Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 06/06/1989
�� City of Kent m5 City Council Meeting �a a� Agenda ffwr �e _ m ¢R XX Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members .... Jim White, President Berne Biteman Steve Dowell Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Judy Woods June 6, 1989 Office of the City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 6, 1989 Summary Agenda City of Kent Council Chambers Office of the City Clerk 7: 00 p.m. ccv 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 A. Employee of the Month B. Proclamation C. Proclamation D. Presentation 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Zoning of Hehr Annexation B. Capital Improvement Plan 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes B. Bills C. Drinking Driver Task Force D. Saturday Market Advisory Board Appointment E. Library Board Appointment F. Water Main Extension G. Bay Club Apartments H. Metro Agreement I . H&CD Sidewalk Improvement Project J. Regional Water Association K. Master Signal Control Computer Printing and Graphics Equipment Street Vacation - 3rd Ave. So. - Hearing Date - Resolution N. Glacier Park Street Vacation - Ordinance a �q 7 0. City Art Plan Amendment - Resolution 15107 Library Design Approval Q. Initative and Referendum - Ordinance 4 $ Campbell Land Exchange Lot Line Adjustment - Ordinance 9,,Y4JL7 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Eastwood Preliminary Plat G� �o B. East Valley Zoning Implementation - ordinance ti 5 . BIDS A. Special Populations Center - Kitchen Remodel B. 1989 Asphalt Overlay C. Remodel Station 71 6 . REPORTS CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A. Employee of the Month B. Proclamation honoring Herb Mutschler C. Proclamation - Historic Preservation y k k.G k 6.u: - D. Presentation - International Certification - Deputy City Clerk Brenda Jacober Kent City Council Meeting 'lv Date June 6. 1989 �N Category Public Hearinct 1. SUBJECT: HEHR ANNEXATION ZONING NO. AZ-89-1 . 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is the 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 annexation area. The property is approximately 4 . 6 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 . L p YIe0V-1 01of �(� eVO Uvbltfe Jrt1��(�,,tr' �1� 1 {� � �Ubl�� report, minutes, findings andrecommendat S: staff io 3 . EXHIBIT 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner April 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- OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: +� Councilmember W P move, 13�- to continue the public hearing to July 18 , 1989 . rl�a+�+� SCci^,cGie� DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2A FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: HEHR ANNEXATION #AZ-89-1 APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT, PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST: A request to attach initial zoning to approximately 4 . 6 acres annexed into the City in January 1989. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of 116th Avneue SE approximately 150 feet south of SE 227th Place. APPLICATION FILED: 1/6/89 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFIANCE: 2/24/89 MEETING DATE: 4/5/89 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 4/19/89 RECOMMENDATION• APPROVAL STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Lauri Anderson, Planning Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Greg Nelson WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None INTRODUCTION After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property was annexed to the City in January 1989 . It is located on the west side of 116th Avenue SE approximately 150 feet south of SE 227th Place. The property consists of two parcels (the Hehr lot and the Fullner lot) totalling 4 . 6 acres. Seven people live on the acreage. 1 Findings and Recommendation HEHR #AZ-89-1 2 . Under the provisions of section 15. 03 . 020 E (1) of the Kent Zoning Code, all property not otherwise classified on the official zoning map is placed in an interim zoning designation equivalent to the R1-20, Single-Family Residential, district. 3 . Prior to annexation, the property was zoned under King County jurisdiction as Suburban Residential with a minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet (SR 7200) . 4 . The property to the north and east is zoned SR 7200 under King County jurisdiction. The property to the south and west is zoned R1-7 . 2 under City of Kent jurisdiction. 5. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan designates the area as SF, Single-Family Residential as does the East Hill Comprehensive Plan map. 6. Current and future residential development would have access to 116th Avenue SE. 7 . City services including water, sewer, storm drainage and streets are available and adequate to serve the area should it be developed as Single Family Residential with 71200 square foot lots. City services may not be adequate if greater density were allowed. CONCLUSIONS 1. Single-Family Residential zoning with a minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet is compatible with the surrounding environment, the comprehensive plans, and other zoning designations in the area of the subject property. 2 . A zoning designation of Single-Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet will help ensure that city services will be available for future development which may occur on the annexed property. 3 . A R1-7 . 2 zoning designation is appropriate for the subject property. 2 Findings and Recommendation HEHR #AZ-89-1 DECISION It is the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner that the proposed zoning designation of R1-7 .21 Single-Family Residential, with a minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet, be approved as appropriate for the annexed area. DECIDED THIS 19th DAY OF April, 1989 . THEODORE PAUL HUNTER HEARING EXAMINER Request of Reconsideration Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 . Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errors, omissions from the record, errors in interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and Resolution #896 for specific information. Section 15. 09 . 030 G: Kent Zoning Code provides that any conditional use permit granted by the Hearing Examiner shall remain effective only for one (1) year unless the use is begun within that time or construction has commenced. If not in use or construction has not commenced within one year, the conditional use permit shall become invalid. 3 CITY OF KENT ��lanni ng li • ` °6" '.]' `s \. _ t21 s 123 eU41.I 7i11111 107 ' y�.' •° .\ •.9 I rta ._. IJ,t, CC '' •, ✓ f ° � ilb •.li° J' w ro Ix/ M Il = x IIO o a1$.E. 0 ` S- @: c- 106tl• 22fiTII PL. e °O F i I I 13 6 i Y. s r. �°f•� r]^ v. e 310 I ,P +*ly I � rt , f, ' 4c 4r le IS I34 : '^I 1` 22 Ivu Ifi !"1 ..P on u ;� I •. 22 IS~aeS ilw Uxi N Ji;e 711L- �Li . I)D�' :r.......•nr I 1 'fl lu -S.E 1• I� Y tl J z .� /y}2c TRAtf Cai n.°f .23 1 I a 2T� 314 11 n 1` a°mod 1 LLJ 6 x (n fR.A ' 21 tg zz�. ry 34 ]) -36 0 4tr /1- li 43 44 45 5 I6_ t7_ I6_ 19-.20 21_. .I •Vf 1°- 1 r••It - y Mir II P - n t LL- 0 a r 1• Is )•114 113 12. 11 10 9 I s W y'rT Anna L. IAc. = 3- y. SITE Peterson 16 _ AS.E. 22 BT HA P�. ' B•. '36 ]©09 �1y4� • 0/nx-� -nL- �-J AEI.'}✓ - Ii1� B 1 A t � 2 ''a: 'off ).6OOAC. 72D 7 .., 6 R.•.�.u...l 19 16 45 118 T 6 G 1 & ? 2 IA •1 R TRACT A. 1!• 94 y /r s 'roti 48 b . 01 AT 61 47t• ......... s _ i s N47 rsp 1 0 �� 6p 4S + '• ^�•`�`�F 97� T3�•v ISc�J 'b ��14 It; is to i I6 'Y'1 -;to sl = >x s9 j" 61 S� 41Y % .• :R j a p E16 17�. 12' II 12°i IJ IS p r _. 52 SB'�, r Q� / 40 62 'S. 6 ,° 7T ]6 35 ]I 73 32 g T I la 53 a G 63 d'` 64 ' 230TH a PL. �65 ac' -s\m 59G nu le °I o `Q A � J 11IIryII 59 66 ,4,- 6 25 26 27 213 29 30; _■1$2 Ul.._l 9 � BI I p o �J' y S 22'.^ 5211 91 Is 7 14 70 ro IT N 1• y 71 ./I q-\S,� Ba �m R 60: 69 72 � Eti3Q�' 9 20! IT 3 6 S N 68 73 21 A ] 85 79 �.sl s]s5 T9 U "3• , 8 c• I il' y 8 _ W .. 12 \ �. 1 B6 78 �^ ^I 91 7' 6 _ Q I 87 Se 77, c i 1 so ° 9 10 9 .�„ ° 9 ::.J'ABi-411 31 \72 ? 6 is n 140 R� qq l I .� J't ••e_10 L —I W 21 . of U) ^ 47. .. b 20 12 a A) m _ 49 ', 3 APPLICATION Piama HEHR Annexation LEGEfdO KUlUI1C( #AZ-89-1 U2 April 5, 1989 application( silt RC�UC$l to .attach initial zoning to 4.6 acres iCUiCfJiIUUIICC(y annexed to the City in January, 1989. City limits SITE MAP and ZONING SCALE = I" = 200 CITY OF KENT planning St f < < rwir SE ••» • 71�IH J, 5E� ST 51 f rv21eTN o D SE a A N ST 215TM N e <N ST i _n n r ^ h ST W "' _ N w SE 217iH ST TT �,• ,,.. SE^ 2161H d 5E y Z yl F rn 1:r•1r'r aJrr I8T1 r ST F a SE 218TH 1 > H o ST < < < SE 215T SE 118TH PL i Z i SE ry O 220TH ST W N E 222ND i ST 515 SE 223RD ST N W W i W F W i w ST J ps E SE 224TH JOi "'223RD cf7 PL W S^ SE \ PL Z.L ]6 22ATH Q SE 225TH p SE 22STH < W ST < E .!5TH N N 6 W n SL 125YH =N ^ W< PL i F.T. _.i i N i SE SE 726TH i n 226 H Se p ♦ .3,.. < P I �7J SE SE 727TN PL ST,Th 277TH 5T 2i w SE 22BTH 5T MMM SE 228TH SITE vJ SE 119 Ir. J0 SE ST i �^ W PL 7N QyS 'LCS'L I9THo ; 5 ST y { ST 1^ < j ,4'r Q�;S SE 230 H SE 23i ' < ..,o S N S3 { SE A; to ST SE 231ST PARK CHA Z W E 7 n .� W 1ELE NTARV f.N < ST n 230TH ST ZN {00$CH L n PL ♦O Sf 232ND ST OW E 232No ST n SE ^< E232H ^< i nl 232ND ST `•' ti W rn J'fY 233RD SE n 2 > PL ST 7't1Sf 233R0< 234TH ST MERIDIAN SE 233TH 2•T ", 7' ST 5TN J m� 'A1 r SC SG:OOL F T SS 5" pjT Q 234TH P � L• \ O b SE 236TH ST A .,IV AD IcbC ¢ SC �2351 VE F. n 5[ SE 236TH ST — >n 1p3SE 236TH PL W I rirller 1 vi SE Z37TN ST ; „,.,.,•rr., v i < E 235TH u ST SE OTH ST ' 17 16 `\ 2C 21 i Z N r p SE 24ATH _ n ST i ;.!..,11.I NJ Z � r l..A P � i w APPLICATION Namo HEHR Annexation LEI CENO Number IAZ-89-1 Dale April 5, 1989 3ppllCal1011 SIIC [leques� to attach initial zoning to 4.6 acres Zoning bouadm? annexed to the City in January, 1989. mmm, oily limits VICINITY MAP SCALE = I° = boar Hearing Examiner Minutes April 5, 1989 HEHR ANNEXATION nRZ-89-1 The last item on the agenda was a request by the City of Kent Planning Department, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 , to attach initial zoning to approximately 4 . 6 acres annexed into the City in January 1989 . The Comprehensive Plan designation is SF, Single Family, 4-6 units per acre. Currently three single-family residences exist on the site. The subject property is located on the west side of 116th Avenue SE approximately 150 feet south of SE 227th Place. (1-434) Lauri Anderson, Kent Planning Department, reiterated the request. Ms. Anderson displayed some transparencies indicating 1) the location of the subject property, and 2) current zoning of the site and surrounding zoning. Ms. Anderson commented that property to the north of the subject property is in King County. A video of the site was shown. Ms. Anderson commented on the goals, objectives and policies of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan. Ms. Anderson commented that under the single-family zoning approximately 20 single-family residences could be established on this site. An application has been received from Mr. Hehr requesting a subdivision for 12 lots. The staff is recommending approval of the proposed R1-7 .2 , Single-Family Residential, zoning. Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. (1-822) Gregg Nelson, 11317 SE 228th Place, Kent, WA 98031, owner of Lot 6 of Parkmar, was concerned about the storm retention/detention on this site. Currently, there is a great deal of water run-off from this property. There was no further testimony. Mr. Hunter asked for City rebuttal. (1-944) Ms. Anderson commented that as part of the preliminary plat process, drainage concerns will be addressed. The public hearing was closed at 4 : 10 p.m. 6 Hearing Examiner Minutes April 5, 1989 Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. The applicant, Shupe Holmberg, 1505 Northwest Gilman Boulevard #7, Issaquah, WA 98027 , indicated he was available for questions but did not intend to comment. Mr. Hunter asked if anyone would like to comment. (1-1268) (1-000) Dale Hartman, 8949 S. 245th Place, asked if the comment about the barricades could be explained. He inquired that if Canterbury subdivision were not developed, would access from this subdivision be from S. 244th? Mr. Hartman assumed there would be half-street improvements with sidewalks. He wanted to know the approximate value of the homes to be constructed. Mr. Hartman asked if the pond shown on the plans would be used for storm drainage and retention. Mr. Hartman commented he had his property surveyed and he would be willing to show where the corner was located. There was no further testimony. Mr. Hunter asked for rebuttal from the City. (1-181) Gary Gill, Kent City Engineer, responded to the questions asked by Mr. Hartman. In regard to the barricade, if the Canterbury subdivision is not developed prior to the construction of this subdivision, then 100th Avenue will not provide a link between 248th and the subject site; a condition for barricades at the northwest corner of this property would not be required. The Public Works Department requested that this condition be flexible so at the time of development the traffic situation can be studied and the best use of barricades and signing could be made. Mr. Gill stated there will be sidewalks required along the entire frontage of the property on the eastern side of 100th Avenue. The Public Works Department will be working with the developer to determine the size and design of the pond to prevent off-site flows from being any greater than what existed prior to development. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide some water quality enhancement to the pond as well as storm detention/retention. There were conditions of SEPA in regard to the impacts of water retention/detention and off-site flows. There was no further testimony. The public hearing was closed at 3 :55 p.m. 5 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF APRIL 5 , 1989 FILE NO: HEHR ANNEXATION ZONING #AZ-89-1 APPL__ I_ CANT: City of Kent REOUEST: Staff request to attach initial zoning to 4 . 6 acres annexed into the City in January 1989 . Proposed zoning for the site is R1-7 .21 Single-Family Residential , with minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Lauri Anderson STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL I . GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The proposal is to apply R1-7 . 2 , Single Familzoning toesidential (minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet) , g 4 . 6 acres annexed into the City of Kent in January 1989 . Upon annexation to the City, all land is automatically zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 20, 000 square feet) . This designation is an interim zoning which remains with the property until the Hearing Examiner and City Council establish appropriate zoning for the newly annexed area. B. Location The subject property is located on the west side of 116th Avenue SE, approximately 150 feet south of SE 227th Place. C. Size of Property The subject property contains two parcels, totalling 4 .6 acres in size. The Hehr lot (Parcel #1722059056) includes 3 . 6 acres. The Fuliner lot (Parcel #1722059136) comprises one acre. A census conducted living on the aoreaindicates that there are seven (7) persons 1 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 D. Zoning The site is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential (20, 000 square feet minimum lot size) , under the interim zoning designation. Prior to annexation, the property was zoned SR 7200 (Suburban Residential, minimum lot size 7 , 200 square feet) under the jurisdiction of King County. Surrounding property to the north and east which is in unincorporated King County is zoned SR 7200. The property to the south and west, which is inside the City of Kent, is zoned R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential. The two existing lots exceed the minimum lot size as specified in the development standards for the proposed R1-7 .2 zoning. E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development and spending decisions. Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. This area is served by the East Hill subarea plan. The following is a review of these plans as they relate to the subject property and proposed zoning. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single-Family Residential. 2 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT. GOAL 2 : Guide new residential development into areas where the needed services and facilities are available, and in a manner which is compatible with existing residential neighborhoods. Planning Department Comment This goal supports objectives and policies which encourage development of new single-family housing and protect existing single-family neighborhoods from adverse impacts of new development. In recent years, the City of Kent has developed at a rapid pace. King County' s Soos Creek Planning Area, which is located immediately to the east of the City of Kent and includes the Hehr annexation property, is the second fastest growing area in King County. In 1988, the City issued $152 million in building permits one of the busiest years on record. Yet even in this peak year of construction, the number of single-family residential permits was minimal (28) . The City of Kent, as of December 1988 , had 9 , 357 apartment units. These units made up nearly 60 percent of the housing stock. Single-family homes made up 34 percent, and the balance were mobile homes. The City has placed a renewed emphasis on perceived single-family imbalance housing in an effort to address the p This between single-family and multifamily housing types. effort was initiated by the adoption of Resolution #1123 in 1986 which called for a 20 percent reduction in multifamily densities. The City is in the process of a comprehensive housing study, and the policies formulated in the completed Phase I report of that study articulate support for the single-family residential living environment. Zoning the Hehr annexation property for single-family residential uses would work to redress the perceived imbalance between single-family and multifamily housing types in Kent. Under the R1-7 . 2 zoning, approximately 20 single-family homes could be tentative s already en submitted for the dHehr Aparcel, under the a the proposed R1b7e2 3 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 zoning, which would create 12 residential lots on approximately 3 . 5 acres. As land uses to the north, south, east and west are single-family residential, the R1-7 . 2 zoning of this site would minimize the potential for future land use conflicts with existing development. GOAL 3 : ASSURE AN ADEQUATE AND BALANCED SUPPLY OF HOUSING UNITS OFFERING A DIVERSITY OF SIZE, DENSITIES, AGE, STYLE AND COST. Planning Department Comment This goal supports the objective which works to increase the supply and affordability of housing for moderate-income households. Policies under this objective include providing for increased single-family residential densities in appropriate areas as a means of controlling costs and providing opportunities for single-family home ownership. R1-7 . 2 is the City of Kent's most dense single-family zoning district--providing for the smallest residential lot size. Small lot sizes reduce housing costs and provide enhanced opportunities for moderate-income households to enter the housing market. Zoning the Hehr annexation property to the 7 , 200 square feet minimum lot size would increase the potential for achievement of the City' s housing affordability goals. EAST HILL PLAN The East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single-family Residential, 4-6 dwelling units per acre. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WHICH RECOGNIZE AND RESPOND TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE FUNCTIONING OF NATURAL SYSTEMS . GOAL 1: Preservation and enhancement of the natural qualities which make the east hill area an attractive place in which to live. 4 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 Planning Department Comment This goal supports the policy which considers natural and physical assets and liabilities, including but not limited to topography, natural drainage, vegetation, views, amenities and and access, when making decisions concerning the type intensity of land use. Application of single-family zoning to the Hehr annexation site would be appropriate as the site is not constrained by natural hazards or liabilities. The Hehr annexation property slopes gently to the southwest and drainage currently passes into the Park Mar subdivision system. 116th Avenue S.E. , which is classified as a collector arterial, provides access to the site. Concerns regarding drainage requirements, retention of existing vegetation, and preservation of views and/or other environmental amenities would be addressed at the time of future residential development. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL RESIDENTS HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GOAL 1: Residential development that is related to the availability of community facilities and services. Objective l: When making decisions concerning land use, consider the adequacy of and impact upon roads and other public facilities and services including utilities, policy and fire protection, public transportation, schools and parks. Policy 1: Ensure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support development at proposed densities. Policy 2 : Locate new single-family detached residential development in areas and at densities which permit roads, utilities, public transit, schools and other public facilities and services to be provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 5 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 Planning Department Comment Zoning of the Hehr annexation site to R1-7.2 , Single-family Residential, would provide for in-fill development in an area already covered by City services. Fire and police protection are available. Water and sewer service are present, as are storm drainage and street facilities. The property lies within the Kent School District and within a mile and a half radius of a Kent high school, a junior high school and an elementary school . Parks in the vicinity include Kent Park, Kent Memorial Park, Garrison Creek Park, Mill Creek Park and Park Orchard Park. The Hehr Annexation site is located near existing Metro bus service. Single-family development would have a lesser immediate impact on service provision than would multifamily, commercial, or office uses. Assuming 2 .9 persons per household, adequate community facilities and services will be available to serve the additional 58 persons projected for complete development of this site under R1-7 .2 zoning. GOAL 2 : DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT PROMOTE RESIDENTIAL QUALITY AND PROVIDE DIVERSE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY. Planning Department Comment This goal supports the objective which states that decisions concerning land use designations shall consider surrounding residential land uses to minimize potential conflicts. Surrounding uses to the Hehr annexation property are all single-family residential, primarily on 7 , 200 square feet minimum lot sizes. Zoning of this site for multifamily, office or commercial uses would not protect the existing neighborhood from future incompatible development. Zoning of the site to R1-7 . 2 would provide for new development of similarly-sized single-family housing units. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LINKING THE EAST HILL WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, SERVICE AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES . THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE DESIGNED 6 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning ,_..JAZ-89-1 AS BOTH A MULTI-MODAL AND A MULTI-PURPOSE SYSTEM THAT CAN BE ECONOMICALLY IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE JOINT EFFORTS OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS , THE STATE AND TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS. GOAL 4 : Develop a transportation management program that incorporates all modes of transportation. Planning Department Comment This goal establishes the policies which encourage use and expansion of public transit. Development density is critical to the economic provision of mass transportation. By providing in-fill development at the City' s highest single-family density, justification for mass transit increases. The potential future residential development of this site under R1-7 .2 zoning would increase the service population for local transit. Continued in-fill development might result in improved local Metro bus service. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A PLANNED AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR EAST HILL THAT PROTECTS THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR EAST HILL SHOULD BE COST EFFECTIVE TO IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN AND SHOULD PROMOTE IN-FILL AND PHASED DEVELOPMENT FROM EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS. Planning Department Comment In-fill development allows for efficient expansion of public facilities and services through prevention of urban sprawl. With in-fill development, the need for far-ranging service extension is slowed, thereby conserving energy resources lost over travel and transmission distances. Natural resources in the as-yet undeveloped outlying areas can also be preserved when sites closer to the service provider are built out. Zoning the Hehr annexation property R1-7 . 21 Single-family Residential , would allow for in-fill development in an area surrounded by residential uses. City services are currently provided to neighboring properties and, as has been described earlier, could be extended to serve the Hehr annexation site. 7 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 II . HISTORY A. Site History The subject site was annexed into the City of Kent in January 1989 . Prior to that time, the site fell under the jurisdiction of King County. The annexation occurred as a result of a petition from local property owners. B. Area History Considerable annexation activity has occurred in the immediate vicinity. The Eastridge Annexation, which included 65 acres immediately to the south of the subject site, was approved in 1975 . The Park Mar Annexation (4 . 84 acres directly to the west of the Hehr annexation property) occurred in 1977 . Several plats have also been approved (with resultant single-family development) in the area. The Kenton Firs mobile home park to the north of the site was developed as a PUD in King County in 1968 . The Park Mar subdivision to the west of the site was platted for 19 lots on 4 .83 acres in 1978 . To the south of the site is the Maple Wylde plat, approved in 1981 for 18 lots on 4 . 6 acres. Farther south and to the southwest is Eastridge Subdivision No. 2 consisting of 91 lots on 24 acres recorded in 1978. The Emery Ridge Preliminary Plat is located to the east of the site across 116th Avenue SE. This preliminary plat was approved in 1987 for 44 lots on 9 .75 acres. III . LAND USE Land use in the area is exclusively residential. 1. The site itself includes three single-family residences (two on one lot) and numerous outbuildings. 2 . To the north is the Kenton Firs mobile home park--a single-family residential development. 3 . Properties to the east, west and south are developed with single-family homes. 8 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Environmental Assessment An environmental checklist was prepared on the proposed zoning action. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on February 24 , 1989 with no conditions. B. Significant Physical Features 1. Topography and Vegetation The subject site slopes downward in a southwesterly direction with grades ranging from approximately 2 to 10 percent. The site is wooded with evergreen (including cedar) and deciduous trees except in the vicinity of the existing residences. C. Significant Wildlife Habitat Currently songbirds use the subject site and small mammals (mice, etc. ) may be living in the vicinity. Domestic goats are kept on the Fullner property. No significant wildlife habitat has been identified. D. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property has access to 116th Avenue SE, which is classified as a collector arterial. This street has a public right-of-way width of 60 foot while the actual width of paving is 24 foot. The average daily traffic count on 116th Avenue SE is 7000 vehicle trips per day. This street is not inside the City of Kent boundaries. However, at the time of any future subdivision of the annexation property, the west half of 116th Avenue SE would be improved. Southeast 240th Street and SE 208th Street also are used by residents in the vicinity. The site is within one mile of the nearest transit stop. 9 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 2 . Water System An existing six-inch water line is available in SE 228th Place of the Park Mar subdivision. An eight-inch waterline, terminating at the south property line of the Hehr annexation site, is available in 116th Avenue SE. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System Sewer service is available through a City of Kent eight-inch sanitary sewer line in SE 228th Place of the Park Mar subdivision. This sewer line ends at the west property line of the annexation area. 4 . Storm Water System This area has been studied under the City of Kent Drainage Master Plan. Currently less than five percent of the site is covered with impervious surfaces. No soil tests have been conducted, however the Department of Agriculture Soils Map shows Alderwood C soils for the entire site with poor drainage characteristics. Surface run-off drains naturally into the Park Mar subdivision system. Run-off in this drainage basin drains into Garrison Creek which is collected by Springbrook Creek in the valley floor which flows northerly into the Green River. 5. LID's No LIDs are on record at this time. V. MEETINGS CORRESPONDENCE AND LEGAL NOTICES At the time of the annexation hearings for this property, R1-7 . 2 , Single-family Residential , zoning was proposed for the site. A tentative plat meeting for the Hehr parcel (Cedar Meadows Tentative Plat) was held on January 19 , 1989 . All appropriate comments and concerns from these proceedings have been included in this report. VI . CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: 10 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 City Administrator City Attorney Director of Public Works Chief of Police Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief Building Official City Clerk In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site hearing tified of the application and of the April 51 1989 public Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. VII. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application ion i street system, to the Comprehensive Plan, current land use, flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The site is presently zoned R1-20, Single-family Residential, 20, 000 square feet minimum lot size, under the interim annexation zoning designation. B. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single-family Residential. C. The East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map also designates the site as SF, Single-family Residential, with a density of 4-6 units per acre. D. All lots would meet or exceed the minimum lot size as ent standards for the R1-7 . 2 , specified in the developm Single-family Residential , zoning district. E. Land use in the area is predominantly single-family residential with 7 , 200 square feet minimum lot sizes. F. Current and future residential development would have access to 116th Avenue SE. G. City services are available to serve the subject propty should 7 , 200 square feet lot residential zoning be applied. 11 Staff Report Hehr Annexation Zoning #AZ-89-1 VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request * and the Comprehensive Plan criteria for applying initial zoning, the City staff recommends approval of the R1-7 .2 , Single-family Residential, zoning designation. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 13 , 1989 12 ~ CITY OF H ENT planning 110 f ' .y, �.. "vain ' I '� K J��'•_ E6�\�;3 7j i:j s N 1, — � I{�iy .�. 3 ! 9 Y 159 ` VV 126 125R ° �1 S 101 I]I9 ]16 !2 '1 Y f g • F— Ila �12d r, „ , u_ —1 l0! s EI „—Y— N110 ° 'rgl _19— Ias S.E. 3- i /^123 . ° •121 0 - log_ a �A E 226nIPL. `112.Uj e12 n5 u0 _ S ° ,'a21' ,�1`% vl0ev9 ,- •.1u` WIN ]'t • _I3 1)4 i r0j 3" =30 '�II Y 9 73 IS rin I]2J ^J_'c SILL W22 179 '•• . l +r [[•• d2B � 32b� _b Il�' 1 •• -J.E. O ^4 "\ T91C1 C 23, /27' 37�T u ^ )i - Ir 16t 1L. IB_.19..20 21M 81IB.A ' jig ji �� TA\e J 74r,35 `36 r�IP 11- /2�43 44. .4u IS �, 14 13 12" II 10 9 I F W a c Anna L. a v \. xr_ Q%� ,r - ]piin _-s.��'• IAC. Peterson 6 AS E. 22nTM PL. 'x_; B•1 SITE 36 I 2.09 17 P A 18 1 2 'M A FR 7, ---___--a o {• _ Vie, �, ''a .; ° 'vk,, 3.60AC. - -- e A ■ In II,°A 1Z 19 t� fh 1 4' TRACT "a' 99' 46 1 45 •�B c T '� 6 G 4 44 4...} +a^ 48 T. ,s so 60 0 43 a . :. a]I (�61.o E s 14 v cF ; IB n '� ° -•IO t1r: 3z/0 ;El bs�f f Vet • u i'`�?• R 51 c 59 :"'61 qly' C " : ;,' p • oEz 03- - �� ,p/• 2 1 1 t7 11 n 125 13 -.15 1 E16^' 17 6 ' e52 SBs J Q 40 . -_.n. --"17 7 e1 - i iat« +a x tJL 1; 62 y 6 �i. u37 76 55 14 33 32 4ti 53 CL l 230TH -a PL?. , 11 rav7 54 55 �(: t l,`I'c�h(\�v.i$66 (L �b ^ 2 Sq 26 27 °26- .29 F 30: ], Ci' r 31 ,rZl- ni 1'11 I 5Q_ - 3 03 « B2 1/ at.1 ,ll0_, ° 5 Q 22 21I z no A! L �' 7 N' = 0 15 7 14' e 67 � .aro s o,.�:2 8.1 :; Zm "80 69.r�1 71 �• .�'7-�� 20 y. t55_ N R1 lu_ J .•P/ 2 7�iL S'�'L Q,' 4h J i II V L1Jao' Il 7 6 2I 1 85 f. 79 x �'5G._ 4 n , 19 0, ]_ )' 76 1 75 ib I" +t L_ LiJ ., J� 12 j BG 78 t . i J > . 103— 77 Ins t Ifr Nis 7 ., <j 87 sn R 77 F f1 �1 90*r 91 B 9 6 5 I 9tn .,oLc eti 6�"�. c t :n a';y . ,',s _0 v �~ 4 "II 'SO B9 7,(�• 1 4 �. .�r' ,\k5l tr Ito A ."