South improvements. The Committee accepted
this motion.
At the June 13 Committee meeting the issue of segregating the
Mayor Kelleher and City Council
L.I. D. 330 - 64th Avenue Improvements
Page 2
project into two L.I.D' s was discussed. Both are capable of being
stand alone projects. If the improvement is kept as one L.I.D. ,
we would most likely need to do an expanded analysis with respect
to the lagoon area which could result in adding 6-12 months to the
project schedule. If we were able to secure a Declaration of Non-
Significance for the one project, there probably would be
challenges by environmental groups which could again extend the
project schedule by 6-12 months.
Splitting the project into two distinct improvements would enable
us to proceed with construction on one portion while we address the
impacts of the second project on the lagoon. The City's bonding
council has advised we would not need to start over on the
formation of L. I.D. 330. The scope of work of the project could
be redefined and preliminary assessments adjusted accordingly. The
City' s financial advisors have reviewed the proposal and concluded
that a second L.I.D. is viable.
The property owners along the lagoon area have been advised of our
proposal to separate the project into two L.I.D.s. We have not, _.
as yet, notified the remaining property owners of the proposal.
Those along the lagoon area have merely expressed their concern
whether the project will eventually be completed.
The Public Works Committee has approved segregating out that
portion along the lagoon and forming a separate LID for those
improvements and to proceed with the remainder of the project
through L. I.D. 330. Staff has been directed to submit a revised
environmental checklist for the revised scope of work for L. I.D.
330 .
The Planning Committee will be addressing the Environmental Task
Force recommendations at their meeting on June 20 and will be
bringing a recommendation before you.
OnI7_r--r
May 11, 1989
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher
Jim White, President, and Members of Kent City Council
FROM: Caro l Chair, Mayor' s Environmental Task Force
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS ON SEGREGATION OF LID 330 AND MODEL BOAT
USAGE
The Environmental Task Force has been meeting regularly to discuss
issues pertaining to the Kent Ponds. At our April 27 meeting the
Task Force unanimously passed two recommendations. These include:
(1) Segregating LID 330/64th Ave. to allow work to proceed on
those portions of the roadway outside the Lagoon and its
buffer, with the understanding that this would in no way imply
future approval of the road alignment adjacent to the Lagoon;
and
(2) Discontinuing the model boating activity as soon as a
contract is awarded for work on the Lagoon and/or 64th Avenue
buffer, while encouraging the City to seek an alternate and
more appropriate location for this activity.
The purpose of this memo is to convey the Task Force
recommendations to you, and to set forth some of the rationale for
our actions.
Our earlier comments to the City Council on the Homecourt proposal,
as well as the Council ' s action in designating the Lagoon and its
buffer as a Unique and Fragile Area, underscore the significance
of the Lagoon. With the degree of urban development on the Valley
Floor, the Lagoon has become a critical link for local and
migratory waterfowl . The Task Force recommendations are designed
to protect the habitat values of this resource.
Recommendation 1: Segregation of LID 330
The proposal for construction of 64th Ave. S . presents a number of
serious environmental concerns. The east side of the Lagoon is
presently the most protected and sheltered portion of the habitat;
it is also the area most severely impacted by roadway construction
and use. Under the original proposal a portion of the 64th Ave.
improvements would have actually intruded into the open waters of
the east cell .
The Task Force is now actively working with the Planning and Public
Works Departments and a team of consultants on a plan for
mitigating the short-term construction impacts and the long-term
use impacts of the 64th Ave. roadway, as they affect the Lagoon
habitat. As the Public Works Department has plans for
Memo to Mayor Kelleher and Council
May 11, 1989
reconfiguring the Lagoon to meet storm drainage requirements, we
have also .begun looking at long-term plans for the Lagoon re-
design. Without knowing the permanent configuration of the Lagoon,
e.g. , the amount of open waters and the shoreline location,
different types of habitat, etc. , it is not possible to design
appropriate buffers and other mitigation for the 64th Ave. project.
It is not wholly clear that the impacts of a major arterial being
located so near this habitat area can be fully mitigated. However,
the Task Force recognizes that a large portion of the proposed
roadway is distant enough from the Lagoon so as not to present a
significant impact. The Public Works Director has proposed that
work go forward in those non-problem areas, and has requested that
the Task Force recommend segregating the LID for 64th Ave.
construction into two parts: Section 1) that portion south of 228th
Street and north of the Lagoon' s northern 200 foot buffer, and
Section 2) the remainder of the roadway (that portion proposed to
be situated directly adjacent to the east side of the Lagoon) .
The Task Force supports this approach. In the interest of time,
we see no reason for work to be held up on the portion of 64th
which will not impact the Lagoon habitat. Therefore, we recommend
segregating the LID and moving forward on Section 1. Any action
on Section 2 (the area between 228th Street and the northern
portion) would be withheld, except for extension of the sanitary
sewer north of 228th Street approximately 400 -feet to the nearest
manhole. We have one strong reservation: that action on Section
1 (north and south of the Lagoon) does not "lock in" the alignment
adjacent to the Lagoon. In the event that it 'is not possible to
mitigate the impacts of the proposed roadway adjacent to the
Lagoon, it should be constructed along a different alignment.
Recommendation 2 : Model Boat Usage
The Committee has been struggling for some time with the issue of
model boat usage of the Lagoon, and the impact this activity has
on the quality of habitat. Members of the Pacific Northwest Model
Boaters have been using the Lagoon for some years. They race small
remote-controlled craft at speeds up to 50 and 60 miles per hour
on the large western cell of the Lagoon. Due to the Lagoon' s small
size, shallow depth, accessibility and other factors, it has
attracted much use from the model boaters. A number of national
model boating records have been set at the Kent Lagoon.
