Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 02/21/1989 � w City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda v a -ai- 89 '- ottace of the c.cr cie=t CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 21, 1989 Summary Agenda City of Kent Council Chambers Office of the City Clerk 7 : 00 p.m. NOTE: Items on the Consent Calendar are either routine or have been previously discussed. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember. The Council may add and act upon other items not listed on this agenda. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Proclamation - Engineers Week 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Glacier Park Company Street Vacation No. STV-89-1 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes B. Bills C. Drinking driver Task Force Donations D. v Surplus Property - Resolution / ; �r G� Q Transitional Housing Facilities - Ordinance 4 ( � Kent Hill Apartment Rezone - ordinance 2 n rSgnc 1 Transfer of Funds - Public Works Projects l H. Establishment of Project Budgets - Public Works projects I . 1989 Legislation J. LID 327 - West Valley Highway Improvements K. Riverview RV Park (Cantor RV Park) L. Crow Road at 260th M Canyon Drive Improvement l?�• Canyon Drive Improvement - Placement of Pylons , 5�`' O. SR 516/SR 99 Intersection Improvement P. LID 331 - S .E. 240th St. Improvement (108th to 116th) Drcpq4''j Q. Parks and Recreation Dept. Reorganization/Reclassification R. Police Department and Fire Department Reclassification S . Emergency Ground Ladders Testing and Replacement ri b T� Public Dances and Dance Halls - Ordinance �� v'' Bond Ordinance and Purchase Contract - Public Safety # S Training Center `j V. '/ Bond Ordinance and Pu chase Contract - CLID 322 Q � __ _ - ' 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Canterbury Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-88-5- -, B. ✓ Ruth/Kent East Hill Shopping Center ReZane -; Ordinance C. Performing Arts Facility: School/City Coopers i ev P ojec - D. East Hill Well Annexation Area C - Ordinance E. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Housing Element No. CPA-88-4 5. BIDS A. North Industrial Fire Station 6. REPORTS CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT l� C PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS i Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A. Proclamation - Engineers week G Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: GLACIER PARK COMPANY STREET VACATION NO. STV-89-1 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider an application filed by Glacier Park Company to vacate a portion of 80th Place So. at So. 180th St. The City Clerk has given proper legal notice. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff February 15 1989 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) Conditional approval 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A y �K SOURCE OF FUNDS: i J OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember JK moves, Councilmember seconds to approve stre vacation no. STV-89-1 with two onditions as recommended by staff and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon receipt of compensation. V0 DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2A KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 14 , 1989 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: Fred N. Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION TO VACATE A PORTION OF 80TH PLACE SOUTH I. Name of Applicant Glacier Park Company 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 II. Reason for Requesting Vacation The applicant states, "The portion of 80th Place South that is requested to be vacated is closed to traffic. The usable portion of 80th Place South has been rerouted westerly with 80th Avenue South. Furthermore, the northerly 15 feet of the 60 foot street was vacated by the Kent City Council in 1984 . " III. Staff Recommendation APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS After reviewing comments from the following departments and agencies: Public Works Department Parks Department Fire Department METRO Puget Power Pacific Northwest Bell Washington Natural Gas and conducting our own review, the Planning Department recommends that the request to vacate a portion of 80th Place South as mentioned in Resolution No. 1189 and shown on the accompanying map, be APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. The City shall retain a utility easement over that portion of 80th Place South to be vacated and shall have the right to authorize other utility use thereof. 2 . Compensate Kent for one-half the appraised value of that portion of the street to be vacated (80th Place South is classified as a class B street under Ordinance No. 2333 which permits the City to collect one-half the appraised value of the vacated street) . CA:FNS:ca Attachment CITY OF KENT planning -7; B �0 LAND CO. Y r r^ I� I, 5.55 Ac. 46 IL.30 i 43RD ST. RENTON coR�oRArE _ un cl-CijC., c0c0 ^ 0c0co r3 n � KENT �ca.sr C RPORATE tss sr — L1l O QI Q o III rr 5 (zl (3) 6 g.e5 sP �� 830i p c BgOn,r 'r 1 'a ru TALLY CORPO Q �I APPLICATION Name PROPOSED 80th PLACE S. VACATI ECEND Number fe,--,ot410V' r� Date application site Request zoning boundary city limits — Area requested to SCALE 1" = 200' vacated. SO. 1 8 a. T" is �. ,�•'•r= • •ay° ,� . a 0 tjk .A. 3 N Sty 16 l - u•o 2-CHCr-rvmo l� O 1A-W I ' / � ��S1. 7•So' i 1c..t9•S S$ W S= ------------------ I .Lti l 1 ' I tZI;tV' A-C: zzo004c, I I 8W. ............. I CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember & moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through V be ap ved. Discussion Action I Ir�/ O`'�. r IVLY ✓n,n 3A. Approval of Minutes. �" l + I Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of February 7, 1989 `¢1/ 6 B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through February 21, 1989 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 8: 30 a.m. on March 1, 1989. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/11 - 1/13 68427 - 68433 8,243. 17 1/17 - 1/26 68909 - 68948 143, 187. 06 1988 - 2/3/89 68964 - 69190 522 ,410. 87 1989 - 2/3/89 69191 - 69402 648, 636. 18 1/27 - 2/3 68949 - 68963 80, 239. 09 2/3 - 2/14 69403 - 76659 281, 358. 07 2/13/89 76674 - 77054 900,216. 67 1,261,813 .83 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 2/3/89 114882 - 115513 685, 508.00 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE DONATIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acknowledgment of donations from Trent Jonas, Manager, Puget Sound National Bank, Kent Area Council PTA, and United Steel Workers Local 1088-Kent Police. These donations will be used for the "Game of Life 89" youth awareness conference to be held March 8, 1989 at the Kent Cypress Inn. 3 . EXHIBITS• 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C �i AY Kent City Council Meeting y Date February 21. 1989 rI Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DECLARING PROPERTY SURPLUS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Resolution No. declaring certain property surplus that is located in the vicinity of So. 218th St. and SR 167 and setting March 7 as a date for a public hearing on the sale of such. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, declaring a certain Parcel of property in the vicinity of S. 218th St. and S.R. 167 to be surplus to the City's needs and not required for continued public utility services; and setting a public hearing Pursuant to ROW 35.94.040 for March 7, 1988. WHEREAS, the City Council confirmed the Public Works Committee recommendation to declare the property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this . reference, situated in Kent, King County, Washington as surplus to the City's needs and not required for providing public utility tl services; and O U r� 1 WHEREAS, RCW 35.94 .040 requires a public hearing before d the City may cause such property to be sold and conveyed; an WHEREAS, an appraisal in the amount of $86,000 has been obtained by the Department of Public Works; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: - Section 1. The real property situated in Kent, King County, Washington, described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference is no longer required for continued public utility service and is surplus to the City's needs. Section 2. A public hearing is set for March 7, 1989 at 7 p.m. in Kent City Hall. Section 3. Notices of said hearing shall be placed at three conspicuous locations on or adjacent to the subject property and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Kent. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 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 07000-250 2 — Exhibit A Legal Description That portion of Tract 25, Shinns Cloverdale Addition to Kent, Washington, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page 52, records of said county, lying West of a line beginning 692.64 feet South and 1770.87 feet East of the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 22 North, Range 5, East Willamette Meridian; thence South to the South line of said Tract 25; Less the South 312 feet thereof; and less the State Highway. Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 f lh Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ADDING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FACILITIES AS PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED USES IN THE GC ZONE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. amending the Kent City Code to define transitional housing facilities and allow such facilities as principally permitted uses in the GC, General Commercial Zone. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner,, Commission, etc. ) i 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember f�0014� ) 4oves, Councilmember � � seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3E ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, amending Kent City Code 15.02 and 15.04.140 to define "transitional housing" and add transitional housing as a principally permitted use in the GC, General Commercial Zone. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new Section 15.02.528 is added to the Kent City Code and Section 15.02.528 through 15.02.540 are renumbered as follows: 15,02.528. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING• A facility operated oublicly or priyatelyto Provide housing ford'v' ua s and/or EAmilies who are otherwise a ess and hslve no otherimmediate .vina oDtions available to them. Transitional hous'n shall of xceed an 18-m2nth veriod per individual or family. 15.02.52((8) )9. TREE. Tree shall mean any living woody lant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches, nd having a diameter of six (6) inches or more measured at three (3) feet above ground level. 15.02.5((29) )30. UNIOUE AND FRAGILE AREA. An area of pecial environmental significance for wildlife habitat, hreatened plan communities, and/or natural scenic quality. The eographic boundaries of these areas are officially delineated on he "Hazard Area Development Limitations" map, referred to above n Exhibit A. 15.02.5((30) )31. USE. An activity for which land or remises or a building thereon is designed, arranged, intended, or or which it is occupied or maintained, let or leased. 15.02.53((1) 12. USE, CHANGE OF. A change of use shall be 3etermined to have occurred when it is found that the general {-haracter of the operation has been modified. This determination shall include review of but not be limited to: 1) hours of opera- 1-ion, 2) materials processed or sold, 3) required parking, 4) I:raffic generation, 5) impact on public utilities, 6) clientele, �ind 7) general appearance and location. 15.02.53((3114. USE, TEMPORARY. Any activity and/or structure permitted under the provisions of Section 15.08.205 of i.he Kent Zoning Code which is intended to exist or operate for a Limited period of time and which does not comply with zoning code development standards and requirements as specified for the zoning district in which it is located. 15.02.53((4) 15. USED. The word "used" in the definition 1:)f "Adult Motion Picture Theatre" herein, describes a continuing nurse of conduct exhibiting "specific sexual activities" and 'specified anatomical areas" in a manner which appeals to a prurient interest. (0.2687, §2) 15.02.53((51 )6. VARIANCE. A modification of regulations �f this code when authorized by the Board of Adjustment after finding that the literal application of the provisions of the code ould cause undue and unnecessary hardship in view of certain acts and conditions applying to a specific parcel of property. 15.02.5( (39) 140. VEGETATION. SHADING. This is vegetation planted on the south side of a major creek that generally provides thade from midmorning to midafternoon. Examples of shading vege- ation are specified in KCC 15.08.200, "Landscaping." 15.02.54((0) 11. VEGETATIVE AID. Bark mulch, gravel and ther nonvegetative materials which promote vegetative growth by etaining moisture or preventing weeds. These materials are not a ubstitute for vegetative cover. Section 2. Kent City Code Section 15.04.140 is amended as ollows: 15.04.140. GENERAL COMMERCIAL OR GC. Purpose: The urpose and intent of the General Commercial district is: 1. To recognize the existence of commercial areas eveloped in strips along certain major thoroughfares. 2. To provide use incentives and development standards hich will encourage the redevelopment and upgrading of such areas. 3. To provide for a range of trade, service, ntertainment and recreation land uses which occur adjacent to ajor traffic arterials and residential uses. 2 - 4. To provide areas for development which are automobile oriented and designed for convenience, safety and the Deduction of the visual blight of uncontrolled advertising signs, Lraffic control devices and utility equipment. A. Principally Permitted Uses. 1. Trade a. Wholesale Bakery b. Retail - general merchandise Department stores Dry goods and general merchandise Electrical supplies Farm equipment Hardware I Heating and plumbing equipment Lumberyards Mail order houses Merchandise vending machine operators Paint, glass and wallpaper Variety stores C. Retail - food Bakeries (with accessory manufacturing) Candy, nut, and confectionery (with accessory manufacturing) Dairy products Fruits and vegetables Groceries Meat, fish, and poultry d. Retail - automotive marine craft aircraft and accessories Aircraft and accessories Marine craft and accessories Motor vehicles (new and/or used cars and recreation vehicles) Tires, batteries, and accessories 3 - i e. Retail - apparel and accessories New and/or used apparel and accessories f. Retail - furniture home furnishings and equipment New and/or used and finished and/or unfinished furniture, home furnishings and equipment g. Retail - eating and drinking establishments Drinking establishments (taverns and cocktail lounges) Eating establishments (restaurants) without drive-in or drive-through facilities. h. Retail - other Antiques Bicycles Books Bottled gas Cameras and photographic supplies Cigars and cigarettes Computers and software Drug and proprietary items Florists Fuel and ice dealers Fuel oil - Gifts, novelties, and souvenirs Hay, grains, and feeds Jewelry Liquor Newspapers and magazines Optical goods Pets and pet supplies Secondhand merchandise Sporting goods Stationery Video cassette sales and rentals 4 - 15.02.53((11)2. USE, CHANGE OF. A change of use shall be Idetermined to have occurred when it is found that the general ,character of the operation has been modified. This determination shall include review of but not be limited to: 1) hours of opera- tion, 2) materials processed or sold, 3) required parking, 4) itraffic generation, 5) impact on public utilities, 6) clientele, and 7) general appearance and location. 15.02.53( (3) )4. USE, TEMPORARY. Any activity and/or structure permitted under the provisions of Section 15.08.205 of the Kent Zoning Code which is intended to exist or operate for a limited period of time and which does not comply with zoning code development standards and requirements as specified for the zoning district in which it is located. 15.02.53( (4) 15. USED. The word "used" in the definition of "Adult Motion Picture Theatre" herein, describes a continuing r6ourse of conduct exhibiting "specific sexual activities" and "specified anatomical areas" in a manner which appeals to a i,I rurient interest. (0.2687, §2) IIrI 15.02.53((51)6. VARIANCE. A modification of regulations bf this code when authorized by the Board of Adjustment after ?finding that the literal application of the provisions of the code �ould cause undue and unnecessary hardship in view of certain I and conditions applying to a specific parcel of property. 15.02.5((391)40. VEGETATION. SHADING. This is vegetation planted on the south side of a major creek that generally provides shade from midmorning to midafternoon. Examples of shading vege- tation are specified in KCC 15.08.200, "Landscaping." 15.02.54((0) 11. VEGETATIVE AID. Bark mulch, gravel and other nonvegetative materials which promote vegetative growth by retaining moisture or preventing weeds. These materials are not a substitute for vegetative cover. Section 2. Kent City Code Section 15.04.140 is amended as ollows: 15.04.140. GENERAL COMMERCIAL OR GC. Purpose: The urpose and intent of the General Commercial district is: 1. To recognize the existence of commercial areas eveloped in strips along certain major thoroughfares. 2. To provide use incentives and development standards hich will encourage the redevelopment and upgrading of such areas. 