�72lr u Y : q ,7• ••:I 1 1 I. f cso a i " l, 1 Llj R 21 II z 46 LIJ r^v_ ti1 ry, f 0 a, � wi 't+u 2 $ I I C (, 20 12 a 47 L f�j n -�•-i� ��_ mO � .a � G/`a'P481 �:�• alnl 9 �PPLIC�TIOPI Haim HEHR Annexation LEGEND : 11uj�r 01-89-1 Dala April 6, 1989 silt Rujum to attach initial zoning to 4.6 acres t�lllil(J Il�llll�afy annexed to the City in January, 1989. •sue■ city III➢Ils SITE MAP and ZOJING SOLE = 111 = 2001 CITY Of KENT planning f < < m SE •�• r 214 gr Ib a" ,r I SEA-� Z ST TI �Tn f 2I T N ST n 2151N O O N n r.. ST 5T m w SE 211TH ST N Y. SE 2161H SE ISTI ,? Si F n SE 218TH N p < N O ST < ..SE 219TH < STSE SE 215TH PL Z I Z n n_ O_ 220TM ST W N • E 222ND i ST 515 = N h SE 223RD ST Z H W F�T<N F I W Z 1!A-. WN p lj > D IN N F N •I 7*�ts ST E 224TH 223Dn16 PL W S \ PL 4TH m224TH 9 SE 225TH E 22S W ST <9,57 E .:STH '^ N SE 22STH dCC =N < w < SE 226TH ST is �< �ulA ,ten 226 H Sc ' C <N sE W •. NP f SE 227TH PL Sr,rN 227TH ST o i ,•, SE 228TH ST SE 225TH SITE �r ' ST H ■■ Jf 1 SE 229rH qI" TL Br SE ST in PL Q" S1. ST IO < pyA•r VyS br" SE 230 H SE 251 < gT E SE �Ad �Qe SE 2]IST PARK RCHA xW 23 OTN� [2 wy�EL E NTARY „N < ST ^tS ST FN WSGH L - Sa PL �O f 232ND ST p� -i E 232ND Sr W SE -< E232H < s y ti 232ND ST n f!?1 233RD SE 2 > PL O "+ x W ST SE 233R0< SEA. 234TH ST MERIDIAN SE 734M < t,��•y o !Pm S �" SE SCHOOL ST x y 2 r^1 Y S4'h1 N STH OA•y'+Q`' 234TH PL• �A p O flrn,•r4. A:rdclK ¢ SE 2351 A 3( 236TH ST AY[ T 6T SE \ SE 276TH >N _,� gE 276Try PL u I Y101vr Z Z E 238TH m ST L \ SC OTH ST r 17 16 20 21 x N S O 5E 244rH 5T 'I_1 UP O P O � d APPLICATION Namc HEHR Annexation LEGEND NUmbu IAZ-89-1 DaIC April 5, 1989 silt AC UCsI to attach initial zoning to 4.6 acres Zoning boundary annexed to the City in January, 1989. ���� cily limns VICINITY MAP sCALE = 1rr = 1000. Kent City Council Meeting 4 Date June 6 1989 Category Public Hearing 1. SUBJECT: 1990-1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) 2 . SUmmARY STATEMENT: The City mailed out questionnaires in the utility bills and 644 questionnaires were returned. Departments submitted their capital improvements in priority order, totaling over $48 million dollars over five years. The 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. 3 . EXHIBITS: 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 REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS- OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT• CLOSE HEARING: ( �1 a. ---------------------- 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2B CIP PRESENTATION AGENDA * Unbalanced CIP Summary Presentation * Councilmanic Bonding Capacity * Tax Rate Comparison With Other Cities * 1990-1994 Revenue Assumptions * 1990-1994 Debt Service Expenditures * CIP Questionnaire Results * Council Questionnaire Results & Priorities * Staff's CIP Priorities * Summary Balanced CIP * Program Presentation of CIP Results * CIP Balancing Spread Sheet with Comments 1990-1994 CIP City of Kent, Washington GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1990 - 1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY PRESENTATION (Amounts in Thousands) 1990-94 199b 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 8 TOTAL Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Beyond 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 (12,417) (2,818) (2,621) (2,361) (2,330) (2,287) Planned Debt Payments (1) (1,400) (350) (350) (350) (350) NET AVAILABLE CIP RESOURCES 11,406 4,287 1,299 1,686 1,935 2,199 CIP EXPENDITURES Public Safety 4,654 1,482 1,085 631 1,293 120 43 Public Works 12,453 4,940 1,220 2,753 740 850 1,950 Parks and Recreation 28,777 2,538 9,970 2,249 2,120 1,900 10,000 General Government 2,917 886 564 484 603 380 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 48,801 9,846 12,839 6,117 4,756 3,250 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (37,395) (5,559) (11,540) (4,431) (2,821) (1,051) 3EGINNING FUND BALANCE (66,499) 408 (5,151) (16,691) (21,122) (23,943) ENDING FUND BALANCE Reserved 450 450 450 450 450 450 Unreserved (403) (5,601) (17,141) (21,572) (24,393) (25,444) TOTAL ENDING FUND BALANCE 47 (5,151) (16,691) (21,122) (23,943) (24,994) (1) Payments begin in 1991 for G.O. Bonds of $3.057 million to build the 272nd Corridor in 1990. City of Kent, Washington 1990 Preliminary Budget COUNCILMANIC DEBT CAPACITY CAPACITY a .75% of LESS FUTURE REMAINING ASSESSED ASSESSED COUNCILMANIC COUNCILMANIC CAPACITY VALUATION VALUATION (1) DEBT DEBT (2) DEC 31 1988 2,385,483,302 17,891,125 (16,541,000) 1,350,125 1989 2,708,450,189 20,313,376 (15,528,000) (2,980,000) 1,805,376 1990 2,843,872,698 21,329,045 (14,465,000) (5,870,400) 993,645 1991 3,128,259,968 23,461,950 (13,525,000) (5,626,560) 4,310,389 1992 3,284,672,967 24,635,047 (12,775,000) (5,363,214) 6,496,833 1993 3,613,140,263 27,098,552 (11,995,000) (5,078,799) 10,024,753 1994 3,793,797,277 28,453,480 (11,170,000) (4,771,632) 12,511,848 1/89 15-Feb Fire & Street 20,313,376 (16,496,000) (2,980,000) 837,376 01-May Fire & Street 20,313,376 (16,406,000) (2,980,000) 927,376 01-Ju( Fire & Street 20,313,376 (16,331,000) (2,980,000) 1,002,376 22-Jul Fire & Street 20,313,376 (16,288,000) (2,980,000) 1,045,376 01-Nov Fire & Street 20,313,376 (16,178,000) (2,980,000) 1,155,376 01-Dec Fire & Street 20,313,376 (15,528,000) (2,980,000) 1,805,376 (1) Assessed valuation increasing at 10 percent for years when King County revalues property and 5 percent for those years when no revaluation occurs. increase attributable to combination of inflating property values, new construction and annexations. (2) 1989 2,000,000 for 272nd Corridor Project 1989 980,000 to complete Public Safety Training Center 1990 3,057,000 for 272nd Corridor Project City of Kent, Washington 1989 Final Budget 1989 TAX COMPARISON LARGEST WASHINGTON CITIES 1988 Regular Excess Total Official Property Property Property Sales Average Population Tax Levy Tax Levy Tax Levy Tax Cable TV Utility Auburn 30, 790 2 .97 0.79 3 . 76 1. 0% 4 . 50% 4 . 50% Bellevue 85, 180 2 . 08 0. 20 2 . 28 1. 0% 4 .80% 5. 74% Bellingham 46, 610 2 . 52 0. 63 3 . 15 1. 0% 9 . 00% 6 . 93% Bremerton 37 , 050 3 . 33 0. 18 3 . 51 1. 0% 5. 00% 7 . 92. Edmonds 28 , 500 2 . 13 0. 25 2 . 38 1. 0% 3 . 00% 5 . 10% Everett 60, 920 3 . 60 0. 57 4 . 17 1. 0% 5. 00% 5.56% Kennewick 37, 180 3 . 60 0. 20 3 . 80 1. 0% 7 . 00% 6. 67% KENT 32 , 350 2 . 60 0.43 3 . 03 1.0% 5. 00% 4 . 06% Kirkland 35, 820 2 . 04 0. 38 2 .42 1. 0% 5. 00% 5. 00% Longview 29 , 560 3 . 60 0.00 3 . 60 1. 0% 6. 00% 6.51% Lynnwood 25, 420 2 .74 0. 06 2. 80 1. 0% 5. 00% 5. 00% Mercer Island 20, 690 2 . 83 0. 54 3 . 37 1. 0% 7 . 00% 6.40% Olympia 30,720 3 . 10 0. 62 3 .72 1. 0% 5. 00% 5.75% Pullman 22 , 230 3 . 60 0. 63 4 . 23 1. 0% 3 . 00% 5. 57% Redmond 31, 710 1.71 1.23 2 .94 1. 0% 5. 00% 5 .30% Renton 36, 940 3 . 42 0. 34 3 .76 1. 0% 3 . 00% 4 .75% Richland 30, 140 3 . 49 0. 28 3 .77 1. 0% 5. 00% 6. 57% Seattle 495,900 2 . 58 1. 36 3 .94 1. 0% 6. 00% 8 . 04% Spokane 170, 200 3 . 54 0. 90 4 . 44 1. 0% 5 . 00% 8 . 60% Tacoma 161, 400 3 . 53 0. 99 4 .52 1. 0% 8 . 00% 7 . 60% Vancouver 43 , 290 3 . 31 0 . 26 3 .57 0. 5% 5. 000-. 9 . 13% Walla Walla 25, 440 3 . 56 0. 00 3 . 56 1. 0% 7 . 00% 6 . 40% Yakima 49 , 470 3 . 60 0. 60 4 . 20 1. 0% 8 . 00% 6. 310-. Average Rate 68, 153 3 . 02 0 . 50 3 . 52 1. 0% 5. 53% 6. 24% Based on information gathered in survey by the City of Bellevue in September 1988 . 1990-1994 CIP City of Kent TOTAL SALES TAX - PROJECTION Growth of SaLes Tax Revenue Capital Improvement Program Percent Increase Per Year Actual Tax Budgeted Projected 1984 5,636,156 4,469,829 1985 6,689,444 5,826,667 1986 7,435,741 6,754,889 1987 7,887,227 7,891,779 1988 8,489,733 8,171,703 1989 8,990,543 1990 9,701,734 6.85% 2,425,433 1991 10,361,451 6.80% 2,590,363 1992 11,066,030 6.80% 2,766,508 1993 11,812,987 6.75% 2,953,247 1994 12,604,457 6.76% 3,151,114 REVENUE ANALYSIS FUEL TAX Population Growth Rate 4.00% 1988 656,193 32,350 20.28 * 1989 695,133 34,324 20.25 1990 722,938 35,697 20.25 1991 751,855 37,125 20.25 1992 781,930 38,610 20.25 1993 813,207 40,154 20.25 1994 833,537 41,158 20.25 (1) 1993 to 1994 based upon a popuLation change of 2.5% * population estimate based upon the City's request to the State. 1990-1994 CIP City of Kent Councilmanic Debt Schedule 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1973 General (POB-.3048,ART-.4662,WTR-.2290) 126,240 0 0 0 0 1978 General Purpose (PARKS-.26667,STR-.73333) 131,980 132,580 132,820 132,780 132,365 1985 Refunding(GOLF) 233,390 231,415 233,585 225,115 226,025 1986 Refunding(CORR-.250,SR CTR-.534,GOLF-.216) 971,500 966,375 969,475 965,100 963,450 1986 Comp/Teleph(CS-.33, CIP-.67) 254,100 252,600 0 0 0 1987 Library Const 340,430 340,030 344,098 342,313 339,993 1989 Pub Safety (33%)/ Street(67%) 405,473 322,498 323,788 319,489 319,625 TOTAL COUNCILMANIC 2,463,113 2,245,498 2,003,765 1,984,796 1,981,458 OTHER COUNCILMANIC DEBT LID 300 Crow Road 48,879 45,607 42,336 39,064 35,793 LID 301 Kent Kangley (Str, sewer & water) 31,755 29,431 27,107 24,782 0 LID 304 Smith Street Improvements 8,786 8,184 7,582 6,980 6,378 LID 313 CBD 24,352 23,144 21,937 20,602 19,520 LID 297-18,20 W. Meeker (Golf Course) 84,139 80,498 76,856 73,215 69,573 LID 318 North Central 9,570 9,188 8,807 8,426 8,045 LID 320 James St WVH to Russell 21,221 20,269 19,317 18,365 17,412 LID 321 SR 515 242nd-252nd 3,250 3,104 2,958 2,812 2,666 LID 330 (Prelim) 64th S (James-S212) 17,546 16,908 16,270 15,632 14,994 LID 327 (Prelim) WVH (James-S212) 9,303 8,890 8,476 8,063 7,649 LID 306 (Prelim) WVH Drainage 0 82,734 79,057 75,380 71,703 Upper Mill Creek 46,440 0 0 0 0 Fenwick Park Acq 77,400 73,350 69,300 65,250 61,200 TOT OTHR COUNCILMNIC DBT 382,641 401,306 380,003 358,570 314,933 TOTAL COUNCILMANIC DEBT 2,845,754 2,646,804 2,383,768 2,343,366 2,296,391 Less Contributions Water 29,000 Golf Course 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 Central Services 83,000 83,000 Debt By Program (in Dollars) Public Safety 376,681 348,018 349,219 346,706 346,339 Public Works 686,015 641,254 625,041 604,749 564,949 Parks 981,050 924,901 925,410 909,598 905,110 General Government 550,008 509,630 344,098 342,313 339,993 2,593,754 2,423,804 2,243,768 2,203,366 2,156,391 Debt By Program (in Percent) Public Safety 15% 13% 13% 13% 13% Public Works 26% 25% 24% 23% 22% Parks 38% 36% 36% 35% 35% General Government 21% 20% 13% 13% 13% 0 O 0 O m O m m c O d d 3 C '9 O m O 7 N-0 C O E O a O. c C < J n < N a N m O J `C m J �• X" O d. n n X' 9 N 'f • m -• t0 J N m n m m n m n 0 -. 0 O o p 3 v -. n L a S 9 ? 10 0 m T n n S n 0 J J ', 0 7 J 7 < 7 O m m d T g N 7 N m a m N d E 3 t0 'Y j m 10 a v O. i V O •� n O (1 n N 7 D N n -ni 7 7 -. w N m - m !� d I O r. C a �0 7 '� a O n n L O -• m �. m Ra a m O A .+ J A m w O 7 m m J J m a M J m S O m m d 7 m X -• N m m n J .- T n m r. n Q A d a J m -• J J n O d m M b m `< m `C m m d J n 0 N N d W d n m m N ti. N J d m m m X' m �7O -• 'f '3O m < ._.. C77' R. n Oa ^. = n N a 3' 'gp .�.. pn d •� 2 l �_ < d �, c n a 7 7 n �. 0 7 m N m. J 3 m m '< m_ < i N j N mm N 7 n n - �_ m A N N 0 m m J (F J g d 7' i L N n J m N �. O 7 a N 0 a O - n o b 7 m 7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W W W W W W W F • j N W F ut u• ut 0. 0. 0. V Wm m 10 .0 -a N N W F N 0 _. W F W N V V m W O. 10 P m O V W `O F V7 N m F N r F J P m r W W W 01 W F y j 0, W V O O O W W N F P m m N O V N 0. N F N W `O O m W •-' m N ✓t O V ut W m W N X N _n 0 J J O O N C C m T O n N n lD fA A O V m 0 7 ^ m -• m o m m c 0 0 ma0 m O a 7 d m 0 E n 0 C E O ' a C -• c n < < N 7 a l N O N m m 0n m 0 0 3 o T 0 Nn dJm S n a S E 7 J m T n J S O J n 7 O J 7 J n 0 m < m 7 m N Ot .t 0 A p a m a M m m J m `G N 7 n rf 7 a < 0. O 0 J O J D m N m -1 0 t0 m 7 m 0 'O 0 7 n n m L ti m a O W A m A J N x m 7 m J O J J m m m S a m '1 O m m m m n J m X -'• m d n N 1 d .- ti. n n A m Q J a m N m l N S O n m r •< m m d K m m J . y y d n m m fA N m - m f3D N 3 lC m -• m n -� n. m A w a 7 y cp3 a m i �. m_ a J < m• f'p N 7 J y •pO� .- (p fmi� �. O J m 3� N m ~ 7 !N m m N Imn N O N N IJO d j n t0 n m O •-- N N 7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N pNp N N �Np W W W W W O N A O W M ut N N P W 0• 0, V 01 Vi P m .O O P CO `PO VW W 0 `O 0a 00 V N O O M C C V m v w v a O A V T x Z N T W m M Z O x 'O O — pppm Z m .� -O N n " -. 0 m m C m 3 d m 0 m n C - m a m '� 0 N N S fD m 0 n E 7 'l 7 .1 N 'p 7 'f C E 0 Q 6. a c c < < J m w M O O_ ti J N J m t0 7 N ry m m n r1 O 0 O O O m3 J S 0 n 3 'f J 0 J < 7 7 7 O O m d g .0 J a m m N N p' m K n -. ICto 3 -0 J m m m to 0. ti, m -+ 0 7 i n a < J rn �c O J m .. o 7 o N a m N m ti O a m 7 10 'f 'O O L n n O m Q° m a m O A n A n N X m J m X" O J d m 7 7 m a m J m m O m s m J m X -- w N n m 1 n .- v m n O• A d a m J m N >• J ti. n 0 m -• m ti. m Ip `C d `< m d 7 m y j m 3 ••• m m A N ^3 W �7�J• 0_ _. -A m a N .- C L n 7 m V m C N y 6 J J r1 2• v N J m m -n•• n 3 Ro `C 7 < m N _� ''ppm N ff N m O J S o0i E 'mi N n 0 i N ryg< O J -p 0 N J O IC -• N b n n N 0 N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W W W W W W W W W F F N N W V F 0. O O , N N N W F Vl Vl V• o• V T m •O O N W P. ul F F W ut W O O W m N N W •O 0. •o 10 �n N V W W •0 0• ut N 0, V O O y C C V N m 'O 77 O v v V v Z O A Z T x m N N m v 2 •- x m o m m ry S m -. 0 J ."' a _ m' N L O' C a a O c < C < y -N O a 7 x• X' X" 'f 10 J n N L 3 'a ^ S m J m 0 0 0 n - - o T 0 T - - tb n n O O J 7 J < N 'l 0 m 7 d m O N 7 0 .� -. 3 "f E m (O f0 ID a d 10 r' o- ti. a O m 1p 7 m m n N a 7 < a '� m n -. N X' J O O m 7 D N .+ 7 m N -• m - 0 •'• 0 d •�. 7 d 7 L7 C n n. .� m N m ti m o 0 J 'O a n n J E a m O m -�. O m R^ 'f .t O A A J m '"1 a J m m S O J m m m m X N -• d '� m v n n m ti. n Q m A m J 'O J m N m J �. •+ N m >• m -< 0 m y 3 Ro m n m N m N l m 7 m m m F m Q. J - m m 7 y m Rd n 0 o a 7 z n 3 OEi '3 -ni <• i faD J -m' m m o N n n J n N N R. 0 m 0 � n 0 J J m m N J - - -p N j -� < • m N 3 L i s O O m J O m m0' a 3 tmi+ rr 7 m m n j l D n n 0 N N J N J 0 m J N N W W W W W W W W F zn v N W r W 00 O N O V `O •O N 0. m O N r O W N W W V 0. O• N m m .0 O 10 10 F City Council CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Questionnaires Council's CIP Priorities * ...,. East-West arterials 5 5 5 5 37 277th Corridor PW1 North South arterials 2 5 5 25 Library Remodel Police 1 Commuter Rail 5 5 5 3 23 Railway Crossings PW28 Intersection Improvements 4 5 4 20 East-West Arterials Pavement Repair 4 5 5 20 West Hill Fire / Police Sidewalk & bikeway 4 5 16 West Hill Park 21 13 Housing oppertunity Elderly Housing for elderly 5 5 5 5 13 Level A Haz Mat Respons Team Fire 1 Housing for families 4 5 3 13 Commuter Rail Parking in the downtown 2 4 2 12 Canyon Drive Jersey Barriers pw14 Street trees & landscaping 2 4 3 11 Council Chamber Remodel admin 3 city historical museum 2 3 3 10 Neighborhood Parks Parks 8 Downtown plaza & benches 2 3 2 9 228th & Military PW 6 Restoration of BN Depot 3 3 3 9 Green River Bridge a Central Improved water pressure 4 3 3 9 192nd/196th/200th Corr Imp Feas PW 3 Storm drainage improvements 2 3 4 7 Kent-Des Moines Rd & Meeker Remodel 7 Housing oppertunity Families Performing arts center 1 5 1 3 7 196th Imp (WVH-EVH) Open Space 4 3 3 6 Open Space (Clark Lake) Neighbor playgrnds & parks 4 5 5 4 6 Public Safety Automation police 7 Outdoor sports facility 2 3 3 6 Equip for Facilities & Training Cent Develop GR Corridor 3 5 4 6 196th/200th Corr Imp (West Leg) PW 4 Add parking at facilities 2 3 4 6 Admin Office Furniture Park revitalization 2 3 3 5 City Hall Space Study Indoor facilities 2 3 3 5 New Police Facilities & Furnishings 5 Crow Road By Pass New poL facil & furnishs 5 5 5 4 4 City Wide Traffic Signal PW 21 Eq for ER & training center 5 5 5 4 3 Emergency Power (3) Continue PS automation 5 5 4 2 Green River Corridor Cap replace for Eq & apptus 5 5 4 4 2 Traffic Safety Mod PW 35 2 Tacoma Intertie (1) Property Tax 1 Downtown Parking Utility Tax 1 1 Lake Fenwick Development User Fees 1 1 Guardrails Canyon Drive Special Assessments 1 1 Other TRANSPORTATION 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 3 3 3 2 4 3.00 PARKS 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.83 PUBLIC SAFETY 2 2 1 2 3 2 2.00 * Council listed their top ten projects for the CIP. A Council member's first choice received 10 points, second choice received 9 points, etc. CRITERIA FOR CIP BALANCING COMMITTEE * COUNCIL PRIORITIES AND TARGET ISSUES * CITIZEN SURVEY * OPERATIONAL NEEDS (DEPARTMENT HEADS PRIORITIES) * DEDICATED REVENUE City of Kent, Washington 1990-1994 CIP 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 Sates 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 948 592 222 134 Public Works 7,866 3,475 670 1,400 1,011 1,310 Parks and Recreation 2,150 250 600 400 General Government 1,149 149 327 275 70 328 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 12,113 4,216 1,247 1,675 1,903 2,172 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (806) 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 1,474 450 476 464 483 501 (1) Payments begin in 1991 for G.O. Bonds of $3.057 million to build the 272nd Corridor in 1990. PENDITURES 1990 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- DEBT SERVICE Public Safety 377 14.5% 348 14.4% 349 16.2% 347 15.7% 346 16.0% Public Works 686 26.4% 641 26.4% 625 28.9% 605 27.5% 565 26.2% Parks 981 37.8% 925 38.2% 925 42.8% 910 41.3% 905 42.0% General Government 550 21.2% 510 21.0% 261 12.1% 342 15.5% 340 15.8% Total Debt 2,594 2,424 2,160 2,204 2,156 CAPITAL Public Safety 592 48.7% 0.0% 0.0% 222 11.7% 134 6.2% Public Works 475 39.1% 670 53.7% 1,400 83.6% 1,011 53.1% 1,310 60.3% Parks 0.0% 250 20.0% 0.0% 600 31.5% 400 18.4% General Government 149 12.3% 327 26.2% 275 16.4% 70 3.7% 328 15.1% Total Capital 1,216 1,247 1,675 1,903 2,172 PERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURE Public Safety 969 25.4% 348 9.5% 349 9.1% 569 13.9% 480 11.1% Public Works 1,161 30.5% 1,311 35.7% 2,025 52.8% 1,616 39.3% 1,875 43.3% Parks 981 25.7% 1,175 32.0% 925 24.1% 1,510 36.8% 1,305 30.2% General Government 699 18.3% 837 22.8% 536 14.0% 412 10.0% 668 15.4% TOTAL 3,810 100.0% 3,671 100.0% 3,835 100.0% 4,107 100.0% 4,328 100.0% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1990- 1994 Percent of Expenditures By Program 1990 General Government ( 18.3%) Public Safety (25.4%) Parks (25.7%) Public Works (30.5%) Expenditure by Program Public Safety 969 , 000 Public Works 1 , 1 61 1000 Parks 981 , 000 General Government 699 , 000 Total 3 ; 810 ; 000 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 1995 & Cost Revenue Cost 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 BEYOND ------- ------- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------ PUBLIC SAFETY - POLICE 1. Old Library Remodel Continued 447 447 447 4. Firearms Training Simulator 55 55 55 ------ ------ -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 502 0 502 447 0 0 55 0 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 0 PUBLIC SAFETY TOTAL 948 0 948 592 0 0 222 134 0 PV"' TC WORKS 1.,,,.,,,,77th Corridor 12,000 9,000 3,000 3,000 Z. Green River Valley TBD 50 50 50 3. 192nd/196th/200th Cor Feas 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 0 Road Widening 7 Green River Br. iJ 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 0 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 0 - 1 - 1990-1994 CIP ;ity of Kent, Washington GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1990 - 1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT LISTING (Amountsin Thousands) PROJECT TOTALS YEAR PROJECT FUNDED Gross 'Dedi- Net Project cated Project 1995 & Cost Revenue Cost 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 BEYOND ------- ------- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------ Miscellaneous 28 Railway Crossings 320 320 120 80 120 29 Guardrails - Canyon Drive 300 300 100 200 ------ -------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Total 620 0 620 100 320 0 80 120 0 PUBLIC WORKS TOTAL 55,758 47,892 7,866 3,475 670 1,400 1,011 1,310 0 PARKS & RECREATION 3 Lights a Russell Road #2 50 50 50 8 Neighborhood Parks 1,900 1,900 200 400 400 900 21 West Hill Park 450 250 200 200 ------ -------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- PARKS & RECREATION TOTAL 2,400 250 2,150 0 250 0 600 400 900 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 0 GENERAL GOVERNMENT TOTAL 1,169 20 1,149 149 327 275 70 328 0 GRAND TOTALS 60,275 12,113 1,247 1,903 900 48,162 4,216 1,675 2,172 N N N j N r r T F W N T n F W N O •O O7 V P � F W N -+ O •O W V P � F W N -� C C T O O n C T C A A A V1 D D ➢ n m < m v r r W -� w T m ➢ T D n O r 0 m a 7 m N m m a �• O O m m C `O 0 0 1 J �• m '-' �• C o r -• a O V V l n S m .g - 10 V O O a d a '� m< C W n d o 7 m C r a C a a �• � F - 3 m l m m 0 m m -� n rY -I a J l n 1 O tl t0 x - 7 (O 0 m m N a J r ➢ a O •* U m W Go �. m C C D J N 0 l m 7 •* m m m 7 m m 07 7 D T 3 Q T A m D O IL N w K C C J l O H -i O b i n m to -• J m O 7 T O S ➢ N N O a 3 `C N �• 7 n l m O v a L ^ m •1 T 'O e) T m m n a a )c O 3- n J S C , .00 x 3 vi -0 T -� O_ 7m V n rd -� •G n m W a O 7 O a N C O J O -• •* 7 m 0 O_ a C lr _ O O C E < O 1 -• A y d ti a C H 7 0 a m m a a O a m l m m C T j J y O fA D r 7 7 n n N to 9 'O a a r '� 7 7 S 4+ -• J 10 O S ,_, ti n N C n O < -• 7 J 7 a '• D O J N O m m m W a m m O N n n 'O m 0 3 m 10 a n 7 C L C N .O m � 0 O r a a 7 .0 c• N n m --� � 7 O EL N 'a n m n N m O m ti �• N ELL ? n � C O a w N y m 2 7C O 7 C n t0 O O. n --a N m a a A < -• m m 7 "O C S 7 N O "O 3 O N n m a co n m ^ N O P W N r 0 Ut VI Ul V W10 co � W j P W N W W N M Vf lA F •O O W F •O O A O A O L w w r N m' 07 T � � C j of N Z O P O N N �_ W W O P V O C) i W m � O i C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C T C 7 7 7 7 3 7 J 7 7 7 7 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 C 7 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s Q V Q' QtT Q Q Q Q Q' Q 6 Q O' Q C Q Q ff Q O Q T m m m m m m m m ry m A m m m m m m m io a m s O O O o O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 o O O T T T T T T T T 11 T T T T T T T T T T T O T Z C 3C C7 C 7C7 C C 77C C77 C C 7C7 77C C C JCJ 7C7 C C 7C7 C 7C7 2L Q Q E- a 2- 3- a E. iL K a a R. R a a E. O. a S 6 N x m = m T y O N n y r V C ti -a m D r O_ m m J , m t7D 0. f7 y 7 m c m a N m t� 0 C D n x a c m K n J O O. a 7 m m < O i A H ~ � � S N 7 3 O Ov. y fn n mm m W Q m io m n m n y 07 w m n m o N m N 7 a -0 m n C ti O 7 U 3 7 N a � r F N •O < n wo N m �. • y p T N U Vl V• •O O •O N P � N V W F �n lli W m0 0 � J r r i o r N N N N N N j N -+ -+ — — — — -. — — V P �n t� W N O •O O V P � 3` W N � O •O OD V P W K A T G_ m < n N A N P N A m 7 R 7 N7 n T �_ < n O N •O .O .O i N n O O `< N n .7i r7 x i `JC N S a w N a nw P a, 77N `• P L m O m ]C Po 7 N a A P •O L _ 0 < << O K 7N A W 33 N -+ A n ]C O 7 A n S O P N W A N -+ f0 m n K 7 7 a S O. < N 3 V O P <10 O to m K _ C C 10 (p 7 K K y N 7 0 _ O a n O w S K m .O S j O of .Ni n b O K L n N < O N N K G m A to ry -r. 3 to , P. K .O P S co n K m < O O m n S m (p K A a n n. •+ N N �. O m O P m O m n x n O 7 ID P> N •-� N lD A .+ 10 K 7 N W S tlr S y T S N b T 7 O) O< N N N J S m O 10 W P n < N K VI A m 7 O K WID n S N n p P m n 7 7 n O P 7 m 10 S T V fO3pp m r y 0 v N 7 7 N < 7 N W W 7 ; �-4 + 0, K 0, N N r N w 'O A N V N to P In n to O O v1 O r , O O V O lIr W O VI O O O Vr O O O O O r 0 0 0 0 o m A N � A N N LW O U J O CO Po O CO , oe o0 o N n i y _ T O w m ' v O O O O r O r r A J 7 0 N J CO 7 K 7 7 m ryry O' Er � a Q � cr n Q Q 70 7 D N (D O_ ' K M O C n N n Q K K = N O J J J J 7c7 7C ,� n ' C C a 7 C O. C m C C O = a a a ?. R R x O mm O y VNi N coV to A W N .O W V . . . W N . C N m n N 'O n a i ia S77 N 0 • O O np P J= A 10 P. L _ \ j K A < < W N _A R. N A n 7C O S .O O 7 3 P m o m J 7 7 O. a < N 3 V O P < N m c N ,y A m ? N O .r-. `` K w 0 O K t n N < O N m K 7 N Ro K .O v ? co n K m < O O N_ n S N e3 O y O H N , KO ^ n x n O a A N 7 N 0 W S N S m S N < A _ < Y O ' co O N v y n `C y w 7 P J d ^ A S n K n p m V K 7 n n m m n 3 S m m m 0 O 0 m O N n N O n O 7 m < 7 N n n 7 w W K P N O .p O P P P O In O In O � o N N � o o 0 0 0 m ' a A m O N T ' n OD OD y T V [ W () w c r m w w m o ' v r � � v O •O OD V P � F W N -+ O •O O) V P � r W N � � v K ••+ r ^-• C _3 v m b m In O m Z A A n 7C r m A tail -� d 3 S S C d 3 0 -. o m ., d 7 �• K o o m K S d m n t0 C O d O H N i 3 3 N n ' o N r n N N n O O 7 Q ry n N b C N n O O d 22) L d N J O S A l n S 7 7 p m ]C ti d an d C N l J n �. 7 {O l Qn fD K 41 Op K n (p '� K_. A -bi N l M d ^ l � O ID y L J n n b �• 3 n < O J a O b b N N < M ""� - n n n d K � N C y N l l d l V (D �• T d fD o n f/1 �" 1/. O O O q J' W ti d N 7 K J K d �• v < .0 m V N 7 K z •� K 3 `G '� n • • m N `< H Q N N K -pC_ d N .C.. p m 10 'O d n' 3 Z 7 7 l0 7 p �• n b 7 n m X N 3 H d < 7 O J O a v 7 N t0 O N n 7 'O 0. N 7 m K ac v m <. O K f0 O O F W O O O O N V w 10 0 0 o w w o 0 0 0 0 0 o V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 .p o vwi V o o o r o 0 o w nNi V N r v� w m O O Vf O O O F O O O O O O O O O O O O O A N 0 O W r V O 0 0 0 0 T O O N O O O O r F N F F F •O O O 00 O N F O O O O O � O O O O O O O O O O m C C C C C m C C C m C O O O z m m O O O O O O z n n n ry n d d d d d n d d d K d ..n N Q' Q Q a- Q O Q a' O' A O' 7 7 J x ' l d d d d d d H b "O O fD fD N NM ID d (D U N 4f N N �• 'O V _n K _K K K K r 2. ti y ti H -i -/ -1 0 O O O O O N O O O N O fl A (t N N (O t0 b f0 t0 (O 7 n W O m m T m c N m m T d T N N fD ; d N m C 7C ]C C7 7C T 7C C C T 7C 0000 O cc 7T T J ' 7 Q 6 a O. a 7 O. C. C_ 7 a a s C_ O. p, C_ N N N N N N x a a O. < < < 7 w w W > � w 10 co ]C C Lf A r V w n N d x p Ro O S n d L n O S N T L m `dC m o n O � E] m 0 A b C ~ N ti V N Z O N Cy n W 7• N u O 7 d p a � at N N W N P W O N Z < A A A •O O � y C r o C, o o Z8 10 c L1 O N N N N N N j n P lA r W N � � In r W N � m ➢ �I P ll� r W N a m _ '''pppryv O OM M j17o a 7 z , x 7• x 7 t/1 O m A 7 m m x 0 N S 7 N N ID .~.. 7 Gl ^ .d- A m m S m 7 f"1 7 ^ O` m ^ S ^ H Z a N = T ng j m o m 3 z ryry 3 ^ _ N 7 N a d m 0 0 O 3 U a z Z z d fat W K (OD z y f71 .d~-- tO Oa fND f � N t0 J.Jppr y Pe N ; _ A rNr a O C d O j N 3 O O n r7 N n 7 D r O N F S Q J n Q m C .e ro S 10 >• O" C N d W w N O N .m N i .�. C `G N N W P N CD co N i O O] O O 00 `••' O V� VI W coV1 N N 10 ' ,O p < N O N 10 lli V� -4 v N ' .�pp O N yN. O O 'O m W V�i lvJ� OO O O N y 10 L4 N _ m � C N W `8 Z VNi VNi VVi O O O O O O O ' W O 0 0 0 0 0 o o r 3 7 7 7 7 C 7 C N N N 7 7 Q `'77G K `p7o7C co- Q m m M C ryry ryry ryry a 0. a Q a A Q N a s N ID N r 0 0 0 0 o O o WQ r T T m J T N T 41 Ul i� T T T = C m C m m C C C L] KEAL 00 00 0 m 0 0 0 O O O G < < m D N W N � J Z JO m n Z Z 3 y H A V m 7 N O m s C m m z m _ o m 7 Z g y -n-1 J n O m m N ad � m zz m n J < 1 2 H _ 0 ti N 7 W N a N r1 r r_ 7 � 1p S Q 01 l m N N � N � C `C VWi 0, � N N O < 10 m �l O A O O N O VJi T vl �n O O O .p W 41 d n N O r n m O OC V z m m o o A c O n ro � o 0 N n --1 << 7 O O AO 7 m r N n m r 3 N H L 1 00 N N N N Z O C G aA x oy Q j 0 0 0 'o T W N Z8 r N P P CO N �n O N Or. J W g m ,O r , `�" ' aA v P A � O '- ' .O m -4 r N y r T C_ V W `Q 0, O V1 N v 00 LAO W W ' m � O W , Q W 0 0 0 r O O 0 T T S O T m N N m m m m A A A m m mm m m N N N m a z m O A A D a r o 0 � O ti < 2 0 z m a z r N m m 0 N Z O ti N m 0 O ti D r r ' .p N+ A 4 P 'O Op N W W O < v v N m a A � A P N N O lVlf lV V n ti T � C Z . `pO O pp W O O w TO O N W W 8 P N N N co 00 r V CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: (;moortLi o Councilmember_ — moves(. councilmember _Sacc nds that Consent Calendar Items A through955, be approyed Discus-si=— Actio -1 WAC� n) a l� C) t t Lk-)C-)C)(j ISt' L C-,I)Z, e A N Ct j'Y-\ C� C -t�, (f �- I tt- 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. 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 Approval of checks issued for Payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 5/22/89 119366 - 120049 $211, 598 .76 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington May 16, 1989 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. 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, Assistant City Administrator Hansen and Personnel Director Webby. Finance Director McCarthy was not in attendance. Approximately 60 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC National Association of Insurance Women. Mayor COMMUNICATIONS Kelleher declared the week of May 21st through May 27th as National Association of Insurance Women Week. The proclamation was accepted by Janice Williamson, Insurance Women of South King County. Teen Town Twirlers. May 22nd through May 28th was proclaimed as Teen Town Twirlers and the proclamation was accepted by Robb Scribner, Director. A demonstration was presented by the dance group. CONSENT WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items B through M CALENDAR be approved. Woods seconded. Item A was removed by Councilmember Dowell. The motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A) REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL Minutes of May 2 1989 The City Attorney noted and the Council concurred that the minutes of the executive session, shown on Page 109should reflect that the motion was made by Biteman, not by Dowell . DOWELL MOVED to table the minutes until the next Council meeting for purposes of clarification of a particular item. There was no objection and it was so ordered. WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I) Bennett Business Center. ADOPTION of Resolution 1204 authorizing a master meter for the Bennett 1 May 16, 1989 WATER Business center with conditions as approved by Council on May 2 , 1989 . (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K) Out-of-State Trip. AUTHORIZATION for Operations Division staff member to attend a water pollution control meeting in San Francisco, as approved by the Public Works Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L) Garrison Creek Detention Pond. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an agreement with WSDOT for City's participation in the improvement of the Garrison Creek Detention Pond facility and authorization to establish a budget to transfer $225, 000 from the unencumbered sewerage funds to this project. This item was discussed at the Operations Committee meeting of May 15 . ZONING CODE Appeal - Prodigals Resident Discipleship Home CE-89 APPEAL -1. This hearing will consider an appeal of the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of conditional approval for a public welfare facility as specified in Section 15.08 . 030B4 of the Kent Zoning Code. The property is located at the southeast corner of 40th Ave. S .E. and So. 216th St. Carol Proud, of the Kent Planning Department, gave a staff presentation on the proposal, pointing out that the area is approximately 11.2 acres in size and is within a residential/agricultural zoning district. Proud noted for Woods that if there were plans to increase in size in the future, the applicant would have to go through the process again. Biteman recommended that the ingress, from the lower level to the uphill side, be altered. Upon questions from White and Woods, City Attorney Driscoll explained the criteria for an appeal as outlined in the Kent City Code. WOODS MOVED that the appeal is not properly taken because it does not meet the criteria for appeal, as outlined in the Kent City Code. Biteman seconded. Dowell pointed out that one of the reasons mentioned by the 2 May 16, 1989 ZONING CODE Attorney was an error of procedure and said perhaps APPEAL the meeting should not have been held due to the weather. Several citizens noted that the weather had been very bad that night, and that they had not been properly notified of the meeting. Proud stated that the Planning Department had notified all residents within 200 feet of the site, as required by the Code, as well as publishing a notice in the Valley Daily News and posting three signs at the site. Woods withdrew the motion and Biteman the second. Mayor Kelleher then opened the public hearing. Brenda Dreisow, 5221 So. 212th St. , inquired as to the number of teachers and caretakers and the location of the property, as well as activities and transportation. Thomas J. O 'Connell , 20439 Frager Road, Kent, voiced concern about the program's success rate as well as the fact that there is no public transportation in the area. He felt that the permit should be conditioned on satisfactory performance. Pastor Ronald A. Brooks , 26632 Carnaby Way, Kent, Director of the project, indicated that this will be an educational facility for 10 adult women who have been victimized and abused by the urban culture, and would include a discipleship department, a wellness department and a vocational department. He noted that the facility will be remodeled at a cost of $250, 000. 