This issue was addressed several years ago in the Shanewise Report
on the Lagoon. Shanewise states that this activity "should be
considered incompatible with the goals and design of the new
wetland. Theirs is a non-passive form of recreation that would
disrupt the wetland interior. . .continued use of the new wetland by
2
Memo to Mayor Kelleher and council
May 11, 1989
the model boat racers should not be allowed. " (1985 Shanewise
Report, p. 8.) The rationale given by Shanewise and endorsed by the
Committee at that time still holds. Indeed, with continued
development of the Valley Floor this area has become ever more
important as a wildlife resource, and the need to protect it from
incompatible human use has grown. It is estimated that even given
the significant current wildlife usage, the Lagoon is meeting only
10% of its habitat potential . With the development of the adjacent
lands, its ' functions should be expanded to include nesting and
brooding, activities which unfortunately occur during the model
boating season in the spring and summer. The Task Force simply
could not find a seasonal "window" where model boating and wildlife
usage would be compatible.
Representatives of the model boaters have attended all of the
Committee and Task Force meetings to date. They have been on the
agenda twice, and have taken the opportunity to comment on their
concerns. The Task Force members see an enthusiastic group with
a worthwhile recreational activity, and sincerely hope that the
City can find or create an alternative location for model boating
to continue in the area. However, this activity is clearly
incompatible with the protection and enhancement of wildlife
habitat at the Lagoon.
Our recommendation is that the model boating activity be
permanently discontinued on the Lagoon at the time a contract is
awarded for work on the Lagoon and/or the 64th Ave. buffer; and
that the City Parks Department, City Administrator and Council work
with the model boaters to find an alternate location for their
activity.
On behalf of the Task Force, I would like to extend my appreciation
for the opportunity to review these matters. At a later time, we
will be bringing forward additional recommendations concerning the
Lagoon design and mitigation of 64th Avenue. If you have any
questions about the Task Force recommendations, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
cc: Jess Abed
Jim Hansen
Jim Harris
Don Wickstrom
3
tiGI
up
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: BANKING SERVICE AGREEMENT - U.S. BANK OF WASHINGTON
2 . S11Y4fARY STATEMENT: Extending the City's current Banking
Services Agreement with US Bank of Washington for a one year
term with a one year renewal option. The terms and conditions
are the same as the current agreement except one service which
cost has been lowered. The City is in the process of switching
computer systems in payroll, accounts payable, utility billing,
lockbox account reconciliation etc. which will affect the City's
banking activity. Based upon these items being in various
stages of implementation the staff recommends deferring changing
the City's bank until those systems are operational and tested.
3 . EXHIBITS: Attached is a copy of the proposed Banking Service
Agreement from US Bank of Washington
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Ton McCarthy,. Finance Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NONotX YES
Recommended
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $2 845.76
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Budgeted in 1989 Finance Administration budget
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 30
CITY OF RENT
BANKING SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT between the City of Kent (hereinafter called the City"
acting by and through the City Finance Director, and U.S. Bank of
Washington, National Association (hereinafter called the' "Bank") .
In consideration of mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the
parties agree as follows:
1. TERM: This agreement shall be effective July 1, 1989 and run for one
year. At the option of both parties the Agreement can be extended for an
additional year.
2 . DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES: The Bank shall provide banking services for
the City of Kent in full compliance with the terms and conditions of its
response to the City's Request For Proposal including the conditions
described in the cover letter (W.S . Mill , III to Laurence (Ton) McCarthy?
May 10, 1984 and the Banking Services Agreement dated July 11
1987)
modified by the "Proposed Contract Prices" per the attached Estimated
Monthly Banking Service Costs schedule.
3 . CITY RESPONSIBILITIES: The City shall perform all duties in full
compliance with the terms and conditions of the proposal, including the
cover letter as described in Section 2 above of this agreement.
� . COMPENSATION: The City shall compensate the Bank for services set
forth in Section 2 above in accordance with the amounts specified, which by
such reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
5 . TERMINATION: The City may terminate this Agreement upon prior written
notice of at least ninety (90) days. The Bank may terminate this Agreement
upon prior written notice of at least ninety (90) days.
6 . AMENDMENTS: No modification or amendment of the terms of this
Agreement shall be effective unless written and signed by authorized
representative of the parties. The parties expressly reserve the right to
modify or amend this Agreement from time to time as deemed necessary, by
mutual agreement.
7 . NO WAIVER: No waiver of full performance by either party shall be
construed, or operate, as a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the
terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement. The payment or
acceptance of compensation or expense reimbursement after a default shall
not be deemed a waiver of any right or acceptance of defective performance.
8 . INVALIDITY OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS: Should any term, provisions,
condition or other portion of this Agreement or the application thereof be
held to be inoperative, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Agreement or the application of such term or provision to persons or
circumstances other than those to which it is held inoperative, invalid or
unenforceable shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full
force and effect.
BANKING SERVICES AGREEMENT
Page Two
9 . EXCUSE AND SUSPENSION OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS: Failure to fulfill
obligations under this Agreement due to conditions beyond either party's
reasonable control will not be considered a breach of this Agreement. Such
conditions may be but are not limited to an act of God; war or war-like
operation; civil commotion; riot; labor dispute including a strike,
lock-out or walk-out; sabotage; governmental regulation or control; fire,
or other casualty. Performance of such affected obligation shall be
suspended only the duration of such condition.