3. To provide for a range of trade, service, ntertainment and recreation land uses which occur adjacent to ajor traffic arterials and residential uses. 5 - i 4. To provide areas for development which are automobile oriented and designed for convenience, safety and the eduction of the visual blight of uncontrolled advertising signs, traffic control devices and utility equipment. A. Princivally Permitted Uses. 1. Trade a. Wholesale Bakery b. Retail - general merchandise Department stores Dry goods and general merchandise Electrical supplies Farm equipment Hardware Heating and plumbing equipment Lumberyards Mail order houses Merchandise vending machine operators Paint, glass and wallpaper Variety stores C. Retail - food Bakeries (with accessory manufacturing) Candy, nut, and confectionery (with accessory manufacturing) Dairy products Fruits and vegetables Groceries Meat, fish, and poultry d. Retail - automotive, marine craft, aircraft and accessories Aircraft and accessories Marine craft and accessories Motor vehicles (new and/or used cars and recreation vehicles) Tires, batteries, and accessories 6 i e. Retail - apparel and accessories New and/or used apparel and accessories f. Retail - furniture. home furnishings and equipment New and/or used and finished and/or unfinished furniture, home furnishings and equipment g. Retail - eating and drinking establishments Drinking establishments (taverns and cocktail lounges) Eating establishments (restaurants) without drive-in or drive-through facilities. h. Retail - other Antiques Bicycles Books Bottled gas Cameras and photographic supplies Cigars and cigarettes Computers and software Drug and proprietary items Florists Fuel and ice dealers Fuel oil Gifts, novelties, and souvenirs Hay, grains, and feeds Jewelry Liquor Newspapers and magazines Optical goods Pets and pet supplies Secondhand merchandise Sporting goods Stationery Video cassette sales and rentals 7 - 2. Services a. Finance, insurance and real estate services Banking and related services Commodity brokers, dealers and related services Housing and investment services Insurance brokers, agents and related services Insurance carriers Real estate agents, brokers and related services Real estate operators, lessors and management services Real estate subdividing and developing services Security brokers, dealers and related services Title abstracting and insurance services b. personal services Beauty and barber services Diaper services Funeral and crematory services Laundering and dry cleaning (self-service) Laundering, dry cleaning, and dyeing services Linen supply and industrial laundry services Photographic services Pressing, alteration, and garment repair Rug cleaning and repair services Shoe repair, shoe shining, and hat cleaning services c. Business services Advertising services Automobile and truck rental Blueprinting and photocopying services Business and management consulting services Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services; adjustment and collection services Detective and protective services Disinfecting and exterminating services Employment services Equipment rental and leasing services Food lockers (without food preparation facilities) 8 - Motion picture distribution and services News syndicate services Other dwelling and business services Outdoor advertising services Photofinishing services Research, development, and testing services Stenographic services and other duplicating and mailing services Trading stamp services Window cleaning services d. Repair services Armature rewinding services Automobile repair services Automobile wash services Electrical repair services Fleet vehicle maintenance Radio and television repair service s s Reupholstery and furniture repair services Small engine repair Truck repair Watch, clock and jewelry repair services e. Professional services Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services Educational and scientific research services Engineering and architectural services sl Hospital services Legal services Medical and dental laboratory services i Medical and dental services Medical clinic - out-patient services Sanitarium, convalescent, and rest home services Urban planning services f. Contract construction services l Building construction - general contractor 111I services Carpentering and wood flooring Concrete services Electrical services 9 - Masonry, stonework, tile setting, and plastering services Painting, paperhanging and decorating services Plumbing, heating, and air conditioning services Roofing and sheet metal services Water well drilling services g. Educational services Art and music schools Barber and beauty schools Business and stenographic schools Correspondence schools Dancing schools Driving schools - auto Driving schools - truck Vocational or trade schools h. Miscellaneous services Animal grooming parlors Business associations and organizations Civic, social, and fraternal associations Labor unions and similar labor organizations Veterinary clinics and animal hospital services when located no closer than one hundred fifty (150) feet to any residential use, providing the animals are housed indoors (no outside runs) and the building is soundproofed. Sound- proofing must be designed by competent acoustical engineers. Welfare and charitable services 3. Residential a. Lodainas Hotels Motels b. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Acces- sory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences. 10 - , Transitional housing facilities. limited to a maximum of 20 residents at any one time and 4 resident staff. 4. Cultural, entertainment andrecreational a. Cultural activities and nature exhibitions Art galleries Historic and monument sites b. Public assembly Amphitheaters Arenas and field houses Auditoriums Drive-in movies Exhibition halls Legitimate theaters (live) Motion picture theaters Stadiums C. Amusements and recreation Amusement parks Athletic clubs Bowling Fairgrounds Go-cart tracks Golf driving ranges Miniature golf Skating (roller or ice) Tennis Video arcades 5. Other uses a. Other retail trade, service, or entertain- ment/recreational uses that are of the same general character as those listed; which are deemed compatible with other permitted uses in this district and which operate in accordance with the stated purpose of this district. - 11 - i b. Municipal uses and buildings, except for such uses and buildings subject to Section 15.04.200. (0.2695 §6) B. Special Permit Uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in ection 15.08.020. 1. Gasoline service stations. 2. Eating establishments (restaurants) with drive-in or drive-through facilities. 3. Nursery schools and day care centers. 4. Churches. C. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and buildings ustomarily appurtenant to a permitted use such as incidental storage facilities. D. Conditional Uses. 1. Printing and publishing establishments, and acces- ory uses and buildings, customarily appurtenant to such use. 2. Mini-warehouses and self-service storage 3. General Conditional Uses as listed in Section 5.08.030, except for transitional housing with a maximum of 20 es'dents and 4 staff. 4. Kennels E. Development Standards. 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 twenty (20) feet in depth. 12 4. Side yard. None, except when a side yard abuts a residential district, and then a twenty (20) foot rear yards shall be required. 5. Rear yard. None, except when a rear yard abuts a residential district, and then a twenty (20) foot rear yard shall be required. 6. Height limitations. Two (2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet. However, the Planning Director shall be authorized to grant one additional story in height, if during Development Plan Review, it is found that this additional story would not detract rom the continuity of the area. More than one additional story ay be granted by the Planning Commission. 7. The landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07 shall pply• 8. Outdoor storage. Outdoor storage areas shall be enced for security and public safety by a sight-obscuring fence nless determined through the Development Plan Review that a fight-obscuring fence is not necessary. F. signs. The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 shall Pply• G. Off-Street Parking. 1. The off-street parking requirements of Chapter 15.05 hall apply. 2. Off-street parking may be located in required yards xcept in areas required to be landscaped. H. Development Plan Review. Development plan approval is required, as provided in Section 15.09.010. 13 - 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 TTEST: 4ARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK PPROVED AS TO FORM: ANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of , 1989. PPROVED the day of 1989. UBLISHED the day of , 1989. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance o. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, ashington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon ndicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 7060-250 14 - Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE REZONE OF KENT HILL APARTMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. providing for the conditional rezone of the Kent Hill Apartments from single family residential to garden density residential. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3F ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, providing for the rezoning with conditions of approximately 3.24 acres of a 6.48 acre site located at the southwest corner of 108th Ave. S.E. and S.E. 260th St. from R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, to MPG, Carden Density Multifamily Residential, with a maximum of 12.5 units per acre in the entire site. WHEREAS, an application for a rezone of Kent Hill Apartments was filed on April 13, 1988 for the property described in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the applicant requested that approximately 3.24 acres of a 6.48 acre site be rezoned from R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, for the purposes of constructing a 123-unit apartment development; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider the rezone of the property on December 7, 1988; and WHEREAS, following the public hearings and consideration of reports and testimony submitted into the record on the proposed rezone and the staff recommendation, the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent rendered her Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations for conditional approval on January 4, 1989, in "Kent Hill Apartments: Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent"; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 1989, a hearing was held before the City Council at 7 o'clock p.m. in the City Hall of the City of Kent, upon proper notice given; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: i Section 1. The Findings, Conclusions, and Conditional Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner as set forth in "Kent Hill Apartments: Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent", which is on file with the Kent City Clerk, are hereby adopted and the Findings, Conclusions, and Conditional Recommendations are concurred with for this site. Section 2. Zoning for this site, generally located at the southwest corner of 106th Ave. S.E. and S.E. 260th St. , and legally described in the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference, is hereby changed from R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, to MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, with the overall density of 12.5 units per acre or approximately 80 units for the entire site with the conditions listed in Section 3 below. Section 3. The rezone is subject to the following conditions as set forth in the Findings and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent as referenced above: 1. The Developer shall contribute 100 percent of traffic mitigation assessment for additional trips generated by the section of land where zoning changes from single-family to multifamily is to occur. 2. The developer shall install street lighting as determined by the Public Works Director. 3. The developer shall install signing where required. 4. A minimum ten-foot Type I planting strip shall be planted along the west property line. 5. Additional fire protection measures, including requiring buildings to be equipped with sprinklers, may be applied at the time of development plan review, if so determined by the Fire Department. 2 - i 6. Sidewalks shall he provided along 108th Avenue SE and SE 260th Street. An internal sidewalk shall be required connecting the perimeter walkways to the internal walkways. 7. The applicant shall orient buildings along the perimeter of the site at an angle to the perimeter property lines. 6. The applicant shall not pipe, enclose or relocate the minor creek or pond. The minor creek, including any ponding area, must be maintained in its natural state. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of , 1989. APPROVED the day of , 1989. PUBLISHED the day of , 1989. 3 - 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 7030-250 4 - Exhibit A TOTAL PARCEL The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, T 22 N, R 5 E, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT THEREFROM the South 165 feet and the East 30 feet and the North 30 feet conveyed for road purposes by deeds recorded under Recording Nos. 2755769 and 8306290024, Records of King County, Washington. Situate in the City of Kent, County of King, State of Washington. ... ........ Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF FUNDS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization to establish budget for transfer funds for the following projects from the funding sources identified in the funding analysis prepared by the Director of Public Works. 1. 72nd Ave. acquisition, $30, 000/152 , 024 2 . Green River bridge replacement, r i 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Pubic Works Committee minutes and the funding analysis r r i 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examine Commission, etc. ) I� 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $_�_ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION""'': nn, Councilmember � 1 �w` ✓ moves Councilmember �b� seconds 1 DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3G � r v p V C.i to ? W n C d to to to m m to N ;a n V D W n L') t7 m -i < m m .� P .� D N r7l rri Z o D Z z r --I �-• 2 3 r to = m -< CD `O Z _r\ NSA rn z Z n n n O CDZ 3 A ;a D C D O N p p •"� r •'� In N t m A ..) H n v ~ C D Z !p . - m n �LI) CD m oN to �" Z r^ -� E C7 o z C> no Z N --i 3 -i -� .�.. D p p n -Dv -i O :m Z m � tnv ., zt r o < z m -i L') Cn CO '--� vn COZ x0 n0 � m N �r Z m O --Am }A 3> m) zD CO -i 3 Z C7 r .-y p v -G X7 "i C Z Z t0 to m m z Ni too mi o v m c p M m N Z -� m :z o .� 3 ---I .. C) m T m o -. z m m Z D --t> V) -Zi m O T Z C Z p Z to C C Ln {q rn Z .-.. Z Z O v � Lnn tin to 3-N-I 0 W O O O p C 3 to tom„ z z o 0 0 00 0 CC o zn 0 0 o v, o 0 0 00 -i m m p n C D r n r- r m m c z p z c� ^ N N OV V v N V co 00 to n r�D.y rQ . to W � tN z D z w ko to t-) W.. OVl V V V N OA ?' A m r-Z v v 1ib to to tCo m L'7CD SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FUND PROJECT DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE FUNDING 1 . 3122 WVH & 180TH PHASE I $48,000 •2-;----3133 SIDEWAL-IE $751000 , tr„ 3. 3135 SR 99 & 252ND $4,871 4. 3148 CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY $17,813 5. 3160 LID 297 $506 6. 3167 LID 318 - N. CENTRAL $172106 7. 3170 LID 325 - 76TH AVE. ST. IMPR. $181,000 8. 3183 LID 313 / CBD $652000 9. 3185 SMITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS $40,000 10. 3191 REITH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS $9,000 # 11 . 3198 212TH & 42ND ( ORILLIA ROAD) $113 TOTAL AVAILABLE* $458,409- LESS: RESERVE $2602000 BALANCE $1987409 POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL REALLOCATION SOURCES RUBBER RAILWAY CROSSINGS $482000 260TH AND 104TH SIGNAL $652000 TOTAL POSSIBLE REALLOCATION SOURCES $1137000 GRAND TOTAL FOOTNOTE: * SIDEWALK FUND (3133) $75,000 WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL REALLOCATION OF THEIR COMMITMENT TO SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS # $9,000 AVAILABLE IN THIS FUND PRIOR TO CANYON DRIVE PYLON REALLOCATION Public Works Committee February 14 , 1989 Page 5 available funds. Wickstrom proposed funding the first six projects -04 shown on his summary from the available funds which he reviewed for the Committee. He noted that most of the funds for the Green River Bridge Replacement would probably not be required until 1990. Funding for the remaining projects, Wickstrom recommended, be addressed at the time those needs come before Council. Wickstrom reviewed these for the Committee as well . Biteman moved that the Director' s recommendations be approved. The Committee unanimously concurred. This approval addresses items 5 (Green River Bridge Replacement) , 9 (Canyon Drive Removal and Replacement of Pylons) and 10 (SR 516/SR 99 Intersection Improvement) on the agenda. Johnson asked if the pylons were going to be replaced on Canyon. Wickstrom commented they will be replaced on a temporary basis with another type of pylon. In designing the Canyon Drive Improvements, the left turn pockets will be constructed in the locations originally intended and the remaining road widened between the left turn pockets so that jersey barriers could be installed in the future as needed. The current design calls for striping these T areas to restrict left turns. While the property owners have not been advised as yet, the Transportation Engineer indicates hazards of left turns in specific areas do exist. Wickstrom clarified for Johnson that previously it had been thought a greater shy distance was required for jersey barriers. Further study has been done and it appears there is adequate room for them. Riverview RV Park (Kantor RV Park) Agreement Wickstrom explained the developer is, in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, oversizing and installing to extra depth a sewer main to service an area larger than his immediate development. The developer is requesting the City participate in the costs involved in the oversizing and extra depth. The Director estimated the cost to the City would be approximately $21, 925 and it is his recommendation the City agree to participate and the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement. The Committee unanimously approved the recommendation. Alignment of Crow Road Wickstrom explained this item is in conjunction with the Ruth Rezone. The developer deeded right of way for alignment of Crow Road to the City. To clear his title on his property, the Developer has asked the City quit claim deed back to him any unrequired right of way. The Committee unanimously concurred. v3 ^1 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF PROJECT BUDGETS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization to proceed with the following projects and establish budgets for same to transfer the specified amounts from the funding sources identified in the funding analysis prepared by the Director of Public Works. 1. Frager Rd. and So. 212th St. channelization, $5, 000 2. 240th St. at Safeway driveway and channelization, $4, 000 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes and the funding analysis 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3H N O O V Ol tT n c a O --� Co j p 0) N mO m D r j r p S 3 r~ m tsn -o-I c-; ..Z� O m C� 2 r En r- o m z n r� vn A D �R> ��. C n' -�i Z �p m --I ^ c .� N 3 m m n p o Z r C D C7 -i -0 '-4 m pr N p r- ; (4 N A v c D z AD . mmvzi o o -nn = t�ir -+ -� N to . Z m CD m C m p ... 3 -� C-) z O rmi s -Av -�i a m -I to �-, Z �D .70 m c .• —i c� cn co rn N ^ p p n •0 N -� m ry Z D_N ZA m < Z ' (D C) v '--I 3 Z �j CD -1m Q) m m c� z N o m r- -� �D cn o m c C m m� TI N Z < O� O -n-I •�-, 3 m O m m 3 Z v z m z CD o m z c z 0 z 0 w z z ~ Z Z o V � W 3 -Ni mp OCo O E 00 O O W O p O C 3 fi7 t77 Z Z O Cl ClV7 O p 00 Co m ca A t A r A r m m c z 0 z c� ^ 4A N � .-. Got m O PI)p En Cn V co 00 .ko V v V N l0 W 00 V l0 l0 t0 O W O Ol Ovj N O O O o mmm �. `. v •P to tD tD 4.0 lD SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FUND PROJECT DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE FUNDING 1. 3122 WVH & 180TH PHASE I $48,000 2:--3133---------SIDEWAL-IF 3. 3135 SR 99 & 252ND $4,871 4. 3148 CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY $17,813 5. 3160 LID 297 $506 6. 3167 LID 318 - N. CENTRAL $17, 106 7. 3170 LID 325 - 76TH AVE. ST. IMPR. $181,000 8. 3183 LID 313 / CBD $65,000 9. 3185 SMITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS $40,000 10. 3191 REITH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS $9,000 # 11 . 