00. He noted that there will be one vehicle to provide transportation for all of the students. Pastor Brooks noted that The Church by the Side of the Road focuses around the life of the church with targeted ministries designed to address the issues of this specific population. He emphasized the church practices an open ministry to those who participate, but that certain criteria would be necessary for students to remain in the program. He noted that there is no way of knowing how many students and caretakers will be needed in the future and that 75 residents is only a 3 May 16, 1989 ZONING CODE projection. Pastor Brooks pointed out that APPEAL invitations were extended to the residents to come to the church on February 23rd for a formal presentation regarding the details of the program, and that a ministry prospectus is available. Upon White's question, Pastor Brooks noted that their program is similar to the Teen Challenge Program, but that they focus on wellness and vocational issues as well as discipleship. Pastor Brooks then introduced Victoria (Jamie) Owens , 26632 Carnaby Way, Kent, who will be graduating from the Lifestyle Reorientation Pilot Program. Ms. Owens stated that she is a recovering alcoholic and drug addict and had spent most of her life living in various subcultures. She said she entered the program three years ago and is currently attending Pierce College in Tacoma. In addition, she is an intern drug and alcohol counselor at Riverton Care Unit at Riverton Hospital and does drug and alcohol counseling at the church, as well as working with individuals in biker and prostitute lifestyles. She noted that through the support of the church and its members, and their intensive program, she was able to change her lifestyle. She indicated she will be working in the wellness department of the program instructing students how to get out of their present lifestyle and be productive members of the community rather than a hazard. Gene Stewart, 7313 24th Ave. N.W. , Seattle, Project Director for the home, indicated that this is not a drug and alcohol rehab center, a work release program or a drying out center. He noted that students entering the program will have made a firm and public commitment to a long term rehabilitation program. Stewart noted that they wish to start with 10 women and may ask for permission to expand in the future. He said they received support from DSHS and will be licensed as a boarding home, as meals and housing will be provided. Stewart noted that students will receive remedial math, reading, GED and vocational training. He said that the remote area is exactly what they desire, and that public 4 May 16 , 1989 ZONING CODE transportation is not desired. He pointed out that APPEAL medical care is provided, but not on site, and that 911 would be called in the event of an emergency. He also said that students ' time will be closely regulated, and no one will be off the property. Upon Dowell ' s question, Stewart indicated that this will be a taxable operation. Sherri Donofrio, 28444 26th So. , Federal Way, expressed concern for the safety of the older people in the area. She asked who would monitor this program, and who would be accountable for any problems. She asked if the students would be drug and alcohol free before entering the program and whether there would be a methadone program. She also asked if more vehicles would be required as the facility grows, if police would monitor the neighborhood and if the church is subsidized by the government. Norman Fischler, 21866 46th Ave. So. , Kent, voiced concern about vandalism and safety, and asked what safeguards would be taken and who would be accountable. Brenda Dreisow, 5221 So. 212th St. , Kent, wondered how outside commuters will arrive to the home, what will happen if students don't stay with the program and what protection is available for the residents of the community. Richard Omlid, 20655 Frager Road, Kent, felt that since these people are from the Sea Tac strip area this should be handled by the newly formed City of Sea Tac. Houser noted that because of the enforcement efforts of Sea Tac Airport, street people have migrated to Kent. Mayor Kelleher noted that Chief Frederiksen is aggressively working to address these problems. Isabel Donofrio, 4248 So. 216th, Kent, stated that in addition to alcohol and drug problems, some of the women have police records. 5 May 16, 1989 ZONING CODE Don Knapp, 25046 38th So. , Kent, asked whether the APPEAL City of Kent could close the home if it is not run right. The City Attorney responded that if a condition has been violated, and a citation is issued to the property owner, the permit can be revoked after a court hearing. Carol Proud noted that Condition 5 of the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation, states that the conditional use permit should be clearly conditioned on satisfactory performance, which includes no criminal conduct originating from or initiated from the site. She pointed out that if there were any problems the Hearing Examiner would remand the matter to the Council for review. Umlid felt there would be no need for it to go back to Council when they had approved the original proposal. The Mayor noted for Ms. Donofrio that problems would be handled like any other violation in the City. Upon Dowell ' s question, the City Attorney noted that to her knowledge, no conditional use permits have been revoked, that the problem is usually worked out with the land owner to come back into compliance with the permit. The City Attorney stated for Johnson that there are no routine reviews, only those based upon violations. She also noted that the Council does have the authority to condition approval of the application on an annual review of the conditional use permit. It was noted that many of the decisions the Council is called upon to make are difficult and the Mayor noted that sometimes Councilmembers become interested in serving on the Council because they were once frustrated citizens sitting in the audience. Thomas J. O' Connell suggested having neighbors monitor the home, and the Mayor said that that was one of the most common ways violations are brought to their attention. 6 May 16, 1989 ZONING CODE Isabel Donofrio pointed out that the previous APPEAL hearing was not at a Council meeting and that the Councilmembers were not present. Councilmember Mann noted that this church has proven itself over the years and urged the Council to support the proposal. Edith Becker, 5239 So. 212th, Kent, expressed concern over the safety of her children and the other children in the neighborhood. Gene Stewart reported this will be a very controlled environment, that students must sign a contract and that they must be free of drugs and alcohol. He said the church is accountable and will monitor the program and will follow all rules and regulations. He said they are not opposed to an annual review. Stewart pointed out that the resident director lives on the premises and he and his family will monitor the students. He reiterated that these people are not under treatment - they will have 'a 3-month history of being drug free as well as a desire to _. get off the street and back into society. He noted that each residence will house a maximum of 10 students and a resident director. There will be one van on site for transportation to scheduled events such as support groups. He stated that the students will have no free time. He noted that if a student leaves the program, she cannot stay at the facility. Stewart noted that crime is everywhere and that if a robbery is committed in the neighborhood, it should not be assumed one of the students from the home committed it. He asked that these people be given a chance. Stewart noted that the church is not subsidized in any way by the government, and that the number of vehicles will not change in the future. Stewart noted for O'Connell that it will cost a quarter of a million dollars to start, and that operating costs are unknown at this time. He said they receive funding from large corporations in the area. Stewart explained that the people who come to 7 May 16, 1989 ZONING CODE the church for help are invited to come to one of APPEAL the support groups. He said students are selected by an advisory council of professional people. Upon a question from Sherri Donofrio, Mayor Kelleher reported the home is bound only to the conditions which are contained in the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation and any additional recommendations that Council may place upon the permit. Stewart noted for Norman Fischler that each residence of 10 people will have a resident director. Richard Omlid voiced concern about the land values of adjacent properties. Stewart indicated that casual visitors are discouraged because the idea is to break people away from their past relationships. BITEMAN MOVED to close the public hearing. Mann seconded. The motion carried. Woods stated that she is glad she withdrew her motion and had this conversation. SHE THEN MOVED to modify the findings of the Hearing Examiner to concur with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval of the Prodigal Residence Discipleshop Home Conditional Use Permit No. CE-89-1 with 8 conditions, plus a 9th condition to read as follows: "Said conditional use shall be reviewed anually by the Hearing Examiner for purposes of compliance. " Woods stated that the church seems willing not only to accept that condition, but input from the community as well. White expressed concern over who would be liable if the permit is pulled after one year for an infraction. The City Attorney reported that the City has legal authority to review and revoke a permit if the conditions are not being met, so this would be consistent with existing practice, except for the annual review. 8 May 16, 1989 ZONING CODE Dowell stated that the citizens of the community APPEAL should have an opportunity to bring up their questions before the Hearing Examiner which they couldn't do previously because of inclement weather. Houser stated that if the audience wants to meet with the Hearing Examiner and go through this again, they are welcome to do so, but that it may again be returned to the Council. Dowell pointed out that if the citizens have a hearing before the Hearing Examiner, they may be happy with the results and not need to appeal to the Council. Upon Biteman' s question, Proud noted that there had previously been a nursery school at this location. White urged the Council to support this project. The motion then carried with Dowell voting nay. PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D) SUBDIVISION Eastwood Preliminary Subdivision, No. SU-89-1. AUTHORIZATION to set June 6, 1989 for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval of a 21-lot single family residential preliminary subdivision. The property is located at 100th Ave. S.E. and S.E. 244th St. ANNEXATIONS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E) Hehr Annexation, No. AZ-89-1. AUTHORIZATION to set June 6, 1989 and July 18, 1989 as public hearing dates to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of initial zoning of R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential for the Hehr Annexation. The property is located on the west side of 116th Ave. S .E. approximately 150 feet south of S.E. 227th Pl . (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J) Mortensen Annexation. AUTHORIZATION to set June 20, 1989 as the date for a public hearing on Mortensen Annexation in the vicinity of 94th Ave. S . and S. 218th. 9 May 16, 1989 HUMAN SERVICES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3M) Human services Funding. ADOPTION of Resolution 1205 relating to Human Services, establishing a predictable funding base for same out of the City' s General Fund. PARKS AND (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C) RECREATION Picnic Shelter Installation Projects. ACCEPTANCE of two picnic shelter installation projects for Van Doren' s Landing and Briscoe Park as complete and release of retainage to Golf Landscaping upon receipt of state releases. Projects were completed within budget and in a timely manner with no change orders. Following is a cost breakdown: Van Doren' s Landing shelter installation Contract amount $16, 157. 71 Total $16, 157 .71 Briscoe Park picnic shelter installation Contract amount $17 , 411. 67* Total $17 , 411. 67 * Contract price difference between two projects is because of a small path installation at Briscoe Park. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H) Riverbend Golf Course Phase II Landscaping._ ACCEPTANCE of Riverbend Golf Course Phase II Project as complete and release of retainage to Hall & Lindsay, Inc. upon receipt of state releases. Project was completed within budget and in a timely manner. Following is a breakdown: Original contract amount $1, 317 , 069 . 00 Change orders 79 , 154 . 86 Subtotal $1, 396, 223 . 86* Tax 104 , 796. 83 Total $1, 501, 020 . 69 * $102 , 435 .76 tax exempt for trails. 10 May 16 , 1989 FIRE DEPARTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G) _Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Materials Class. AUTHORIZATION for use of City vehicle to attend an Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Materials class in Boise, Idaho. Assistant Chief Berg and two firefighters registered for a local EPA class, however, the class has been changed to an out-of-state location in Boise, Idaho. East Hill Police/Fire Training Center and Fire Station. On May 2, 1989, bids for the construction of the East Hill police/fire training center and fire station were opened. After reviewing all bids for base bid and alternate No. 1, low bidder was Mar Jon Contractors, Inc. , in the amount of $3 , 578 , 454 .84 including tax. Fire Chief Angelo noted that the bids had come in over what had been anticipated and that the difference would be made up from the Contingency Fund. He also noted that there would be very tight management of the project and that any unprojected income would be put in the Contingency Fund. He requested that the low bid be awarded to Mar Jon Construction in the amount of $3 , 578,454 . 84 including tax. BITEMAN SO MOVED. White seconded and the motion carried. West Hill Fire Station and Police Office Facility. On May 2 , 1989, Council considered several courses of action with respect to the construction of the West Hill Fire Station and police office facility. From the minutes, Council ' s direction could be interpreted in a number of ways. Chief Angelo would like to have Council confirm that his perception of the direction is correct. Based upon that confirmation, chief Angelo is recommending that the bid received on April 26, 1989 of the base bid and recommended alternates and substitutions be authorized and awarded to the low bidder, John Korsmo Construction of Tacoma, Washington in the amount of $1, 062 , 461. 93 which includes sales tax but not contingency. 11 May 16, 1989 FIRE DEPT. Chief Angelo' s perception of Council ' s direction: that Council would like the West Hill project built without the deletions recommended. Further, that Council was authorizing an additional $200 , 000 from the Council remodel fund and the contingency of the CIP fund to complete the project. Finally, that the Chief was to fully analyze the bids and make a formal recommendation on awarding to the low bidder based upon that analysis. The Council confirmed that Angelo' s interpretation of their direction is correct, and Angelo recommended that the bid be awarded tonight. BITEMAN MOVED to confirm Chief Angelo's perception of Council ' s direction, that the bid be awarded to Korsmo Construction and that the Fire Department be authorized to enter into contractual agreement with John Korsmo Construction of Tacoma, Washington for the West Hill fire station and police facility. Mann seconded. The motion carried with Johnson and Woods voting nay. PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F) Actuarial Study. AUTHORIZATION to contract with Milliman and Robertson, Inc. for professional actuarial services. The contract will provide an actuarial review of the City' s self-funded medical program and worker' s compensation program trust funds. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through May 23 , 1989 after auditng by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 2 : 30 p.m. on May 1, 1989 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Number Amount 5/1 78902 $ 162 . 00 5/1-5/10 79469-79480 71, 004 . 50 5/12/89 79484-79883 $1 287 , 165. 33 $1, 358 , 331. 83 12 May 16 , 1989 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Number Amount 5/5/89 118704-118707 $ 690 , 270 . 28 REPORTS Council President. White reported that he had been in Washington, D.C. as a member of the National League of Cities Steering Committee on Transportation and Communication. He stated that they had discussed cable television legislation, as well as the National League of Cities ' position in regard to future federal gas taxes and how they might be utilized. Public Works. Johnson noted that the Committee will meet at 4 : 00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 23rd. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9 :30 p.m. Brenda Jacober Deputy City Clerk 13 Kent City Council Meeting 1111TTT Date June 6 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: TffEr DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acknowledgment of a donation of $200 from the Kent Valley Youth Services to the Task Force. 3 . EXHIBITS• None 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. 3C ............ V` f Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 . 1989 Category consent calendar r 1. SUBJECT: SATURDAY MARKET ADVISORY BOARD 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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. 3 . EXHIBITS• None 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. 3D �LCs Kent City Council Meeting r� ,n/�( Date June 6 . 1989 tV1JC\ \ Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LIBRARY BOARD, i9'r3�d 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Ted Ripley to replace Morgan Llewellyn. The appointment will become effective immediately and will be continue until December 31, 1992 . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4. RECOMMENDED 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. 3E ............. �} Kent City Council Meeting Date_ June 6 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WATER MAIN EXTENSION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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. 3 . EXHIBITS• Map 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (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. 3F 4 rr..Yu. Jj Q J� 7 IV Ar i WATER MAIN EXTENSION 102nd Avenue S.E.. south of 268th St. �4� Kent City Council Meeting T Date June 6, 1989 (5�r� Category Consent Calendar 19 1. SUBJECT: BAY CLUB APARTMENTS ---------------- 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance of approxik mately 11132 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. 3 . EXHIBITS: Map 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. 3G T IT I 1IRIN f ER rSTd +.rep..!! Ole 1 L _ 12A rpm It bw f�a �r-411lU141_� I / ' Mwtll 1 fNP "��: TT 'r 1]TQY_ ` `A ", ( N.T.S. rt I l ` v 10 Z SITE s 4 ,Cli KENT � E� ' � f?► � r I � 4 1 1 2 VICINITY 1 yr ■ Z BAY CLUB { , i.FnA1. i7FCC`R iPTinN. . Kent City Council Meeting p Date June 6 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LID 327/328 BUS PULL OUTS . 2 . SUMMARY STA Nam• As approved by the Public Works- /C� oom ttee t orization for the Mayor to s cn g—resment with Metro to participate in the cost of constructing bus pull outs in conjunction with the City's West Valley Highway improvement ( projects 3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of Public Works Committee Minutes, copy of the agreement 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. 3H - 1"&METR0 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598 CITY OF KENT May 24 , 1989 MAY 6 1989 ENGINEERING DEPT. City of Kent Public Works Department 220 4th Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 Attention: Tim LaPorte , P .E. Dear Tim: Enclosed are three ( 3 ) copies of the interagency agreement between the City of Kent and Metro covering the inclusion of bus pullouts and a queue-jump lane along West Valley Highway in LID 4328 . One copy is for the City of Kent ' s records , one for Metro, and one for the State Auditor' s office . Please arrange for Mayor Kelleher ' s signature and return -- two copies to Metro as soon as possible. Please send the signed copies to me at the address above - Mailstop 52 . Thank you for your help and cooperation. Sincerely, Cu ?-�t - Q Mike Bergman Capital Projects Coordinator MB:pas Enclosures AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 24th day of March, 1989, by and between the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "Metro, " and the City of Kent, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City," is made pursuant to 'Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement each have power to perform the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and WHEREAS, the City is performing street improvements on West Valley Highway (68th Avenue South) , including widening thereof, and WHEREAS, provision of facilities for transit vehicles on West Valley Highway would increase the safety and efficiency of said thoroughfare and provide incentives for the greater use of transit in the West Valley Highway Corridor, and WHEREAS, Metro and the City wish to construct the project jointly, and WHEREAS, the City of Kent and Metro have, by appropriate legislative action, authorized this agreement, and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public served by both jurisdictions that said improvement be constructed, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS COVENANTED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to construct transit vehicle facilities on West Valley Highway (68th Avenue South) between South 190th Street and James Street in the City of Kent. 2. Work. Metro and the City agree to administer and construct the above-referenced facilities according to the terms and conditions of Exhibit No. 1, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if it were set forth in full in this Agreement. 3. Administration. The City shall be the administrator responsible for administering this Agreement pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. 4. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in effect indefinitely, unless changed or terminated by mutual approval of both parties. 5. Records. This Agreement shall be filed with the City Clerk of the City of Kent, the King County Auditor and the Secretary of State. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hand and seals the day and year first above written. MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON - SEATTLE Executi Director Dan Kelleher, Mayor - APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,ATTEST: Attorney for Municipality of City Clerk Metropolitan Seattle APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney for City of Kent EXHIBIT NO. 1 WORK ELEMENTS A. Bus Pullouts Construct bus pullouts at the following locations on West Valley Highway (68th Avenue South) : - Northbound South 239th Street (Vicinity) - Southbound South 236th Street (Vicinity) - Northbound South 234th Street - Southbound South 228th Street - Northbound South 228th Street - Southbound South 224th Street - Northbound South 224th Street - Northbound South 220th Street - Southbound South 220th Street - Northbound South 216th Street - Southbound South 216th Street - Southbound South 212th Street - Northbound South 212th Street - Northbound South 208th Street - Southbound South 208th Street - Northbound South 204th Street - Southbound South 204th Street - Northbound South 196th Street - Southbound South 196th Street - Northbound South 190th Street - Southbound South 190th Street B. Transit Queue-Jump Lane ' Construct northbound right-turn only lane, approximately 300 feet in length, on West Valley Highway (68th Avenue South) approaching South 228th Street. Designate lane for right-turning traffic except transit buses. Transit buses shall legally be permitted to proceed directly through the intersection from this lane. AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY .. a. Metro shall contribute $118,000 towards the cost of the transit facilities described in Exhibit No. 1, "Work Elements, " above. b. The City and others shall assume the costs of work on all portions of the project not specified in Exhibit No. 1, "Work Elements." C. For purposes of administration of this project, including providing appropriate environmental reviews, the City shall act as lead agency. The City shall be responsible for design, right-of-way acquisition, construction, construction management and any additional work required to furnish a complete project; provided, however, that all substantive decisions regarding transit facilities be reviewed and approved by Metro prior to implementation by the City. d. The City shall designate the bus pullouts described in Exhibit No. 1, Section A for the exclusive use of Metro transit vehicles stopping to drop off or pick up passengers. Metro agrees that driveways for purposes of ingress and egress to abutting properties may be included at bus pullout locations. e. The City shall designate the traffic lane described in Exhibit No. 1, Section B for the exclusive use of vehicles turning northbound from West Valley Highway to eastbound South 228th Street, and Metro transit vehicles proceeding directly northbound through the intersection. This designation may be changed upon signed, mutual agreement between Metro and the City. f. Metro agrees to install and maintain regulatory curb paint markings and bus stop signage at all bus pullouts. g. The City and Metro shall participate equally in approval of that portion of project design pertaining to transit vehicle facilities. The City shall furnish Metro with construction drawings as necessary for review and approval by Metro. h. Both parties agree to hold each other harmless from any and all costs, claims, demands and obligations of whatsoever nature arising by reason of the other's performance pursuant to the terms of this agreement. Each party further agrees to defend, at its own cost, all suits or actions of whatsoever nature brought against the other arising from the respective party's participation in or performance of the work, provided, however, that nothing in this section will relieve either party from liability arising out of its performance pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Metro will make monthly progress payments to the City for expenses incurred by the City for the portion of the work within Metro's responsibility. i. The City and Metro understand that at the present time the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is responsible for pavement repair or replacement. Should WSDOT relinquish this right to the City, then Metro and the City agree that future pavement reconstruction costs, when necessary, shall be shared equally by the City and Metro for the work elements defined in Exhibit No. 1, Section A, "Bus Pullouts." j. The City agrees to require contractors to employ minority and/or women business enterprises (M/WBE) for at least 5 percent of the construction value of the L.I.D. #328 construction contract, in conformance with Metro Council Resolution No. 4540, as amended by Metro Council Resolution No. 5593. EXHIBIT NO. 1 - PAGE TWO Public Works Committee March 17 , 1989 Page 3 LID 327 328 - Agreement with Metro for Bus Pullouts Wickstrom explained that in conjunction with the West Valley Highway improvement project, we have been working with Metro and the State to include bus pullouts. Metro has agreed to pay for one-third of the costs and the State will pay for one-third. A copy of the draft agreement has been included with the Committee' s packet. Metro' s share will be approximately $118, 000. The committee unanimously voted to approve the Mayor's signature on the agreement. Intersection Concerns - 240th Nizlek referred to and reviewed the findings of his study on this item which is made a part of these minutes. For the situation at 100th, he would recommend the crossing guard exercise more authority and will bring this to the attention of the School District. Additionally, he recommends a marked crosswalk across 100th be provided and that the obstructions in the pathway be removed and pavement markers be placed to delineate the edge of the pavement. Wickstrom added there is some right of way which may have to be acquired in order to do this. Biteman asked that the School District be asked if this area would be one of their priorities. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of these recommendations. Nizlek reviewed the findings of the study at 102nd. His recommendations would be to attempt to shorten the signal cycle length to move the traffic more quickly and provide more frequent opportunities for the pedestrians to cross; continue to monitor the traffic and pedestrian activity and work with the retail establishments on their concerns. The Committee unanimously approved these recommendations. Nizlek reviewed the findings of the study of the 240th and 104th intersection. His recommendation is to place the proposed caution signs on the north-south corners. It was noted that construction of the 240th Street improvement project will alleviate some of the problems noted at this intersection. Biteman suggested we review the effects of these changes in approximately sixty days to determine if anything further needs to be or can be done. There was discussion about the location of the Metro bus stop. The Committee unanimously approved placement of the two caution signs. Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 40 ,9 SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ilL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accepe as complete 4he Juarez Construction contract for the Housing and.4Community development sidewalk improvement project and release of retainage after receipt of release from the State. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works 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. 3I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS June 1, 1989 TO: Mayor Kelleher'), and City Council O� �J iFROM: Don Wickstrom RE: HCD Sidewalk ImprovementProject This project was awarded to Juarez Construction for the bid amount of $47 , 802 on November 15, 1988 . Notice to proceed was issued January 23 , 1989 . The project was funded by a grant from King County Housing and Community Development. Final construction costs are $48, 894 . 54 and required one change order due to unanticipated field conditions of the existing sidewalk on Crow Street and 1st Avenue. It is recommended this contract be accepted as complete and the retainage released after receipt of the necessary releases from the State. Kent City Council Meeting v ' Date June 6 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION . 2 . SLR4KARr ST - As recommended by the Public Works -/ Committee pproval to prepare a-Teter Water Assoc ion naming the Director of Public Works as the City's representative and the Operations Manager as his alternate 3 . EXHIBITS: 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 3� the SEPA requirements. Dan Stroh indicated that staff felt that an EIS would be required for the alignment on the east side of the lagoon and this proposal of segregating the project allows it to move forward under the SEPA process. Woods asked to what extent the property owners have been notified of this recommendation. Wickstrom indicated a letter was sent to those in the immediate area that the City was proposing to phase the project. The bond counsel and financial consultant have also been consulted regarding formation of two LID' s. No response has been received from them as yet. Johnson suggested a time line be developed for the consultant to report back to the Task Force and for them to report to the Committee and Council on that portion of the project around the lagoon. Woods stated she felt the Council should send a message that this road is going to be built and they want the project to proceed as quickly as possible. Johnson concurred and suggested the recommendation of the Task Force be modified stating that "the Council is committed to building 64th Avenue and also preserving the lagoon as a wild life site and drainage facility. Williamson stated he preferred the term phased be used rather than segregated. Woods moved to accept the Task Force recommendations. The committee concurred. After lengthy discussion, it was determined that Bill Williamson will develop the proper language for a motion indicating Committee' s commitment to building the road, addressing the wildlife issue and drainage facility issue that would be consistent with SEPA. NOTE: The language developed by Bill Williamson is attached and made a part of these minutes. MAUREEN MACNAMARA CONCERNS Nizlek reported on the speed study on James in the vicinity of Hazel. The maximum observed speed coming down the hill was 55 and 47 going up the hill . Maureen MacNamara stated she was not requesting a change in the speed limit but an attempt to enforce the speed limit. Johnson stated the Police Department has indicated that James Street is the second most enforced street in the City having issued over 80 citations over the last two months between Benson and Central. There was a discussion about different types of signing that could be placed. Johnson inquired about the possibility of installing loops. Nizlek brought up the idea of time based signals with signs posted that the signals are set at a particular designated speed. Johnson asked if that could be done eliminating the peak periods so as not to create further congestion going up the hill . Johnson asked Biteman to have his Public Safety Committee look at traffic enforcement on James. Biteman asked that Nizlek bring back his recommendation to the Committee at their next meeting. REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION Wickstrom explained that the auditor would like the Association to have an official letter from the City naming the Director of Public Works as the City' s representative and the Operations Manager as his alternate. The Committee unanimously concurred with the recommendation. COMPUTERIZED SIGNAL PROJECT - ARBITRATOR'S DECISION Wickstrom explained the City lost litigation concerning a sales tax issue on this project and it was necessary to pay $21, 730 by a specified deadline in order to waive the attorney' s fees. This was paid out of the street operating budget and it is requested a budget change be approved for this expenditure. He stated this could create a possible overrun of the 1989 budget in this area. The Committee unanimously approved the request. ESTABLISHMENT OF AGENDA FOR JUNE 13 It was determined the next meeting would be June 13 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the 2nd floor conference room at which time the Committee would review the proposed 1990 Public Works budget and it was determined that two smaller items would be on the agenda. Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MASTER SIGNAL CONTROL COMPUTER / 2 . S As proved by the Public Works ommitte , thorization to pay $21,730.15 ._in__ settien`t of a c on the sales tax issue for the Master Signal Control Computer Project and for funds that come from the Street Operating Budget with the understanding that it is highly probable said budget may be overrun by that amount \ 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 ZiK with the recommendation. )Pw COMPUTERIZED SIGNAL PROJECT - ARBITRATOR'S DECISION Wickstrom explained the City lost litigation concerning a sales tax issue on this project and it was necessary to pay $21,730 by a specified deadline in order to waive the attorney' s fees. This was paid out of the street operating budget and it is requested a budget change be approved for this expenditure. He stated this could create a possible overrun of the 1989 budget in this area. The Committee unanimously approved the request. ESTABLISHMENT OF AGENDA FOR JUNE 13 It was determined the next meeting would be June 13 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the 2nd floor conference room at which time the Committee would review the proposed 1990 Public Works budget and it was determined that two smaller items would be on the agenda. Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6, 1989 / Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PRINTING GRAPHICS EQUIPMENT , 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 operations more efficient. It will allow the City to do printing that is now done outside and will allow each graphic artist her own machine, eliminating unproductive time. 3 . EXHIBITS: Central Service's analysis of need report 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Department (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) Operations Committee will review at their 6/1 meeting. 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended X Not Recommended Use unencumbered fund balance of Central Service fund balance accumulated for equipment replacement purposes. Fund balance contains adequate amount of $107 , 479 . 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $55,505 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Unencumbered fund balance of the Central Services Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3L City of Kent, Washington Fiscal Analysis Sheet Fund: 520 Department: 1650 Proposal Title (Objective and Cost) : Cost: 55, 505 Printing and graphics equipment for Central Services Proposal Description: Use $55,505 of Central Services Fund Balance of $107, 479 to acquire a new press, plate maker and a graphics work station. Proposal will save city expenditures in the long run by making printing and graphics operation more efficient. It will bring in much of the city' s printing that is now being done outside and provide each graphics artist with her own machine eliminating unproductive time. Relationship to Target Issues and Operational Priorities: 1989 Target Issue #10 "Enhance the Financial Stability of Kent" implies that the city always looks for ways to provide improved serve at reduced costs. Upgrading equipment allows the city improved productivity tools as we try to keep up with growth. In addition many target issues require reports and brochures for which high quality graphics and printing is needed. — scal Impact• ..r:es $55, 505 of unencumbered Central Services Fund Balance of $107 , 479 . Fund balance accumulated over the years primarily by charging city users 5 cents per photocopy. This charge was designed to provide a replacement fund. As of the first of the year the rate has been reduced to 4 cents a copy. _Options And Alternatives : 1) Continue farming out printing work and working graphics artists on staggered shifts is a more expensive alternative and causing graphic artist burnout. 2) Scrutinize printing requests to a greater degree possibly eliminating some requests. This process is under way with future staffing requests dependant on the analysis. c ' NCCARTI-IY,TONY / KENT70/Fit - HPDesk print . -,---------------------------------------- Subject: central servic request Creator: Tony MCCARTII KENT70/FN Dated: 05/08/89 at 0940 . TO: ED CHOW, CITY ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE FORWARD TO THE INFORMAL BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR THEIR REVIEW AND ANALYSIS . AS THE MEMO STATES WE ARE LOOKING TO ACQUIRE THE PRINTING AND GRAPHICS EQUIPMENT IN MID YEAR, HOPEFULLY JUNE WHILE DEFERRING THE PERSONNEL REQUESTS FOR THE 1990 BUDGET. THE EQUIPMENT CAN BE ACQUIRED FROM THE ACCUMULATED CENTRAL SERVICES FUND BALANCE WHICH HAS BUILT UP OVER THE YEARS PRIMARILY WITH PHOTOCOPY RATES . THE RATES HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM 5 CENTS TO 4 CENTS EFFECTIVE IN EARLY 1989 . MCCART11Y,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- Subject: central services Creator: Tony MCCARTIIY / KENT70/FN Dated: 04/28/89 at 1752 . CENTRAL SERVICES ANALYSIS OF NEED PROPOSAL Save overall city expenditures in the long run by improving our printing and graphics equipment and by increasing part time staff to full time to bring in a growing amount of outside printing in house and to expand our central purchasing capabilities. BACKGROUND The Central Services Operation was established in 1981 to consolidate the management of functions previously unmanaged. The unit began with the allocation of 3 existing positions from elsewhere in the Finance Department. Initially job responsibility included the establishment of Central Stores, the consolidation of mail services, telephone management, photocopy and printshop services and direction to create a centralized purchasing function . Since 1981 much has changed. Following the implementation of the new telecommunication system, this activity was transferred to Information Services . Large additional functions now included city office building management and centralized graphic services in addition to many smaller functions such as petty cash, FAX services , city auctions, record storage activities, photocopy services, and the soon to be initiated city credit card services . These are „_all valuable functions , but the unit has the same number of fulltime personnel as it started with in 1981 and the same printing equipment since 1982 . In addition to the three full time personnel the division does employ four part time personnel , two in graphics , one in the printshop, and one in the Central Services function. These positions are required to work more than their budgeted hours just to keep up and there are some activities that aren 't getting completed. Working extra hours actually saves the city money, becuase the alternatives is having the departments do their own purchasing, printing and graphics work with outside vendors . Permanently staffing these positions in conjunction with acquiring a new press , plate maker, and an additional graphic ' s work station, would save additional funds in the long run, as additional work is brought in-house and frees up the Supervisor for more centralized purchasing analysis . You may ask why we are coming to you in mid budget? We asked for the press and the half time Central Services position last year. We added Graphics and office building maintenance as of January 1988 . The Central Services Supervisor didn ' t start until May 1988 and thus was not able to properly document the need . The intent was to do a more detailed analysis of equipment and propose to fund it out of the Central Service Fund balance, assuming it was available. Because of high demand over the last couple years the Central Services Fund Balance as of December 31, 1989 has built up to $ 107 , 478 . SUPPORTING STATISTICS .__entral Stores has increased by 112% since 1985 , with 9 , 000 items being processed in 19B5 , to over 19 , 151 items handled for city departments in 1988 . We are projecting a 21% additional increase for 1989 , based on first quarter information. This area is a real success story in that city-wide departments continue to save time and money in utilizing central stores . In other Central Services areas Petty cash usage is up 103% since 1985, from 1 , 162 requests processed to over 2 , 368 requests completed during 1988 . Purchase orders are up 50% over 1988 with the additional burden of Public Office Building purchasing requirements. Photocopying has increased 55% during the 1985-88 time period, with 1 , 154 , 733 copies made in 1985 to over 1 , 791 , 261 copies processed city-wide in 1988 . This service will only continue to show strong growth due to various locations requiring additional copier equipment. New FAX services have shown a strong demand since its implementation in late- 1988 . We are processing over 914 pages of printed material monthly. As more departments become familiar with the new equipment and its time saving functions, additional growth will develop. Postage and UPS volumes show a steady 8% growth rate over previous years . Printing has increased 68% since 1985 , from 9147400 documents printed to over 11719 , 750 documents processed in 1988 . All ready in the first quarter of 1989 are printing requirements are up 30%, from 143 , 312 to 187 , 137 items printed monthly. We expect that this growth will continue throught the remainder of 1989 and will require additional resources to achieve the level of services required from city departments . At the same time outside printing has increase from $ 9 , 786 in 1985 to over 28 , 851 spent in 1988 . We are projecting based on previous years dat, that we will spending $30, 000 to $35, 000 on outside printing during 1989 . Over 75% of these dollars could be saved with additional equipment and resources approved in this proposal . Graphic department since its beginning in early 1988 has already experienced a 50% growth in graphic requests from various departments, with a steady backlog of request awaiting resources to complete. Additional equipment and authorized staff will allow us to stay abreast of workload, increase staff productivity and maintain a computer file for all department requests for future use. We approximate that the cost difference between inhouse and outside graphics services to be 45% . EXISTING STAFFING 1989 1989 Program Area Budget Est Actual Required Central Services 1 . 50 1 . 50 2 . 00 Printing 1 . 50 1 . 75 2 . 00 Graphics 1 . 00 2 . 00 2 . 00 Total 4 . 00 5 . 25 6 . 00 REQUEST Use $55, 505 of Central Services Fund balance to acquire a new press, platemaker, and a Graphics workstation . We project that overall payback on the new equipment will be within 3 . 7 years . Convert 2 regular parttime graphics position to full time as of 6/1/89 at a budgetary increase of $ 14 , 500 and 1 regular parttime printing position to Exhibit N PROFIT & LOSS STATEMENTS December 31 , 1988 of Budget Rev over Function Budget Revenue Expenditure Expended (under) Exp CENTRAL SERVICES Central Stores 17,804 60,017.86 60,672.04 126.9% (654. 18) Postage 80, 235 80,492. 12 79, 109. 14 98.6% 1 ,382.98 Photocopy 55,300 89,361 . 10 53,947 . 14 97.6% 35,413 .96 Printing 102,318 136,945. 58 129, 257.55 126.3% 7,688.03 Graphics 12, 113 34, 540. 10 52, 137.94 430.4% (17,597.84) Data Processing 555, 977 530,691 .47 530, 777.47 95. 5% (86.00) Word Processing I58, 921 157,484 .53 157,484 .53 99. 1% 0.00 Telecommunications 400, 559 412,938.69 412, 938.69 103 . 1% 0.00 TOTALS 1 ,413 , 227 1 , 502,471 .45 1 ,476,324.50 104 .5% 26, 146.95 Beginning Find Balance 81 ,331 .94 Ending Fund Balance 107,478.89 QUIPNENT RENTAL Fuel 150,072 106,971 .98 121 , 258.91 80.8% (14, 286. 93) Maintenance (68% of Rental Fee) 534 ,991 609,427.36 455,490. 17 85. 1% 153,937 . 19 . Capital Outlay 480, 544 328,228.99 321 ,318. 46 66. 9% 6,910. 53 TOTALS 1 , 165, 607 1 ,044,628.33 898, 067. 54 77 .0% 146, 560.79 Beginning Fund Balance 415,486.92 Ending Fund Balance 562,047. 71 INSURANCE Unemployment Compensation 45,000 57,815. 79 22,374. 16 49. 7% 35, 141 .63 Workers' Compensation 175,700 189,094 .34 201 , 157 .61 114. 5% ( 12,063.27) Medical & Dental 1 ,357,060 1 ,394,945.85 1 ,409,078.94 0.0% (14, 133 .09) Liability & Property 425,838 400, 169.30 399,498.00 93 .8% 671 .30 TOTALS 2,003, 598 2,042,025.28 2 ,032, 108. 71 101 .4% 9, 916. 57 Beginning Fund Balance 1 ,727,306.72 Ending Fund Balance 1 , 737, 223 . 29 VETSCH,TOM / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. --------------------------------------- Subject: Equipment Creator: Tom VETSCH / KENT70/FN Dated: 04/06/89 at 1045 . I. EQUIPMENT: Print Shop Graphics a. New Press: $ 30 , 086 . 00 a . MAC II-W/Kyboard 5 , 546 . 00 b. New Platemaker: 8 , 715 . 00 60 MG/HD b. Radius Monitor 4 , 500/00 c. Software 1, 500 . 00 d. Computer Furn 1, 000. 00 Sub Total : 38 , 801 . 00 Sub Total : 12 , 546 . 00 8 . 1% Tax: 3 , 142 . 00 8 . 1% TAX: 1, 016. 00 Total : 41, 943 . 00 Total : 13 , 562 . 00 1989 Total Impact: 55 , 505 . 00 II . PAYBACK: A. Outside Printing History Savings Potential Year Budget Actual 50% 750-. 90% 1985 2 , 500 9 , 786 1986 6, 500 10, 671 1987 81500 20, 697 1988 10, 000 28 , 851 1989 28 , 000 30, 000 15 , 000 22 , 500 27, 000 B. Print Shop Savings at 75% 16 , 785 III. PAYBACK IN YEARS A. Equipment Expense: 55 , 505 . 00 B. Total Expense: 55, 505 . 00 C. Savings : 16 785 . 00 D. Payback in Years : 3 . 3 years RECOMMENDATION Advantages: Press equipment - Increase Production - Multi-Color Printing - Higher Quality Printing - Reduced Down-Time - Peak Volume Production - Proven Registration - Local Service/Parts/Maintenance - Increase Flexibility - Reduce Outside Printing - Reduce cost to users/two color request . Utility Inserts . Parks Brouchers . City Letterhead . Community Events . Sr. Center Calendar Advantages: Graphic Equipment - Delete over-lapping of staff on one piece of equipment - Improve communications with departments on same shifts - increse Productivity - Training improvements for staff - Reduce backlog of request - Capacity improvements on two monitors - Increase volumes for print shop - Improve turn around times for users - Delete Down Time �IALJ(YI)0J Off COS j /�r_p F f_kfJet.S AB DICK TOKO RYOBI AFT MULTI MULTI ITEK 47-50 CD 500N Cheif 1900 1680 PRESS 13 , 450 161894 241800 30, 050 20, 477 19 , 510 -Delivery 725 incl incl incl 11065 1 , 065 -Installation 275 275 -Powder Unit 550 incl incl 770 970 873 -Training 275 incl incl incl incl incl NET 15, 000 16, 894 24 , 800 31 , 650 22 , 787 21, 723 -Warranty 1 yr 1 yr 1 yr 1 yr 1 yr 1 yr -Maintenance 1, 479 990 N/A N/A 31319 1, 560 -2nd Color Head 51400 5, 995 6 , 800 incl 61919 51990 NET 5, 400 5, 995 61800 incl 7, 299 5, 990 TOTAL 20, 400 22 , 889 31, 600 31, 650 30, 086 27 ,713 TAX 8 .1% 1, 652 11854 2 , 560 2 , 552 2 , 437 21445 RECAP TOTAL 22 , 052 24 , 743 34 , 160 34 , 202 32 , 523 30, 158 PLATE MAKER ITEK ESKOFOT RYOBI NONE MULTI MULTI -Quote 8 , 120 91886 8 , 500 N/A 10, 052 SAME -Delivery 595 Incl Incl N/A 385 SAME -Installation Incl Incl Incl N/A 150 SAME -Training Incl Incl Incl N/A Incl INCL NET 81120 9 , 886 81500 N/A 10, 587 SAME TOTAL 81120 9 , 886 8 , 500 N/A 10, 587 SAME TAX 8 . 1% 656 801 689 N/A 856 SAME RECAP TOTAL 8 , 776 10, 687 91189 N/A 11, 443 SAME RECOMMENDATION: Press-Multi 1900 - Best Registration Capabilities - Slide-back two color printing - Printing Quality - Production Capabilities - Local Service, parts, maintenance - Recommendation from City of Auburn and City of Seattle - Coated stock testing and high quality - Operator training and operational considerations - Ink coverage and form rollers advantages - Overall system rated best for cost and need requirments RECOMMENDATION: Platemaker-ITEK - Local History and Support - High quality plate capability - Lower cost per plate - Production capability - Recommendation from other Users - Cost of materials and chemicals - Space considerations - Overall system rated best for cost and need requirements Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 . 1989 (� L Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT' exn3:;� 3RD AVENUE SOUTH I" � , ( U� `'' setting 2 . SumnARY STATEMENT: Adopt Resolution No. g July 5, 1989 as a hearing on the application for vacation of a portion of 3rd Ave. So. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOr NDED BY: Staff (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. 3M RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding the vacation of certain property generally located at Third Avenue South between Gowe and Titus Streets, more particularly described in attached Exhibit A setting a public hearing for July 5, 1989, on the application of the City of Kent. WHEREAS, proper petition has been filed requesting vacation of certain property at Third Avenue South between Gowe and Titus Streets in the City of Kent, as described in attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A public hearing on the aforesaid vacation petition shall be at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council to be held at 7 o'clock p.m. , July 5, 1989, in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall, Kent, Washington. Section 2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of the hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by law. Section 3. The Planning Director shall obtain the necessary approval or rejection of or other information from the appropriate departments, including Public Works, and shall transmit information to the City Council so that the matter may be considered by the City Council at its meeting on July 5, 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 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED 3RD AVE. S. That portion of 3rd Avenue South less south of West Gowe Street. North of West Titus Street and between Blocks 13 and 18 in Yeslers First Addition to the Town of Rent, Volume 51 Page 64 in Xing county, Washington. r Kent City Council Meeting ` [Y Date June 6 1989 1 � Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: GLACIER PARK•STRBHT—" Adopt Ordinance No. approving the 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: p Glacier Park Street vacation of a portion of 80th Avenue So. Le public hearing was concluded on Feb. 21st and the conditions 1 have now been fulfilled. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 , RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) YES 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO Not Recommended FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3N ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the city of Kent, Washington, relating to the vacation of street, vacating certain property generally located at Both Place South, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, a street within the city limits of the City of Kent. WHEREAS, a proper application was filed by the City of Kent for the vacation of a portion of certain property of the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council fixed a time when said petition would be heard, and said hearing was held on proper notice on February 7, 1989, in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall of Kent, Washington; and WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Director processed said petition and secured technical facts pertinent to the question of said vacation, which includes a sketch of the proposed vacation, and, also, approval or rejection thereof by the Public Works Department of the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department and Planning Director recommended approving the vacation subject to certain conditions of retaining easement rights for utility purposes including, but not limited to, drainage channel and storm water storage purposes, retaining the right to grant such easement rights to other public or private utility providers, and the right to construct, repair and maintain public utilities and service in compensation to the City of one-half of the appraised value of that portion of the street to be vacated; and WHEREAS, it appears the granting of said petition would not be a menace or inconvenience to the traveling public or to any other person using the streets or alleys of the City of Kent, Washington; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution directed the preparation of an Ordinance vacating a portion of said street upon compliance with all conditions at its meeting held February 21, 1989; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met all conditions required for approval of said vacation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That portion of certain property generally located at 80th Place South and more fully described in attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby vacated, reserving, however, easement rights for utility purposes including, but not limited to, drainage channel and storm water storage purposes, retaining the right to grant such easement rights to other public and private utility providers, and the right to construct, repair and maintain public utilities and service. Section 2. No vested right shall be affected by the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY - 2 - I 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 hereo indicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 7320-260 3 - EXHIBIT "A" That portion of 80th Place S. in the N}SE#NE} of Section 36, T23N, ME of the W.M., King County, Washington, described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said subdivision; thence S02°05'41"W, along the East line of said subdivision a distance of 30.0 feet . to the Southerly margin of S.W. Ord Street (S. 180th Street); thence N87°56'40"W, along said margin a distance of 301.17 feet; thence N88°36'37"W, along said margin a distance of 908.15 feet; thence S22011'16"W a distance of 6.31 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 1 of the Tally Short Plat No.. SP-85-11 as recorded under Auditor's File No. 8603130958, Records of King County, Washington; thence S40°27'55"W a distance of 60.0 feet to a point lying on the Southwesterly margin of 80th Place S. with said point being the True Point of Beginning of the parcel to be described; thence N40°27155"E a . distance of 45.0 feet; thence S49'3210511E along a line drawn parallel with and distant 45.0 feet Northeasterly of, as measured at right angles to, said Southwesterly margin of 80th Place S. a distance of 463.58 feet to the Northerly line of that portion of 80th Place.S. deeded to -the City of Kent under Auditor's File No. 86021203Z4; thence N88°10'32"W, along said Northerly line to the intersection with said Southwesterly margin of 80th Place S.; thence N49032'05"W, along said Southwesterly margin of 80th Place S. to the True Point of Beginning. \ Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CITY ART PLAN M^ 1 amending the 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt ResolutionNo- guidelines guidelines for development and implementation of the City Art Plan. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED 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. 30 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to art plans, amending the guidelines for development and implementation of City Art Plan as first adopted on April 15, 1985. WHEREAS, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance 2552 on April 15, 1985 establishing the Kent Arts Commission and art fund; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 1989, the Kent Arts Commission proposed and the Kent City Council adopted certain guidelines for the development and implementation of a City Art Plan Policy; and WHEREAS, such guidelines call for periodic review and revision by the staff, and upon consultation by the Arts Commission, to be submitted to the City Council for approval; and WHEREAS, the Kent Arts Commission has proposed and recommended revisions to the City Art Plan Policy at its meeting on April 25, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council Parks Committee has reviewed and recommended approval of such amendments to the City Art Plan Policy; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council has reviewed such recommendations and proposed amendments, as set forth herein and attached hereto by this reference, at its meeting on June 6, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The amendments to the City Art Plan as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference are hereby adopted. 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 7290-260 - 2 - CITY ART PLAN POLICY Guidelines for development and implementation of City Art Plan. PURPOSE: To establish the procedure for allocation, project and artwork selection, and expenditure of funds from the City Art Fund. These guidelines were approved by the City of Kent Arts Commission on April 25, 1989 and adopted by the Kent City Council on June 6, 1989 for implementation of Ordinance 2552, passed by the City on April 15, 1985. INTENT: The stated intent of the Ordinance is "to expand the opportunity for Kent residents to experience art in public places and create a more visually pleasing and humane environment." DEFINITIONS: "Public Art". All forms of original creations of visual art, including, but not limited to: 1. Calligraphy and signage. 2. Crafts - in clay, glass, paper, fiber and textiles, wood, metal, plastics and other materials. 3. Earthworks and Landscape. 4. Graphic arts printmaking and drawing. 5. Mixed media any combination of forms or media, including collage and assemblages. 6. Mosaics tile and brickwork. 7. Painting all media, including portable and permanently affixed works, such as murals. 8. Photography. 9. Sculpture - in the round, bas relief, high relief, mobile, fountain, kinetic, electronic, play equipment, etc., in any material or combination of materials. "Artist". A practitioner in the visual arts generally recognized by critics and his or her peers as professional, who produces artwork as described above and exhibits in public forums such as art galleries, museums. etc. "Expended". The payment of municipal funds from whatever source for a capital project. "Architect". The person or firm (architect, landscape architect, interior designer, or other design professional) designing the project involving a City Art Project site. "Arts Commission". City of Kent Arts Commission. "City". City of Kent. "Staff". Department of Parks and Recreation Staff. "Contracting Agency". City of Kent. "Jurisdiction". Within the corporate limits. "City Art Plan". Annual plan prepared by Staff, reviewed and approved by Commission, and approved by the Council for the expenditures of the City Art Fund. FUND INCLUSIONS: The portion of the City Art Fund appropriation reserved for works of art may be expended for the following: The cost of the work of art and its site preparation and installation. Identification plaques and labels. Waterworks, electrical (including lighting) and mechanical devices and equipment which are an integral part of the work of art or would otherwise aesthetically enhance the project site. Frames, mat and simple pedestals necessary for the proper presentation and/or protection of the works of art. Related administrative expenses incurred by the architect, consultant, City staff, and Kent Arts Commission, including, but not limited to, staff time, printing and distribution costs. Honoraria and fees paid to professional jurors asked to participate in the selection process and to artists invited to submit final design proposals and models for selection consideration. These fees may apply to some but not all projects included in the City Art Program. Repair and/or special maintenance of works of art. FUND EXCLUSIONS: The portion of the City Art Fund reserved for works of art may not be expended for the following: Reproductions by mechanical or other means of original works of art; provided, however, limited editions controlled by the artist, such as original prints, cast sculpture, and photographs, may be included. 2 Decorative, ornamental or functional elements which are designed by the architect or consultants engaged by the architect. Architectural rehabilitation or historical preservation, although works may be acquired in connection with such projects. Those items which are required to fulfill the basic purpose of a project, such as works of art for the collection of a City Museum. Art objects which are commercially or mass produced or of standard design, such as commercial playground equipment or fountains; provided, however, artists responding to a request for proposals with submittals including the above may be considered. Standard directional or other functional elements, such as signing, color coding, and maps; provided, however, artists responding to a request for proposals with submittals including signage or graphics, will be considered. Exhibitions and educational programs. Expenses related to the acquisition of the work of art (before or after installation); such as dedication, unveiling, insurance, security and publicity or publication costs. These operational expenses shall be the responsibility of the Arts Commission, and shall be funded by the Arts Commission's annual budget. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF ARTS PROFESSIONALS TO SERVE ON JURY: Artist jury members shall be visual artist professionals in fields appropriate to the project including artists curators critics fine art collectors architects and other design professionals with a relevant arts background who are: Respected in their fields Knowledgeable about contemporary visual art particularly in a public outdoor context Capable of engaging effectively in a jury process Willing to carry out Kent City Art Program art selection criteria and public art policy and Kent Arts commission objectives Staff will eriodicall issue a re uest for qualifications and will maintain a file of Potential jurors and their qualifications which will be available to the Kent Arts Commission. 3 SELECTION OF ARTISTS: Eligibility requirements shall be recommended for each project by the Arts Commission. -- Professional eligibility. Artists will be selected on the basis of their qualifications, as demonstrated by past work of art, appropriateness of the proposal to the particular project, and its probability of successful completion, as determined by the art selection jury. Specifically excluded are student works of art done under the supervision of art teachers or done to satisfy course requirements, artists who are the project architect/landscape architect/engineer or members of the project, their firm, and artists who are members of the Kent Arts Commission. SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES - ADVISORY PANEL: An Advisory Panel shall be appointed for each City Art Project with a budget of over $5,000. The Advisory Review Panel shall include: A City Council member appointed by the Council President; A community representative appointed by the Commission; The architect assigned to the given project (only if applicable); The department head of the department directly concerned with the project, or designee; One member of the Commission appointed by the Commission. The Advisory Panel shalt: Review applicable City Arts Program projects and recommend to the Commission the type of art, which, in the PaneLJs opinion, best suits a given project site; and Determine a method of selection (direct selection, open competition or limited competition) for each project; The Arts Commission and staff shall: Recommend to the City Council the general policies, procedures, and Procedural Guidelines for the City Art Program; 4 Determine and recommend to the Council the applicability of public art to each City capital project and the amount of City Art Fund monies to be expended; Review and annually recommend to the City Council a "City Art Plan" and specific projects. Projects with a budget of less than $5,000 shall be administered at the discretion of the Arts Commission and Staff. Assure, in the overall City Art Program, that reasonable diversity is, attained in style, scale, media and materials represented; Appoint each advisory panel and art selection jury in accord with these Procedural Guidelines for each City Art Program Project with a budget over S5,000; Annually, make a public report on the projects of the previous year and shall conduct periodic evaluations of the City Arts Program; Maintain a record of all works of art acquired under this ordinance; Publish informative folders and booklets on these art works; Make all arrangements for a dedication or unveiling of the work of art in coordination with City Department(s) involved. The Arts Commission is responsible to endorse the recommendations of the Jury. Upon recommendation by the Arts Commission and approval by the City Council, the decisions of the Jury will be final, except in cases of proven technical infeasibility. The Art Selection Jury: Shall be appointed for each City Art Project with a budget of over S5,000; Shall have a flexible organization and membership, at the recommendation of the Arts Commission. Taking into account the scope and nature of the City Art Project, the jury shall normally consist of the following: One City Council member, as appointed by the Council President. Two art professionals. One departmental representative. One community member. One Arts commission member. 5 Examine proposals and submissions submitted by artists and recommend a selection (within the intent and scope of the Procedural Guidelines of this Chapter) of an artist's design for the specific art work to be commissioned, or select an artist whose existing work is to be purchased for the project. Jury selection recommendation will be reviewed by the commission and staff, prior to recommendation to Council for approval. The Art Jury has the right to make no selection if, in its opinion, there is insufficient merit in the submission. The Jury shall provide written minutes of the selection process to the Arts Commission. The Artist shall: Submit proposals to the Staff; If selected, be commissioned to execute and complete the work in a timely and professional manner. Transfer title of an existing work of art to the City of Kent. Maintain a close working relationship with the Staff and the architect or landscape architect or the engineer on commissioned work; Be responsible for assuring that artwork is properly identified; plaques or Labels identifying the work shall be permanent, unobtrusive and well designed. Identification shall include the name of the artist, title of the work, if any, medium, year completed and funding sources. Return the proposal to the Contracting Agency for review and approval should any significant change occur in the scope, material, design of the work subsequent to preliminary design approval within accepted City procedures. Be responsible for all phases of the design and execution of the work, including site preparation and installation, unless otherwise stipulated in the contract. Hold no rights to any work of art commissioned or purchased under this chapter including: reproduction, access, modification, resale, etc., unless such rights are specifically allowed in formal written agreement between the City of Kent and the artist. Complete conservation records that include: Specific materials and sources used in the execution of the piece. 