10 . ASSIGNMENT/DELEGATION: The Bank shall not assign or delegate any
obligation under this Agreement unless it has been approved in writing by
the City.
11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This agreement contains all of the covenants,
promises, agreements, and conditions, either oral or written, between the
parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by having their
authorized representatives sign their names to the spaces provided below:
THE CITY OF KENT U.S. BANK OF WASHINGTON,
National Association
BY: BY:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
BSA. SR:mt
CITY OF KENT
Estimated Monthly Banking Banking Service Costs
Based Upon Proposed Prices for Period
July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990
Estimated
Average Proposed Average
Monthly Contract Monthly
Volume Price Charge
Account Maintanance 3 $ 6. 00 $ 18 . 00
Checks Posted
2 , 188 . 12 262 . 56
Deposits Posted
144 . 17 24. 48
Items Deposited - . 040 68. 00
US Bank WA & OR 1,700
Sea,Spo,Port Clearing . 050 250. 00
House Banks 5, 000
2 , 500 . 060 150. 00
Other WA & OR Banks 500 . 085 42 . 50
All Others
Returned Items
11 1. 25 13 . 75
Stop Payments Placed 1 10. 00 10 . 00
Rolled Coin Furnished (per roll) 14 . 06 .84
Currency Furnished (Per $100) 11 . 06 . 66
Wire Tansfers - In
10 7 . 00 7 . 00
Wire Transfers - Out 5 10. 00 50. 00
Balance Reporting (voice) 1 60. 00 60. 00
Credit Card Discount
$1, 377 2 .5% 34 .42
Account Reconciliation (ARP) 1, 900 . 039 74 . 10
Armored Car Service 1 740.25* 740.25
Lockbox 61368 . 15 955 . 20
Daily Courier Service
21 4 . 00 84 . 00
TOTAL ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY CHARGE
fit 845 .76
*Armored Car Service fee is determined by the third party service
provider. The bank will accept and pay the invoice from the service
provider and include the payment amount in your monthly account analysis
No bank "mark up" will be added. However this cost may change if the
service provider increases or decreases monthly service fees.
oil
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20_, 1989
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 1990-1994 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2 . SUNIIdARY STATEMENT: The public hearing on the Capital
Improvement Program 1990 - 1994 was concluded at the Council
meeting of June 6. A motion to adopt the program as presented
was tabled to this date.
3 . EXHIBITS: CIP Program
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Informal Budget Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
moves Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
1990-1994 CIP
City of Kent, Washington
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
1990 - 1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY PRESENTATION
(Amounts in Thousands)
1990-94 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
TOTAL Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
PROJECTED CIP REVENUES
Sales Tax Capital Improvement 13,887 2,426 2,590 2,767 2,953 3,151
Fuel Tax Street 3,903 723 752 782 813 833
Real Estate Excise Tax 1,750 350 350 350 350 350
Interest - Capital Improvement 450 90 90 90 90 90
Loan Repayment Capital Improvement 127 21 23 26 27 30
Contributions General Fund/Corrections 1,211 243 242 242 242 242
Contributions Water Fund 29 29
Contributions Golf Course 700 140 140 140 140 140
Contributions Central services 166 83 83
TOTAL PROJECTED CIP REVENUES 22,223 4,105 4,270 4,397 4,615 4,836
PROCEEDS FROM BOND ISSUES
Voted G.O.
Councilmanic G.O. 3,000 3,000
TOTAL POTENTIAL CIP REVENUES 25,223 7,105 4,270 4,397 4,615 4,836
COUNCILMANIC DEBT SERVICE
Committed Debt Payments (12,516) (2,846) (2,647) (2,384) (2,343) (2,296)
Planned Debt Payments (1) (1,400) (350) (350) (350) (350)
NET AVAILABLE CIP RESOURCES 11,307 4,259 1,273 1,663 1,922 2,190
CIP EXPENDITURES
Public Safety 948 392 200 222 134
Public Works 7,866 3,475 670 1,400 1,011 1,310
Parks and Recreation 1,250 200 50 600 400
General Government 1,149 149 327 275 70 328
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 11,213 4,216 1,247 1,675 1,903 2,172
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 94 43 26 (12) 19 18
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 2,280 407 450 476 464 483
ENDING FUND BALANCE
Reserved 450 450 450 450 450 450
Unreserved 124 26 14 33 51
TOTAL ENDING FUND BALANCE 2,374 450 476 464 483 501
layments begin in 1991 for G.O. Bonds of $3.057 million to build the 272nd Corridor in 1990.