3198 212TH & 42ND ( ORILLIA ROAD) $113 TOTAL AVAILABLE* $458-409- 3� �,�► 09 LESS: RESERVE $260,000 BALANCE � `tn $1-98,409 POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL REALLOCATION SOURCES RUBBER RAILWAY CROSSINGS $48,000 260TH AND 104TH SIGNAL $65,000 TOTAL POSSIBLE REALLOCATION SOURCES $113,000 GRAND TOTAL FOOTNOTE: * SIDEWALK FUND (3133) $75,000 WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL REALLOCATION OF THEIR COMMITMENT TO SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS # $9,000 AVAILABLE IN THIS FUND PRIOR TO CANYON DRIVE PYLON REALLOCATION Public Works Committee February 14, 1989 Page 5 available funds. Wickstrom proposed funding the first six projects -04 shown on his summary from the available funds which he reviewed for the Committee. He noted that most of the funds for the Green River Bridge Replacement would probably not be required until 1990. Funding for the remaining projects, Wickstrom recommended, be addressed at the time those needs come before Council. Wickstrom reviewed these for the Committee as well. Biteman moved that the Director's recommendations be approved. The Committee unanimously concurred. This approval addresses items 5 (Green River Bridge Replacement) , 9 (Canyon Drive Removal and Replacement of Pylons) and 10 (SR 516/SR 99 Intersection Improvement) on the agenda. Johnson asked if the pylons were going to be replaced on Canyon. Wickstrom commented they will be replaced on a temporary basis with another type of pylon. In designing the Canyon Drive Improvements, the left turn pockets will be constructed in the locations originally intended and the remaining road widened between the left turn pockets so that jersey barriers could be installed in the future as needed. The current design calls for striping these areas to restrict left turns. While the property owners have not been advised as yet, the Transportation Engineer indicates hazards of left turns in specific areas do exist. Wickstrom clarified for Johnson that previously it had been thought a greater shy distance was required for jersey barriers. Further study has been done and it appears there is adequate room for them. Riverview RV Park (Kantor RV Park) Agreement Wickstrom explained the developer is, in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, oversizing and installing to extra depth a sewer main to service an area larger than his immediate development. The developer is requesting the City participate in the costs involved in the oversizing and extra depth. The Director estimated the cost to the City would be approximately $21,925 and it is his recommendation the City agree to participate and the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement. The Committee unanimously approved the recommendation. Alignment of Crow Road Wickstrom explained this item is in conjunction with the Ruth Rezone. The developer deeded right of way for alignment of Crow Road to the City. To clear his title on his property, the Developer has asked the City quit claim deed back to him any unrequired right of way. The Committee unanimously concurred. Kent City Council Meeting 7 ` Date February 21. 1989 1 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 1989 LEGISLATION _�-- L 'f 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: A memorandum is enclosed that briefly discusses 1989 legislative proposals on certain topics affecting the City of Kent. It is requested that the Council approve these recommended positions as Council policy direction �o staff in discussing such legislation before the 1989 legislature. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from City Attorney 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3I OFFICE OF CITY ATIONWi TO: Honorable Mayor City Council Members Sandra Driscoll, City Attorney February 15, 1989 SUBJECT: 1989 Legislative Positions There are many issues before the current Legislature that directly impact the City of Kent. Set forth below is a list of a few of those issues and recommendations for City policy positions. Position statements by Council would provide guidance to the city staff in presenting the Council's position to the Legislature on these topics. I. Transportation A. A variety of measures are now before the Legislature for purposes of funding transportation improvements. These include: 1. Anywhere from a three to nine cent increase in the gasoline tax. 2. A local option gasoline tax. 3. Ccamuter tax. 4. Street utility tax for road maintenance purposes. B. Recommendation: Support a menu of options to be available to the local jurisdiction in addition to an increase in the state gasoline tax. II. Solid Waste A. A comprehensive bill redefining the State's approach to solid waste management is currently before the Legislature. The bill was drafted by a task force chaired by Rep. Art Sprenkle. The primary focus of the bill is on waste reduction and recycling through source separation. While there are many comprehensive provisions to the bill, certain major items would impact cites: 1. Cities would be required to maintain curbside recycling programs according to very specific state mandated standards. 2. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission would eventually be given control of rates for recycling programs. 3. The State would place sucharges on tipping fees and utility taxes. The charge would be collected by the State, then partially rebated to local jurisdictions. ReccmTendation• Support and endorse programs that place an emphasis on waste reduction and recycling and contain a disincentive for incineration and landfilling. However, the ability of the cities to control such Program within their own jurisdictions should not be abrogated nor should specific minimal programs be mandated. Any monies from a surcharge should be distributed to the jurisdictions from which the monies originated. III. Municipal Courts A. Legislation is currently pending that affects all courts of limited jurisdiction. The stated purpose of the bill is to establish uniform practices and standards for districts and municipal courts and to encourage the merger of municipal courts into district courts. The bill provides, among other things, that: 1. While cities will retain the option to maintain a municipal court, they are required to provide as much as two years notice that they are going to establish their own municipal court. 2. The State will give the district courts a greater proportion of the revenue from fines and forfeitures than they are now receiving. However, forfeitures than they are now receiving. However, municipal courts will not receive that increased funding. 3. An courts will be required to operate according to certain uniform standards that will be established by the Legislature. However, only the district courts will be provided the increased fining necessary to meet the standard. B. Recommendation: Retain local option to establish a municipal court with a shorter notification timeline. Should uniform standards be required of all courts, the municipal courts should receive the same funding as the district courts. In addition, any uniform standards must allow for flexibility that permits taking into consideration local differences. IV. Drug and Alcohol and Traffic Safety Programs A. The City of Kent has received federal funding to support the Police Department's Drinking Driver Task Force Program for approximately six years. Federal funding for that program will cease on October 31, 1989. B. Recommendation: Support state funding of axmmunity programs to address drug/alcohol and traffic safety issues at the local level. Such funding should recognize the withdrawal of state funding for such programs. V. Workers' Compensation A. A number of bills related to workers' compensation may come before the Legislature during this session. They may range in nature from simple clarification of access to information to authorizing pooling of workers' compensation for cities. B. Recommendation: Support legislation which is favorable to self-funded employers and support pooling of workers' compensation for cities. Ply Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LID 327 - WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set March 21 as date for hearing on final assessment roll for LID 327 - West Valley Highway improvements. 3 . EXHIBITS• 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3J i Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RIVERVIEW RV PARK (CANTOR RV PARK) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization for Mayor to sign agreement for City's financial participation for the oversizing and extra depth costs associated with the construction of the sanitary sewer main extension to service the Riverview RV Park development and establishment of a budget to transfer approximately $21, 925. 00 from the unencumbered sewerage utility funds. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3K Public Works Committee February 14, 1989 Page 5 available funds. Wickstrom proposed funding the first six projects shown on his summary from the available funds which he reviewed for the Committee. He noted that most of the funds for the Green River Bridge Replacement would probably not be required until 1990. Funding for the remaining projects, Wickstrom recommended, be addressed at the time those needs come before Council. Wickstrom reviewed these for the Committee as well. Biteman moved that the Director's recommendations be approved. The Committee unanimously concurred. This approval addresses items 5 (Green River Bridge Replacement) , 9 (Canyon Drive Removal and Replacement of Pylons) and 10 (SR 516/SR 99 Intersection Improvement) on the agenda. Johnson asked if the pylons were going to be replaced on Canyon. Wickstrom commented they will be replaced on a temporary basis with another type of pylon. In designing the Canyon Drive Improvements, the left turn pockets will be constructed in the locations originally intended and the remaining road widened between the left turn pockets so that jersey barriers could be installed in the future as needed. The current design calls for striping these areas to restrict left turns. While the property owners have not been advised as yet, the Transportation Engineer indicates hazards of left turns in specific areas do exist. Wickstrom clarified for Johnson that previously it had been thought a greater shy distance was required for jersey barriers. Further study has been done and it appears there is adequate room for them. Riverview RV Park (Kantor RV Park) Agreement Wickstrom explained the developer is, in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, oversizing and installing to extra depth a sewer main to service an area larger than his immediate development. The developer is requesting the City participate in the costs involved in the oversizing and extra depth. The Director estimated the cost to the City would be approximately $21, 925 and it is his recommendation the City agree to participate and the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement. The Committee unanimously approved the recommendation. Alignment of Crow Road Wickstrom explained this item is in conjunction with the Ruth Rezone. The developer deeded right of way for alignment of Crow Road to the City. To clear his title on his property, the Developer has asked the City quit claim deed back to him any unrequired right of way. The Committee unanimously concurred. 9' N Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1.. SUBJECT: CROW RD. AT 260TH 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the City to quit claim deed back to the property owner that portion of unused right of way for the Crow Rd. alignment project to clear title. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3L Public Works Committee February 14 , 1989 Page 5 available funds. Wickstrom proposed funding the first six projects shown on his summary from the available funds which he reviewed for the Committee. He noted that most of the funds for the Green River Bridge Replacement would probably not be required until 1990. Funding for the remaining projects, Wickstrom recommended, be addressed at the time those needs come before Council. Wickstrom reviewed these for the Committee as well. Biteman moved that the Director's recommendations be approved. The Committee unanimously concurred. This approval addresses items 5 (Green River Bridge Replacement) , 9 (Canyon Drive Removal and Replacement of Pylons) and 10 (SR 516/SR 99 Intersection Improvement) on the agenda. Johnson asked if the pylons were going to be replaced on Canyon. Wickstrom commented they will be replaced on a temporary basis with another type of pylon. In designing the Canyon Drive Improvements, the left turn pockets will be constructed in the locations originally intended and the remaining road widened between the left turn pockets so that jersey barriers could be installed in the future as needed. The current design calls for striping these areas to restrict left turns. While the property owners have not been advised as yet, the Transportation Engineer indicates hazards of left turns in specific areas do exist. Wickstrom clarified for Johnson that previously it had been thought a greater shy distance was required for jersey barriers. Further study has been done and it appears there is adequate room for them. Riverview RV Park (Kantor RV Park) Agreement Wickstrom explained the developer is, in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, oversizing and installing to extra depth a sewer main to service an area larger than his immediate development. The developer is requesting the City participate in the costs involved in the oversizing and extra depth. The Director estimated the cost to the City would be approximately $21, 925 and it is his recommendation the City agree to participate and the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement. The Committee unanimously approved the recommendation. Alignment of Crow Road Wickstrom explained this item is in conjunction with the Ruth Rezone. The developer deeded right of way for alignment of Crow Road to the City. To clear his title on his property, the Developer has asked the City quit claim deed back to him any unrequired right of way. The Committee unanimously concurred. N V Kent City Council Meeting r Date February 21, 1989 < Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CANYON DRIVE IMPROVEMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization for staff to apply for fall funding and establish a budget therefore. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3M Public Works committee February 14 , 1989 Page 6 Canyon Drive Authorization to Establish Budaet Wickstrom explained this is a housekeeping matter. The auditors require we have specific authorization to apply for federal funds and to establish a budget for those funds for this project. The Committee unanimously concurred with the request. L. I . D. 331 S E 240th Street Improvement (108th - 116th) Wickstrom explained there is one parcel on which negotiations are still underway for right of way but to date have not been successful. Wickstrom recommended staff be authorized to pursue condemnation if required. The Committee unanimously approved the request. Other Biteman asked about intersection improvements at Meeker and SR 516. " His suggestions were submitted to the Transportation Engineer for review. Executive Session At 5: 41 p.m. the Committee adjourned to an executive session to discuss pending litigation and property acquisition. Kent City Council Meeting ` 1 Date February 21. 1989 1\11 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CANYON DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PLACEMENT OF PYLONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization for staff to replace the pylons on Canyon Drive at a cost of approximately $5, 000 and to establish a budget for the transfer of funds from the unencumbered funds of the Reith Rd. construction project 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE RE4UIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3N Public Works Committee February 14 , 1989 Page 4 11 were reviewed and Woods stated she had no problems in supporting the recommendations on these items. In addition, she was supportive of the Canyon Drive issues. ) Moss Construction/Steve Elkins Water Availability Wickstrom reviewed previous actions on this item. It was last referred to the Planning Department to review the comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area in question. Their study did not identify the need for any change in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Committee supported these findings. The remaining options available for Committee decision would be to either amend the ordinance deleting the section requiring consistency with the City's Land Use Plan or to recommend the ordinance remain as is and that development be required to be consistent with the City's proposed land use for the area. Elkins stated his request was for an expansion for his industrial building and the water availability would be used simply for the additional restroom facilities required. Johnson asked if there was any way the City could condition a water availability permit by restricting its use. Williamson stated that Mr. Elkins has already signed a agreement with the City wherein he agreed to use the water consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan. By virtue of his industrial use, he is in conflict with the land use plan. Williamson further stated without amending the existing ordinance he did not see how we could condition any water availability and he did not see how we could create an ordinance allowing certain use exceptions without creating major difficulties in policing the ordinance. Biteman asked what the impact would be of amending the existing ordinance deleting the requirement for consistency with the land use plan. Williamson and Wickstrom responded that property would be able to develop in densities or uses other than what the City would allow if the property were within the city limits. Responding to Biteman's question, Williamson recommended the ordinance remain as is and it be applied strictly. Biteman moved not to amend the ordinance and apply it as written. The Committee concurred. Green River Bridge Replacement Wickstrom distributed copies of an analysis of available funding sources. He related he had reviewed all the public works projects to determine the availability of uncommitted funds. These funds are shown on the summary. In addition, he listed additional funding needs for 1989 for projects that have emanated since preparation of the 1989 budget. These needs exceed the amount of Public Works Committee February 14, 1989 Page 5 available funds. Wickstrom proposed funding the first six projects shown on his summary from the available funds which he reviewed for the Committee. He noted that most of the funds for the Green River Bridge Replacement would probably not be required until 1990. Funding for the remaining projects, Wickstrom recommended, be addressed at the time those needs come before Council. Wickstrom reviewed these for the Committee as well. Biteman moved that the Director's recommendations be approved. The Committee unanimously concurred. This approval addresses items 5 (Green River Bridge Replacement) , 9 (Canyon Drive Removal and Replacement of Pylons) -101 and 10 (SR 516/SR 99 Intersection Improvement) on the agenda. Johnson asked if the pylons were going to be replaced on Canyon. Wickstrom commented they will be replaced on a temporary basis with another type of pylon. In designing the Canyon Drive Improvements, the left turn pockets will be constructed in the locations originally intended and the remaining road widened between the left turn pockets so that jersey barriers could be installed in the future as needed. The current design calls for striping these areas to restrict left turns. While the property owners have not been advised as yet, the Transportation Engineer indicates hazards of left turns in specific areas do exist. Wickstrom clarified for Johnson that previously it had been thought a greater shy distance was required for jersey barriers. Further study has been done and it appears there is adequate room for them. Riverview RV Park (Kantor RV Park) Agreement Wickstrom explained the developer is, in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, oversizing and installing to extra depth a sewer main to service an area larger than his immediate development. The developer is requesting the City participate in the costs involved in the oversizing and extra depth. The Director estimated the cost to the City would be approximately $21,925 and it is his recommendation the City agree to participate and the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement. The Committee unanimously approved the recommendation. Alignment of Crow Road Wickstrom explained this item is in conjunction with the Ruth Rezone. The developer deeded right of way for alignment of Crow Road to the City. To clear his title on his property, the Developer has asked the City quit claim deed back to him any unrequired right of way. The Committee unanimously concurred. E3 r+ l0 00 V 01 Ul ? W N �--� �. O N (1 c rr p r m cn IV 'n f,) V v C) z to (n m m ;a N z to co D> M C) m � < c') m Co D z z o D Z x m m � m to � o < p v 3 r (n z •-• S m O m A D r\ NvD A N z - -n -1 �- Ro -{ A p m -1 D D ;v 90 C z ; o t m (n o m �- < D 3 �-+ - 4 N m f'1 r C A p --I -I W to A pN a m A A � < i--� n ¢0 T 3 Z p p -n2 r (A A z -n m (n m O m z ;o C) rd 3 -I -i < z z m p c-1 -o -I •-• -< z m m -i N v •-+ Z to r O O > v 0000 -`/'i m IV 0 o z T X rC m D n � o a m O -I m -< "" z z Nr%3 z q -I D CD .. o C-) � r z .. p n Z A co Ul) 3 z � Z x C� v ^ far p xD co cn m C Z Z C cn m m [7 z N O m r . m Z -I to (n o A O< m m ;a � mZ O -I C1 O --I C �-+ •-� m Z 3-n z m m o m z m .., D (n --I p --I O C Z Z (n Z m m to to D to m WZ Z Ul Im U7 N df Vf 61 W 3 ---I O r-• 7C 7C O O O V ? to to C C 3 N w o 0 0 0 o w o 0 0 o zA co g g o 0 0 0o 0 0 0 0 ---I -4 cn Z Z O O O to o O O Co mO a C D r D co r m -n C Z p Z W D � ^ ^ ^r+ a 3 v+ v+ t ^ n 4^ N N VI % iH 14 co 00 M r �-+ D rl3 o O (n t0 to V 00 00 tD A r = N V V V V N l0 W 00 W � W Z W �p t0 t0 to O 4b A ? -Pb m r z 4�- V V V V N Cl O O O m m O m M Q1 (M 4P to to t0 to SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FUND PROJECT DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE FUNDING 1 . 