6 Methods of fabrication including diagrams and names of fabricators. installation specifications methods description and diagram of structural support company and persons involved in installation. Method and frequency of maintenance including routine maintenance requirements cyclical maintenance requirements recommendations and cautions about possible negative influences on work (such as climate, pollutants, sunlight, etc.) Desired appearance of work (for example• matte or glossy patina). Estimate the life of the work and auarantee work as Provided in the contract. At some time during the proposed design phase, the artist may be required to make a public presentation at an appropriate forum in the community where the work will be placed. The Architect shall: Recommend to the Kent Arts Commission, and the appropriate City Department involved, specific areas for works of art and the appropriate scale and type of art for given project site. Consult with the artist, review the execution of the work of art at periodic intervals, provide engineering and technical assistance to the artist, if required, and supervise the delivery and installation of the work under contract. Assure that all utility service requirements for the work of art are met in the design documents and that the work may be installed with relative ease and be accessible for maintenance purposes. The Staff of the Kent Department of Parks and Recreation shall: Develop a City Art Plan in consultation with the Arts Commission, for the expenditure of monies deposited in the City Art Fund. Such programs shall be approved by the Arts Commission, and the City Council; Administer the City Art Program and Fund; Review each project and make recommendations; Develop an art selection jury membership roster; 7 Coordinate all competitions; including development and distribution of all competition announcements and prospectuses. Develop artist contracts following artist selection, for review and approval by Legal Department, City Administration, Mayor, and City Council. Recommend and implement necessary maintenance and repair procedures for City Art works. The Staff shall submit a quarterly activity report to the Arts Commission, City Administrator and Council, including: Procedure for complete selection process; Amount of funds to be expended for specific projects; Location of the art work; Major milestones for each project - i.e., completion of selection, completion of the commissioning of artists, and final project completion. METHODS OF SELECTION. Direct Selection: The artist shall be chosen directly by advisory panel or jury or by the Arts Coordinator. Open Competition: Any artist, subject to any limitations established by Commission recommendation, may enter. Limited Competition: Artists will be selected and invited to enter. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF WORKS OF ART: Standard of Excellence: ACgdXdXi3bttif/fNAXX/b!/Xd/XNE/IadA�EMT/bf//6EbA�XYEd art experts to be of exceptional quality and enduring value. Each proposed art in public places proiect will also be evaluated as to artistic excellence, appropriateness in terms of scale material and context relative to the immediate and general architectural social and historic context and long-term durability against vandalism weather theft and excessive maintenance. Appropriateness to Site: RlXAXXb�dNifs/bf/ltX�ba'R/tNAXX/BE/E4asSXt7bflA/Xati terms of the physical dimensions social dynamics local character and surrounding urban context of the existing or planned site. 8 Elements and Design: The Advisory Panel, Art Selection Jury and the Artist shall take into account that art in public places may function as: art standing alone, focal points, axial terminators, modifiers or definers of special spaces or establishers of identity. When deemed appropriate and beneficial by the Advisory Panel, City Art Program projects may be incorporated into the function and structure of facilities, (e.g. doors, windows, walkways, etc.) Permanence: Due consideration shall be given to structural and surface soundness and to permanence in terms of relative proof against age, theft, vandalism, weathering, excessive maintenance or repair costs. Acquisition: New works shall be commissioned or existing works may be acquired. PAYMENT TO THE ARTIST: Payment of the artist's basic services shall be at regular intervals. They shall be in proportion to services actually performed and completed. At no time shall the total payments received by the artist exceed the following levels for the various stages of completion: Preliminary Design Phase 40% Execution Phase 30% Installation/Completion 30% PLACEMENT OF WORKS OF ART: Works of art selected and implemented shall be placed in, on or about any municipal construction project or other municipally-owned, leased or rented property. Works of art may be attached or detached within or about such property, and may be either temporary or permanent. Placement of works of art shall be authorized by the City Council upon review and recommendation of the Arts Commission. Staff responsible for the design and construction of projects shall make appropriate space available for the placement of works of art. Criteria for Development and Selection of City Art Program Proiects All City Art Program projects will be developed to respond to a specific site or building location with the exception of artworks purchased to circulate among various sites or facilities. Each project will be evaluated by the Arts 9 Commission staff and Advisory Panel within the context of the City of Kent and Arts Commission goals and objectives and written into the City Art Plan. The Arts Commission will identify priority proiects and/or general locations for Public artwork. The Arts Commission will seek to ensure that over time City Arts Program proiects will be spread among a wide number of types of sites and specific locations in Kent. Commissions will be awarded to a wide variety of nationally and regionally recognized artists and will reflect an overall diversity of scale aesthetic vocabulary, community values and forms of expression. City Art Program Budget: The Finance Department shall pay warrants from the Municipal Art Fund upon vouchers approved by the Staff and Parks Director. The Finance Department shall monitor expenditures from the City Art Fund. The Finance Department shall provide a summary reporting mechanism detailing the status of, and all activity within, the City Art Fund. This report shall be transmitted to the staff and reviewed by the Arts commission quarterly. EXECUTION OF WORKS: After an artist has been selected, the artist will enter into a contract with the City to perform the work, to be executed either by the artist or by an independent contractor as stated in the contracts. The City Council will authorize the contract with the artist. Publicity. The City of Kent, architect, artist, City Departments, Kent Arts Commission and their agents shall include in any publicity of the capital project prominent reference to the art contracted for under this ordinance. Local and Lay Advice. The Kent Arts Commission shall be receptive to advice from the general public which will benefit from public arts herein provided. Conflict of interest: All procedures shall be conducted and all decisions shall be made free of any conflict of interest. Professional Assistance: Where suitable, any appropriate professional or technical advice may be sought. MAINTENANCE AND CONSERVATION/Ol/NOM/O//A91: The Department of Parks and Recreation Maintenance Division shall be responsible for the normal cleaning and maintenance and operation of the City's works of art. - 10 - Unusual maintenance or repair of works of art shall be reviewed by the Staff, and appropriate measures will be taken to repair and/or maintain works of art. Unusual maintenance costs may be expended from the City Art Fund. Per artist's recommendation, Staff shall recommend the appropriate method of maintenance for each work of art. An annual review of the repair of the city,s collection of art works shall be made, and a report shall be submitted by Staff to the Arts Commission and the City Council for review. Each work in the collection shall be properly marked with accession number and information and will be fully documented and entered into accession ledger. The accession ledger will be updated with each new collection acquisition. Facilities hous.ing artworks shall keep the artwork clean maintain the surrounding area and report damage or maintenance needs. Gifts of Works of Art: Pro osed gifts of works of art are referred to the Kent Arts Commission for their review and recommendation to the city Council. Review is based on the uality of the work maintenance requirements, conformance to structural and fabrication standards and applicable safety codes donor conditions availability of an..appropriate site for the work the advice of administrators at the proposed site end staff research. Proposed gifts of funds for the acquisition of works of art if restricted or dedicated in any way are reviewed to ensure that such restrictions or dedications are consistent with the goals of the Kent Arts commission and the City of Kent. Proposed gifts of sites for works of art are reviewed by the Kent Arts Commission to ensure consistency with the Kent City Art Plan. Education and Public involvement: A regular program of educational and promotional activities shalt be part of each public art project in addition to involving citizens in advisory panels and art selection iuries public involvement will be achieved through artists interaction with the community, use of the media special events exhibitions tours publications and public meetings. 11 Public Art Review Process: Obiectives: A. To establish an orderly process for reviewing the status of public artwork. B. To establish a procedure for removal or relocation of public works of art. Review Process• Review is initiated by the Arts Commission for one or more of the following reasons• 1. The condition or security of the artwork cannot be reasonably guaranteed. 2. The artwork requires excessive maintenance or has faulted design or workmanship and repair or remedy is impractical or unfeasible. 3. The artwork has been damaged and repair is impractical or unfeasible. 4. The artwork endangers public safety. 5. No suitable site is available or significant changes in the use. character or design of the site have occurred which effects the integrity of the work. 6. Significant adverse public reaction has continued unabated over an extended period of time. 7. The quality or authenticity of the artwork is called into question. 8. The sponsoring agency wishes to replace the artwork with a more appropriate work by the same artist. 9. Removal is requested by the artist. Review should include: 1. Review of the artists contract and other agreements which may pertain. 2. Discussion with the artist of the concern prompting review. - 12 3. Opinions of more than one independent professional qualified to recommend on the concern prompting review (conservators engineers. architects critics art historians, safety experts, etc.) 4. Review of written correspondence press and other evidence of public debate. The Kent Arts Commission shall hold the review and make their recommendation to the City Council. Options to be Considered: A. Maintain the work in the current site. B. Relocation - the work was created for a specific site, relocation must be to a new site consistent with the artist's intention. The artists assistance may be sought. C. Removal by sale extended loan, trade or gift. Professional appraisals of the fair market value of the work should be obtained. 1. If feasible the artist should be given option on purchase 2. Sale may be through auction gallery resale or direct bidding by individuals 3. Trade may be through artist gallery museum or other institutions 4. Proceeds from the sale of work should be deposited into the City Art Fund Any pre-existing contractural agreements between the artists and the Kent Arts Commission regarding resale shall be honored. D. Destruction of the Work. If destruction of the work is the only solution whenever practical the artist shall be given first opportunity to remove the piece. PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW AND AMENDMENT: These Guidelines are subject to periodic review and revisions by the Staff, and upon consultation by the Arts Commission and recommendations shall be submitted for City Council approval. 1006R-25R - 13 - �VU Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LIBRARY DESIGN. 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of latest design/development plans for the new librarylas recommended by the Operations Committee on May 15. 3 . EXHIBITS• 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-IN moves, Councilmember seconds — r tl� DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3P Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 , 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: idG INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM POWERS . 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Presented for Council consideration is an ordinance adopting initiative and referendum powers for the citizens of the City of Kent. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 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: C JohyiSQn move rlmember seconds J-0 1�ar-kCe- L (I dG 12 irio I (1ITlCI-I bN La rid rC C'' fC' ridLA01 ()Cw'e � ,S (�'isSe- 5 C-'o o rl J , C'r !A d tJA 11'l C" {h U r'1 L to r r` i e-d . DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3Q i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to initiative and referendum, establishing initiative and referendum powers in the City of Kent, creating a new Chapter 1.14 of the Kent City Code. WHEREAS, by Resolution 1193, the City Council declared its intention to adopt for the qualified electors of the City of Kent the powers of initiative and referendum; and WHEREAS, such Resolution and state law require ninety days after the first date of publication of the Resolution to expire prior to adoption of any ordinance providing such powers and such ninety days have expired; and WHEREAS, no timely or sufficient referendum petition has been filed by the qualified electors of the City of Kent challenging such Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1.14 is added to the Kent City Code as follows: 1.14.010. Intent. It is the intent of the City Council to adopt, pursuant to Chapter 35A RCW, the powers of initiative and referendum for the qualified electors of the City of Kent. If an initiative measure is properly presented to the Council, the Council hereby declares its intention to reserve the authority to submit also a different measure dealing with the same subject as the initiative to the qualified electors for approval or rejection at the same election. 1.14.020. Ordinances Not Subiect to Initiative and Referendum. Any and all ordinances hereafter passed and adopted by the City of Kent shall not go into effect prior to thirty (30) days from the time of final passage and the same shall be subject to referendum during the interim except the following ordinances: A. ordinances initiated by petition; B. Ordinances necessary for immediate preservation of public peace, health, and safety or for the support of City government and its existing public institutions which contain a statement of urgency and are passed by unanimous vote of the Council; C. Ordinances providing for local improvement districts D. ordinances appropriating money; E. Ordinances providing for or approving collective bargaining; F. Ordinances providing for the compensation of or working conditions of a city employee; and G. Ordinances authorizing or repealing the levy of taxes; H. Any ordinance exempted now or hereafter by state law from initiative and referendum processes; and all such excepted ordinances shall go into effect as provided by the general law or applicable sections of Title 35A RCW as now or hereafter amended. 1.14.030. Initiative Petitions. Ordinances may be initiated by petitions of electors of the City. If any individual, or group of individuals, desires to petition the Council to enact a proposed measure, that individual or group shall file in the office of the City Clerk five (5) printed or typewritten copies of the measure proposed, accompanied by the name, post office and residence address of the proposer. 1.14.040. Initiative Procedure by Clerk and City Attorney. Upon filing of the proposed initiative measure, the City Clerk shall assign a number to each such initiative petition and transmit one (1) copy of the measure proposed, bearing such number, to the City Council, the Mayor, the City Administrator, and to the City Attorney. Within fourteen (14) days after the receipt of an initiative measure, the City Attorney shall formulate therefor and transmit to the City Clerk, the City Council, the Mayor, the City Administrator, and the individual or group proposing such a measure, an initiative statement in the form of a question containing the essential features of the I measure. - 2 - i I 1.14.050. Initiative Statement. An initiative statement shall be phrased in language so that a "yes" vote will clearly be a vote in favor of the action or condition that would result from the approval of the measure, and a "no" vote will clearly be a vote in opposition to such action or condition. The statement may, be distinct from the petitioner's title of the measure and shall express and give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure. It shall not be intentionally an argument, nor likely to create prejudice, either for or against the measure. 1.14.060. Time for Filing Initiative Petition. Initiative petitions containing the required signatures of the registered voters of the City as provided in RCW 35A.11.lo0, nowcr as hereinafter amended, must be filed with the Clerk within ninety (90) days from the date of issuance of the initiative statement by the City Attorney. If petitioner fails to file such petition within the prescribed time limit, it shall have no validity and the petition will not be considered by the Council as an initiative petition. 1.14.070. Initiative Petition - Reguirements. Every signer to a petition submitting a proposed ordinance to the City Council shall add to his or her signature signer's printed name and his or her place of residence giving street and number. The signatures need not all be appended to one paper, but one of the signers on each paper must attach thereto an affidavit stating the number of signatures thereon, that each signature thereon is a genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be and that the statements therein made are true as he or she believes. 1.14.080. Form of Petitions for ordinances Referred to the Voters. The form and sufficiency of the petition shall be as follows: A. A petition may include any page or group of pages containing a statement prepared by the City Attorney along with the initiative number and shall contain the following essential elements when applicable: 1. The text or prayer of the petition shall be a concise statement of the action or relief sought by petitioners. - 3 - 2. A copy of the ordinance to be referred to the electorate. 3. Numbered lines for signatures with space provided beside each signature for the printed name of the signor, the address of the signor, and the date of signing. 4. The warning statement prescribed in Section B of this section. B. petitions shall be printed or typed on single sheets of white paper of good quality and each sheet of petition paper having a space thereon for signatures shall contain the text or prayer of the petition and the following warning: WARNING Any person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. C. Each signature shall be executed in ink or indelible pencil and shall be followed by the printed name of the signor, the date of the signing, and the address of the signor as follows: Petitioner's Petitioner's Signature Printed Name Residence Address Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. The term "signer" means any person who signs his or her own name to the petition. 4 - �I i i E. To be sufficient a petition must contain valid signatures of qualified electors in number equal to not less than 15% of the names of persons listed as registered voters within the city on the day of the last preceding city general election or the number that may be otherwise provided by state law. 1.14.090. Process of Determining Sufficiency. Within five (5) working days after the filing of a petition, the city clerk shall begin the process of making a determination of a sufficiency with reasonable promptness and shall file a certificate stating the date upon which such determination was begun, which date shall be referred to as the terminal date. Additional pages of one or more signatures may be added to the petition by filing the same with the city clerk prior to such terminal date. No signatures shall be accepted or withdrawn after such terminal date. 1.14.100. Withdrawal of Signature. . Any signer of a filed petition may withdraw his or her signature by a written request for withdrawal filed with the City Clerk prior to such terminal date. Such written request shall so sufficiently describe the petition as to make identification of the person and the petition certain. The name of any person seeking to withdraw shall be signed exactly the same as contained on the petition and, after the filing of such request for withdrawal, prior to the terminal date, the signature of any person seeking such withdrawal shall be deemed withdrawn. 1.14.110. Valid Signatures. Petitions containing the required number of signatures shall be accepted as prima facie valid until their invalidity has been proved. 1.14.120. Variations of Signatures. Variations on petitions between the signatures on the petition and that on the voter's permanent registration caused by the substitution of initials instead of first or middle names, or both, shall not invalidate the signature on the petition if the surname and handwriting are the same. - 5 - i i 1.14.130. stricken Signatures. Signatures, including the original, of any person who has signed a petition two or more times, shall be stricken. 1.14.140. Stale Sianatures. Signatures followed by a date of signing which is more than six months prior to the date of filing of the petition or prior to the publication date of this ordinance shall be stricken. 1.14.150. Initiative Petition - Checking by Clerk. Within fourteen (14) days from the terminal date of filing of a petition submitting a proposed ordinance, the City Clerk shall ascertain or cause to be ascertained and append to the petition a certificate stating whether or not it is signed by a sufficient number of registered voters, using the registration records and returns of the preceding municipal election for sources of information. 1.14,160. Initiative Petition - Council Action. If the petition accompanying the proposed Ordinance is signed by the registered voters in the City as required by state law, and if it contains a request that, unless passed by the City Council, the Ordinance be submitted to a vote of the people, the Council shall - either: A. Pass the proposed Ordinance without alteration within forty-five (45) days after the City Clerk's certificate that the number of signatures on the petition are sufficient; or B. Within forty-five (45) days after the Clerk's certificate of sufficiency is attached to the petition, cause to be called a special election to be held not less than thirty (30) nor more than one hundred twenty (120) days thereafter, for submission of the proposed Ordinance without alteration, to a vote of the people unless a general election will occur within one hundred twenty (120) days, in which event submission must be made at that general election. 1,14.170. Initiative Petition Anneal to Court. If a court finds the petition insufficient or if the Council refuses either to pass an initiative ordinance or order an election thereon, any taxpayer within the City may commence an action in 6 - the superior Court against the City for the purpose of requiring an election to be held in the City for purposes of voting upon the proposed ordinance if the Court finds the petition to be sufficient. 1.14.180. Initiative -..Conduct of Election. Publication of notice, the election, the canvass of the returns and declaration of the results, shall be conducted in all respects as are other City elections. Any number of proposed ordinances may be voted on at the same election, but there shall not be more than one special election for that purpose during any one six-month period. 1.14.190. Initiative - Notice of Election. The City Clerk shall cause any ordinance or proposition required to be submitted to the voters at an election to be published in a local newspaper. This publication shall be in addition to the notice required in Chapter 29.27 RCW. 1.14.200. Initiative - Ballots. The ballots used for voting upon a proposed ordinance shall be similar to those used at a general municipal election and shall contain the words "for the ordinance" (stating the nature of the proposed ordinance) and "against the ordinance" (stating the nature of the proposed ordinance) . 1.14.210. Ballot Title. When any initiative petition is found to be sufficient by the Clerk and the proposal or question is to be submitted to the voters the question or proposal shall be advertised as provided for nominees for office for code cities, and in such cases there shall also be printed on the ballot a concise statement not exceeding one hundred words containing the essential features thereof expressed in such a manner as to clearly identify the proposition to be voted upon, which statement shall be prepared by the City Attorney. In addition to such a statement, the City Attorney preparing the statement shall also prepare a caption, not to exceed ten words in length, to permit the voters readily to identify the proposition and distinguish it from other propositions on the ballot. This caption shall be placed on the ballot immediately before the statement, and shall i 7 I be printed in heavy black type in such a manner as to be readable at a glance. The caption and statement together shall constitute the ballot title. 1.14.220. Initiative - Effective Date - Record. If a majority of the number of votes cast thereon favor the proposed ordinance, it shall become effective immediately and shall be made a part of the record of ordinances of the city. 1.14.230. Initiative - Repeal or Amendment. Upon the adoption of an ordinance initiated by petition, the City Clerk shall write on the margin of the record thereof "ordinance by petition No. " or "ordinance by vote of the people," and it cannot be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people. 1.14,240. Initiative - Repeal or Amendment - Method. The Council may by means of an ordinance submit a proposition for the repeal or amendment of an ordinance initiated by petition, by submitting it to a vote of the people at any general election and if a majority of the votes cast upon the proposition favor it, the ordinance shall be repealed or amended accordingly. A proposition of repeal or amendment must be published before the election thereon as is an ordinance initiated by petition when submitted to election. 1.14.250. Initiative - Reoeal or Amendment - Record. Upon the adoption of a proposition to repeal or amend an ordinance initiated by petition, the City Clerk shall write upon the margin of the record of the ordinance "repealed (or amended) by ordinance No. " or "repealed (or amended) by vote of the people." 1.14.260. Referendum Petitions. A petition may be filed with the City Clerk within thirty days from the passage of a general ordinance by the Council, petitioning the Council to reconsider an ordinance which is subject to referendum, or to submit same to a vote of the people. 1.14.270. Referendum Statement. A referendum statement on a petition shall be phrased in the following language: - 8 - "Should Kent City ordinance No. relating to enacted by the Kent City Council on be repealed in its entirety? Your signature on this petition indicates your vote in favor of repeal of the attached ordinance in its entirety." A copy of the ordinance to such referendum petition shall be attached to each referendum petition for the information of the parties requested to sign such petition. 1.14.280. -e'e endum Filing Suspends Ordinance. Upon the filing of a referendum petition, which must contain valid signatures of fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of names of persons listed as registered voters within the City on the date of the last preceding City general election or as otherwise provided by state law, within thirty (30) days of the passage of an ordinance petitioning therein that such ordinance be submitted to the electorate, the Council shall reconsider an ordinance subject to referendum and upon reconsideration shall defeat it in its entirety or shall submit it to a vote of the people. The operation of an ordinance so protested against shall be suspended until the referendum petition is finally found insufficient or until the ordinance protested against has received a majority of the votes cast thereon at the election. 1.14.290. Initiative Provisions Applied to Referendum Process. All provisions applicable to the form of the petition and sufficiency of signatures required for an initiative petition as set forth herein, and to the submission to the vote of the people as set forth herein, shall apply to a referendum petition and to the ordinances sought to be defeated thereby. 1.14.300. Referendum - Effective Date - Record. If a majority of the number of votes cast thereon oppose the ordinance subject to the referendum, such ordinance shall be deemed repealed immediately. 1.14.310. Restriction On or Abandonment of Powers. The exercise of such initiative and referendum powers may be restricted or abandoned upon passage of a resolution by the 9 - Council or by the filing of a sufficient petition with the City Clerk signed by qualified electors in number equal to not less than ten (10%) percent of the votes cast at the last general municipal election or as otherwise provided by state law. The sufficiency of the petition for restriction or abandonment shall be determined by the City Clerk and certified as to sufficiency. The proposal for restriction of the initiative and/or referendum powers and/or the proposal for abandonment of such powers shall be voted upon at the next general municipal election if one is to be held within 180 days from the date of filing of the petition, or at a special election to be called for that purpose not less than 90 days nor more than 180 days after the passage of the resolution or the certification of sufficiency of the petition. The ballot title and statement of proposition shall be prepared by the City Attorney as provided for initiative ballots herein. 1.14.320. Ordinance Restricting or Abandoning Powers - After Election. If a majority of votes cast at the election favor restriction or abandonment, such powers of initiative or referendum shall be deemed so restricted or abandoned. Section 2 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: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY 10 - 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 hereo indicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 7310-260 - 11 - i 4- � Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 . 1989 Category Consent Calendar c+rn / nTMDIIP.T.T. 1. SUBJECT: LAND EXCHANGE: WI-TH 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorizes staff to pursue a land exchange proposed by Larry Campbelliwith conditions. 