City of Kent, Washington 1990-1994 CIP
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
1990 - 1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT LISTING -
(Amounts in Thousands)
PROJECT TOTALS YEAR PROJECT FUNDED
Gross Dedi- Net
Project cated Project
Cost Revenue Cost 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
------- ------- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
PUBLIC SAFETY - POLICE
1. Old Library Remodel Continued 447 447 247 200
4. Firearms Training Simulator 55 55 55
------ ------ -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
502 0 502 247 200 0 55 0
PUBLIC SAFETY - FIRE
1 Level A Hazdous Mat Resp Tm 105 105 105
2 Air Support Vehicle 40 40 40
3 Emergency Power EOC 114 114 114
5 Training Center Class Equip 53 53 53
7 Traffic Control Signals 134 134 134
------ -------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
446 0 446 145 0 0 167 134
PUBLIC SAFETY TOTAL 948 0 948 392 200 0 222 134
PUBLIC WORKS
1. 277th Corridor 12,000 9,000 3,000 3,000
2. Green River Valley TBD 50 50 50
3. 192nd/196th/200th Cor Fees 100 100 100
4. 196th/200th Cor (West leg) 4,000 3,000 1,000 1,000
5. 196th Imp. (WVH-EVH) 12,158 12,158 0
6. 228th & Military 7,934 5,976 1,958 100 858 1,000
------ -------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Total 36,242 30,134 6,108 3,150 100 1,000 858 1,000
Road Widening
7 Green River Sr. is Central 552 447 105 105
8 EVH 192nd - 180th 2,800 2,150 650 250 400
9 WVH Imp. 212th - 180th 6,121 6,061 60 60
11 Crow Road by Pass 700 700 0
12 72nd Avenue 196th -194th 540 390 150 150
13 64th Avenue LID 330 6,903 6,903 0
------ -------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Total 17,616 16,651 965 165 250 400 0 150
Intersection & Signal Improvements
14 Canyon Drive Jersey Barriers 417 357 60 60
15 94th & James signal Interconn 73 73 73
17 260th & 104th Signal 135 135 0
18 Central Signal a SR 167 75 35 40 40
22 EVH & 196 Intersection Imp 130 130 0
25 SE 256th & 104th Ave SE 450 450 0
------ -------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Total 1,280 1,107 173 60 0 0 73 40
- 1 -
1990-1994 CIP
City of Kent, Washington
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
1990 - 1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
.,., PROJECT LISTING
(Amounts in Thousands)
PROJECT TOTALS YEAR PROJECT FUNDED
Gross Dedi- Net
Project cated Project
Cost Revenue Cost 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
------- ------- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Miscellaneous
28 Rahway Crossings 320 320 120 80 120
29 Guardrails - Canyon Drive 300 300 100 200
------ -------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Total 620 0 620 100 320 0 80 120
PUBLIC WORKS TOTAL 55,758 47,892 7,866 3,475 670 1,400 1,011 1,310
PARKS & RECREATION
3 Lights a Russell Road N2 50 50 50
8 Neighborhood Parks 1,000 1,000 200 400 400
21 West Hill Park 450 250 200 200
------ -------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
PARKS & RECREATION TOTAL 1,500 250 1,250 200 50 0 600 400
w.. GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ADMINISTRATION
INFORMATION SERVICES
1 Wiring Centennial & Library 751 751 88 290 45 328
2 Computer Enhancement Phase I 383 20 363 26 37 275 25
3 Replace Word Processing Equip 35 35 35
------ -------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Total 1,169 20 1,149 149 327 275 70 328
GENERAL GOVERNMENT TOTAL 1,169 20 1,149 149 327 275 70 328
GRAND TOTALS 59,375 11,213 1,247 1,903
48,162 4,216 1,675 2,172
2
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20. 1989
Category other Business
1. SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL BUILDING LEASE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to amend existing lease
with Sound Ventures Inc. was approved 10/18/88 with respect to
the lease payment structure and to additional lease payment as
shown on the fiscal analysis sheet.
3 . EXHIBITS: Fiscal analysis sheet
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 6/15
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended X Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Fiscal analysis sheet
SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve the amendments to the lease with Sound Ventures Inc.
as described.
DISCUSSION• ()
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
-7
Fiscal Analysis Sheet
Fund: C. I . P.
Department: Admin.
Cost: See Below
Proposal Title:
Proposal Description:
The proposal by Sound Ventures, Inc. is to modify the present lease
agreement to increase the amount of leased space from approximately
20, 000 square feet to 26 , 460 square feet starting in 1992 through
the lease period. In addition, they would like to restructure the
annual lease payments from the present $16 . 00/square foot/year to
an average of $16 . 00/square foot/year. Payments would begin at
$14 . 75/square foot in 1990 and reach $16 . 75 in 1993 , 1994 and 1995 .
The value (or "net present value" of $16 . 75/Square foot in 1992)
is equal to $14 . 36/square foot in 1990 . The net present value is
todays value of future cash. Or, in other words, money of today
is worth more than in the future due to the rapid rise in real
estate prices .
Relationship To The Target Issues and Operational Priorities :
Completion of the Centennial Building is one of the City Council ' s
Top Priority Target Issues . It has the potential to be the
catalyst to cause a major redevelopment of downtown Kent.
Fiscal Impact:
The additional space will cost an average of $84 , 141 per year or
$420 , 708 over the five year period. The proposed change to the
lease rate structure will cause no increase over the five year term
but will affect annual payments . The collective impact of the two
issues on an annual basis is illustrated below:
Original Lease Proposed Change Annual Payment
Agreement (for (for 26, 460 sq. Difference
20 , 000 sq. ft. ) sq. ft. )
Year 1 $320, 000/year $342 , 643/year* $ 22 , 643*
Year 2 $320, 000 $348 , 450 $ 281450
Year 3 $320 , 000 $443 , 205 $123 , 205
Year 4 $320, 000 $443 , 205 $123 , 205
Year 5 $320, 000 $443 , 205 $123 , 205
$1, 600, 000 $2 , 020, 708 $420, 708*Total
* Because the lease is expected to start in April 1990, the following budget
and cash impact will occur as a savings in 1990 . The lease is a full-service
lease which includes the cost of building maintenance. The five year forecas
and 1990 operating budget will be adjusted as follows :
original Proposed Budget
Annual budget lease budget change difference
April/Dec 1990 $320 , 000 $256 , 986 $ (63 , 014)
Jan/Dec 1991 320, 000 347 , 004 27 , 004
Jan/Dec 1992 320, 000 419 , 520 99 , 520
Jan/Dec 1993 320, 000 443 , 208 123 , 208
Jan/Dec 1994 320, 000 4431208 123 , 208
Jan/Mar 1995 110 , 782 110, 782
$1, 600, 000 $2 , 020 , 708 $420, 708
MEMO
May 31, 1989
To: Christi Houser, Chair, and members of the Operations
Committee
From: Jim Hansen, Assistant City Administrator
Subject: Revision to Centennial Building Lease Agreement
Overview
On October 18 , 1988 the City Council approved a lease and purchase
agreement with Sound Ventures, Inc. As a partner in this major
downtown revitalization project, the City agreed to sell
approximately 1001000 square feet of land (just east of city hall) .