3122 WVH & 180TH PHASE I $48,000 2. 1-33 -1-DEWALKS 3. 3135 SR 99 & 252ND $4,871 4. 3148 CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY $17,813 5. 3160 LID 297 $506 6. 3167 LID 318 - N. CENTRAL $17, 106 7. 3170 LID 325 - 76TH AVE. ST. IMPR. $181,000 8. 3183 LID 313 / CBD $65,000 9. 3185 SMITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS $402000 10. 3191 REITH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS $9,000 # 11 . 3198 212TH & 42ND ( ORILLIA ROAD) $113 TOTAL AVAILABLE* $4581409 LESS: RESERVE $260,000 BALANCE $1987409 POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL REALLOCATION SOURCES RUBBER RAILWAY CROSSINGS $48,000 260TH AND 104TH SIGNAL $65,000 TOTAL POSSIBLE REALLOCATION SOURCES $113,000 GRAND TOTAL FOOTNOTE: * SIDEWALK FUND (3133) $75,000 WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL REALLOCATION OF THEIR COMMITMENT TO SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS # $9,000 AVAILABLE IN THIS FUND PRIOR TO CANYON DRIVE PYLON REALLOCATION n Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21. 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SR 516/SR 99 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the City to participate in the State's SR 516/SR 99 signalization improvement project, establishment of a budget to transfer $27, 385 into this project budget from funding sources identified in the funding analysis prepared by the Director of Public Works and authorization for the Mayor to sign the agreement with the State. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes, cover letter from the State Department of Transportation and funding source analysis 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 30 �,�, Duano t)grentsnn Vltashington SUMP Secretary of Transportation "►/,fir ►aepnrtinent of Transpartation District I 15325 S F.301fi Plnr9 Bellevue,Washington 98007 6,%S (206)502 4000 January 25, 1989 Don Wi ckstrom CITv of Director of Public Works City of Kent 196() 220 Fourth Ave. So. Kent, WA 98031 CPJG'NPEf-kr;.j(; 11 City of Kent C.S. 1701 SR-99 Jct. SR-516 Illumination Detection Agreement GC-8588 Dear Mr. Wickstrom: Attached is the original and one (1) copy of a proposed participating agreement with the City of Kent on the referenced project. This agreement obligates the City for the illumination system upgrading within City limits. If the agreement is satisfactory, please sign and return both copies for further processing. This project is scheduled for an April 3, 1989 ad date. Please contact Bailey Atkins at phone number 562-4152 should there be further questions. Sincerely, �e R. Gyring, P.E. District State Aid Engineer BA/nv 31/42 Attach. cc: H. Peters M.S. 105 A. Stiles M.S. 111 N. Storme M.S. 135 Public Works Committee February 14 , 1989 Page 4 11 were reviewed and Woods stated she had no problems in supporting the recommendations on these items. In addition, she was supportive of the Canyon Drive issues. ) Moss Construction/Steve Elkins Water Availability Wickstrom reviewed previous actions on this item. It was last referred to the Planning Department to review the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area in question. Their study did not identify the need for any change in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Committee supported these findings. The remaining options available for Committee decision would be to either amend the ordinance deleting the section requiring consistency with the City' s Land Use Plan or to recommend the ordinance remain as is and that development be required to be consistent with the City's proposed land use for the area. Elkins stated his request was for an expansion for his industrial building and the water availability would be used simply for the additional restroom facilities required. Johnson asked if there was any way the City could condition a water availability permit by restricting its use. Williamson stated that Mr. Elkins has already signed a agreement with the City wherein he agreed to use the water consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan. By virtue of his industrial use, he is in conflict with the land use plan. Williamson further stated without amending the existing ordinance he did not see how we could condition any water availability and he did not see how we could create an ordinance allowing certain use exceptions without creating major difficulties in policing the ordinance. Biteman asked what the impact would be of amending the existing ordinance deleting the requirement for consistency with the land use plan. Williamson and Wickstrom responded that property would be able to develop in densities or uses other than what the City would allow if the property were within the city limits. Responding to Biteman' s question, Williamson recommended the ordinance remain as is and it be applied strictly. Biteman moved not to amend the ordinance and apply it as written. The Committee concurred. Green River Bridge Replacement Wickstrom distributed copies of an analysis of available funding sources. He related he had reviewed all the public works projects to determine the availability of uncommitted funds. These funds are shown on the summary. In addition, he listed additional funding needs for 1989 for projects that have emanated since preparation of the 1989 budget. These needs exceed the amount of Public Works Committee February 14 , 1989 Page 5 available funds. Wickstrom proposed funding the first six projects shown on his summary from the available funds which he reviewed for the Committee. He noted that most of the funds for the Green River Bridge Replacement would probably not be required until 1990. Funding for the remaining projects, Wickstrom recommended, be addressed at the time those needs come before Council. Wickstrom reviewed these for the Committee as well. Biteman moved that the Director' s recommendations be approved. The Committee unanimously concurred. This approval addresses items 5 (Green River Bridge Replacement) , 9 (Canyon Drive Removal and Replacement of Pylons) and 10 (SR 516/SR 99 Intersection Improvement) on the agenda. Johnson asked if the pylons were going to be replaced on Canyon. Wickstrom commented they will be replaced on a temporary basis with another type of pylon. In designing the Canyon Drive Improvements, the left turn pockets will be constructed in the locations originally intended and the remaining road widened between the left turn pockets so that jersey barriers could be installed in the future as needed. The current design calls for striping these areas to restrict left turns. While the property owners have not been advised as yet, the Transportation Engineer indicates hazards of left turns in specific areas do exist. Wickstrom clarified for Johnson that previously it had been thought a greater shy distance was required for jersey barriers. Further study has been done and it appears there is adequate room for them. Riverview RV Park (Kantor RV Park) Agreement Wickstrom explained the developer is, in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, oversizing and installing to extra depth a sewer main to service an area larger than his immediate development. The developer is requesting the City participate in the costs involved in the oversizing and extra depth. The Director estimated the cost to the City would be approximately $21, 925 and it is his recommendation the City agree to participate and the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement. The Committee unanimously approved the recommendation. Alignment of Crow Road Wickstrom explained this item is in conjunction with the Ruth Rezone. The developer deeded right of way for alignment of Crow Road to the City. To clear his title on his property, the Developer has asked the City quit claim deed back to him any unrequired right of way. The Committee unanimously concurred. v t0 OD w N �--. H O n -n c a m V) N T v o to CD �.-• •-� to z —� co 9) O 0�1 --4 G Sm) m � O � Z Z O m m � m t o --A p C, r m -1= r = Ln C) rN- z al = z D n H to O G Cn V) ^ 0 7v Na 3 :ic m D O C n n C D O --A T —1 m tD rN+ m A O V) C7 m T 3 Z p T 2 r V7 D Z T m (N O O m O �-+ m O n -Z-I n m \ D V)2 ��-. zN --i _3 —i --1 ,�, D Cl O n � -<< O Z Z m —I CA -V .-� Z u7 m C-) ..i .T G7 V) 00 V) G N coZ >< --i O co � f n C) �-' O T . ...Pu m D --A O O ,4 m O —I m -t z 7D N p m _ O CA �- Z _ _� n Z Z n co fN O O iri Cl v n r C co cn m m c V) CD m r z —I to V) CDr+ r n Cl A m m N Z cmi Z O � .� O -1 m T 3 z z m m n o m z m 0 O T Z C V) Z v 0 H Z G7 �y 4 Z w c c an 4^ m m .- a+ w z z to rn cn N try to ts4 w D N m �-' 7; 7C O O o 14 � cn crn CD p ON W O O O O CD w O O O O Z D 00 E E O O O co O O O CD —{ z z CD 0 o cn o 0 0 o m 0 n C n r D W r m T C Z Z O D z ^ ^ ^ 00 C m bA b M ^ CD lff 69 4A r� n O fn t0 Cn V co 00 to D V V V V N lD w 00 w Z n Z w to io to iD O 4� 4 p 4� m w z ++ V V V V N O O O O m m O C1 T Ql Ch .P to tD to tD tp SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FUND PROJECT DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE FUNDING 1 . 3122 WVH & 180TH PHASE I $48,000 CJ- -2-:--3133--3IDEWALIE 3. 3135 SR 99 & 252ND $4,871 4. 3148 CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY $17,813 5. 3160 LID 297 $506 6. 3167 LID 318 - N. CENTRAL $17,106 7. 3170 LID 325 - 76TH AVE. ST. IMPR. $181,000 8. 3183 LID 313 / CBD $65,000 9. 3185 SMITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS $40,000 10. 3191 REITH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS $9,000 # 11 . 3198 212TH & 42ND ( ORILLIA ROAD) $113 TOTAL AVAILABLE* $458i-409- 3fi 10� LESS: RESERVE $260,000 BALANCE $1-98;-409 POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL REALLOCATION SOURCES RUBBER RAILWAY CROSSINGS $48,000 260TH AND 104TH SIGNAL $65,000 TOTAL POSSIBLE REALLOCATION SOURCES $113,000 GRAND TOTAL FOOTNOTE: * SIDEWALK FUND (3133) $75,000 WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL REALLOCATION OF THEIR COMMITMENT TO SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS # $9,000 AVAILABLE IN THIS FUND PRIOR TO CANYON DRIVE PYLON REALLOCATION Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 11 1. SUBJECT: LID 331 - SOUTHEAST 240TH ST. IMPROVEMENT (108TH TO 116TH) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works Committee adoption of Ordinance No. , authorizing staff to proceed if needed on condemnation proceedings for right of way for LID 331. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3P Public Works Committee - February 14, 1989 Page 6 Canyon Drive Authorization to Establish _Budaet Wickstrom explained this is a housekeeping matter. The auditors require we have specific authorization to apply for federal funds and to establish a budget for those funds for this project. The Committee unanimously concurred with the request. L.I.D. 331 S E 240th Street Improvement (108th - 116th Wickstrom explained there is one parcel on which negotiations are still underway for right of way but to date have not been successful. Wickstrom recommended staff be authorized to pursue condemnation if required. The Committee unanimously approved the request. Other Biteman asked about intersection improvements at Meeker and SR 516. His suggestions were submitted to the Transportation Engineer for review. Executive Session At 5:41 P.M. the Committee adjourned to an executive session to discuss pending litigation and property acquisition. t 1 1 1 1 • _. . 550.01 r. LJ js. oLN I,d � I M1y}AI I ! . I I ! 88 46.00W ul ui vl , I � o{ KENT SPC 77�38 .AF 7801170784' 1 (' of IrLOT 3 Im a 1 I ( I � > I .1 I ' N III I} I 1 V II V 1 ( l 1 II I 14.013 44 W 14u _ �) � I I ! I l•./v4'y' I I 1 III I II l`C I' A I L' 4 ' �uT ,p_ .`�i !'O�U•.,.- ICI , t20.00 93.27 I Z*0 0'99 Safi• 1 I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, providing for widening, construction and improvements of certain roadways, including drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscaping, illumination, signal improvements, electrical facilities and utility adjustments and relocations and related purposes; for the purpose of providing for condemnation, appropriation, taking and damaging of land and other properties therefor; all located approximately near S.E. 240th St. from 108th Ave. S.E. to 116th Ave. S.E. in Kent, Washington. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The public convenience, use and necessity demand that the condemnation of certain real property for the widening, construction and improvement of certain roadways, including drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscaping, illumination, signal improvements, electrical facilities and utility adjustments and relocations and related purposes; for the purpose of providing for condemnation, appropriation, taking and damaging of land and other properties therefor; for such property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. All land, rights, privileqes and other property lying within the limits of the lot, blocks, and tracts of land described in Section 1 hereof are hereby condemned, appropriated, taken and damaged for the purposes set forth above and other public use; and lands, rights, privileges and other properties necessary to be taken, used or damaged in the development and construction of such are hereby condemned, appropriated, taken and damaged for the public use of such purpose, and all lands, rights, privileges and other properties are to be taken, damaged and appropriated only after just compensation has been made or paid into the court for the owners thereof in the manner provided by law. Section 3. The entire cost of the improvement and acquisitions provided for by this ordinance shall be paid from the Drainage Funds, or from such General Funds of the City of Kent as may be provided by law. Section 4. The City Attorney be and she is hereby authorized and directed to begin and prosecute the actions and proceeding in the manner provided by law to condemn, take, damage and appropriate land and other property necessary to carry out the provisions of this ordinance. In conducting such condemnation proceedings, the City Attorney is hereby authorized to enter into stipulations for the purpose of minimizing damages; such stipulations to include, but not limited to, size and dimensions of taking, construction, easement and property interests. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of , 1989. APPROVED the day of , 1989. PUBLISHED the day of , 1989. 2 - 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 07070-250 - 3 - eZ EXHIBIT A 1ST PRELIMINARY BOUNDARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tracts 7 and B R. O. Smiths orchard Tracts to Kent as recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 27 King County, Washington N tin North half of the North half of the Northeast quarter Section 20 Township 22 North, Range 4 East W.M. including all recorded short Plats therein EXCEPT the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section AND ALSO Kings Place Plat as recorded n ton in Volume 118 of Plats pages 53 and 54 King County, 9 AND ALSO Lot 3 Valley High Short Plat 77-38 as recorded under King County Auditors File $7801170784 AND ALSO the West 140 feet of the East 160 feet of the North 311.14 feet of the South 341.14 feet of the Southwest quarter of the southeast quarter in Section 17 Township 22 North Range 5 East W. M. A14D ALSO the South half of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 17 EXCEPT any portion of all the above described property lying within any public rights-cf-ways.,, v Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: REORGANIZATION/RECLASSIFICATION PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization of the salary reclassifi- cations as presented in Appendix A of this report. The effective date of the reclassifications shall be January 1, 1989. 3 . EXHIBITS: Correspondence from the Personnel Department 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $10,896 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Fundina contained within the Parks and Recreation budget for 1989 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3Q RENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Date Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: Reorganization/Reclassification Parks and Recreation Department 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization of the salary reclassification as presented in appendix A of this report. The effective date of the re- classifications shall be January 11 1989 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Correspondence from the Personnel Department is included. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) City Council and Operations Committee 5 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $10 ,896 .00 Source of Funds: Funding contained within Parks and Recreation Budget for 1989 . 6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds. DISCUSSION: ACTION• MEMORANDUM DATE: December 30, 1988 TO: City Council Operations Committee FROM: Mi ebby, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Parks Department Reorganization ----------------------------------------------------------------- The purpose of this memorandum packet is to outline a reorganization of the Parks and Recreation Department and to recommend resultant classification modifications. The attached report contains the analysis and staff recommendation for the effected positions. With your approval it is recommended the adjustment contained within this reorganization be implemented effective January 1, 1989 . Funds for this reorganization are contained within the 1989 Parks and Recreation budget. - 1 MEMORANDUM A L X2 DATE: January 27, 1989 (no fps TO: Mike Webby, Assistant City Administrator FROM: Sue Viseth, Personnel Analyst SUBJECT: PARKS ADMINISTRATION REORGANIZATION ----------------------------------------------------------------- I have completed my analysis of the Parks Administration reorganization as well as the reclassification requests for Sue Floyd, Sharon Adams and May Lou Becker of the Cultural Arts Division. The Parks Administration reorganization impacts the following individuals positions ; Pam Rumer, Ramona Valdez, and Alice Nieffer. Interviews have been conducted with Ramona Valdez and Alice Nieffer. Helen Wickstrom, Superintendent of Parks Administration was also present during each of these interviews. As a result of the Parks Administration reorganization Pam Rumer is now performing the administrative duties previously performed by Ramona Valdez . Pam acts as confidential secretary to the Parks Director relieving the director of a variety of clerical, technical, administrative department wide duties. I therefore recommend that Pam Rumer's position be reclassified from an Administrative Secretary I, range 20, to an Administrative Assistant II, range 27 . Ramona Valdez is now performing professional level accounting duties for the Parks Department. These duties include development and preparation of financial records, reports and documents related to parks projects and department operations. A new job description has been prepared by the Parks Department. I have reviewed and analyzed the new description and feel that a new classification of Project Accountant is warranted. Based on my analysis I am recommending that Ramona ' s position be reclassified from Administrative Assistant II, range 27, to Project Accountant, range 34 . Alice Nieffer is currently classified as an Office Systems Technician I, range 21. However due to the ongoing automation implementation project for the Parks Department as well as the added supervisory duties, Alice' s position has changed significantly. She has significant responsibility for determining the computer software and hardware needs of the Parks Department. She is a member of the City's Automation Committee and has worked closely with the Director of Information Services, as well as vendors, to assist in the design and selection of a Parks Department computer system. Alice also designs and delivers computer training to Parks Department staff on an ongoing basis. Furthermore, Alice has now been assigned responsibility for training and supervising a Data Entry Clerk assigned to Parks Administration. With these modifications in Alice' s position I am recommending that her position be reclassified from Office Systems Technician I, range 21, to Office Systems Technician II, range 24 . Another reorganization took place this summer in the Cultural Arts Division of the Parks Department with their relocation from Parks Administration to the second floor of City Hall . As a result of this relocation the Cultural Arts Administrative Secretary' s position is now more clearly defined. Sue Floyd is the incumbent in this position and reports directly to the Superintendent of Cultural Arts. Sue now works independently from Parks Administrative support staff. I completed my analysis of Sue's position after interviewing both Sue and her supervisor. A copy of the completed analysis is attached for your further review. Based on my analysis I am recommending that Sue ' s position be reclassified from Administrative Secretary I, range 20, to Administrative Assistant I, range 22 . Two reclassification requests were submitted from the Special Populations Resource center. The first for Mary Lou Becker, Office Technician II . There have been considerable changes in the responsibilities assigned to Mary Lou' s position over the last few months. Mary Lou is now responsible for monitoring three budgets, training and supervising a part time clerical employee and has been named Editor of the quarterly newsletter, NETWORK NEWS. As a result of the increased responsibility and complexity of Mary Lou' s duties I am recommending that she be reclassified from a Office Tech. II, range 16, to an Office Tech III, range 20. The second request was for Sharon Adams, Custodian I at the Resource Center. Sharon' s duties as Custodian have been expanded to include grounds maintenance for the Resource Center and the Kent Memorial Park Building. Sharon is now also responsible for training and supervising part time employees. She is required to maintain records and files and monitor her own budget. Based on my analysis of Sharon' s position I am recommending Sharon be reclassified from Custodian I, range 15, to custodian II, range 20 . In closing I have outlined in the attached a summary of my recommendation for the six positions in question. APPENDIX A INCUMBENT PRESENT CLASS/RANGE PROPOSED CLASS/RANGE P. Rumer Admin.Sec. I/Range 20C Admin.Asst.II/Range 27A R. Valdez Admin.Asst.II/Range 27C Project Accountant/Range 34A A. Nieffer Ofc Sys Tech I/Range 21E Ofc Sys Tech II/Range 24E S. Floyd Admin Sec I/Range 20E Admin.Asst. I/Range 22E S . Adams Custodian I/Range 15C Custodian II/Range 20B M. Becker Office Tech. II/Range 16C Office Tech. III/Range 20B RECLASS.PKS A �� Kent City Council Meeting y Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION - POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization of the reclassification of the position's of Captain and Lieutenant in the Police Department and Assistant Chief in the Fire Department. Authorization of uniform allowance for positions of captain and lieutenant in the Police Department. The effective date of these modifications and compensation shall be January 1, 1989. 3 . EXHIBITS: Correspondence from Administration and Personnel staff is included 4. RECOMMENDED BY: City Council Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Fire Department $2,400, Police Department 10 924 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Funding contained within Police and Fire budgets for 1989 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3R RENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Date Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: Reclassification - Police Department and Fire Department 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization of the reclassification of the positions of Captain and Lieutenant in the Police Department and Assistant Chief in the Fire Department. Authorization of uniform allowance for positions of Captain and Lieutenant in the Police Department. The effective date of these modifications in compensation shall be January 1, 1989 . 3 . EXHIBITS• Correspondence from administration of Personnel Staff is included. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) City Council Operations Committee 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ Fire $2 400 00 Police $10 ,924 . 00 Source of Funds: Funding contained within Police and Fire Budgets for 1989 . 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds. DISCUSSION: ACTION: MEMORANDUM DATE: January 12, 1989 TO: City Council Operations Committee FROM: Mikd liWebby, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATIONS - POLICE DEPARTMENT The purpose of this memorandum is to outline a reclassification request submitted by the Police Department to Brent McFall as well as his recommendation. The request concerns a salary and benefit adjustment requested for the positions of Police Captain and Police Lieutenant. The primary premise of the request stems from the significant improvement in salaries and benefits provided by the contract with the Police Officers Union, 1987/1989. The department expressed concern that the salaries and benefits improvement for union personnel out stripped those salaries and benefit adjustments received by their management staff, i .e. , Police Captains and Lieutenants. Following his analysis of the request and meetings with Chief Frederiksen, Brent concluded that an adjustment was warranted. Brent has recommended that a salary adjustment Qf approximately 2 and 1 /2 percent (2.5%) be awarded to both Police Captains and Lieutenants, i .e. , one salary range adjustment. If approved, Police Captains would move from range 46 to range 47; Police Lieutenants from range 43 to range 44. In addition to the salary adjustment, Brent has recommended that a clothing allowance be provided both positions, not to exceed a $400 clothing reimbursement per year (similar to union contract personnel ) for both Police Captains and Lieutenants. It is further recommended that a 2 and 1 /2 percent (2.5%) salary adjustment be awarded in the Fire Department for the position of Assistant Fire Chief. If approved, the salary range for Assistant Fire Chief would move from range 46 to range 47. The purpose for this recommendation is to maintain the parity between the positions of Police Captain and Assistant Fire Chief that have been maintained over the past years. It was Brent' s intent to continue this parity relationship even though it is not reflected in his memorandum to me dated January 3, 1989. You will also note that Brent has recommended an effective date of January 1 , 1989. Funds for these salary and benefit adjustments will be provided by the 1989 Police and Fire Department budgets. I have attached a copy of City Administrator McFall 's memorandum to me, dated January 3, 1989, for your review. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at your earliest convenience. 2386W-32W OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: January 3, 1989 TO: Mike Webby, Assistant City Administrator FROM: Brent McFall , City Administrator SUBJECT: ADJUSTMENTS TO COMPENSATION FOR OLICE CAPTAINS AND LIEUTENANTS I have reviewed the request for adjustments to salary levels for police captains and lieutenants and have determined that both positions should be adjusted upwards by one salary range (2-1/2 percent) . Further, I have determined that it would be appropriate to provide a clothing allowance to police captains and lieutenants in an amount equivalent to that established by contract for represented commissioned police officers. These adjustments should be effective January 1 , 1989. As you know, you will need to take this matter before the Council Operations Committee and full Council for approval . If you should need any clarification or further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. copy: Rod Frederiksen, Chief of Police 2860A-1A Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EMERGENCY GROUND LADDERS TESTING AND REPLACEMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Fire Department to proceed with testing of all emergency ground ladders and authorize replacement of ladders that fail. There have been recent changes in the NFPA Standards that the Fire Department uses to test ground ladders. The testing for older ladders is less stringent than that for the newly constructed ladders. We will endeavor to cover the expense out of this year's budget by using salary funds of a firefighter who resigned and delay in hiring a replacement. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo to Jim Harris, Acting City Administrator requesting his approval to proceed with testing and an executive summary from Battalion Chief Robertson regarding ladder testing for the Kent Fire Department. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee Meeting of 2/14/89 . Fire Chief Norm Angelo and Acting City Administrator Jim Harris (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) to proceed with testing and replacement of ladders as necessary 5. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: estimate prior to testing is $11,242 SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3S MEMORANDUM JANUARY 18, 1989 TO: JIM IIARRIS, ACTING CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CIIIEF„� (,)o SUBJECT: "EMERGENCY GROUND LADDERS" TESTING ------------------------------------------------------------ Recent changes in NFPA Standards that we have utilized to test our ground ladders has required additional training of our personnel . Upon completion of this training we began testing of our older ladders in accordance with the standard. The test for older ladders is less stringent than that for newly constructed ladders. We began with a 35 foot extension ladder which popped rivets and failed the test. It became obvious that several of our older ladders may have difficulty in passing the test. At the same time replacement ladders were not identified in the 1989 budget because we had not yet completed the training and evaluation of the program. Given the ladder failure, the nature of emergency work and the significant potential liability, I am requesting authorization to proceed with testing and to replace the ladders that fail . We have not found an agency that will repair and certify the older ladders. It is difficult to say how many ladders will fail , but we have attached a likely scenario based on the experience of some others who have done recent testing. An estimate prior to testing is $11, 242 . We could exceed or be lower than that estimate. We will endeavor to cover the expense out of this years budget, however, at this time I can not identify an area that may cover these costs . It is possible we may not be able to cover costs in budget. Even if we were sure to go beyond budget, I would still recommend that we proceed with testing and replacement as necessary. With your approval we will proceed with testing, notify Public Safety Committee and others you designate. Further, since this test must be done annually we will place an item request to cover this area in the future budgets . If you have further questions please let me know. ateA oval / 'G ja EXECUTIVE SUMMARY JANUARY 17 , 1989 TO: ASSISTANT CHIEF ALDRIDGE FROM: BATTALION CIIIEF ROBERTSON SUBJECT: LADDER TESTING FOR THE KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT ------------------------------------ INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The Kent Fire Department has followed NFPA 1932-1984 , which states that all ground ladders will be tested according to these new specifications: 5. 1.7 A) At least annually B) When suspect of being unsafe C) When subject to overloading D) When subject to impact loading E) Being exposed to heat F) When deficiencies have been repaired In order for "in-house" testing of all ground ladders used by the _.. Kent Fire Department, three (3) personnel from each shift (6 total) have been trained and certified to perform the testing in accordance with the NFPA 1932-1984 . Testing cannot be completed until a budget has been established to repair or replace the ladders and/or hardware that are projected not to pass the test. We have had 1 35 foot ladder fail tests already. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is the recommendation that the Department seek additional funds so that all ground ladders of the Kent Fire Department can be tested, repaired and/or replaced as needed in accordance with NFPA 1932-1984 . SIGNIFICANCE Without this budget the Kent Fire Department will not be able to establish a baseline of integrity and safeness to the ladders already in use at this time. Also, by not conducting the testing while knowing that ladders have not passed the tests, the City may be accepting significant liability. BUDGET/ECONOMIC IMPACT At this time we can only estimate from the experience of others. According to Underwriters Laboratories, the expected failure rate of ladders subject to testing, which are presently used in the fire service is as follows: Of 2 , 000 ladders, given random lengths and manufactures, 15% failed. Of ladders 35 feet or longer, 45% failed. Roof ladder hooks of dimensions less than 3/4 inches will fail 100%. From the above information the Kent Fire Department anticipates the following ladders will likely fail the testing procedures: 1 - 50 foot Bangor 3 - 35 foot Extensions 1 - 14 fo,_ L Roofer 6 - Pair of roof ladder hooks The replacement costs of this equipment is attached. The amount needed is only an estimate and could be more or less dependant upon the actual outcome of our testing. ALTERNATIVES/CONSEOUENCES Alternatives to the testing procedures are: 1. Subject the City to a potential significant liability. lm ITEM DUO SAFETY PRICE OTY TOTAL Roofer Hooks 75. 00 6 450 . 00 Truss Type Truss 175-T 14 ' Roofer 700 . 00 1 700 . 00 3 Section 125-T 35 ' Extension 2200 . 00 3 6600 . 00 3 section Alcolite Truss 525-B 50 ' Bangor 2100 . 00 1 2100 . 00 Dimension ---- 4 ?.50. 00 Change Misc. Repair 300. 00 Parts Subtotal 10,400. 00 8 . 1% Tax 842 . 40 Total $11, 242 . 40 l ' Kent .City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DANCE CLUB ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance regulating dance clubs. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, memorandum 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3T OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: February 16, 1989 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Legal Department SUBJECT: PROPOSED DANCE CLUB ORDINANCE The City of Kent Fire and Police Departments have requested adoption of an ordinance regulating the operation of dance halls. Currently, only one such dance club exists within Kent city limits, but the popularity of such clubs is growing. The proposed ordinance is characterized as "preventive action" . It is designed specifically to institute sufficient health and safety regulations to prevent problems which have been prevalent in the majority of dance club operations, such as illegal and/or underage drug and alcohol use; fights; disturbances; fire code violations, and attendant threats to life and property; and the overcrowding of facilities. The proposed ordinance establishes a licensing procedure and fee schedule. Applications of prospective owners and operators are reviewed by the Police Chief to ensure that the facility meets applicable zoning, building, and fire codes, and that no owner or operator has a past criminal history. The ordinance requires adequate security personnel to attend dances, and provides for litter control measures. Assistance of the management is required by the ordinance to control loitering and to prevent attendance by those under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A readmission fee is mandated. An appeal procedure is established in the event of initial license or renewal denial . Operating a public dance in violation of the ordinance is deemed a misdemeanor. The ordinance is similar to ordinances currently in effect in Renton and Redmond, and in the drafting stages in Spokane. 