3 . EXHIBITS: memo to Planning Committee, map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: to be determined by Planning Committee 6/6/89 (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 DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3R MEMORANDUM June 1, 1989 MEMO TO: JUDY WOODS, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE FROM: JIM HANSEN, ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: LAND EXCHANGE REQUEST BY LARRY CAMPBELL Several months ago Larry Campbell, on behalf of Esquire Court, Ltd. , proposed to exchange land of equal value with the City. The land is located just north of the Aukeen District Court. A copy of the map he provided has been attached for your review. Specifically, they would like to consolidate their land to build an attorney's office fronting on S. 259th Street. The Committee elected to put the question "on hold" when the Ponssen home issue came up earlier this year. At the May 23rd meeting of the Committee, I reported that Mr. Novak, a representative of the Ponssen Estate, was not interested in trading another City-owned parcel for his land. Therefore, the Committee decided to recommend to the Mayor to form a committee to examine funding alternatives to save the home from new development. This process has already started. Should the Committee recommend to the full Council that the land exchange proposed by Larry Campbell occur, I would like to suggest that it be conditioned approval. The conditions would be that the land exchange must be of equal land value to be determined by two M.A.I. appraisals at Esquire Court Ltd. ' s expense. In addition, the land exchange will create an acceptable access to S. 259th per approval of the City. Further details will be coordinated by the City Attorney and Property Manager. JH:ca Enclosure i ;South 259th ``Street; 17 Cr I Q g +a�csl `Law �aEss 'Offices r 5 PRoPoSED • ,� -LPIOLPEftY � .... ,F o . Y :p(�tRo57cetY 14 cW6'_ •. O � Pot ptiat 12 A *won 'Expansion I a — 10 � c 1001 S ETd i'.4 • r r •� ,.vl rJ KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE May 16, 1989 4 : 00 PM Committee Members Present Planning Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Jon Johnson Jim Harris Carol Proud City Administration Fred Satterstrom Ed Chow, City Administrator Other City Staff Jim Hansen Carolyn Lake Others Present Alana MacIalwain John Marchione Leona Orr Lee Sanchez Linda Van Nest LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE Carol Proud indicated she had talked with Paul Morford regarding the proposed ordinance. The title report to which the ordinance refers is considered a "service report" which verifies ownership of the property; the report can be obtained for about $25. Chairwoman Woods asked that Ms. Proud talk also to Council President White regarding the proposed ordinance. Councilman Johnson MOVED and Chairwoman Woods SECONDED the motion to forward the ordinance to the June 6, 1989 City Council Consent Calendar. Chairwoman Woods requested that Carol Proud speak to Councilman Dowell to answer any questions he might have in this regard. PONSSEN MANSION Assistant City Administrator Hansen displayed the Master Site Plan proposed by Larry Campbell. Mr. Campbell represents three attorneys who approached the City regarding a land exchange which would enable them to build law offices and which would enable the City to consolidate land around Aukeen Court for future use. The proposal includes providing access to the City property via S. 259th. This proposal had been placed on hold pending resolution of restoration of the Ponssen Mansion. Mr. Novak who represents the owners of the Ponssen Mansion declined interest in the City' s offer of a land exchange which would allow the mansion to remain on its present site. A cost of approximately $50, 000 is anticipated to move the ,mansion to another location. This cost has not been budgeted, nor does historical preservation rank high in the CIP process. The informal Internal Budget Committee (IBC) does not recommend allocation of funds for this purpose. However, Planning Director Harris noted that the IBC did recommend keeping options open and that the burden of preservation be placed on a citizen' s group. The City would consider contributing some funding to the project, as matching funds or on a percentage formula. Jim Harris stated CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 16, 1989 it might be good to have an official historic preservation committee formed by Mayor Kelleher. Chairwoman Woods stated she was concerned about having enough time to initiate citizen support of preservation of the mansion. Linda Van Nest added that it is preferable, indeed required for national historic status and funding, to maintain the mansion on its original site. Lee Sanchez of Aukeen District Court stated they do not have a problem with the Campbell proposal . Councilman Johnson MOVED and Chairwoman Woods SECONDED the motion to forward to the June 6, 1989 Council meeting (under Consent Calendar) the Committee' s recommendation to proceed with the land exchange proposed by Larry Campbell. This issue will appear again on the Planning Committee agenda of June 6th. Linda Van Nest stated she had done additional research on the mansion and found that it had been built in 1908 and was a poultry farm prior to being taken over by Northern Pacific Railroad. Linda Van Nest will contact Mr. Novak again regarding preserving the mansion. Jim Harris and Alana MacIalwain will talk to Mayor Kelleher about formation of an historic preservation committee. ADDED ITEMS Carol Proud responded to Councilman Johnson that the Public Notice Boards issue would be heard by the Planning Commission on May 22nd. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4 : 45 PM. 2 r n � Kent City Council Meeting f Date June 6 . 1989 v Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, d IVk` E- 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. ` 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. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, Planning 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. 3S KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE May 16, 1989 4 : 00 PM Committee Members Present Planning Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Jon Johnson Jim Harris Carol Proud City Administration Fred Satterstrom Ed Chow, City Administrator Other City Staff Jim Hansen Carolyn Lake Others Present Alana MacIalwain John Marchione Leona Orr Lee Sanchez Linda Van Nest LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE Carol Proud indicated she had talked with Paul Morford regarding the proposed ordinance. The title report to which the ordinance refers is considered a "service report" which verifies ownership of the property; the report can be obtained for about $25. Chairwoman Woods asked that Ms. Proud talk also to Council President White regarding the proposed ordinance. Councilman Johnson MOVED and Chairwoman Woods SECONDED the motion to forward the ordinance to the June 6, 1989 City Council Consent Calendar. Chairwoman Woods requested that Carol Proud speak to Councilman Dowell to answer any questions he might have in this regard. PONSSEN MANSION Assistant City Administrator Hansen displayed the Master Site Plan proposed by Larry Campbell. Mr. Campbell represents three attorneys who approached the City regarding a land exchange which would enable them to build law offices and which would enable the City to consolidate land around Aukeen Court for future use. The proposal includes providing access to the City property via S. 259th. This proposal had been placed on hold pending resolution of restoration of the Ponssen Mansion. Mr. Novak who represents the owners of the Ponssen Mansion declined interest in the City' s offer of a land exchange which would allow the mansion to remain on its present site. A cost of approximately $50, 000 is anticipated to move the mansion to another location. This cost has not been budgeted, nor does historical preservation rank high in the CIP process. The informal Internal Budget Committee (IBC) does not recommend allocation of funds for this purpose. However, Planning Director Harris noted that the IBC did recommend keeping options open and that the burden of preservation be placed on a citizen' s group. The City would consider contributing some funding to the project, as matching funds or on a percentage formula. Jim Harris stated lam. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Kent City Code Chapter 12.04 (City of Kent Subdivision Code) (Ordinance 1840) , to incorporate administrative application and review procedures for lot line adjustments and to clarify the definition of accumulative short subdivision, by amending Sections 12.04.020; 12.04 .030; amending 12.04 .040 to add new definitions and to renumber 12.04 .059 through 22.04.079; amending 12.04 .080 by deleting portions therein; amending 12.04.110; 12.04 .212; 12.04 .222; 12.04 .224; and adding a new Chapter 12.04.1000. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES j HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: � Section 1. Section 12.04 .020 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: The purpose of this code is to provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the City of Kent, and for administrative procedures for adjustments of lot lines in the City of Kent, insuring that the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be attained; that the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of land shall be insured; that proper provisions for all public facilities (including circulation, utilities, and services) shall be made; that maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be taken into consideration; that conformance with provisions set forth in the City of Kent Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be insured. Section 2. Section 12.04 .030 of the Kent City Code has been amended as follows: I i Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 1989 nes (Lr Ct�� Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: EASTWOOD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. SU-89-1 2 , SUMMARY STATEMENT: This 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. i E_C{ tic r.. nI I r i, 1 y� ld�t� i he 4�IGa��rll��c r� fvr�erl'F _ 4 r �t 11 y ---= k tom._..- � z C; t � 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, staff report, minu't , findings and recommendation, memo from Gary Gill, clay' ication of findings and recommendation 4 , RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner Apjil 19 1989 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUD43ETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMSP�CT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: r 1 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ar�ds Councilmember c 5 movet, ncil r to �inee�� t findings of the Hearing Examiner and to oncu a d`" =the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval of Eastwood Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-1 with five conditions as clarified. Dote k 11 m G-h pfl CR l i � (>d DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4A KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 1, 1989 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: • JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: EASTWOOD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION #SU-89-1 On April 5, 1989, the Kent Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider an application by W. S. Holmberg for a 21-lot, single family residential preliminary subdivision. The property is 4 . 36 acres in size and is located at 100th Avenue SE and SE 244th Street (extended) . On April 19, 1989 , the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of this preliminary subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. Solar access setback regulations shall be applied to all lots developed within the proposed subdivision. The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that development on all lots must conform to the solar access setback regulations of the Kent Zoning Code (15. 08. 230 et seq. ) . 2 . The area to the west of Lot 1 on the preliminary plat map currently designated as "pond" and consisting of 4,248 square feet shall be preserved and enhanced to provide habitat for wildlife that may presently inhabit the undisturbed woods. 3 . A comprehensive, accurate tree plan for each area to be developed shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Planning Department prior to any grading, filling or construction. The Planning Department shall make a determination of which trees shall be permitted to be removed and shall ensure the retainage of the maximum number of trees. 4 . Access to the proposed subdivision development shall be resolved prior to final plat approval. South 245th Place shall not be used for primary access to the proposed subdivision development. Lots #8, 9, 17 and 18 on the Preliminary Plat map shall not have vehicular access onto or from 100th Avenue. 5. City approval of detailed engineering drawings for storm system improvements (including dedication to City of detention pond) , sanitary sewer system (including extensions north to SE 244th Street and east along SE 244th Street to the easterly property line of the subject property) , water improvements (including a 10-inch main along the entire frontage of 100th Avenue SE and a minimum 6-inch main for cul-de-sacs) , and street improvements (including dedication of all necessary right of way to construct roadway improvements including curb MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JUNE 1, 1989 and gutter; minimum five foot sidewalks; street lighting, signs, and barricades; five foot wide gravel shoulder on west side of 100th Avenue and north side of SE 244th Street; and asphalt pavement of 28 feet curb-to-curb) is required prior to recordation of final plat. Additional conditions were applied at the time of the issuance of the Declaration of Nonsignificance. The conditions recommended above should be read in conjunction with those conditions. The Hearing Examiner further clarified his conditions on May 17, 1989 as follows: Condition 5 of the April 19th Decision of the Hearing Examiner may be further refined by reference to Recommended Conditions 4 through 10 of the City Staff Report dated March 27th if the City Public Works Department deems it advisable to do so to establish the precise nature of the conditions. JPH:ca CLARIFICATION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: EASTWOOD #SU-89-1 APPLICANT: W. S . HOLMBERG REOUEST• A request for a preliminary plat to subdivide a 4 . 36 acre parcel into 21 single-family building lots. LOCATION: The subject property i located at 100 Avenue SE and SE 24 th Street APPLICATION FILED: 12/29/88 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFIANCE: 1/30/89 MEETING DATE: 4/5/89 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 4/19/89 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS CLARIFICATION OF 5 L17/89 RECOMMENDATION - - -- STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Mary Duty, Planning Department Gary Gill, Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Shupe Holmberg, applicant Other Dale Hartman WRITTEN TESTIMONY: William & Karen Hukari INTRODUCTION The recommendation of the Hearing Examin City er was Kent Department of on April 19 , 1989 - On May 3 , 1989 Public Works requested a reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner r has reviewed the record in this decision. The Hearing Examine matter and has determined that a clarification of recommendation is the proper way to respond to the request for reconsideration. 1 Clarification of Hearing Examiner Recommendation Eastwood - #SU-89-1 CLARIFICATION OF RECOMMENDATION Under the Land Use Hearing Examiner ordinance (Section 2 . 54 . 150) , a request for reconsideration must set forth specific allegations of erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or must assert the discovery of new evidence following the hearing on which the decision was based. The Hearing Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper within any time frame he deems appropriate. While no specific error or indication of new evidence is set forth in the City Department of Public Works request for reconsideration, it seeks an amendment of the Hearing Examiner decision in a way which suggests an allegation of an error of judgment. This Clarification of Decision should remove all doubt about the meaning of the Hearing Examiner decision issued on April 19, 1989 in this matter and thus allow the recommendation for preliminary plat approval with conditions to be forwarded to the City Council at the time this Clarification is issued without further delay. It is the intent of the Hearing Examiner that this Clarification be considered along with the April 19th Decision as the recommendation to the City Council . No further public hearing should thus be required unless the Council deems that a change in the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation, as clarified herein, is necessary. See Section 2 . 3 . 2 (7) of Kent Subdivision Code. The Department of Public Works requests the Hearing Examiner to delete Condition 5 in his recommendation of April 19 , 1989 and insert the language of the Staff Recommendations contained in the City Staff Report dated March 27 , 1989 . Condition 5 of the Hearing Examiner reads as follows: 5. City approval of detailed engineering drawings for storm system improvements (including dedication to City of detention pond) , sanitary sewer system (including extensions north to SE 244th Street and east along SE 244th Street to the easterly property line of the subject property) , water improvements (including a 10 inch main along the entire frontage of 100th Avenue SE and a minimum 6 inch main for cul-de-sacs) , and street improvements (including dedication of all necessary right of way to construct roadway improvements including curb and gutter; minimum five foot sidewalks; street lighting, signs, and barricades; five foot wide shoulder on west side 2 Clarification of Hearing Examiner Recommendation Eastwood #SU-89-1 of 100th Avenue and north side of SE 244th Street; and asphalt pavement of 28 feet curb-to-curb) is required prior to recordation of final plat. The Hearing Examiner also noted that additional conditions were applied at the time of the issuance of the DNS related to storm water system and street improvements and thus decided that "the conditions recommended above should be read in conjunction with those conditions" in order to avoid conflicting interpretations of conditions. Conditions 4 through 10 of the City Staff Report read as follows: 4 . Storm System. Provide on-site storm water detention in accordance with City Standards. Incorporate biofiltration in system design. Dedicate detention pond as a separate tract to the City of Kent. 5. Sanitary Sewer. Provide city gravity sanitary sewer system to service all lots. Extend sanitary sewers north to SE 244th Street and east along SE 244th to the easterly property line of the subject property. 6. Water. Extend City water to provide adequate domestic and fire flows to service all lots (minimum 6" main required for cul-de-sacs) . A 10" main shall be extended along the entire frontage of 100th Avenue SE in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Water Plan. Fire hydrants will be provided in accordance with the City Fire Marshall . 7 . Internal Streets. Improve internal roadway system to residential access road standards (i.e. , curb and gutter, minimum 5 feet sidewalks, street lighting, asphalt pavement (minimum roadway width 28 feet curb to curb) , underground utilities, drainage, street signs, and related appurtenances) . Minimum curb return radii shall be 45 feet for cul-de-sacs and 25 feet at intersection with 100th Avenue. 8 . Improve 100th Avenue SE and SE 244th Street for entire frontage with half street improvements plus widen pavement and shoulder. The minimum street section shall consist of 24 ' of pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk on east and south side respectively, street lighting, storm drainage, underground utilities and related appurtenances. A 5 foot wide gravel ,. 3 Clarification of Hearing Examiner Recommendation Eastwood #SU-89-1 shoulder shall be required on the west side of 100th Avenue and the north side of 244th Street. 9 . Dedicate all necessary right of way to construct roadway improvements as noted above. 10. Provide all necessary street name signs, traffic control signs and barricades as determined necessary by the city's traffic Division. There is no inconsistency between Condition 5 as imposed by the Hearing Examiner and Staff recommendations 4 through 10. The Hearing Examiner proposed condition is less detailed than the Staff recommendations, but covers the same general areas of concern. The intent of the Hearing Examiner of Condition 5 in the April 19th recommendation is to fully embrace the thrust of City Staff recommendations 4 through 10 on page 15 of the Kent Planning Department Staff Report dated March 27th and to assure that those conditions would be read consistently with those applied at the environmental review stage. It is the opinion of the Hearing Examiner, based on his interpretation of statutes and City ordinances, that the City Engineer has significant discretion to determine the precise nature of improvements in the areas identified in Condition 5 of the Hearing Examiner decision in this matter. It is not necessary or desireable for the Hearing Examiner to review and recommended approval of those specific improvements when they are consistent with City ordinances or otherwise required by law so that a variance is not necessary. The role of the Hearing Examiner is to conduct a public hearing on a preliminary plat and to forward a recommendation to the City Council based on the consistency of the application with the objectives and goals of codes and ordinances of the City. See Section 2 . 54 . 100 B of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Code. It is the role of the City Engineer to verify that a subdivider has completed required installations identified in the preliminary plat in accordance with provisions of the subdivision code and other ordinances of the City. See Section 2 . 3 . 4 of Kent Subdivision Code and RCW 58 . 17 . 130 . The general nature of the required improvements must be identified at the time of the preliminary plat approval. Section 2 . 3 .4 (1) of the Kent Subdivision Code states that "the following tangible improvements 4 Clarification of Hearing Examiner Recommendation Eastwood #SU-89-1 may be required before a final plat is submitted. . . " (emphasis added) . This means if they are not identified, specific improvements may not be required of a subdivider in the areas indicated in that section. However, the precise detail of those improvements should depend upon the evolution of development of the site. Section 2 . 3 . 4 (4) states that no final plat shall be submitted until the City certifies that all improvements have been made "in a satisfactory manner" or a bond provided for the same. The specific nature of the improvements may change as the project moves forward. This is entirely permissible under state law and City ordinance. If the preliminary plat conditions were too specific, final improvements may not be precisely consistent with those conditions so that a certification of a final plat could be challenged. On the other hand, if the preliminary plat conditions are too general, the specific requirements for installations could be challenged as beyond the scope of the condition imposed. Obviously, a balance needs to be struck. Efforts to find the proper balance will continue as other cases are presented. The factors considered in determining how specific the conditions should be will vary from case to case. Factors may include how precise the City code is for a specified improvement, the existence of any controversy regarding a specified improvement, and the timing for the specified improvements in relation to surrounding development proposals. In this case, the precise nature of the conditions recommended by City staff for approval of the preliminary plat may need to be altered depending upon the timing of the development of an adjacent subdivision. This was evident when the recommended conditions were read in context with the DNS conditions as well as in testimony presented at the public hearing. The Hearing Examiner decision is intended to allow for exercise of discretion by the City Public Works department as these two subdivisions move forward - if, in fact, both do. The Hearing Examiner decision should not be read as a rejection of Staff recommendations 4 through 10. There may be matters in the future where staff recommendations are rejected for good reason, but this is not one. The Hearing Examiner thereby clarifies his April 19th decision in this matter as follows: 5 Clarification of Hearing Examiner Recommendation Eastwood _. #SU-89-1 Condition 5 of the April 19th Decision of the Hearing Examiner may be further refined by reference to Recommended Conditions 4 through 10 of the City Staff Report dated March 27th if the City Public Works Department deems it advisable to do so to establish the precise nature of the conditions. Decided this 17th day of May, 1989 . THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner 6 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS May 3 , 1989 TO: TED HUNTER HEARING EXAMINER(l' J FROM: GARY GILL CITY ENGINEER RE: EASTWOOD SUBDIVISION #SU-89-1 In reviewing your Findings and Recommendations dated 4/19/89 for the above referenced subdivision, we find that Condition #5 did not include the conditions contained in the staff report. We are asking that your Findings of April 19 , 1989 be amended to delete Condition #5 as contained therein and to include those conditions as listed in the Staff Report for same, a copy of which is attached. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: EASTWOOD #SU-89-1 APPLICANT: W. S . HOLMBERG REOUEST: A request for a preliminary plat to subdivide a 4. 36 acre parcel into 21 single-family building lots. LOCATION: The subject property is lcoated at 100 Avenue SE and SE 244th Street (extended) . APPLICATION FILED: 12/29/88 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFIANCE: 1/30/89 MEETING DATE: 4/5/89 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 4/19/89 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Mary Duty, Planning Department Gary Gill , Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Shupe Holmberg, applicant Other Dale Hartman WRITTEN TESTIMONY• William & Karen Hukari INTRODUCTION After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application: FINDING OF FACT 1. The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 4 .36 acre parcel into 21 single-family lots. The average lot size is 71535 square feet with the largest lot of 8, 103 square feet and the smallest lot of 7 , 200 square feet. The subdivision would allow 1 Findings and Recommendation Eastwood #SU-89-1 for 21 detached single-family homes with a density of 5. 0 units per acre. 2 , The subject property is located on the northeast corner of proposed 100th Avenue SE and SE 244th Street (Lot 17 of R.O. Smith' s Orchard Tracts Addition) . 3 , The proposed subdivision site is within the R1-7 . 2 , Single- Family Residential zoning district. Surrounding in prop e Family the north, south and east is also zoned R1-7 .2 , g Residential. The area to the west is zoned R1-9 . 61 Single- Family Residential. 4 . The proposed plat is in general conformance with the regulations of the City of Kent Subdivision Code regarding preliminary plat requirements with the exception that no attempt has been made to identify wildlife present in the area as required f n Kent the Subdivision Code. See, Section 2 .3 . 2 (2) (b) (9) Subdivision Code. 5. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan designate the area as appropriate for multifamily development. he need to assure a decent omoting The Plans also recognize t environment for families desiring to live in Kent by p g respond to the natural orderly development patterns which es support single-family environment. These goals and objectiv residential use of the site. he comprehensive providing lforgwildlife objectives establish a City policy o habitat areas within new developments. The proposed subdivision site is within a natural area of woodlands of high importance to residents surrounding the site. There are large evergreens and deciduous trees as well as a considerable amount of forest undergrowth. The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives endorse the retention of open space in residential areas. 6. The proposed subdivision site is presently undeveloped land. A carefully designed street system, water system, sanitary sewer system, storm water system and tree preservation plan are essential elements of this development. Street and sidewalk improvements are of particular concern to the Kent School District which commented on this application regarding the increase in numbers of school children due to thios to and development from and the need for a safe walking course as they g school or a bus stop. 7 , Sections I through Iv of the Kent Planning Department staff report dated March 27 , 1989 are incorporated into these findings by reference as if set forth in full. 2 Findings and Recommendation Eastwood #SU-89-1 CONCLUSIONS 1. Based on the Findings set forth above, the application for approval of the preliminary plat will meet the criteria set forth in the City of Kent Subdivision Code and in the City' s Comprehensive Plans if certain conditions are applied. 2 . Conditions upon approval of the preliminary plat application are necessary to protect solar access, wildlife and the natural environment, the character of surrounding neighborhoods, proper development of necessary streets and utilities, and appropriate traffic circulation patterns. DECISION It is the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to the City Council that the application for preliminary plat approval be APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. Solar access setback regulations shall be applied to all lots developed within the proposed subdivision. The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that development on all lots must conform to the solar access setback regulations of the Kent Zoning Code (15. 08 . 230 et seq. ) . 2 . The area to the west of Lot 1 on the preliminary plat map currently designated as "pond" and consisting of 4, 248 square feet shall be preserved and enhanced to provide habitat for wildlife that may presently inhabit the undisturbed woods. 3 . A comprehensive, accurate tree plan for each area to be developed shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Planning Department prior to any grading, filling or construction. The Planning Department shall make a determination of which trees shall be permitted to be removed and shall ensure the retainage of the maximum number of trees. 4 . Access to the proposed subdivision development shall be resolved prior to final plat approval. South 245th Place shall not be used for primary access to the proposed subdivision development. Lots #8 , 9, 17 and 18 on the Preliminary Plat map shall not have vehicular access onto or from 100th Avenue. 5. City approval of detailed engineering drawings for storm system improvements (including dedication to City of detention pond) , sanitary sewer system (including extensions north to SE 244th Street and east along SE 244th Street to the easterly property line of the subject property) , water improvements (including a 10-inch main along the entire frontage of 100th Avenue SE and a minimum 6-inch main for cul-de-sacs) , and street improvements 3 Findings and Recommendation Eastwood #SU-89-1 (including dedication of all necessary right of way to construct roadway improvements including curb and gutter; minimum five foot sidewalks; street lighting, signs, and barricades; five foot wide gravel shoulder on west side of 100th Avenue and north side of SE 244th Street; and asphalt pavement of 28 feet curb- to-curb) is required prior to recordation of final plat. Additional conditions were applied at the time of the issuance of the Declaration of Nonsignificance. The conditions recommended above should be read in conjunction with those conditions. DECIDED THIS 19th DAY OF April, 1989 ./ THEODORE PAUL HUNTER, HEARING EXAMINER Rectuest of Reconsideration Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 Fourth Avenue S . , Kent, WA 98032 . Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural omissions from the record, errors in interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and Resolution #896 for specific information. 4 CITY OF KENT • planning 1 I SE 232N0 ST SE ST nl (D g 232ND S 232N0 1 ..A �I 272N0 w b � 2 y S7 1',.. • .. ' PL T7 ST 1 ? i t •O .•- 4 33RO S. /p�1.55Q�. �[ Y ro n o JO SE 236TH ST AV _ E J'n1� SE 1^ •^ LPL �-_ I W S 236TH m ° Nnl el I ST i SE 236TH PE i c n SE 2311H ST a t E 23STM !1'a•.I' ST p T - (�) SE 239TH P' u z ST PTH SE OTH 2391 PL 1 ti l/ '< ST �.1 W n y PI-0 I" EAST HILL i �, ELEMENTARY S 241ST ST m SCHOOL - 3 6 S 212N01 ST ✓, n 0 S 2430.0 y ST ST 'SE 1AATH !NTH ,� e ST i , ^ < p 2 MES OOL w n S 246TH S r !47TH v. < FN W S7 SE r F W n 240TH $T a a > g 218TH ST16 S y W f z i •r P � f O f Ya� :Y1. till\�.'1 W st NO s* / 4 252NL i EAST HILL CLNTLR : SE 252NO �r-�.1-.::'v':;�� I1,•In 515 < 1< { O`f„• Khi x z "County �c i u Ei` 1/i�P011C8 q0 KENT-MERIDIAN � + m W TF '! I.'✓•%(. 10 19R.H1.SCHOOL Y °,.1 -•.7 , SE 256TH ST x n ST )' 'li i•: W r W i• J H M 'IHY „ Gib •L (v J W SE k'Ip 260TH °lE •t••NN ! e ibTM �• ST Y q0A SCENIC HILLER ELEMENTARY \ l _ SCHOOL W 1 SEQUOIA SCHOOL S Z�1M0 ! x 1 1'1 I F A'I,IP1 it 11 W 5) APPLICATION Name EASTWOOo LEGEND Nurnher #Su-89-1 �aIC APRIL 5, 1989 applicalieo silo ----• - touiug 6amrdary flaqua$1 to subdivide a 4.36 acre parcel into 21 single-family building lots. Clly IIIUIIS VICINITY I4AP URI = 1" = 1000, CI'YY OF RENT planning I 77f f L� ��C) tJ VVV711 0 o - WON= - -- - --_ b 0 ( I I _ I . . tt16 la a w I - i rS 1 „CIO \ 6 C CUd J 0ty APPLICATION Namo EASTWOOD LEGEND — Humbu riSu-89-1 D1IB APRIL 5, 1989 a�IullCallCn 31IC •���� �1C[IUCSI to subdivide a 4.36 acre parcel into 21 tolling boundary single-family building lots. Cily limits TOPOGRAPHY/ZONING MAP 200 CITa' Of KENT planning a. -o 7� n n R n I C I S. a � m m m I i =50; Oz scs Eato- c to a 5' ii =c„ Er = E• APPLICATIDN Hama EASTWOOD LEGEND Number #SU-89-1 Daie APRIL 5. 1989 application Bile tani�g bemulary RegUCSI to subdivide a 4.36 acre parcel into 21 city limits single-familiy buildi.ng lots SITE PLAN SCALE = No scale Hearing Examiner Minutes April 5, 1989 stating that mainly geese and duck would be using the site. That plan was presented for approval to the Corps in order for a permit to be issued. Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. (1-358) Michael Martin, Axelrod Company, commented he prepared the mitigation plan along with an ecologist from Shapiro & Associates who will be available for questions. Mr. Martin pointed out on the transparency the location of the James Street Crossing development where were located scattered wetlands. An application was filed with the Corps who determined along with the State Wildlife Department that another site would need to be obtained in order to create additional wetland to make up for the destroyed wetlands. This site was chosen because the of the potential for complete success of creating new wetlands. Mr. Martin talked about the Corps requirements for creating the wetlands. No determination has been made at this time where the fill will be dumped, although it will be off-site. Mr. Martin talked about what the permit from the Corps requires. Further, one of the conditions with the Corps is that upon completion of the project, either a State or Federal Agency or a nonprofit organization committed to the preservation of wetlands shall be deeded the property. Mr. Martin commented the Federal and States agencies felt this proposed site would be ideal for creating additional wetlands. He requested that consideration be given to the fact that the Federal and State agencies would be monitoring the site and that another monitoring agency would not be necessary. Mr. Martin stated that the work should be done within the next year, and it will be monitored for three to five years. There was no further testimony. The hearing was closed. 