Sound Ventures will in turn construct a four story, 65, 000 square
foot office building and lease approximately 20, 000 square feet to
the City. The Building/Code Enforcement, Planning and Public Works
Departments will occupy the first two floors and open a new permit
center. Sound Ventures will lease the remaining space to a variety
of private sector tenants.
Proposed Change
Sound Ventures has requested to revise the present lease agreement
in two areas:
1. According to a space needs study completed by Edberg/
Christiansen & Associates, the departments actually need 23 , 230
square feet of space when the building is occupied in 1990 and
26, 460 square feet in 1992 to accomodate projected growth in
activity and personnel. The additional space calculated at the
average rate of $16. 00/foot (full service) will cost the City an
additional $84 , 141 per year or $420,708 for the five year period.
Sound Ventures will offset the costs somewhat by "space pocketing"
3 , 230 square feet. This will be available for expansion needs at
no cost until 1992 .
2 . The present agreement sets the lease rate at $16. 00/square foot
for the first five years. Sound Ventures would like to restructure
the lease rate but still maintain the average of $16 . 00/square
foot. They propose to begin at $14.75/square foot in 1990 and end
at $16 .75/square foot in 1995 . Although this affects our annual
payments, there is no additional cost to the City over the five
year period. With this arrangement their cash flow is enhanced in
1992 which is critical to their financing package. This is
especially important because of unanticipated costs that ocurred
in their negoiations with the Catholic Church. The parking lot
property cost $225, 000 over market value.
It is unfortunate that it took so long to complete the parking lot
acquisition effort and all of the preliminary site/building plans.
However, we are finally at a point where formal building plans can
be submitted by Sound Ventures following City Council approval.
Construction is anticipated to begin late this summer and
completion of the building should be within nine months of the
start date.
V
Kent City Council Meeting
W _
Date June 20 1989
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: TELESCOPIC AERIAL MANLIFT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held May 22 with two bids
received. The low bid was submitted by Air Tec Equipment, Inc.
in the amount of $15, 580. 55. Afrecommendk thisebiddbeer review of thisaaccepted.
testing of the equipment, jZ=i-&
V- cC
nirecFc.'
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Direct r of Public Works
4 , RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Co fission, etc. )
NO YES
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL I ACT: Not Recommended
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recomme ded
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:,
mem seconds
Coun move �r er
''Kaf the bid of $15, V80. 55 from Air Tec Equipment, Inc. be accepted.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 14, 1989
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Telescopic Aerial Manlift
Bid opening was May 22 with two bids received, the low bid from Air
Tec Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $15, 580.55.
The equipment for which the low bid was submitted was field tested
and it has been determined the equipment meets our specifications.
This item is included in the approved 1989 Equipment Rental
operating budget. It is, therefore, recommended the bid from Air-
Tec Equipment, Inc. , in the amount of $15, 580. 55, for the
Telescopic Aerial Manlift be accepted.
BID SUMMARY
Utility Equipment, Inc. $15,843 . 95
(Versalift)
Air Tec Equipment, Inc. $15,580. 55
(Armlift)
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 13 , 1989
TO: Don Wickstrom
Director of Public Works
FROM: Jack Spencer` "
ft-41-�
Fleet Manage
SUBJECT: Bids for Telescopic Aerial Manlift
The City of Kent Equipment Rental Division received sealed bids on
May 22nd, 1989 for a Telescopic Aerial Manlift to be installed on
our existing 1-Ton Truck.
Bids received were as follows:
Utility Equipment, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
Versalift Bid $14, 656.40
Sales Tax 1, 187 . 55
Total $15,843 .95
Air Tec Equipment, Inc.
Camas, Washington
Armlift Bid $14, 413 . 00
Sales Tax 1, 167 .55
Total $15, 580.55
Installation would be by Independent Dealer' s Accessories Co.
located in Kent. Service and parts would be available from this
firm.
After testing both units, the operators have expressed preference
for the arm lift unit. I suggest we award the bid to Air Tec
Equipment.
Funds are available from Budgeted Capital Outlay for 1989 .
Replacement of #23 $16, 061. 00
JS/map
cc: Tim Heydon
Operations Manager
C282A03
tA
Kent City Council Meeting
Date June 20, 1989
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: TELEVISION DATALOG UNIT AND POWER TRANSPORTER
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was June 6 with one bid
received. The bid submitted by Q's Cues in the amount of
$19, 241.80 has been reviewed and found to be a responsive bid.
-I#,'s recommendoid this bid be accepted.
(i
i
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the D4ector of Public Works
r
rt
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, ExamineZMPACT:
Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Re co ended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:=thebidVASE'movej, Cou,J from Q' ues for the Television Datalog Unit and power
transporter in the amount of $19, 241. 80 be accepted.