471OL-18L i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, providing for the licensing and regulation of public dances and dance halls, adding a new section 5.35 to Chapter 5 business license and regulations, establishing licensing requirements, penalties, establishing grounds for revocation of licenses and establishing an effective date, and amending Kent City Code Section 5.04.070, Ordinance 0.686, 510. WHEREAS, the Kent City Council finds that unregulated public dance halls contribute to the problems associated with runaway children, alcohol and drug abuse by children; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council finds that the regulations set forth in this ordinance will help prevent the operation of public dance halls from contributing to such problems and that these regulations are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Kent City Code Chapter 5, entitled "Business License and Regulations" is hereby amended by adding a new Section 5.35 entitled "Public dances and Dance Halls" as follows: 5.35.010 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this Chapter and unless the context plainly requires otherwise, the following definitions are adopted: A. "Public dance" means any dance that is open to the public and which: (1) is conducted for a profit, direct or indirect; or (2) requires a monetary payment or contribution from the persons admitted. The term "Public Dance" does not include a banquet, party or celebration conducted for invited guests which is not open to the public, and for which no fee or membership contribution is required. Additionally, the term "public dance" as used in this ordinance does not include any dance held by a licensed liquor establishment, or at any location wherein alcoholic beverages are legally served, sold, dispensed, or permitted on the premises; it being the intention that said dances be governed by the appropriate provisions of RCW Chapter 66. and all other pertinent laws and regulations including but not limited to Kent City Code Section 5.04.070. B. "Dance hall" means any place or premise where a public dance is conducted, including but not limited to all hallways, bathrooms and all adjoining enclosed areas accessible to the public or any patron during the dance. C. "Person" includes one or more natural persons, corporations, partnerships or unincorporated associations or other forms of business organization. D. "Police Chief" means the Kent Police Chief or his designee. E. "Fire Chief" means the Kent Fire Chief or his or her designee. 5.35.020 LICENSE REQUIRED - FEE - RENEWALS A. It is unlawful for any person to conduct a public dance within the City of Kent without first having obtained and being the holder of a valid and sutsisting license for such activity, to be known as a "public dance license". The annual fee for a public dance license is $250.00. A limited license for a single event is $25.00 per event day, but no more than 3 limited licenses shall be obtained in any calendar month or more than 6 limited licenses in any calendar year unless the full annual license has been paid. B. The entire annual license fee shall be paid for the applicable calendar year regardless of when the application for license is made, and shall not be prorated for any part of the year except that if the original application for license is made subsequent to June 30th, the license fee for the remainder of that - 2 - year shall be one-half of the annual license fee. Annual license renewals shall be obtained and paid in full by January 1st of each calendar year. C. There shall be assessed and collected by the Finance Director an additional charge of 50% of the original license fee, on renewal applications not made when due, including payment of the required fee, on or before January 31st of each calendar year. D. Failure to obtain license renewal and to pay all required fees pursuant thereto by January 31 shall result in suspension and/or revocation of said license pursuant to Kent City Code 5.35.120(i) . 5.35.030 LICENSE - EXEMPTION AND WAIVED OF PAYMENT A. A license is not required under this chapter if the dance is conducted by the City of Kent or by a public and/or private school licensed by the State of Washington. P. The Police Chief or his or her designee shall have the right to waive the requirement of payment of the license fee in the case of any dance open to the public which is conducted for a charitable purpose by a nonprofit, tax exempt organization, corporation or association recognized as exempt from Federal income tax pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. Application for a fee waiver shall be made no less than thirty days prior to the date of the dance for which a license is sought. 5.35.040 LICENSE - APPLICATION A. Applications for any license pursuant to this chapter shall be submitted in writing to the Finance Director upon such forms as the Police Chief may prescribe at least thirty (30) days prior to the first dance. In addition to other information requested, application forms shall contain the name and place of residence of the applicant and owner, if different than applicant, the address and description of the premises to be licensed and the time and date of the dance or dances to be held. The Finance 3 - i f .._ I Director must be notified within 10 days of any changes in the information required in this Section. B. All applications shall be referred to the Police Chief who shall conduct an investigation as to the truth of the statements contained therein and investigate all other matters pertaining to the criteria for license approval set forth in this chapter. The Chief of Police shall confer with the Finance Director as to the results of such investigation, as well as his or her other findings as to whether the criteria for obtaining a public dance license have been met. 5.35.050 LICENSE - CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL - RFAPPLICATION A. The Finance Director shall grant a license unless he or she finds that one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The building, structure, equipment or location of the business or dance for which license is sought does not comply with the requirements or fails to meet the standards of the applicable health, zoning, building, fire safety or other applicable laws and ordinances of the State of Washington, King County, and the City of Kent or the requirements of this chapter; 2. The applicant or any of the applicant's employers, officers, directors, partners, operators, employees or any other person involved in the operation or business of the dance or dance hall has been convicted within the last five years of: a) A felony involving a crime of violence (as defined in RCW 9.41.010(2) as it now exists or as hereafter amended) or any felony under RCF' Chapters 9A.44, 9A.64, 9A.88 or 69.50; or b) A crime involving prostitution, promoting prostitution, prostitution loitering or lewd conduct, or assault on a juvenile. - 4 - I j i B. Any applicant denied a license may reapply and be granted a license if the applicant can show that the basis for such denial no longer exists, or may appeal such denial pursuant to Chapter 5.35.070, below. C. Applications for renewal of a license issued under this Chapter shall be processed and considered according to the criteria for initial issuance of the license. I, 5.35.060 CONDITIONS UPON ISSUANCE OF LICENSE - REVIEW OF OPERATIONS. A. At the time of granting a license or license renewal pursuant to this Chapter, the Finance Director, when authorized by City Code or State or Federal law, rule or regulation may impose such conditions as necessary to adequately protect the public health, safety and general welfare. B. The Police Chief shall review the operations of all public dance halls approximately six months after commencement of business to determine whether additional or revised conditions are needed to protect the public welfare. The licensee shall be given notice of all proposed additional conditions and an opportunity to be heard concerning the conditions pursuant to Kent City Code 5.35.070. 5.35.070 APPEAL FROM DENIAL OR CONDITIONS A. When the Finance Director refuses to grant or renew a license, or grants or renews a license with conditions, the City shall notify the applicant in writing of the same and shall inform the applicant of his or her right to a hearing before the Hearing Examiner by the applicant filing a written notice of appeal which contains a specific statement of the reasons for the appeal with the Hearing Examiner within 10 days of the date of the notice from the Finance Director. B. If the applicant timely files a notice of appeal, the applicant shall be afforded a hearing before the Hearing Examiner at which time the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to 5 - I i I show that the conditions imposed are arbitrary and capricious or that the reasons for denial of the license do not justify the denial. After the hearing the Examiner shall determine whether the applicant has shown reason to revise the conditions or to issue the license and shall issue its final findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision within 10 days of the date of the hearing. Any aggrieved party may appeal the Hearing Examiner's Decision by seeking, within 14 days of the date of the Examiner's decision, a writ of review from the King County Superior Court. 5.35.080 SECURITY PERSONNEL. REQUIRED. It shall be the obligation of every person licensed under this Chapter to insure that an adequate number of qualified security personnel are employed and in attendance before, during, and following each public dance as is necessary in order to maintain order and insure compliance with the laws of the State of Washington and ordinances of the City of Kent. Qualified security personnel shall include a minimum of two persons trained as law enforcement personnel which may include off duty police officers approved by the Police Chief. At no time shall fewer than 25% of the security personnel have training as law enforcement personnel or similar training as approved by the Police Chief. Those security personnel not having law enforcement training must have received formal training in crowd control by an agency not associated with the licensee as approved by the Chief of Police. A minimum of two security officers shall be required for up to the first two hundred persons in attendance; thereafter one additional officer for each additional one hundred persons in attendance shall be required. The Police Chief of the City of Kent shall have the right to require an increase in security personnel if the Chief determines the extra security is necessary because of past incidents at the dance hall which threaten public safety, health or welfare, or threats or evidence of future incidents that threaten public safety health or welfare. Any decision of the Chief to require extra security personnel may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner in the manner described in Kent Code 5.35.070. 6 - 5.35.090 LITTER CONTROL - SECURITY FOR CLEANUP A. Prior to issuance of any public dance license a cash security deposit in the amount of $200 shall be submitted to the Finance Director as security for the cleanup of all litter resulting from any public dance authorized by the license. In the event the licensee fails to clean up all litter on any public or private property which results from any public dance conducted by the licensee within twenty-four hours of the end of the dance, the City may cause such litter to be cleaned up and pay the costs of the clean up out of the security funds. Litter resulting from the public dance shall be limited to that occurring within a one block radius of the location of the dance unless clearly identified with the dance. In the event the cost of the clean up exceeds the amount of funds on deposit, the licensee shall pay such excess costs. B. In the event funds are expended out of a security deposit required by this Section, the licensee shall, within five days of receipt of written notice of such expenditure, submit the amount necessary to replenish the security fund to the amount of the full security deposit. No renewal license shall be issued unless the full amount of the security deposit for litter clean up is on deposit with the City at the time of the application for renewal. If funds sufficient to replenish the fund are not received within 5 days of receipt of written notice then the dance hall license shall be suspended until sufficient funds are received. Within the 5 days of receipt of notice of deficiency, the dance hall licensee may inform the Finance Director in writing of circumstances justifying nonpayment of additional funds which information shall be considered by the Finance Director and the licensee shall not be suspended if the nonpayment is justified. C. If the funds for security for cleanup are fully expended within any one week, or if the funds for cleanup fall below $100.00 twice in any quarter or five times in any year, then the Finance Director shall require an additional cash deposit of not less than $200.00 and not more than the greatest one week expenditure for cleanup during the prior year. 7 - i D. Upon termination of all activities authorized by a public dance license and clean up of all litter resulting from such activity, the remainder of all funds deposited as security for litter clean up shall be refunded to the licensee, without interest. 5.35.100 LOITERING ON PREMISES PROHIBITED. It shall be the obligation of each person issued a license under this Chapter to use best efforts to prevent loitering of all persons on the premises of the dance hall, including all parking lot and driveway areas used by patrons of the dance hall. "Loitering" shall not include walking between the entrance to the public dance and parked vehicles, nor shall it include the act of waitinq in line to gain admission to the dance including both inside and outside the dance hall premises. The licensee shall use every best effort to cooperate with the Kent Police Department for removal of loiterers by enforcement of criminal trespass charges against said loiterers. Failure to cooperate by the licensee shall be grounds for possible revocation and/or suspension of license. 5.35.110 AREA FOR WAITING FOR ADMISSION ENTRANCE AND SECURITY A. Any dance hall shall provide an area, which area is not part of the public right-of-way or sidewalks, where patrons may wait for admission to the dance hall. This area shall be clearly marked. The number of persons permitted in this area shall be limited to a number of persons reasonably likely to obtain admission to the dance hall within 30 minutes considering the normal rate of turnover of patrons within the dance hall. At no time shall the number of patrons waiting exceed the permitted occupancy load of the dance hall as established by the Fire Code and Fire Marshal. The dance hall operator shall provide security personnel to control the waiting area one hour before opening and throughout the hours of operation. The security personnel shall use their best efforts to prevent persons seeking admission but not permitted in the waiting area from congregating on the public right-of-way and sidewalks, and the security personnel shall require such persons to leave the property under control of the dance hall. 8 - B. All persons admitted to the dance hall shall be admitted through a single entrance so that the occupancy load can be monitored. C. The licensee and management of any dance hall shall prohibit any person under the influence of intoxicants or drugs from entering the dance hall and shall expel any person under such condition if found within the premises. i 5.35.120 REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF LICENSE A. After giving notice to the licensee of the right to a hearing pursuant to the procedures set forth in this ordinance, and conducting a hearing if a timely request is filed, the Finance Director may suspend or revoke any license issued pursuant to this chapter where one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The license was procured by fraud or false representation of material fact in the application or in any report or record required to be filed; 2. The building, structure, equipment or location of the business or dance for which the license was issued does not comply with the requirements or fails to meet the standards of the applicable health, zoning, building, fire and safety laws and ordinances of the State of Washington, King County, and the City of Kent, or the requirements of this chapter; 3. The applicant or any of the applicant's officers, directors, partners, operators, or with the applicant's actual or imputed knowledge employees or any other person involved in the operation of the dance or dance hall has been convicted within the last five years of: a) A felony involving a crime of violence (as defined in RCW 9.41.010(2) as it now exists or as hereafter amended) or any felony under RCW Chapters 9A.44, 9A.64, 9A.88 or 69.50; or 9 - b) A crime involving prostitution, promoting prostitution, prostitution loitering or lewd conduct, or assault on a juvenile. 4. The licensee or his or her employee, agent, partner, employer, director, officer or manager has knowingly allowed or permitted: a) A felony involving a crime of violence (as defined in RCW 9.41.010(2) as it now exists or as hereafter amended) or any felony under RCW Chapters 9A.44, 9A.64, 9A.88 or 69.50 to occur in or upon the dance hall premises; b) A crime involving prostitution, promoting prostitution, prostitution loitering or lewd conduct, or assault on a juvenile to occur in or upon the dance hall premises; c) Any unlawful act of sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or masturbation to be committed in or upon the dance hall premises; or d) The dance hall premises to be used as a place in which unlawful solicitations for sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation or masturbation occur; or e) The possession or consumption of liquor by persons under the age of twenty-one years, in or upon dance hall premises; or f) The giving or supplying of liquor to any person under the age of twenty-one years; or g) The use by any person in or upon the dance hall premises of marijuana, cocaine or any other controlled substance (as defined in RCW 69.50.101(d) as now exists or as hereafter amended) not prescribed by a licensed physician for use by the person possessing or using the substance. 