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes April 5, 1989 EASTWOOD Preliminary Plat #SU=89-1 A request by W. S. Holmberg, 715 Sunrise Place SW, Issaquah, WA 98027 , for a preliminary plat located in an R1-7.21 Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet) zoning district. The subject property is located at 100th Avenue SE and SE 244th Street (extended) . (1-667) Mary Duty, Kent Planning Department, presented the staff report. Ms. Duty reiterated the applicant's request and mentioned the proposed lot sizes. The proposed density is approximately five units per acre. Some transparencies were shown depicting 1) the location of the site, 2) the zoning of the area and site and 3) the plot plan of the proposed subdivision. Ms. Duty gave a brief description of the topography of the site. The area north, east and west of the site are developed predominantly as single-family residential. Ms. Duty commented that residences built on the site would need to meet the Solar Access Setback provisions of the Zoning Code. Lots 51 14 , and 12 would require careful attention to location of a house in order to meet the Code. Ms. Duty briefly reviewed goals, objectives and policies of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan. It was felt that some effort in preserving some of the natural habitat/woodlands should be made in developing this subdivision. A tree plan will be required prior to work being done on the site. A video of the site was shown. Traffic mitigation conditions have been determined through SEPA review. Further, access to lots in the subdivision has been determined and lots 81 91 17 and 18 should not be allowed access to 100th Avenue SE. A recommended condition of plat approval is that there be a barricade placed on the north end of 100th Avenue SE unless the Canterbury Subdivision to the south does not develop, and a fire vehicle turnaround be provided at the barricade intersection of 100th Avenue SE and SE 244th Street. Ms. Duty stated the staff recommends approval with conditions. (1-1188) Kathy McClung, Planning Department, commented the reason for asking that the Tree Plan be a condition of the plat is that potential buyers or developers can note the condition and ther will be no misunderstanding regarding the cutting of trees 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes April 5, 1989 Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. The applicant, Shupe Holmberg, 1505 Northwest Gilman Boulevard #7, Issaquah, WA 98027, indicated he was available for questions but did not intend to comment. Mr. Hunter asked if anyone would like to comment. (1-1268) (1-000) Dale Hartman, 8949 S. 245th Place, asked if the comment about the barricades could be explained. He inquired that if Canterbury subdivision were not developed, would access from this subdivision be from S. 244th? Mr. Hartman assumed there would be half-street improvements with sidewalks. He wanted to know the approximate value of the homes to be constructed. Mr. Hartman asked if the pond shown on the plans would be used for storm drainage and retention. Mr. Hartman commented he had his property surveyed and he would be willing to show where the corner was located. There was no further testimony. Mr. Hunter asked for rebuttal from the City. (1-181) Gary Gill , Kent City Engineer, responded to the questions asked by Mr. Hartman. In regard to the barricade, if the Canterbury subdivision is not developed prior to the construction of this subdivision, then 100th Avenue will not provide a link between 248th and the subject site; a condition for barricades at the northwest corner of this property would not be required. The Public Works Department requested that this condition be flexible so at the time of development the traffic situation can be studied and the best use of barricades and signing could be made. Mr. Gill stated there will be sidewalks required along the entire frontage of the property on the eastern side of 100th Avenue. The Public Works Department will be working with the developer to determine the size and design of the pond to prevent off-site flows from being any greater than what existed prior to development. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide some water quality enhancement to the pond as well as storm detention/retention. There were conditions of SEPA in regard to the impacts of water retention/detention and off-site flows. There was no further testimony. The public hearing was closed at 3 : 55 p.m. 5 Hearing Examiner Minutes April 5, 1989 _.. HEHR ANNEXATION #RZ-89-1 The last item on the agenda was a request by the City of Kent Planning Department, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032, to attach initial zoning to approximately 4. 6 acres annexed into the City in January 1989 . The Comprehensive Plan designation is SF, Single Family, 4-6 units per acre. Currently three single-family residences exist on the site. The subject property is located on the west side of 116th Avenue SE approximately 150 feet south of SE 221th Place. (1-434) Lauri Anderson, Kent Planning Department, reiterated the request. Ms. Anderson displayed some transparencies indicating 1) the location of the subject property, and 2) current zoning of the site and surrounding zoning. Ms. Anderson commented that property to the north of the subject property is in King County. A video of the site was shown. Ms. Anderson commented on the goals, objectives and policies of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan. Ms. Anderson commented that under the single-family zoning approximately 20 single-family residences could be established on this site. An application has been received from Mr. Hehr requesting a subdivision for 12 lots. The staff is recommending approval of the proposed R1-7 . 2 , Single-Family Residential, zoning. Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. (1-822) Gregg Nelson, 11317 SE 228th Place, Kent, WA 98031, owner of Lot 6 of Parkmar, was concerned about the storm retention/detention on this site. Currently, there is a great deal of water run-off from this property. There was no further testimony. Mr. Hunter asked for City rebuttal. (1-944) Ms. Anderson commented that as part of the preliminary plat process, drainage concerns will be addressed. The public hearing was closed at 4 :10 p.m. 6 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1989 FILE NO: EASTWOOD SUBDIVISION #SU-89-1 APPLICANT: William Shupe Holmberg REQUEST: A request for final subdivision approval for 21 single-family residential lots. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Mary Duty STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The proposal is for the subdivision of a 4 . 36 acre parcel into 21 single-family lots. The average lot size is 7 , 535 square feet with the largest lot being 8 , 103 square feet and the smallest lot being 7, 200 square feet. The resulting subdivision will provide for 21 detached single-family homes at a density of approximately 5 . 0 units per acre. B. Location The subject property is located on the northeast corner of proposed 100th Avenue SE and SE 244th Street (Lot 17 , R.O. Smith's Orchard Tracts Addition) . C. Size of Property The subject property is 4 . 36 acres in size. D. Zoning The proposed subdivision site is within the R1-7 . 2 , Single-Family Residential, zoning district (minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet) . Surrounding property to the north, south and east is also zoned R1-7 . 2 . The area located to the west, across proposed 100th Avenue SE, is zoned R1-9 . 6, single Family Residential (9 , 600 square feet minimum lot size) . 1 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 All lots meet or exceed the minimum lot size as specified in the development standards for the R1-7 . 2 zoning district. All lots appear to have an adequate building area to meet the required yard setbacks for future development. Lots 14 has a narrow lot width. The minimum required lot width is 70 feet. The street-side lot line may have a width of 80 percent of this 70 feet (or 56 feet) in a residential zone, while lots having frontage along the turnaround circle of a cul-de-sac may provide even less width than the required 80 percent. In addition, solar access setback regulations will apply to all lots. The purpose of the solar access setback provisions is to provide a reasonable amount of solar access to lots in the City so that the economic value of solar radiation falling on those properties will be preserved and the option to use solar energy will be encouraged. Any structures built on the lots in a residential zone must maintain solar access to the adjacent lots to the north. Preliminary reviews indicate that lots 5, 14 and 12 may have an especially restricted building area due to required solar access setbacks from the north property line. Buildings on these lots should be carefully designed to comply with the solar access setback regulations so that the highest shade producing point of the structure above grade does not cast a prohibited shadow onto adjoining property. Other lots must also meet the solar access setbacks. E. Subdivision Code The purpose of the City of Kent Subdivision Code is to provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the City of Kent, ensuring that the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be attained; that the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of land shall be ensured; that proper provisions for all public facilities 2 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 (including circulation, utilities, and services) shall be taken into consideration; that conformance with provisions set forth in the City of Kent Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be ensured. Planning Department Comment: The proposed plat is in general conformance with the regulations of the Subdivision Code. Streets conform to the circulation pattern established in the area and all proposed sewers, water mains, and other utilities will comply with applicable City requirements. F. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development and spending decisions . Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. This area is served by the East Hill subarea plan. The following is a review of these plans as they relate to the subject property. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City-wide Comprehensive Plan is made up of two entities: the Comprehensive Plan Map and the written goals, objectives and policies. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as MF, Multifamily. The goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Plan, however, support single family residential use of the proposed site. 3 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT - NATURAL RESOURCES OVERALL GOAL: PROTECT AND ENHANCE EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES . GOAL 1: Ensure the preservation of ecosystems and protect their aesthetic values. Objective 1: Preserve and protect suitable habitat for local species. Objective 2 : Protect and enhance existing nesting, breeding, spawning and feeding areas. Planning Department Comment: This Comprehensive Plan goal and objectives establish the city policy which causes new private developments in wildlife areas to landscape at least three (3) percent of their land for wildlife. If approved, this proposal should provide habitat for the birds and other wildlife which currently use the site. This requirement could be met by retention of some of the forested areas in their natural condition. If possible, contiguous forested areas should be maintained in their natural state to provide feed and shelter for the animals presently inhabiting the undisturbed woods. A pond located at the southwest corner of the site will be deeded to the City and used as a storm detention facility. This area could also be used to acheive the desired habitat noted above. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION IN KENT, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT. GOAL 3 : Assure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering a diversity of size, densities, age, style and cost. Objective 2 : Encourage the production of a variety of new dwelling units. 4 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 Planning Department Comment: This Comprehensive Plan goal and objective establishes the City policy of promoting a mix of housing types in Kent. A major distinction in types of housing units is that between multifamily and single family units. In recent years, multifamily development has far outpaced single family construction. If approved, this proposal will make available 21 single family residential lots. This will encourage the production of single family dwellings in the area and help to restore a balance in the mix of single family and multifamily housing types. EAST HILL PLAN As with the City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the East Hill has two components: the East Hill Plan Map, which designates the site as MF12 , Multifamily with 7 to 12 units per acre, and the Goals, Objectives and Policies, some of which are detailed below. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WHICH RECOGNIZE AND RESPOND TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE FUNCTIONING OF NATURAL SYSTEMS. Goal 1: Preservation and enhancement of the natural qualities that make the East Hill area an attractive place in which to live. Objective 1: Promote development that utilizes significant natural features to enhance development character and preserve natural amenities. Objective 2 : Maintain and restore the natural character of the East Hill community through the retention and introduction of native and ornamental plants in existing and planned development. 5 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 Planning Department Comment: In a May 1981 telephone survey of residents in the East Hill area, respondents were asked about the importance of natural features and resources of the East Hill area in maintaining their quality of life. Natural views and woodland areas were described as being "very important" by 60 percent or more. Woodlands received the highest importance rating (79 percent) . According to the East Hill Plan, woodlands also maintain soil stability and protect water quality by reducing erosion, moderate flooding by reducing the rate and volume of storm runoff, and increase human comfort by moderating temperatures, acting as windbreaks and reducing noise levels, glare and reflection. Care must be taken with this proposal to preserve, as much as practicable, the forest amenities so valued by East Hill residents. A comprehensive, accurate tree plan for each lot, showing all trees of six-inch caliper or greater, will need to be submitted by the applicant prior to any grading, filling or construction on that lot. The plan should also show the trees in relationship to any proposed structure. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL RESIDENTS HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES . Goal 1: Residential development that is related to the availability of community facilities and services. Objective 1: When making decisions concerning land use, consider the adequacy of and impact upon roads and other public facilities and services including utilities, policy and fire protection , public transportation, schools and parks. Policy 1 : Ensure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support development at proposed densities. 6 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 Policy 2 : Locate new single-family detached residential development in areas and at densities which permit roads, utilities, public transit, schools and other public facilities and services to be provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Planning Department Comment: The proposed subdivision will result in 21 single family dwellings and provide an infill of development at a site surrounded primarily by single family development. Assuming 2 . 9 persons per household, adequate community facilities and services will be available to serve an additional 61 persons. As a condition of subdivision approval, the two internal cul-de-sacs to the site will be fully improved. In addition, improvements will be made to 100th Avenue SE and SE 244th Street. A traffic study and mitigation measures to control the traffic impacts due to the Eastwood Subdivision development will be undertaken. (In lieu of the traffic study, the developer may execute a no-protest LID agreement to participate in the formation of an LID to construct the S . 272nd/277th Street corridor project. ) The subject site has access to public transportation. METRO service is available on 104th Avenue SE, approximately 650 feet to the east of the proposed development. On February 22 , 1989 , the Kent Planning Department received a letter from the Superintendent of the Kent School District. In his letter, Mr. Daniel emphasized the fact that the School District is not able to build new schools fast enough to accommodate the rapid growth that the Kent area is facing. He says, "In short, we do not have room for the children that will be generated by this development" . The letter suggests collecting mitigation fees from developers. The City does not have a mechanism to collect fees from developers in order to accommodate costs of adding facilities for the School District. 7 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision ttSU-89-1 As a result of street and sidewalk improvements, pedestrian and vehicular traffic will have safe and efficient access through the area. GOAL 4 : Adequate land and facilities to provide recreational opportunities for those living and working in the East Hill area. Objective 3 : Provide open space or vegetative buffers throughout the community as urban or suburban development occurs. Planning Department Comment: This Comprehensive Plan goal and objective endorses the retention of open space in residential areas for the passive and active recreational use of those who live nearby. The developer of the Eastwood Subdivision should consider increasing the attractiveness of the developed property to potential home-buyers by providing common open space or a small neighborhood park within the subdivision. Through the provision of such an amenity, the developer would also be contributing to an enhanced quality of life for the neighborhood. ZI. HISTORY Site and Area History The proposed subdivision occupies Lot 17 of R.O. Smith' s Orchard Tracts Addition. This site was part of the East Hill Well 2 (Area A) Annexation to the City which occurred in the spring of 1987 . This annexation was the result of the City taking over the water system for customers of the East Hill Well Company. Prior to annexation, the property was zoned SR-7200 under the jurisdiction of King County. Following annexation, an interim R1-20, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size 20, 000 square feet) , zoning was applied. The present R1-7 .2 , Single Family Residential , zoning was implemented in August of 1987 . 8 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 III . LAND USE Land use in the area is almost exclusively residential. 1. The site itself is currently undeveloped. 2 . To the south is the recently approved, but undeveloped, Canterbury Subdivision. 3 . To the north, east and west are single family residences. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Environmental Assessment A final Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued on January 30, 1989 with the following conditions: 1. Storm drainage from the site has no positive outlet out of the immediate area. Storm waters pond on the downstream property (Canterbury Subdivision) . Should the Canterbury property not develop in a timely manner to resolve the drainage needs of this development, Eastwood Subdivision shall than have to install the necessary storm drainage crossing of 248th Street to provide a positive outlet for its drainage. A detailed storm drainage analysis shall be completed for City review and approval. other impacts may be identified and mitigating measures may be required by the City as a result of this analysis. Resolution of this drainage issue shall be required prior to finalizing this plat. 2 . The developer of the Eastwood Subdivision shall do a traffic study to identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic signal system. The study shall identify all intersections in this area at service "E" or "F" , or which will be at level of service "E" or "F" due to increased traffic volumes from this development. The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the findings of the 9 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 study and mitigation measures outlined in the study, implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be the conditional requirement of the issuance of the respective development permits. In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing and/or implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts due to the development. A. The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to financially participate and pay a fair share of the costs associated with the construction of the 272nd/277th Street corridor project. The minimum benefit to the above development is estimated at $22 , 428, based upon 21 p.m. peak hour trips entering and leaving the site and the capacity of the South 272nd/277th Street corridor. The execution of this agreement will serve to mitigate traffic impacts to the above mentioned intersections and road system by committing funding for the South 272nd/277th Street corridor, which will provide additional capacity for traffic volumes within the area of the above mentioned development. 3 . Access to this plat is dependent on the development of the property to the south (Canterbury Subdivision) . Should the development of the subject plat proceed ahead of the plat of Canterbury, then access to the Eastwood Subdivision shall be provided from 104th Avenue via South 244th Steet. As such, South 244th Street (from the easterly property line of this development) shall be improved where unopened and reconstructed where opened, with 24-feet width of asphalt pavement with appropriate base, sub-base, and 5-foot crushed rock shoulders. Storm drainage provisions shall also be incorporated into said improvements. All of the above shall be in accordance with City approved plans. The resolution of the Plat access situation shall be resolved prior to finalizing this plat. 10 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 B. Significant Physical Features Topography and vegetation The subject site is presently undeveloped ground. The topography is fairly hilly, with a gradual slope to the west of about 7 percent. The parcel is covered with numerous large evergreens and some deciduous trees. A considerable amount of forest undergrowth also exists. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System Access to this plat is dependent on the development of the property to the south (Canterbury Subdivision) . The subject property has access to SE 244th Street and proposed 100th Avenue SE. SE 244th Street and 100th Avenue SE are both classified as local arterials. 100th Avenue has a public right-of-way width of 30 feet while the actual width of paving is 18-20 feet. The average daily traffic count on SE 244th Street is 2 , 800 vehicle trips per day. Those properties fronting two streets (Lots 8, 9, 17 and 18) will not be allowed access onto or from 100th Avenue SE in order to reduce impacts onto 100th Avenue SE. Traffic mitigation conditions have already been determined as part of the SEPA review process. Should the development of the subject plat proceed ahead of the Canterbury plat to the south, then access to the Eastwood subdivision will be provided from 104th Avenue via South 244th Street. South 244th (from easterly line of development) will be improved where unopened and reconstructed where opened (24 foot wide asphalt, 5 feet crushed rock shoulders, storm drainage) . In addition to the SEPA conditions, as part of this subdivision approval, both 100th Avenue SE and SE 244th street will be improved with half street improvements (24 foot pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, storm drainage, underground utilities, etc) . 11 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 The north end of 100th Avenue SE must be barricaded unless the Canterbury Subdivision to the south does not develop. A fire vehicle turnaround will need to be provided at the barricaded intersection of 100th Avenue SE and SE 244th Street. The two cul-de-sacs in the Eastwood Subdivision will be developed to serve the proposed lots. Full street improvements will be provided including a minimum 28- foot wide pavement, curbs and gutters, minimum five feet sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage facilities, underground utilities, and related appurtenances. The rights of way will be deeded to the City of Kent. 2 . Water System An existing 16-inch water main is available in SE 244th Street to serve the subject property. Water service from the City of Kent will be provided to all lots. The main size shall be sufficient to provide required fire and domestic flows. Minimum main size shall be six-inches. Along 100th Avenue SE a ten-inch water line shall be extended from SE 244th STreet to the south property line of the subject property. Water lines shall also be extended through the cul-de-sacs to serve abutting lots. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System The site is not currently served by a sanitary sewer. Main line sewer extensions will be made north to SE 244th Street and east along SE 244th Street to the easterly property line and through cul-de-sacs to serve adjacent lots. All lots will be connected to the City sanitary sewer system. On and off site easements will be provided as necessary in order to make the required connections. 12 - Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 4 . Storm Water System On and off site detailed plans of the storm drainage improvements will be required as part of the plat approval. 5. LID' s No LIDs are on record at this time. V. MEETINGS CORRESPONDENCE AND LEGAL NOTICES A tentative plat meeting with the applicant and members of the subdivision committee was held on December 22, 1988 . All appropriate comments and concerns have been included in this report. VI . CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: City Administrator City Attorney Director of Public Works Chief of Police Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief Building Official City Clerk In addition to the above, all persons owning property located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the April 5, 1989 public hearing. Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. vII. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, East Hill Plan, present zoning, land use, the street system, and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as MF, Multifamily Residential. 13 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 B. The East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as MF12 , Multifamily Residential , 7-12 units per acre. C. The site is presently zoned R1-7 .2, Single Family Residential, 71200 square feet minimum lot size. D. All lots meet or exceed the minimum lot size as specified in the development standards for the R1-7 . 2, Single Family Residential Zoning District. Lot width should be increased for lot 14 . All lots (but particularly Lots 5, 12 and 14 must conform to the solar access setback regulations. E. Land use in the area is predominantly single family residential with some multifamily residential . F. The proposed subdivision will have access to SE 244th Street by means of improved 100th Avenue SE and two local cul-de-sacs. VIII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a preliminary plat, the City staff recommends approval with the following conditions: A. Prior to Recordation of Plat: 1. Execute a signal participation agreement for a future traffic signal at the intersection of SE 244th Street and 104th Avenue SE (SR515) . 2 . The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that all lots must conform to the solar access setback regulations of the Zoning Code. 3 . Lots #8 , 91 17 , and 18 shall not have vehicular access on to or from 100th Avenue. A statement per same shall be denoted on the face of the plat map. Obtain City approval of detailed engineering drawings for the following improvements and either construct and/or bond for the same: 14 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 4 . Storm System. Provide on-site storm water detention in accordance with City Standards. Incorporate biofiltration in system design. Dedicate detention pond as a separate tract to the city of Kent. 5. Sanitary Sewer. Provide city gravity sanitary sewer system to service all lots. Extend sanitary sewers north to SE. 244th Street and east along SE 244th to the easterly property line of the subject property. 6 . Water. Extend City water to provide adequate domestic and fire flows to service all lots (miminum 6" main required for cul-de-sacs) . A 10" main shall be extended along the entire frontage of 100th Avenue SE in accordance with the City' s Comprehensive Water Plan. Fire hydrants will be provided in accordance with the City Fire Marshall. 7 . Internal Streets. Improve internal roadway system to residential access road standards (i.e. , curb and gutter, minimum 5 feet sidewalks, street lighting, asphalt pavement (minimum roadway width 28 feet curb to curb) , underground utilities, drainage, street signs, and related appurtenances) . Minimum curb return radii shall be 45 feet for cul-de-sacs and 25 feet at intersection with 100th Avenue. 8 . Improve 100th Avenue SE and SE 244th Street for entire frontage with half street improvements plus widen pavement and shoulder. The minimum street section shall consist of 24 ' of pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk on east and south side respectively, street lighting, storm drainage, underground utilities and related appurtenances. A 5 foot wide gravel shoulder shall be required on the west side of 100th Avenue and the north side of 244th Street. 9 . Dedicate all necessary right of way to construct roadway improvements as noted above. 10 . Provide all necessary street name signs, traffic control signs and barricades as determined necessary by the City' s traffic Division. 15 Staff Report Eastwood Subdivision #SU-89-1 B. Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of any development permit: Provide a comprehensive, accurate tree plan for each lot, showing all trees of six-inch caliper or greater. The plan should also show the trees in relationship to any proposed structure. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 27 , 1989 16 CITY or KENT planning �1 rt t) I� ' I ' _I via .1 Q ■ ■ 1 I } ( \ r I}I t / •III fj �I^-~~��� &t�}ly'' 7 I r o :.- } 24e tH :,I.S: APPLICATION Name EASTWOOD LEGEND Numhor TISu-89-1 Dalo APRIL s, 1989 applicalioa silo •••.. LT0P,0,G,RA�P10iY/Z0N t subdivide a 4.36 acre parcel into 21 toning boundafy single-family building lots. city limits I°JG hIAP = 1" _ 200' CITY OF KEN'1 planning a.. �o P rt - CO 1 I 1 IS 1 1 i 1 I ' i W s 1 I? s _ s! I 1• 1• o f� 9 Ism O0; D > prA� _COM = r- ! � psi 0 CO Z O Tf t Z ! ! S Pil 11 -- f+li APPLICATION Nuic EASTWOOD LECE1i0 Nllnlbar #SU-89-1 APRIL 5, 1989 appliealion silo (jC(IUC$l to subdivide a 4.36 acre parcel into 21 zoning boundary single-familiy buildi.ng lots Cily limns SITE PLAN SCALE - No scale - CITY OF IS I;NT Planning S 232HO � I S 232NO T A SE 232,N0 ST n SE I n 1 212NO 2 ST ST ST { > PL 231R0 0 J•YL ~ i S i Sillr i 0yL>yQ" Fit N o Sc0 SE 236TH ST AvE CITY a1O r S 236TH P < ST a ="' SE 2351H PLlie x N SC 2]7TH ST > w ^"T�'•rt ` > P 238TH m ST 0 S r N (PN3 EpK7 A• SE 23YTH T- 1 _ x G O vWST _ _ _ 279t PL 1 b l/ t SE oTH ST 10 ST I > N r V'r•1 EAST HILL S 2415T ST ¢ {EII ELEMENTARY m SCHOOL ' 3 S 2a2HO a ST N = N 5 24 JRD a 0 ST SE 2a4TH .. > ST - !IaTH ST > C W P < > O y W OO OOL n, r9 N = 5 2a6TH S :a7TH m VL ST x x N W N 5E 245T11 ST a m � 5 2aBTN ST ' Jf �> x > �p W Z f 516 \rI I-'rf S1252HL 5T i EAST HILL W -NIER T N R ti: J OI.•..rH SE 252N0 �_ m > f rid 5i W < W -,King County } W i IA7,4Police q x x 1 x m W 7A \ O RENT—MERI-MERIDIAN ^ < Ypi^'1•`.�'_.t. �p I�SR.HI. SCHOOL _ >< S SE 256TH ST 5T �0 N m ` � W > g.E -1 NY . E•tlr 4�:vG� i k SE . \-. ! ZMT. I• 260T51 , 01Cy �..3 SCENIC HILLER qp ELEMENTARY < L — SCHOOL W 1 i SEQUOIA JR.HI. I \ SCHOOL I t 5 162 MO � _ NI \ � � Af lr,✓,it lI APPLICATION Nun EASTw000 LEGEND Numbof #SU-89-1 OaIC APRIL 6> 1989 applidioa silt ----. RC HSI to subdivide a 4.36 acre iolllfl(J iloundafy fi parcel into 21 single-family building lots. Cliy Ihnils VICINITY I4AP SC d = rr = 10001 -� Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 . 1989 Category Other Business nr . 1.YSUBJECT: EAST VALLEY ZONING IMPLEMENTATION NO. CPZ-89-1 - ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Ordinance No. and Resolution No. have been prepared, approving the East Valley zoning implementation No. CPZ-89-1 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. 3 . EXHIBITS• Ordinance 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 5, 1989 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ 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. 4B 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 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. 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 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. i 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. 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. 2 - 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. 10,00o 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 - i ro I No landscaping along the side property Y 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..II 3. A landscape strip of at least fifteen (15) fee 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 i 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 II 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. 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. Section 2. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. 6 - r i i Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take I effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, i approval and publication as provided by law. i DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK I APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of , 1989. APPROVED the day of , 1989. PUBLISHED the day of , 1989. I 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 I I 7220-260 7 _ i ! 