�z .i.y-..1
DISCUSSION: q
ACTION• 1
Council Agenda
Item No. 5B
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 14, 1989
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Television Datalog Unit and Power Transporter
Bid opening was June 6, 1989 with one bid submitted in the amount
of $19 , 241. 80 from Q' s Cues, Inc. After review, it has been
determined this is a responsive bid. Funds for this equipment have
been approved in the 1989 operating budget.
The equipment will enhance the City' s ability to T.V. sewer lines
and properly record existing conditions. It is recommended the bid
of $19 , 241. 80 from Q' s Cues, Inc. for the Television Datalog Unit
and Power Transporter be accepted.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 12 , 1989
TO: Tim Heydon
Operations Manager
FROM: Nelden D. Hewitt 4
Utilities Superintendent
SUBJECT: Bid for (TDU) Television Datalog Unit and
Power Transporter
I recommend that the bid from Q' s Cues, Inc. of $19, 241. 80 be
accepted. This will be without the RAM loader which will be part
of the software package when we decide what software we are going
to use. I recommend we keep our 3-Line Dataview and not trade it
in. Also, I don't recommend their substitute Linemate Stand-a-Lone
System.
NH/map
Attached: All bid documents and specifications, Q' s CUES, Inc.
return to Nelden D. Hewitt
C284A03
Kent City Council Meeting
U Date June 20 1989
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: LID 331 - S.E. 240TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS
2 . UMMARY STATEMENT - Bid ope g was s..chez3U-14@d for June 16.
The Director of Publ i Works wil -eview the bids received and
make a recommendation jas--tb award.
3 . EXHIBITS: '
4 . RECOMIONDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBIIDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO
YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOT Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ,
Councilmember_
moves, Councilmember �f � seconds
the Public Works H rector's recommendation as to award for
LID 331 be accepted.
rVU'
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5C
w... ..... ..........
R E P' r 0 (�R T S' I j, t I-
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT ' O f reS Wh, �`- r 64cd he-
knd a W rnded 1M e 455oc Was" C-0-K 1-cMw-
e
crl
vvi S oLaw— KJOefe fd t � scuss �c
re to oil5.
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
(90s Co wl ix�1! l 0/1 e,ef �`� ,3 C o p. ,m . Lo rn n o w o n
o vncf Hie C'uto(jc- 5a�7ejU Corm w : ( t wteet a--r
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ��y SO Yl S Q! d �V tc{ h
1% „ it w ; 4rn��,f d+ A : oo Pam .
on T\,APsclaLf 7uvie- -IT
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE DC)i dl e I ( n �e d +aT + (Ile ��` r«S
X)V^^ m, t-f e e w t l wi e e1- aT- 3 ' >u On J is Vq e.
a1 cetgc� Lo , t ( ( d;5C_LiSS foe uc4c,ef
A+ .qt) A 1
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Cl ,r o C h C w a Vl o oL", ✓lc ed
`fit +fAe d to e n e fc ecei five. s essivri
D G p�l(o i rn�o,fie ( t� IL) al r o u f es Scuss
IV
Ct< <:�L<< 5'lh ��, .
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JUNE 13, 1989
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON MARTY NIZLEK
BERNE BITEMAN FRED SATTERSTROM
JUDY WOODS TERRY MCALEER
DON WICKSTROM MAY MILLER
BILL WILLIAMSON LYLE PRICE
GARY GILL JOHN MARCHIONE
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORS
South King County Area Trans ortation Benefit District
Wickstrom explained the agreement related to the City' s
participation in the development of a financial plan for formation
agencies
of a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) . Count The
include Auburn, Renton, Tukwila, Kent, and King Y•
Committee unanimously approved participation and authorization for
the Mayor to sign the Agreement.
Lake Fenwick Restoration - Allocation of Funds
Wickstrom explained this project is one for which we have received
Centennial Clean Water grant funds. The total project cost is
about $240, 875 ; $65, 000 of that would come from ted from the
e drainage
utility funds with the remainder of the project support
grant. The project will enhance the water quality in Lake Fenwick
and will be managed by the Parks Department. Wickstrom requested
the $65, 000 be transferred from the unencumbered drainage utility
funds for this project. The Committee unanimously approved.
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Prospectus
Wickstrom stated that TIB (formerly Urban Arterial Board) has a
final allocation of $15 million for projects statewide. Kent has
received grant offers from them for three projects:
1) 84th Avenue (180th to 192nd) to widen to a 5-lane facility. The
project will be about $2 . 9 million and TIB has offered a grant of
$900, 000. Kent' s matching funds would come from the drainage
utility and formation of an L.I .D.
2) 256th & 104th Intersection Improvements - The project would
construct a dedicated double southbound left turn lane plus a
westbound right turn lane from 256th to go north on 104th and a
northbound right turn lane from 104hAvenue t O.o eastTIB on offered
The project cost would be approximately
Public Works Committee
June 13 , 1989
Page 2
a grant of $200, 000 . Kent' s matching fund would come from
commitments from development in the area.
3) Central Avenue Improvements (Willis to Smith) - The project
consists of widening Central and constructing a right turn lane at
Central and Gowe to allow west bound traffic to turn north on
Central . The project is approximately $1, 516, 000. TIB has offered
a grant of $1, 000, 000. Kent' s matching funds would come from
drainage utility funds; WSDOT overlay participation and a
reallocation of 1991 CIP funds from the 84th Avenue project.
The Committee unanimously approved the Mayor's signature on the
prospectus for these grant offers.
Property Exchange - Union Pacific Realty
Wickstrom explained that when the property was rezoned from MA to
M1, the owners had to deed right of way along 64th Avenue from
216th to 212th plus extra right of way for a future drainage
channel. In working with the Fisheries department on the lagoon,
it may be possible to put the outlet into an existing channel on
the west side of the lagoon. Union Pacific is willing to trade the
equivalent right of way along the drainage channel in exchange for
release of the right of way along 64th. The Committee unanimously
approved the exchange.
L.I.D. 330 - 64th Avenue Improvements - Interim Financing
Wickstrom stated the original approval for interim financing was
just for right of way acquisition. We now need to hire
consultants for design of the signal system for the project which
will be approximately $49, 000. Wickstrom requested the interim
financing be amended to include funds for the signal design. The
Committee unanimously approved.
L.I.D. 330 - 64th Avenue Improvements
Williamson stated he had previously prepared a statement as to how
the Public Works Committee could accept the Environmental Task
Force report without interfering with the SEPA process. After
meeting with Sandra Driscoll and Dan Stroh of Planning, Williamson
stated he felt the Committee should not make a recommendation to
Council but rather to the city's SEPA official, Jim Harris. Based
on this, Williamson presented the action (copy attached) on which
he would recommend Committee approval. The Committee approved
Williamson' s recommendation.
Public Works Committee
June 13 , 1989
Page 3
Johnson stated he had talked to Jim Harris about the timing of his
recommendations to the Planning Committee. Harris indicated it
could be brought back to the Planning Committee with a
recommendation next week and could also be placed on Council agenda
that night for action. Harris suggested the Public Works Committee
recommend this be directed to him, he would, in turn, make a
recommendation to the Planning Committee and the Planning Committee
would act on it and take it to Council that night. Williamson
stated this Committee could ask that the minutes of this meeting
and the prior meeting be given to Jim Harris which will contain
your recommendations as to the project approval consistent with
meeting SEPA requirements and to also look at segregating the
project. Johnson stated it was his understanding that the portion
along the lagoon would be segregated out and the northern and
southern portions done as a separate project. Wickstrom suggested
we proceed with the segregation. If nothing is done, an EIS will
probably have to be done on the entire project which could add 6-
12 months before construction could begin. If we were able to get
by with the checklist, it could probably be challenged by
environmental groups which could, likewise, add 6-12 months to the
project. Thus, he proposed to separate the projects. They are
projects which could stand alone by themselves. The bonding
attorneys have indicated we would not have to start over on the
original L.I.D. We could reduce the scope of work. Because of the
number of L. I .D. covenants and agreements from property owners,
there will be no problem in forming a second L.I.D. The City' s
financial consultants have indicated they did not foresee any
problems with the concept of segregating the L.I.D. Wickstrom
added the property owners along the lagoon have been notified and
their concern was that the project will actually get built. The
remainder of the property owners, however, have not as yet been
notified but Wickstrom indicated he did not anticipate any major
concerns on their part.
Woods suggested the rest of the Council members be apprised as to
what has transpired with this project so they have a full
understanding perhaps through a memo followed by direct
communication with them. Woods moved the Committee minutes of this
meeting and the one of May 23 , 1989 be submitted to Planning. The
Committee unanimously approved.
The Committee also approved that the Public Works Department
segregate the project into two L. I. D.s which are intended to comply
with future SEPA determinations and existing project authorizations
and they be authorized to submit a new checklist for the reduced
scope L. I . D. 330.
Public Works Committee
June 13 , 1989
Page 4
L.I.D. 331 S E 240th Street Improvements - Puclet Power Acreement
Wickstrom explained the agreement with Puget is for undergrounding
within the project area. The cost of $63 , 836. 20 has been included
in the project budget. The Committee unanimously approved the
Mayor' s signature on the Agreement.
Budaet Review
The Committee proceeded to review the 1990 Public Works budget
proposal.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
June 12, 1989
T0:
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, WOODS AND BITEMAN
FROM: BILL H. WILLIAMSON, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
RE: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE - 64TH AVENUE SOUTH AND LID 330
IMPROVEMENTS
Following the Committee' s meeting of Tuesday, May 23 +• 1989,
concerning 64th Avenue south Improvements and and L.I.D.
e330 affecting
the former treatment lagoon, now a unique
have
prepared the following:
ACTION: The Committee accepts the report of the Mayor' s
1989 concerning
Environmental Task Force dated May 11,
L.I.D. 330 and 64th Avenue Improvements.
MOTION: It is moved and seconded that model boating activities
shall hereafter be prohibited in the lagoon upon award
of contract for improvements to the reconfiguration of
the lagoon or construction of the buffer to accommodate
64th Avenue South improvements whichever occurs earlier.
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
June 1, 1989
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser
Steve Dowell
Paul Mann
STAFF PRESENT: Ed Chow
Jim Hansen
Mike Webby
Tony McCarthy/
Rod Frederiksen
Carolyn Lake
Alana McIalwain
Charlie Lindsey
Tom Vetsch
Priscilla Shea
May Miller
Teri Mertes
GUESTS PRESENT: Lyle Price, Valley Daily Newspaper
Doug Klappenbach, Sound Ventures Inc.
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
All claims for the period ending May 15, 1989 in the amount of
$749 ,295.79 were approved for payment.
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM (INFORMATION ONLY)
Assistant City Attorney Lake informed the Committee that the
protest period for the Initiative and Referendum process had
expired and asked the Committee for direction on including it on
the Council Agenda. The Committee recommended including it on the
consent calendar.