2 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 29, 1989 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.l 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 .ti;" 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.i 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 (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 STUDY Planning Commission Recommendation: t h t. Proposed Gateway Commercial Zone (GWC) NY N SCALE 1 : 8400 KENT GIS ��_ JAN . 1989 ' z1 S T VALLEY ZONING S T U.D Y Planning Commission Recommendation: 1 2th t. Proposed Office Zone CON SCALE 1 : 8400 KENT GIS JAN . 1989 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 20, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission wds 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 1100o-foot 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 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. 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 VNred . Satterstrom 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 #104 , 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 CM1. 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 , 1989 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 should be widened north of the southbound off ramp to 224th 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. Respectfully submitted, N 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 (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. 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 401000-50, 00o 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 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, 20 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 SUMMARY 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 11793 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 1,707 High # of Trips 0 72 , 838 72 ,838 High PM Peak 0 2 , 470 21470 Gateway/ Commercial Buildout W/SO 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 11097 11097 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/962-11427 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 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 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 . RECOMMENDATION 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 W S. 212TH ST 3 Z,Z.00 0 0 ol 0 _ M N 0 0 0 . N 61 5� O 0 N ° 1 `r-RAFrcG voLU M5- s S. 22e7H /w 0 S. 22eTH ST /E E rtG IHEENING DE PnIfTMEN'f r, onCK[o_ o.[e E S. 212TH ST N r lr �1 - -vc - � pr�E�-Mr Los B y LOCH-rl o Al S. 228TH /w S. 226TH ST /E l y OJr CSLhJ�! � r ErIfiINEF1i1NG fJt(AItTMEr1T un�c�teo _ sort b�tccm_ o..rt .rr.ovto flit No._ m—rno�i: EAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY "Gateway Commercial -- Proposed Zoning 6ounda. :: Proposed Areas Reduction _::r.�- r EII 1V SCALE 1 : 84-00 KENT GIS FEM_r_F J A N . 1989 ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DECISION DOCUMENT „. EAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY #ENV-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, Chi, 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, Ml and M2 zoning to Gateway Commercial , new development is projected to result in 48 , 119-72 , 838 average daily trips/1, 707-21470 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 PM 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 2 . The staff proposal for rezone to Gateway Commercial shall be modified to require a 1, 000 foot separation between drive- through restaurant uses. This requirement is designed to limit the number of trips generated by this high intensity use to a level manageable by the street network. 3 : At the time of development of sites within the Gateway :r Commercial zone, mitigation of traffic impacts associated with new development shall be applied on a site-specific basis, which at a minimum will include participation in the City' s east-west transportation corridor projects. In addition, the applicant shall 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 rezoning to "Gateway Commercial . " The applicant shall identify and perform measures, . in addition to participation in the City ' s east-west corridor projects, .for mitigation of such trips. Examples include but are not limited to capital improvements at the entrances to the rezone area, purchase of development rights 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 . ' 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 7 , 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 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 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 (see enclosed map) . The other area, Area 2, 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 scattered residential structures. The majority of parcels facing 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 HAP EAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY AREAS MAP 1 �� m I X,r,••n R E N T 0 N �•• •li •> _ 1 ' 1 P.NII]N CIfY • ' a� P�EtXT CITY 11wlT• 2 1 1 gses�j i»s•n , � IPnRE:NANx 77 ' 1 Ji AJ ORILLIA y T 3 g Y IF I. n - � �, ,wn •. �, IEl I ,V- INEII)STPIAE Y AREA 1 • 1•eN• n • �.—Iw„• � I � wl•m T � T 36 ]1 N 35 36 . v,.e • � I fi N 3 1 / � _ � 1 • i YI C INOIISTPIAI T � 1 e ,•i i• E` Y t \ ( I 1 l+ 1PfA > •♦ t a ' _ � E Iwo ,� •• S ���., � I\ � 1 • ,•eN• iiii ]I. e• On..�n In..�. \ f \ ` •.•n• yi • »1.• n �.e•.ee�.i I` >•r.o •r 1 f `a•c..eoa i T < C 11 .= •tlu T I- ... ,e. , 1 T. •+w+. t ii+.. •11^ . t P...M. `• t i •K i 1 Stl ,hw 'y : � � • • , 6 5 •, ro Area ••r C - T i�nN Area 1 - tom lr. t I \ ' t Cn Y INOU IAE n 1 It ltt .tteEl: .t 1 T Q ' 9 F sue.. •,/ � I1 I 12 U l3 - - J y. �1• _. 13 ITT -r,armti { C R� t 5 IY f •: 5t, 1 n Q \ T T G i to �' mou1TR,K APu T nr oon L APVP01RIuelE9 AlElX FEET T I.) 4 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. 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 FAST VAL ' EY ZONING STUDY MAP 2 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 R A RA Residential Agricultural M 3 MH CM CO N G C CM SCALE 1 : 8400 KENT G1S DM FITT JAN . 1989 9 .FAST VAL-,-�,E Y ZZONINLr' STUDY MAP 3 j- 2 1 2th St. G W C AREA #1 i'roposed Rezoning to GWC Gate Jay Commercial =IL SCALE 1 : 8400 KENT GIS JAN . 1989 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 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. 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 £l i NO .4. 3 . 3 VII in I I _ I ' I 1 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 tl U Q . } 8> ' r E o of _ u, m 1 r v y 0 L1} J � Q Q � tll O�u 3 � M r M O LL [f� - O tl 3 � uL m I- Q 15 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 tripe (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 31000 . 17 EAST VAL-t.-'1EY' ZONINU S T UD Y- NAP 4 12th t. AREA ',2 Proposed Rezoning to 0 Office CN-��i 1 6 l tl SCALE 1 : 8400 IKFNT (, IC The characteristics of traffic generated by industrial uses and traffic generated by commercial uses differ somewhat. Industrial traffic tends to be concentrated more during the peak hours, both a.m and p.m. , whereas commercial traffic tends to generate higher volumes but is constant throughout the day. The specific effects, however, are unknown and primarily depend upon the types of businesses which locate in the study area. Convenience businesses, for example, may not increase traffic levels because they rely upon existing traffic. A destination business, on the other hand, specifically requires people to make a trip into an area which they would not enter normally. To summarize, the traffic impact will depend a great deal on the 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. However, because commercial trips are not concentrated at the peak hour flows, the increase may not contribute substantially to the critical peak hour slowdowns. B. Storm Drainage System The current M-2 zoning standards allow 65 percent of any site to be covered with buildings. In most cases, sites in this zoning district are covered up to 90 percent by impervious surfaces. The proposed development standards for the GWC commercial zoning district will allow 40 percent building coverage of a site. The additional landscaping requirements will tend also to lower the amount of impervious surfaces that are associated with development in the area. The result would be either no additional impact or less of an impact on the storm drainage system in the area. C. Nonconforming Uses and Standards Virtually all the existing developments in the East Valley study area would be nonconforming if the proposed development standards are adopted. The proposed standards include significant changes in landscaping requirements (including earth berms, perimeter landscaping and parking lot screening) and requirements for businesses with drive-through, drive in, and service bays. Many of the existing signs in the study area would also become nonconforming if the proposed signage standards are adopted. In particular, all signs in the area that exceed the 15 foot limitation would become nonconforming. Several of the existing businesses on East Valley Highway would become nonconforming as to use. There are several single family 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. Nonconforming Development Section 15. 08 . 100 of the Zoning Code regulates nonconforming development in the city. Expansion, enlargement, reconstruction, 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 #1. 3 . Apply the Office zone to Area #2 east of S .R. 167 . Kent Planning Department January 1989 20 cY Kent City Council Meeting 989 June 6 . 1 �y- Date - � p V Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: SPECjAL,_POPULATIONS RESOURCE CENTER KITCHEN RENOVATION , 2 . SumLkRY STATEMENT: Bids were opened on Friday, June 2, for work associated with the kitchen renovation at the Special Populations Resource Center. an — __-re�ndat on-i-11--be- made available prior to the meeting. 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tabulation and recommendation. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Architect and 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 to award a bid in the amount of $ to for the Special Populations Resource Center Kitchen Renovation. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5A Q� Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 , 1989 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: 1989 ASPHALT OVERLAY . 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held May 31. two bids were received. The low bid was submitted by M;_ A. Segale, Inc. in the amount of $193 , 275.80. T zs--recommended the low bid be acce ted. p l he f hlic.� 1 t t� 3 . EXHIBITS: Memrandum and a bid summary 1 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Sta f, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PE ONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL PERSONNEL NOT Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember ` ev"moved, etirn__- er —.r secon s the bid of $193 , 2 .80 from M. A. Segale be accepted for the 1989 Asphalt Overlay. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5B 6 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS June 1, 1989 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom��\] RE: 1989 Asphalt Overlay Bid opening was 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 project provides for overlay of streets in the Cambridge and Linda Heights areas as well as Kennebeck Avenue, 116th Avenue S.E. & S.E. 258th, and S. 212th Street near its intersection with 42nd Avenue South. Funds for these overlays were included in the 1989 Street Operating Budget. Construction is estimated to be $212 , 603 . 38 . It is recommended the bid of $193 , 275. 80 from M.A. Segale, Inc. be accepted for the 1989 Asphalt Overlay project. BID SUMMARY M.A. Segale $193 , 275. 80 Lakeside Industries $208 , 352 . 30 Engineer' s Estimate $241, 835 . 10 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 6 , 1989 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: REMODEL OF STATION 71 2 . SjjHMARY STATEMENT: Bids were received on Friday, June 2 . The Fire Chief will distribute bid tabulations and a recommendation will be made at the meeting. 3 . EXHIBITS• None 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: Bond Issue 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5C R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE � C l �O+t-j ����� { h� Ca✓lCS L m v'yl t tt e- c- t 5 d cr f G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES May 15, 1989 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Steve Dowell Paul Mann STAFF PRESENT: Jim Hansen ,, n Mike Webby ,( lv \ Tony McCarthy Barney Wilson Don Wickstrom Sandra Driscoll Rod Frederiksen Jan Banister Charlie Lindsey Teri Mertes GUESTS PRESENT: Lyle Price, Valley Daily Newspaper APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS All claims for the period ending May 15, 1989 in the amount of $1, 358, 331. 83 were approved for payment. EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE DISCRETION Councilmember Mann submitted a proposal to affirm the Mayor' s selection process was a proper exercise of executive discretion under RCW 35A. 12 . 100 which states "the Mayor shall be the Chief Executive and Administrative Officer of the city, in charge of all departments and employees with authority to designate assistants and departments. The Mayor may appoint and remove a chief administrative officer or assistant administrative officer. . . " . Mann asked the Committee to adopt statements as the Committee' s position regarding the proper process for handling the City Administrator's selection. Councilmember Dowell recommended getting the citizens, Councilmembers, department heads and Chamber of Commerce more involved in recommending a candidate to the Mayor to eliminate concerns. Dowell, before voting on Mann' s proposal, felt obtaining other possible alternatives to this process would be beneficial . The Committee moved Councilmember Mann' s proposal as a alternative and asked Personnel Director Webby to present a list of other alternatives for the June 15, 1989 Operations Committee Meeting. GARRISON CREEK DETENTION POND-AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Public Works Director Wickstrom presented a Washington State Department of Transportation agreement in which the City will pay 1/3 the cost the State and County will pay the remaining 2/3 for the Garrison creek detention pond. The State plans to start construction in 1989 and the City didn't anticipate the construction to occur until 1990. There are, however, adequate unencumbered sewerage utility funds to cover the City' s obligation and by funding it now we will delete it from the 1990 CIP. The City will own this ravine which will allow for future options to modify this property into park or trails, etc. The Committee recommended this issue by a 3-0 vote. DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE NEW LIBRARY Assistant City Administrator Hansen displayed to the Committee the . new library plans designed by the architect. He pointed out the buildings rounded shape to prevent sound from Smith street and the railroad tracks. occupancy is anticipated to occur one year from the starting day of construction, possibly in September 1990. KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE April 18, 1989 4 : 00 PM Committee Members Present Planning Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Steve Dowell Ken Astrein Jon Johnson Lin Ball Jim Harris City Administration Fred Satterstrom Dan Stroh Ed Chow, City Administrator Jim Hansen Other City Staff Others Present Sandra Driscoll John Marchione Gary Griswold Mary Jo Hendrickson Dick and Phyllis Mauritsen Jessica McDougall Paul Morford Leona Orr Jim Torina Jason Williams 3ary Young EAST VALLEY ZONING IMPLEMENTATION Dick and Phyllis Mauritsen, 8812 S . 218 St. , stated that the reduced Gateway Commercial zone left them with a small piece of property that would be difficult to develop with M-1 zoning. They requested that the Gateway Commercial zone be extended to include the property up to the west side of the old bus company (north of 218th, east of East Valley Highway) . Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom noted that the Gateway Commercial zone as originally proposed was reduced in order to mitigate traffic impacts of commercial land use. Staff had no objections to extending Gateway Commercial zoning as requested by Mr. & Mrs. Mauritsen. Mary Jo Hendrickson, PO Box 1329 , Kent referred to a letter written by Doug Klappenbach in which he requested flexibility in applying the Gateway Commercial zoning to property on East Valley Highway and 216th St. Should the proposed buyer back out of the deal , he requested that the zoning revert in its entirety to M-3 zoning rather than have part of the property M-3 and part Gateway Commercial zoning. Fred Satterstrom suggested that a flaw exists in the hearing process when zoning proposals can be presented to the Planning Committee. He stated that staff believes the present proposal allows reasonable depth for Gateway Commercial zoning to work while retaining industrial zoning in the rear. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF APRIL 18 , 1989 Senior Planner Dan Stroh stated that the Gateway Commercial zoning as originally proposed came back deep on the west side of East Valley Highway. Staff had tried not to split parcels. After traffic analysis problems became apparent, staff cut back on the Gateway Commercial zoning but retained commercial frontage on East Valley Highway. The parcels on the west side of East Valley Highway are deep; one must either split the parcels or go deep with the commercial zoning. Planning Director Harris stated the traffic mitigation situation is severe and was worked out by restricting commercial as much as possible. The new Gateway Commercial zoning provides new opportunities to property owners. Discussion occurred on the process by which Planning Commission recommendations are considered by the Planning Committee. Councilman Dowell suggested the possibility of having a "second reading" for issues such as the East Valley Zoning Implementation. City Attorney Driscoll affirmed that the zoning designation for the property referred to by Ms. Hendrickson could not remain open with regard to land negotiations between parties. Changes to the Planning Commission' s recommendation can impact the careful balance for traffic mitigation. Jim Torina, 1048 W. James St. #104 , stated that the Planning Commission' s proposal had received input from many sources. He suggested that once the proposal for an issue such as this has been finalized, perhaps before forwarding their recommendation, the Planning Commission could hold open the hearing for a couple of meetings to accommodate final comments. Jason Williams, 915 118th Ave SE, Bellevue, stated that in order to be fair to the majority of people who have participated in the Planning commission proceedings, it is time to move forward on this issue. Councilman Dowell clarified for Mr. Williams that a "second reading" would mean that a proposal such as the East Valley Zoning Implementation would be presented before the Council at one hearing and would not be voted on until the next hearing. This would allow time for further exposure and explanation of the issue. Councilman Dowell MOVED to recommend to the Council approval of the East Valley Zoning Implementation as presented by the Planning Commission with the amendment requested by Dick and Phyllis Mauritsen. Councilman Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 1990 CDBG FUNDING LEVEL AND POLICY PLAN REVISIONS Senior Planner Lin Ball stated that since the Planning Committee recommended approval of the CDBG Policy Plan on March 21, there has been new information which has prompted staff to request an addition to the section on Streets, Walkways and Architectural Barriers. Staff requests adding "projects that improve storm drainage conditions in the strategy area where there exists a threat to the health or safety of the residents. " The Public Works 2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF APRIL 18 , 1989 Department has stated there are major storm drainage problems in the strategy area and staff requests the option to consider funding CDBG projects related to storm drainage. There are several actions that the Council needs to take to accept the estimated $168 , 141 for 1990: 1) Accept pass-through funds. This leaves City of Kent options open and maximizes the City' s control of the funds. 2) Allocate 15% of the pass-through funds for public (human) services funding. This maintains flexibility in decision-making. 3) Allocate 6% of the pass-through funds for planning and administration. Again, this allows flexibility in decision-making. 4) Adopt local program policies. Ms. Ball clarified for Councilman Dowell that the CDBG Program Year is now a calendar year. In addition, the remaining 79% of the CDBG funds (after subtracting public (human) services and planning and administration) will be used for capital projects and housing repair. Staff will bring forward to the Council on September 1 the recommendations for funding. Councilman Dowell MOVED and Councilman Johnson SECONDED the motion to approve the 1990 CDBG Local Program Policies as amended and to accept pass-through funds with 15% allocation to public (human) services and 6% to planning and administration. Motion carried unanimously. SOOS CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Dan Stroh stated that in February, the King County Council adopted a version of the Soos Creek Interlocal Agreement which is different from the version Kent adopted previously. The staff memo sent with the agenda packet summarizes the changes. The major elements added include Section IV. D. 3 which states "King County will not support annexations proposed by Kent that would prevent the achievement of the King County Comprehensive Plan' s policy prescribing an average density of 7-8 dwelling units per acre In addition, Section V.B. l.a states "Kent, agrees to use its plans, policies, zoning and other regulatory controls to encourage citywide . . . achievement of the King County Comprehensive Plan' s policy prescribing an average residential density of 7-8 dwelling units per acre. " Mr. Stroh stated it appears Auburn and Renton will pass the Interlocal Agreement with the language intact. Kent' s average density appears to be around 6. 4 units per acre without subtracting land with development constraints, e.g. , steep slopes (which the county is subtracting in their calculations) . Using the methodology of the 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF APRIL 18 , 1989 county, Kent would probably meet the 7-8 unit per acre density. Councilman Dowell stated the density issue was not the only concern he had about the agreement. Planning Director Harris acknowledged that the Legal Department had problems with the agreement as well, especially regarding SEPA, traffic, and annexation agreements. City Attorney Driscoll distributed a memo from her office dated April 17 , 1989 . The memo outlines the Legal Department' s concerns with the changes from the earlier version of the agreement. Ms. Driscoll stated that in addition her office has the same concerns as before about the earlier version of the agreement, especially related to transportation. She acknowledged that from a planning point of view it is important to consider that the City is trying to move toward regional cooperation. However, the changes in the agreement subordinate the City' s land use plans to King County' s plans. In addition, it would be important to have a statement that the agreement in no way supersedes SEPA. Jim Harris provided a background of the interlocal agreement. It was originally intended to get the county to recognize the incorporated cities and to get the county into a regional profile. At the present time in the Puget Sound area, land use and transportation don't mesh. In addition, it is difficult to work with the county staff because one part of the county operates separately from another. Assistant City Administrator Hansen affirmed that the original document was meant to be a planning document done in the spirit of cooperation to enhance planning. Over time the document has become more specific. He is concerned that the planning process will be completed before the City and County have an interlocal agreement to enhance that process. Mr. Hansen responded to Councilman Dowell that upon annexation of an area, the City would need to show a city-wide average density of 7-8 units per acre, not 7-8 units for the annexation area only. Chairwoman Woods asked that staff work cooperatively with other cities and provide a united front to the county related to this agreement. She suggested the agreement would be more acceptable if the words "wherever possible" were added. She would like staff to meet with Councilmen Dowell and Johnson and City Attorney Driscoll to address their concerns. Jim Hansen added that Barbara Heavey from King County would be present at tonight' s City Council meeting to express a possible conflict between adoption of the proposed annexation priorities on tonight' s agenda and the proposed Soos Creek Interlocal Agreement related to annexing agricultural areas. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 5 : 00 PM. There will be no meeting on May 2 , 1989 . 4 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MAY 23, 1989 PRESENT: JON JOHNSON BILL WILLIAMSON JUDY WOODS MARTIN NIZLEK BERNE BITEMAN DAN STROH DON WICKSTROM MIMI CASTILLO ED CHOW JOHN MARCHIONE JIM HANSEN CAROL STONER GARY GILL MAUREEN MACNAMARA VACATION OF 3RD AVENUE SOUTH Jim Hansen showed a sketch of the proposed Centennial Building as it demonstrates the need for the vacation of 3rd. He reported negotiations I between the developer and the church have been completed. It is anticipated an amended agreement will be before Council in June. The vacation would be contingent upon the actual transfer of title of the property from the City to the developer. Hansen suggested the motion to vacate the street be worded such that it is contingent upon the actual transfer of title. Biteman so moved. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the vacation contingent upon transfer of title of the property. It was clarified that a resolution would be brought before the Council setting a date for a public hearing on the vacation prior to adoption of an ordinance. SURVEY RESULTS - FRAGER ROAD Marty Nizlek summarized the results of the survey that was mailed to the property owners. Eighteen questionnaires were distributed - nine were returned. None of those responding have been cited for any traffic violation in the area. A range of trips from 1 per day to 65 trips per day from O'Brien Nursery. The average would be 10 per day. Nearly half requested the restrictions be continued as they are currently. There was a request for increased enforcement. Nizlek recommended the present hours of restriction be retained, the signing be modified to eliminate any possible confusion and he would like to review other options further. Woods moved to accept the recommendations and that the other options developed by Nizlek be brought back before the Committee at a later time. The Committee concurred. FEMA ORDINANCE Wickstrom explained FEMA did a flood plain analysis in 1987 concentrating on the Green River addressing overtopping versus internal drainage which was addressed in their 1981 study. The changes affect the Mill Creek between Earthworks Park and SR 167 where they reduced the floodway to parallel the creek and the west side of South Central between 259th Street and 266th showing an inundation area from Pay-N-Pak down to 266th on the east side as a floodway fringe area. An ordinance has been developed adopting the new regulations and FEMA has approved our draft. It was clarified that we have no option but to adopt their findings otherwise there would no flood insurance for new development or refinancing of existing developments. Woods moved to recommend adoption of the ordinance. The Committee concurred. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Carol Stoner distributed a report from her Task Force. (copy attached) Two actions were taken at the April 27 meeting of the Task Force. One was to support the proposal that LID 330 be segregated into two parts to allow work to proceed on the part of the LID that has no impact on the lagoon. She continued that the task force had several options - one was to hold the project hostage until it was clear what the mitigation was going to be. Another was to not act at all. In the middle of these two was to segregate the LID into two parts to construct now the area south of 228th and another was to segregate the LID into two parts that included south of 228th and the area adjacent to the Homecourt/UP property between 216th and 212th. The Task Force opted for the latter recommendation because they felt it was appropriate for the project to move on. However, they were not implying future approval of the road alignment adjacent to the lagoon. Carol stated she thought this was a worst case scenario. She commented she did not see the effects of that road not being able to be mitigated. The other action was to look at the model boating issue. The model boaters will be allowed to continue using the lagoon until a contract is let for some type of major construction work on the lagoon. Another item Carol stated she would like to clarify is the role of the Task Force versus the SEPA process. The Task Force is not part of the SEPA process. The role of the Task Force is to gather the information to make recommendations on wild life habitat in that area. Woods asked how many meetings of the Task Force have been held. Stoner responded there have been five or six meetings. and further clarified they have received input from several areas. Biteman asked what portion of the project was to be paid for by the property owners. Wickstrom indicated approximately 84% . Biteman stated that what he was getting at was that he doubted if the property owners would have any incentive to proceed with the project if they felt a portion of it would not be constructed. Carol Stoner reiterated she felt the project could be mitigated but the Task Force did not want to put their stamp of approval on something they don't have all the information on. Biteman stated he is concerned that with transportation a number one priority of the Council that a roadblock is developing for this project. Carol stated that also part of the delay is because of the SEPA requirements. Dan Stroh indicated that staff felt that an EIS would be required for the alignment on the east side of the lagoon and this proposal of segregating the project allows it to move forward under the SEPA process. Woods asked to what extent the property owners have been notified of this recommendation. Wickstrom indicated a letter was sent to those in the immediate area that the City was proposing to phase the project. The bond counsel and financial consultant have also been consulted regarding formation of two LID' s. No response has been received from them as yet. Johnson suggested a time line be developed for the consultant to report back to the Task Force and for them to report to the Committee and Council on that portion of the project around the lagoon. Woods stated she felt the Council should send a message that this road is going to be built and they want the project to proceed as quickly as possible. Johnson concurred and suggested the recommendation of the Task Force be modified stating that "the Council is committed to building 64th Avenue and also preserving the lagoon as a wild life site and drainage facility. Williamson stated he preferred the term phased be used rather than segregated. Woods moved to accept the Task Force recommendations. The committee concurred. After lengthy discussion, it was determined that Bill Williamson will develop the proper language for a motion indicating Committee' s commitment to building the road, addressing the wildlife issue and drainage facility issue that would be consistent with SEPA. NOTE: The language developed by Bill Williamson is attached and made a part of these minutes. MAUREEN MACNAMARA CONCERNS Nizlek reported on the speed study on James in the vicinity of Hazel. The maximum observed speed coming down the hill was 55 and 47 going up the hill. Maureen MacNamara stated she was not requesting a change in the speed limit but an attempt to enforce the speed limit. Johnson stated the Police Department has indicated that James Street is the second most enforced street in the City having issued over 80 citations over the last two months between Benson and Central. There was a discussion about different types of signing that could be placed. Johnson inquired about the possibility of installing loops. Nizlek brought up the idea of time based signals with signs posted that the signals are set at a particular designated speed. Johnson asked if that could be done eliminating the peak periods so as not to create further congestion going up the hill. Johnson asked Biteman to have his Public Safety Committee look at traffic enforcement on James . Biteman asked that Nizlek bring back his recommendation to the Committee at their next meeting. REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION Wickstrom explained that the auditor would like the Association to have an official letter from the City naming the Director of Public Works as the City' s representative and the Operations Manager as his alternate. The Committee unanimously concurred with the recommendation. COMPUTERIZED SIGNAL PROJECT - ARBITRATOR'S DECISION _. Wickstrom explained the City lost litigation concerning a sales tax issue on this project and it was necessary to pay $21,730 by a specified deadline in order to waive the attorney's fees. This was paid out of the street operating budget and it is requested a budget change be approved for this expenditure. He stated this could create a possible overrun of the 1989 budget in this area. The Committee unanimously approved the request. ESTABLISHMENT OF AGENDA FOR JUNE 13 It was determined the next meeting would be June 13 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the 2nd floor conference room at which time the Committee would review the proposed 1990 Public Works budget and it was determined that two smaller items would be on the agenda. i