PRINTING AND GRAPHIC EQUIPMENT FOR FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Finance Director McCarthy requested printing and graphics equipment
for Central Services which would be paid for by using $55, 505 of
the Central Service Fund Balance of $107 ,479 to acquire a new
press, plate maker and a graphics work station. He reported that
the proposal would save city expenditures in the long run by
bringing in printing now done by outside vendors and by making the
internal operations more efficient.
Councilmember Dowell had some concern about the expense of
additional staffing to operate the new equipment with the budget
process being tight this year. He also felt taking printing to
outside vendors supports Kent businesses. Finance Director
McCarthy informed the Committee that no staff would be requested
at this time to enable him to evaluate the efficiency of the
equipment to see if there is a necessity of increasing staff.
Councilmember Houser mentioned that the equipment would be taken
out of the Central Service Fund and the Internal Budget Committee
had recommended the request.
The Committee recommended this request by a vote of 2-1 for
inclusion on the Consent Calendar.
PROPERTY TAX INVESTMENT RESOLUTION
Finance Director McCarthy informed the Committee that the State
Court of Appeals issued a decision last fall regarding interest
earnings on property tax receipts. The general effect of this
decision is that Kent now has the right to earn interest on
property taxes collected for us, by King County, up to the date the
taxes are disbursed to the city.
Assistant City Attorney Lake responded that the attorney' s office
is currently reviewing items stipulated in a resolution that is
being requested to be submitted to King County by June 30, 1989 to
be entitled to retroactive interest earned.
The Attorney recommended that a decision be deferred to the June
15, 1989 Operations Committee meeting.
CASHIER'S COUNTER ALTERATION
Finance Director McCarthy presented a short term solution to the
space problem in the Finance Department. This solution involves
moving the Utility Billing counter out 5 feet further into the
lobby to allow more room for the Finance employees. The cost of
moving the counter would be less than $1, 000 primarily for
electrical and carpeting. The funds would come from Finance
Department under expenditures.
The Committee reviewed a diagram of the move and recommended this
request. No further Council action is needed.
MAYOR' S REQUEST FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
City Administrator Chow informed the Committee that the Mayor
approves this request for $1, 500 for the King County Citizens for
Improved Transportation. Their proposal will use funds from South
King County Jurisdictions for legislative analysis and drafting in
an effort to obtain funding for roads in the area. Expenditure
will come from existing funds in the Civic Affiliation Budget.
MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION STUDY
City Administrator Chow informed the Committee that the Management
Compensation study was still in the works .
COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW DATES
Finance Director McCarthy reviewed with the Committee the dates the
city departments will deliver their 1990 budget presentations to
their respective Committees.
CENTENNIAL BUILDING LEASE MODIFICATION
Assistant City Administrator Hansen presented a proposal by Sound
Ventures Inc. to modify the present lease agreement on the
Centennial Building. Sound Ventures Inc. would like to restructure
the annual lease payments from the present $16/square foot/year to
an average of $16/square foot/year with payments starting at
$14 . 75/square fpot in 1990 and reaching $16.75 in 1993 , 1994 and
1995. This change will cause no increase over the five year term
but will affect annual payments and is needed for developer
financing due to higher than anticipated cost for the Church
property. The modifications also involve increasing the amount of
leased space from approximately 20, 000 square feet to 26, 460 square
feet based on department needs analysis and building layout
configurations. This additional space will cost an average of
$84 , 141 per year or $420,708 over the five year period.
Councilmember Dowell requested more time to research this new
proposal and do some checking on the figures.
The Committee postponed a recommendation until the June 15, 1989
operations Committee Meeting. The Committee requested to look at
the new plans, to review a list of changes made to the original
plans and to allow Councilmember Dowell to study the proposal and
bring information back to the Committee at that time.
1990 BUDGET PRESENTATION BY FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Finance Director McCarthy discussed the Finance departments 1990
Budget Presentation with the Committee. He first stated some of
the Finance departments recent significant accomplishments then
proceeded to list the 1990 budget objectives in order of priority.
See attached.
The intention for this presentation was to inform the Committee of
these objectives so they would be familiar when they are discussed
in fuller detail at a later date and to obtain direction from the
Committee as to what they felt was the most significant issues to
pursue. The Committee had no comment at that time as to any
changes to the Finance objective list.
1990 BUDGET OBJECTIVES: APPROXIMATE NET COST
* Continue to meet the city department demands for Central Services while trying to implement
productivity improvements including Central Purchasing. $15,000
* Continued implementation of automated system for finance, budget and payroll. already budgeted
* Continue-to provide higher quality printing and additional graphics capabilities. $30,000
• Prepare for the additional workload created by the addition of new buildings. $ 5,000
* Improve timeliness of paying vendors and providing financial reports, budget analysis, and auditing. $60,500
* Begin microfilming project of official public records. $15,000
* Expanded implementation of one meter reader per vehicle through rerouting. $27,500
* Focus on ways to provide better customer service for a growing customer base. $16,500
* Acquire a new utility billing system including hand held meter devices. already budgeted
* Expand budget operations to include operational reviews of department practices. $45,000
* Continue to bring city facilities up to quality standards by implementing new Locking and
alarm systems. $24,000
• Move toward distributive, on•Line cashiering and automation of accounts receivable. already budgeted
* Begin a landscaping renovation program of city facilities. $10,000
* Enhance computer programs to include a program to allow Council minutes and history to be
entered simultaneously. ?
* Explore the establishment of our own parking citation system separate from the state system. ?