10 - h) Violation of any condition placed upon a license issued pursuant to this chapter, of this ordinance, or of any other applicable law or ordinance, which the Finance Director finds constitutes an unreasonable interference with surrounding land uses or is otherwise unreasonably detrimental to the public welfare; i) Failure to timely file and pay any admissions tax or other fee owing to the City of Kent. j) Allowing any person under the influence of intoxicants or drugs onto or to remain within the premises. B. If the Finance Director finds that any of the conditions set forth in this Chapter exists and that the existence of such condition constitutes a threat of immediate and serious injury or damage to person or property, and in the case of conditions which may be eliminated by the licensee, that notice of the conditions has been given to the licensee and at least 24 hours have expired without the elimination of such conditions, the Finance Director may immediately suspend any license issued under this Chapter without prior opportunity to be heard. In this event the licensee shall be entitled to appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner in accordance with KCC 5.35.070 of this chapter. The notice of immediate suspension of license given pursuant to this subsection shall include a statement of the conditions found to exist that constitutes a threat of immediate and serious injury or damage to persons or property, and shall also inform the applicant of his or her right to appeal within ten (10) days of the date of the notice by filing a written notice of appeal, which contains a statement of the specific reasons for the appeal, with the City Clerk. C. Revocation of any license issued under this Chapter shall be accomplished pursuant to KCC 5.35.070. D. Any decision of the Finance Director to revoke or suspend a dance hall license may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner within 10 days of the Finance Director's decision. The appellant shall pay a $75.00 fee as a condition of filing such appeal. - 11 - E. Any aggrieved party may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision rendered under parts B and D of this section, by seeking, within 10 days of the Examiner's decision, a writ of review from the King County Superior Court. 5.35.130 AGE RESTRICTIONS. A. No person conducting a public dance or maintaining a public dance hall shall knowingly allow persons under the age of sixteen years to enter or remain in the dance hall without a parent or legal guardian present. B. It is the responsibility of the licensee and any other person conducting and/or operating a public dance to require identification showing the age of each person admitted. A valid Washington State Drivers License or photo identification card issued by the Washington State Department of Licensing shall be the only acceptable forms of proof of age. C. Every person who knowingly or recklessly allows a person to enter or remain in violation of this section shall be » guilty of a misdemeanor. D. Any person who affirmatively misrepresents his or her age to obtain admission to or permission to remain in any public dance in violation of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 5.35.140 HOURS OF OPERATION. No public dance hall to which any person under the age of 18 years may be admitted shall be operated past the hour of 12:00 midnight on any school night. No public dance shall be operated past the hour of 2:00 a.m. on any other day. for the purpose of this Section, the term "school night" means any night preceding a day upon which public schools within the City of Kent are scheduled to operate. 5.35.150 PUBLIC DANCE - READMISSION FEE. No person conducting or operating a public dance or public dance hall shall permit any person, other than an employee, to leave the dance or 12 - dance hall and return unless that person pays a readmission fee equal to the original price of admission. 5.35.160 ACCESS - BY POLICE AND FIRE OFFICERS. All police and fire officers of the City of Kent shall have free access to public dances and dance halls when a dance is being conducted, for the purpose of inspection and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable City, County and State health, zoning, building, fire and safety ordinances and laws. 5.35.170 LICENSE LIMITED TO LICENSEE AND LOCATION. Any license issued under the provisions of this chapter shall apply to a single licensee and to a single location only and shall not be transferable to other locations or to other persons. 5.35.180 APPLICABILITY. All dance balls required to be licensed by this ordinance within the City of Kent shall be regulated by the provisions of this chapter, regardless of whether a public dance license or business license was obtained from the City prior to or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. 5.35.190 VIOLATION. It shall be a misdemeanor to operate or manage a public dance in violation of the provisions of this chapter, without having first obtained a valid license, or renewal; or to operate or manage a public dance when one's license to do so has been suspended or revoked. Section 2. Kent City Code Chapter 5.04.070 is amended as follows: 5.04.070. PREMISES WHERE DAVCING IS PERMITTED. The license fee for taverns, cocktail lounges, and any other place of business wherein dancing is permitted and where alcoholic beverages are legally served, dispensed sold, or permitted on the premises, shall be fifty dollars per year, payable quarterly in advance. (0.686, S10) - 13 - Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of , 1989. APPROVED the day of , 1989. PUBLISHED the day of , 1989. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereo indicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 06320-240 14 - �( .......... �� IV1 ��n, Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21. 1989 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CENTER/272ND-277TH CORRIDOR BOND ORDINANCE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As discussed with the Operations Committee at their February 15, 1989 meeting, the adoption of a bond Ordinance and the authorization for the Mayor to sign a purchase contract in the amount of $2,980, 000. The funds will be used to complete the construction of the public safety training center for $980,000 and to provide initial bond funding for the 272nd-277th Corridor Project in the amount of $2, 000, 000. Both these projects had been previously committed to by Council resolution. The purchase contract with Shearson Lehman Hutton is at a net interest rate of 7. 14% and a gross underwriting spread of $15. 00 per $1, 000 bond. Summary material as discussed with the Operations Committee is included herewith. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and contract 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $2 980,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Obligation Bond Issue 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3U MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- Subject: 1989 DEBT ISSUANCE Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 01/20/89 at 1349 . TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: TONY MCCARTHY, FINANCE DIRECTOR PRIOR COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS HAVE AUTHORIZED THE ISSUANCE OF COUNCILMANIC BONDS IN 1989 FOR COMPLETION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CENTER AND TO PROVIDE A PORTION OF CITY FUNDING FOR THE 272/277 CORRIDOR. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THIS DEBT ($3 , 907 , 000) CAN NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL MID SUMMER BECAUSE OUR REMAINING BONDING CAPACITY WON 'T BE LARGE ENOUGH UNTIL WE MAKE A JULY 1 DEBT PAYMENT. SEE THE ATTACHED ANALYSIS FOR FUTURE ISSUES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS . FIRE CHIEF ANGELO HAS REQUESTED HIS FUNDS IN FEBRUARY IF POSSIBLE. THE OPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE STREET ISSUE ARE AS FOLLOWS : 1) ISSUE A LESSER AMOUNT THAN PLANNED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE 2) DEFER THE STREET ISSUE UNTIL LATE SUMMER 3) DEFER THE STREET ISSUE UNTIL JANUARY 1990 AND ISSUE IN COMBINATION WITH AN ADDITIONAL COUNCILMANIC STREET ISSUE PLANNED FOR THAT YEAR OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS ARE SAYING TO DO ONLY ONE ISSUE IN 1989 . THE 272/277 CORRIDOR IS THE CITY ' S NUMBER PRIORITY PROJECT. DEFERRING THE BOND ISSUE UNTIL A LATER DATE LEAVES OPEN THE POSSIBILITY OF USING THE FUNDS FOR OTHER PURPOSES . IN ADDITION INTEREST RATES ARE VERY FAVORABLE AT THIS TIME, THEREFORE OPTION (l) IS THE PERFERRED CHOICE. CITY OF KP41- PRiLYCIED PfOU41 NEEDS i'MAIT M IS9c z WIE 1W, 11 9U 19,11 I992 -------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- 1) CEZA 1:1f.:LICATI(N CfAW-11"K., FICLIC SAFETY UMBE FIRE [RA1111W WITER F644 STREET 27JU Feb-89 STM F 271411 CMRIN Fd,-,Xi 2) RUff SEWTIAIIE DRAIMIZ CIF' NT-FrfS Ap-130 ULID 3iifi I)RAIMC1 1rT 4A-1 5,716,400 SMAN, A-)-Z;ES*NT LID ",FIR h SUM PiPRINK-Wr Fetes E: 1,0ii-1,06 LID 327,12,.tA SUEET,TRAFFIr. SlfA & SEWER .1111-NN A1,414 LID :Al3 STREET 1WROVEhENT ..q( -1�3, '.1 rP,41, - - UP 111 S I R EE 1 b)-911 41t i,4 H I LID 3,,"1 C.Th'FC.T S,'11 ol,I H 0 ----------- ----------------- TuA — —-—------------------------------—--------——----------—------------------------------—--------------- CITY (f KHT- LID, UAW') LID Or di nwo, Orchionce K-on&ble 4 of Contract 1,oifirr,inq AntirijsatHd L ty Greati irj Awmiiit Parcel 4urd Final Rd] Bcod S,31e Pad,,el s ------------------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- X6 W. Valley Hwy Drainage (ULID) 5,745j10 Q5 3�22 WpztvieRi Teirar-p "eqer 461,774 1110 :2-.3 1 Olympi, Vie Hpi.�A5 `A"Iwr oql6p6 177,3-30 Sri Feb-c"Y Do 25 76tit Ave Street brix,mvmetilt 12/o 1/26 411,W2, 9 1#1, 11 ITi I Feb-,".19 W 327 W Valley lUy 212'th to James L)1211W ',515,214 63 Jul-.09 31403 W Valley Hwy 1;,)th to 2121th 113/)4/2,7 5,200,000 1R Apr-W W 329 74th S & SR 516 Traffic 'ipal (6/05/87 18.2, KILD 14% Rki fAth Ave Improve-ment S.ep--`fj %, 331 S "loth FrQm 1W, to 116 ol/usm".- %,wc 116 I1)-90 170 333 721id Ave &S IKIth Traffic Signal otip7/s'M 131i,wo 36 3in-09 nri 2 3A 121st, 19nd Avae E& 76'F 2th Sewer O6t111RR 16 12f2111iX Juan-31) no WN cool Willis Storm ffU,0111 Hi CD XXX 77th keni.K- Street Improvement 1,11.0,Wu HOLD TUrALS '215,030,21r�c: City of Kent, Washington 1989 Final 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 2,708,450,189 20,313,376 (16,541,000) 3,772,376 02/15/89 Fire & Street 20,313,376 (16,496,000) (2,980,000) 837,376 05/01/89 Fire & Street 20,313,376 (16,406,000) (2,980,000) 927,376 07/01/89 Fire & Street 20,313,376 (16,331,000) (2,980,000) 1,002,376 07/22/89 Fire & Street 20,313,376 (16,288,000) (2,980,000) 1,045,376 " '01/89 Fire & Street 20,313,376 (16,178,000) (2,980,000) 1,155,376 '�.�01/89 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 Y3 b ] O c a� m al ot _s Y 0 IC > 9 is � a '^ rm K n n � n C Z� C :m N � c n m m t Z O O TI cn ,,AA n > z m� m a o Q n � z S mz nm xm Z D � rC ►.�• m p C om Z!!f m z mm qL 10 I � N O T ry n • z T m m i D a 9 a 3 i c m Z m b t C r s c n N m v O Z O O m O S tl � fi N CLI) NJ '207 C(RID. LT(di C RIDS, 1%37 LT(O BAWDS, 1: !i(2) CLID ttil t?L1(2) DE TRIf'TL':N: LIEY'ARY TRAINING COITEP,/iTREET `F VSTREET FRIWIFIN. AtU01f: $2,OR,E54.35 $1,41;.V00.00 $2,980,60O.W $1,07OJAa6.00 TYPE OF BidlD: ASFSSfiENT NOtI-lliiTF.D (il tU'dJ VOTED FO ASSEsSNENT RAMC : N(iIIRATF) Al/A+ AI/A' WRATH) SALE DATF(1): f r,1/1FVpl 02/21r i f It21/A9 [iATE[i DATE: lkl:1/67 "I15/27 O.ij(il/,9 0di1j29 W; INTEREST f:Ap.1: L4'c 7.4(P, HU MIRES.[RE3F (,:Il';T: 7.<<i 7.b1;'; 7.14;; ?. MID WPFR MOO: 7:7?, 7.w% REVENif Bt1ND THDF;: 7.Fi?, 8.?iiC 7.tirCa 7.6M, ANFRP"r.. TIFF: iMi3 YEnF."i a.l YfAR': 5.F YEARS 13lK.E WYCT : ldlD'ckFLRITIFIC ':F'READ (PER FydTD/t'R'DS ) AVERAGE TAKFDiildl ;1.4 76 'U,779 $10 ri_ 6,7' i N1.2F -- at 57; 1111.'+i 13,i( HET TO I,dirPWRITFR 2.5(1 5,FN4 1.11li -- -3,01 ?.[in - 2,�+�(i 1.75- 1,874 EXPENSES 4.F14 — u,7(T, 2.31 7,W 1.'iU ?, 74 2.17 HriNAGENEHT FEE 7.011 - 14,123 3:*, 11,11W, 2.4 7,)71 5.W -- 5,36'1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TDTN. $29.U1 - •,'.FIB,71 ; � °i+ 3ii5 ',i l - 21-42 -- " "1 i'.24 -- � 1� A 4-{,7inl « a.v. fX44) O[a.BISEL: 7,27(i.1ii $fl,ii1?.20 7,616 HD;H 7,500 HIGH rllYiDY'S NOT AVAILAFi E NiIT AVAILABLE NOT AVAIL A U NIT AVAILAP1LE STOWD Fi P011,*'S WIT AVAILABLE $4, C{1,ii(i WIT AVA[L RE NOT AVAILABLE [,Till) F'RINTIIIC NIT 0VAIlAFIF M,C149.00 HOT AVAILA[U; NOT AVAILABLE OTHER NOT AVAILAU E NOT AVAILAEJ E HOT AVAILAFi.F NOT AVARADLF OF FRINC'IPAL 20.79,UN O[D W10 AT SALF DATE: L.IABII I (1) [GATE MEN CITY C.01INCIL ACCEPT;AND FXFCUTE', THE BOND PIIRCHASF APREFNENT. (2) WIPO-0, ',48JEi:I TO CWU F. DRAF1 $2,980,000 City of Kent, Washington Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1989 BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT February 21, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Shearson Leliman Hutton Inc. (the "Purchaser"), is pleased to offer to purchase from the City of Kent (the "Seller") all of its $2,980,000 principal amount of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1989 (the 'Bonds"). This offer is based upon the terms and conditions set forth below and in Exhibit A attached, which when accepted by the Seller shall constitute the terms and conditions of our Bond Purchase Contract for the Bonds. Those terms and conditions are as follows: 1. Prior to the date of delivery and payment for the Bonds identified in paragraph k of Exhibit A ("Closing"), the Seller shall pass an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the 'Bond Ordinance") in form and substance acceptable to the Purchaser. 2. The Seller shall sell and deliver to the Purchaser, and the Purchaser shall purchase, accept delivery of and pay for the entire $2,980,000 principal amount of the Bonds, and only that amount. 3. The Seller consents to and ratifies the use by the Purchaser of the information contained in the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, a copy of which is attached to this Purchase Contract as Exhibit B (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), in marketing the Bonds, authorizes the preparation of a Final Official Statement (the "Final Official Statement") for the Bonds containing such revisions and additions to the Preliminary Official Statement as the Finance Director and the City Attorney of the Seller deem necessary, and further authorizes the use of the Final Official Statement in connection with the public offering and sale of the Bonds. 4. The Seller represents and warrants to, and agrees with, the Purchaser, as of the date hereof and as of the date and time of Closing, that: a. The Seller has and will have at Closing full legal right, power and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Bond Purchase Contract and under the Bond Ordinance, to pass the Bond Ordinance and to sell and deliver the Bonds to the Purchaser; b. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds do not and will not conflict with or create a breach of or default under any existing law, regulation, judgment, order or decree or any agreement, lease or instrument to which the Seller is subject or by which it is bound; C. No governmental consent, approval or authorization other than the Bond Ordinance is required in connection with the sale of the Bonds to the I Purchaser; d. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds (when paid for by the Purchaser) are, and shall be at the time of Closing, legal, valid and binding obligations of the Seller enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, subject only to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar laws affecting creditors' rights; e. The Bond Ordinance shall have been duly authorized by the Seller, shall be in full force and effect and shall not have been amended at the time of Closing; f. The Preliminary Official Statement, except as to matters corrected in the Final Official Statement, shall be accurate and complete in all material respects as of its date with respect to information obtained from or utilized by officers and employees of the Seller in the normal course of their duties, and the Final Official Statement shall be accurate and complete in all material respects as of its date and as of the date of Closing, to the knowledge and belief of such officers and employees; and g. Any certificate or copy of any certificate signed by any official of the Seller and delivered to the Purchaser pursuant to or in connection with this Purchase Contract shall be deemed a representation by the Seller to the Purchaser as to the truth of the statements therein made and is i delivered to the Purchaser for such purpose only. i 5. As conditions to the Purchaser's obligations hereunder: a. From the date of the Seller's acceptance of this Purchase Contract to the date of Closing, there shall not have been any: (1) Material adverse change in the financial condition or general affairs of the Seller; (2) Event, court decision or proposed law, rule or regulation which may have the effect of changing the federal income tax treatment of the interest on the Bonds or the transactions contemplated by this Bond Purchase Contract or the Preliminary and Final Official Statements; (3) International or national crisis, suspension of stock exchange trading or banking moratorium materially affecting the marketability of the Bonds; or (4) Negative alteration in or withdrawal of the ratings on the Bonds by Moody's Investors Service, Inc., or Standard & Poor's Corporation, as those ratings are listed in paragraph 1 of Exhibit A to this Bond Purchase Contract; or (5) Material adverse event with respect to the Seller which in the reasonable judgment of the Purchaser requires or has required an amendment, modification or supplement to the Final Official Statement and such amendment, modification or supplement is not made. b. At or prior to Closing, the Purchaser shall have received the following: (1) The Bonds, in definitive form and duly executed and authenticated; (2) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller, in form and substance acceptable to the Seller and Purchaser, to the effect: (i) that the Seller's execution of the Final Official Statement is authorized; (ii) that, to the knowledge and belief of such officers, the Preliminary Official Statement did not as of its date and the Final Official Statement (collectively the "Official Statements") (including the financial, statistical and engineering data included therein) did not as of its date or as of the date of Closing contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make such statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (iii) that the representations of the Seller contained in this Purchase Contract are true and correct when made and as of Closing; (3) An approving opinion or opinions of the law firm identified in paragraph m of Exhibit A as bond counsel or from another nationally recognized firm of municipal bond lawyers (either or both of which shall be referred to as "Bond Counsel") satisfactory to the Purchaser and dated as of Closing, to the effect: (i) that the Seller is duly organized and legally existing as a non—charter code city under the laws of the State of Washington with full power and authority to pass the Bond Ordinance and to issue and sell the Bonds to the Purchaser; (ii) that the Bonds are valid, legal and binding obligations of the Seller, except to the extent that such enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting creditors' rights; (iii) the first two paragraphs of the section of the Final Official Statement entitled "The Bonds" (the paragraph under the title "Authorization" and the paragraph under the title "Security") and the sections of the Final Official Statement entitled "Tax Exemption," and "Certain Other Federal Tax Consequences" conform to the Bonds and to Applicable laws; (iv) that, assuming compliance by the City with applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), including arbitrage and arbitrage rebate requirements, interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under existing federal law, including the Code, except that, although interest on the Bonds is not an item of tax preference for individuals or corporations, interest on the Bonds received by corporations may be subject to an alternative minimum tax and, in the case of certain corporations, an environmental and/or foreign branch profits tax, and interest on the Bonds received by certain S corporations may be subject to tax; and (v) that the Bonds are not "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code; (4) A letter of Bond Counsel, dated the date of Closing and addressed to the Purchaser, to the effect that it may rely upon the opinion in subparagraph (3) above as if it were addressed to the Purchaser; (5) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that no litigation is pending, or to the knowledge of the Seller threatened, against the Seller in any court: (i) to restrain or enjoin the sa.le or delivery by the Seller of the Bonds; (ii) in any manner questioning the authority of the Seller to issue, or the issuance or validity of, the Bonds; (iii) questioning the constitutionality of any statute, ordinance or resolution, or the validity of any proceedings, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds; (iv) questioning the validity or enforceability of the Bond Ordinance; (v) contesting in any way the completeness, accuracy or fairness of the Official Statements; (vi) questioning the titles of any officers of the Seller to their respective offices or the legal existence of the Seller under the laws of the State of Washington; or (vii) which might in any material respect adversely affect the transactions contemplated herein and in the Official Statements to be undertaken by the Seller; (6) A certificate signed by authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the officers of the Seller who signed or whose facsimile signatures appear on the Bonds were on the date or execution of the Bonds the duly elected, qualified and acting officers of the Seller and that their signatures are genuine or accurate facsimiles; (7) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the Seller has not been and is not in default as to principal or interest payments on any of its bonds or other obligations, and has not failed to honor the provisions of any law providing for the restoring of a debt service reserve fund to required levels; (8) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that, from the respective dates of the Official Statements and tip to and including the date of Closing, the Seller has not incurred any material liabilities, direct or contingent, nor has there been any material adverse change in the financial position, results of operations or condition, financial or otherwise, of the Seller, except as described in the Official Statements; (9) A certified copy of the Bond Ordinance; (10) A definitive copy of the Final Official Statement, signed on behalf of the Seller by the City Finance Director; (11) A non—arbitrage certificate signed by an authorized officer of the Seller; (12) A certified copy of this Purchase Contract; and (13) Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and documents as the Purchaser reasonable may request to evidence the truth, accuracy and completeness, as of the date hereof and as of the date of Closing, of the representations and warranties contained herein and of the statements and information contained in the Official Statements and the due performance by the Seller at or prior to Closing of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the Seller. 6. The Seller shall pay the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel and the Seller's other consultants and advisors and the costs of preparing, printing and executing the Bonds and the fees charged by rating agencies in connection with the Bonds. The Purchaser shall pay the cost of printing and distributing the Official Statements (except in the circumstances and to the extent set forth in paragraph 7 hereof), and the Purchaser's expenses relative to Closing, including the cost of federal funds and the Purchaser's travel expenses. 7. If, during the period ending on the earlier of April 15, 1989, or the date on which the Purchaser shall have completed the distribution and delivery to the public of all of the Bonds, any material adverse event affecting the Seller or the Bonds shall occur that results in the Final Official Statement containing any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state any material fact necessary to make the Final Official Statement, or the statements or information therein contained, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the Seller shall notify the Purchaser and, if in the opinion of the Seller and the Purchaser such event requires a supplement or amendment to the Final Official Statement, the party whose omission, misstatement or changed circumstance has resulted in the supplement or amendment will at its expense supplement or amend the Final Official Statement in a form and in a manner approved by the Seller and the Purchaser. 8. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Seller under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to its respective address set forth above. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Purchaser under this Bond Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, Washington 98104 (Attention: Richard B. King, Vice President, Public Finance). 9. Upon acceptance of this Bond Purchase Contract, this Bond Purchase Contract shall be binding upon the Seller and the Purchaser. This Bond Purchase Contract is intended to benefit only the parties hereto. The Seller's representations and warranties shall survive any investigation made by or for the Purchaser, delivery and payment for the Bonds, and the termination of this Bond Purchase Contract. Should the Purchaser fail (other than for reasons permitted in this Bond Purchase Contract) to pay for the Bonds at Closing, the amount set forth in paragraph j of Exhibit A shall be paid by the Purchaser as liquidated damages in full, and costs shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. Should the Seller fail to satisfy any of the foregoing conditions or covenants, or if Purchaser's obligations are terminated for any reason permitted under this Bond Purchase Contract, then neither the Purchaser nor the Seller shall have any further obligations under this Bond Purchase Contract, except that any expenses incurred shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. 10. This offer expires on the date set forth in paragraph o of Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON INC. Richard B. King Vice President Public Finance - Seattle ACCEPTED by the City of Kent, Washington, this day of February, 1989. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON By Dan Kelleher, Mayor ATTEST: By Marie Jensen, City Clerk RBK:rm 19C Enclosures .......... Alt C �!l Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21. 1989 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: CLID 322 BOND ORDIfNr,ANCE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As discussed with the Operations Committee at their February 15, 1989 meeting, the adoption of a bond Ordinance and the authorization for the Mayor to sign a purchase contract in the amount of $1, 070,605.79. The funds will be used to reimburse the City for expenses incurred in the construction of three LID projects; Westview Terrace sewers, Olympic View Heights sewers and 76th Ave. Street improvements. The final assessment roll ordinance on these LID's have been adopted and a 30 day prepayment period has been provided. The purchase contract with Shearson Lehman Hutton is at a net interest rate of 7.76% and a gross underwriting spread of $21.42 per $1, 000 bond. Summary material as discussed with the Operations Committee is included herewith. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and contract 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: LID Bond Issue 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: - Council Agenda Item No. 3V MY OF KENT- PK(UTED P(01143, NEEDS, 41OUN r Ri I E 1921,19 V141.1 11,�Ji 1991 KIND 11)LE Pit, ------------------------- -------------------------- -------- ----------------------------------------------- CEIGAL (CLI(ATIM COIN RHANIC PUBLIC SAFETY CUREFE FIRE TRAINING Q111IR 1` ,0 STREET Z"', F4,-' "1110,0u.1 WEI I ',7`1 i-ORRIDER IND I f"E"Eu. Rwf RIAIIE DRAPtAkE 1,11' NESTS Apr 9 4,W1,1!1)(1 RID 304, DRIARvir"E 1 5,_745,Qu 3) SPECIAL LID 322,3213,3325 .EVER &STREET WROVEMENTS RV29 1,0711,Fkifi LID qRFET,TRAFFM SIGNAL &SEWER 7u[1-D4 frA 1,414 1-11) 3.0 STREET UMMMEN1 Sqc -4 .,:,, f,4 LID 311 51 REE T la I-,.1 1 130;,9111 IM 'STREET A[C-910 5,1411,01M -------------------------- ---------- -------- Tf IT�jl�f .01 11 I J:ij,.Jp, I (1 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY If KENT- LID STAIR; LID Or ch flance Or,finane& (Axid-itil p # of Contract Gnifiroring Anti6pated Ci ty f;reati ro3 N'? Amount Farrell Award Final RY-11 bynd Sale Pa-r*IL -----------------------—----------- -------- ---------- -------- --------------- -------------------------------------------O -- � W. Val-lej Huy br,-iinatip (ULID) 5,7CAO Apr-190 ell ,K, J2 We5tview Sem.-p 461,774 180 1 Feb-e. no 32,3 Olygipi,, View Heights 177,330 55 1111JI/1"'a nO 345 76th Ave Street Improvise"lit 12/01/136 431,Ek,2 9 (PI/1-1 V;V 1i,,01/!:.o Feb 1k, 327 W Valley l5vV 21"'Ith Co Jape- 2/22/W ",575,214 6 o4p -.m Jun n-"A •S;J!5 11113 W Valley Hwy 1,-)th to 91121th 5,2(0,000 AVw-Y(I DO 3219 74th S&SR 516 Traffic Sityal Fj 25 WILD 140 330 Mth fm- Imppuvrment 6,990,(A3 11:11 'Sep..." 1 331 S 20h From 108 to 116 "al,w) 25 Jan-9) nu .333 7210 Ave IS S ItXlth Traffic Signal ot,/u,p,,3 131),(j)(1 6 3in-139 no 3M 121st, 121"Id Avae ',E & '.)F 176th Stivfr (16/Vj�,"R B-5,20) Aj I., no XXX "Guth kill is Storm fi00,f%11 HOLD XXX 77th Avenue. 'trc-pt 1,lo(f,rou H(U) Til I W.1, 2r),OX1,21,43 CLID NO 297 NOS LTC.n B[il✓U':, D87 LTL1i E;t6%, 1'�9(2) CLID Nfi 1-22(2) DEWIPTION: LIBRARY TRAINING LZHTER/STREET SMR/STREET P'RIW'IPAL AW3IUTT: 9,017,554.66 3,44n,injli.0ii $ ,93O,nfjil.((I 1,07fj,Wii.On TYPE OF DO)- AS1.3SCIT HON-VOTED CO NiBJ-VOTED GO A:S:SESWNT KIM,,): NONRATED Al/A+ Al/A+ WN-RATED %-F. DATE(1): f14i1a7iE:7 iN/1FP7 I]Zr<1/i7a D2(`21�39 r:a Ix;rl rt7 O:yU .a n3li r DATED ICE: I'i4, /3' `y' 1i";' li 'i9 NY,' INTEREST fy6T: NET INIMS'I i•TU 7.2 .6 7.61. 7.1J:; 7.7rw BOND DINER INDEX: 7.27/, 7.L,f< 7.::,:Cv 7.L r REUEtJIE Ex1J[i 91 FX: 7.F1 .2iC; 7..1,1. 7.6C; AhERfi'E LIFE: 5.50 YEAR`, 1,2.93 YEAES 9.1 YEAR: F.F, YEAR'. ISXANGE Cfj.STS: I.41DEF.RITIWS SPREAD (PER OD/GRffiS) AVERAGE TAKEINIWJ ;04.7Ei -- $w 779 fil.F;3 s;3fi,T,_+ 1n.26 11,575 1"Ni 13,' NET TO IpJIiERNR1'TETi 29] 5,014 1.1k1 3,4M1 1.i111 ",900 1.75 1,3r4 EXF'EICJE 4.iA 3,7EFi <'.31 7,!W) 1.311 3,874 2.17 2,3„ HANFNEf1ENTEEE 7.fu1 14,123 3.25 11,lca.i 2.44 7,271 5.ini h,-5, ;29.10 - �ki,(11 W.24 a'J,.�1115 42 TUTAI- ,< , � 1r.�.1.i - ,i d. 1 . BLtlJD its-4FFL $?,27Li.1 7,J?O HIGH 7,500 HIL',:I Hf1 NIs WIT AVAILABLE W1T AUAILAPJ..E 99T AVAII-Of Nfff AVAILABLE STAHDARD&PO(P'S W3T AVAILABLE e11,w.On NOT MAILAFI F NOT AVAILAKE MI) PRINT11C Niil AUAIIABLE ;.I,LN9.n0 NOT AVAILMU NOT AVAILABLE OTHER NOT AUAII-AU.E NOT AVANAUE WIT PPAILAPLE WIT AVAIIADLE OF PRINCIPAL 29.79;M.C' U UWA)LD AT SALT DATE; LIABILITY (1) DATE WIEN CITY P(R)HO,IL WCEPIS AHD EXE011ES THE FAM PtIRY:HN--F AGREFHENT. (2) EIOP ED, glPXCT TO OMT. DRAFT $1,070,605.79 City of Kent, Washington Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 322 Bonds BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT February 21, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. (the "Purchaser"), is pleased to offer to purchase from the City of Kent (the "Seller") all of its $1,070,605.79 principal amount of Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 322 Bonds (the 'Bonds"). This offer is based upon the terms and conditions set forth below and in Exhibit A attached, which when accepted by the Seller shall constitute the terms and conditions of our Bond Purchase Contract for the Bonds. Those terms and conditions are as follows: 1. Prior to the date of delivery and payment for the Bonds identified in paragraph j of Exhibit A ("Closing"), the Seller shall pass an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the 'Bond Ordinance") in form and substance acceptable to the Purchaser. 2. The Seller shall sell and deliver to the Purchaser, and the Purchaser shall purchase, accept delivery of and pay for the entire $1,070,605.79 principal amount of the Bonds, and only that amount. 3. The Seller consents to and ratifies the use by the Purchaser of the information contained in the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, a copy of which is attached to this Purchase Contract as Exhibit B (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), in marketing the Bonds, authorizes the preparation of a Final Official Statement (the "Final Official Statement") for the Bonds containing such revisions and additions to the Preliminary Official Statement as the Finance Director and the City Attorney of the Seller deem necessary, and further authorizes the use of the Final Official Statement in connection with the public offering and sale of the Bonds. 4. The Seller represents and warrants to, and agrees with, the Purchaser, as of the date hereof and as of the date and time of Closing, that: a. The Seller has and will have at Closing full legal right, power and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Purchase Contract and under the Bond Ordinance, to pass the Bond Ordinance and to sell and deliver the Bonds to the Purchaser; b. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds do not and will not conflict wilh or create a breach of or default under any existing law, regulation, judgment, order or decree or any agreement, lease or instrument to which the Seller is subject or by which it is bound; C. No governmental consent, approval or authorization other than the Bond Ordinance is required in connection with the sale of the Bonds to the Purchaser; d. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds (when paid for by the Purchaser) are, and shall be at the time of Closing, legal, valid and binding obligations of the Seller enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, subject only to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar laws affecting creditors' rights; e. The Bond Ordinance shall have been duly authorized by the Seller, shall be in full force and effect and shall not have been amended at the time of Closing; f. The Preliminary Official Statement, except as to matters corrected in the Final Official Statement, shall be accurate and complete in all material respects as of its date with respect to information obtained from or utilized by officers and employees of the Seller in the normal course of their duties, and the Final Official Statement shall be accurate and complete in all material respects as of its date and as of the date of Closing, to the knowledge and belief of such officers and employees; and g. Any certificate or copy of any certificate signed by any official of the Seller and delivered to the Purchaser pursuant to or in connection with this Purchase Contract shall be deemed a representation by the Seller to the Purchaser as to the truth of the statements therein made and is delivered to the Purchaser for such purpose only. 5. As conditions to the Purchaser's obligations hereunder: a. From the date of the Seller's acceptance of this Purchase Contract to the date of Closing, there shall not have been any: (1) Material adverse change in the financial condition or general affairs of the Seller; (2) Event, court decision or proposed law, rule or regulation which may have the effect of changing the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of the interest on the Bonds or which may have the effect of impeding the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Contract or the Preliminary and Final Official Statements; (3) International or national crisis, suspension of stock exchange trading or banking moratorium materially affecting the marketability of the Bonds; or 2 (4) Material adverse event with respect to the Seller which in the reasonable judgment of the Purchaser requires or has required an amendment, modification or supplement to the Final Official Statement and such amendment, modification or supplement is not made. b. At or prior to Closing, the Purchaser shall have received the following: (1) The Bonds, in definitive form and duly executed and authenticated; (2) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller, in form and substance acceptable to the Seller and Purchaser, to the effect: (i) that the Seller's execution of the Final Official Statement is authorized; (ii) that, to the knowledge and belief of such officers, the Preliminary Official Statement did not as of its date and the Final Official Statement (collectively the "Official Statements") (including the financial, statistical and engineering data included therein) did not as of its date or as of the date of Closing contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make such statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (iii) that the representations of the Seller contained in this Purchase Contract are true and correct when made and as of Closing; (3) An approving opinion or opinions of the law firm identified in paragraph 1 of Exhibit A as bond counsel or from another nationally recognized firm of municipal bond lawyers (either or both of which shall be referred to as "Bond Counsel") satisfactory to the Purchaser and dated as of Closing, to the effect: (i) that the Seller is duly organized and legally existing as a non-charter code city under the laws of the State of Washington with full power and authority to pass the Bond Ordinance and to issue and sell the Bonds to the Purchaser; (ii) that the Bonds are valid, legal and binding obligations of the Seller, except to the extent that such enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting creditors' rights; (iii) the sections of the Official Statement entitled "AUTHORIZATION," "TAX EXEMPTION" and "CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES", as well as the first, second, fourth and sixth paragraphs under the heading "SECURITY" conform to the Bonds and applicable laws; (iv) that assuming compliance by the City with applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), including arbitrage and arbitrage rebate requirements, interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under existing federal law, including the Code, except that interest on the Bonds received by corporations in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986, may be subject to an alternative nimimum tax and, in the case of certain corporations, an environmental and/or foreign branch profits tax, and interest on the Bonds received by certain S corporations may be subject to tax; and (v) that the Bonds are not "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code; 3 (4) A letter of Bond Counsel, dated the date of Closing and addressed to the Purchaser, to the effect that it may rely upon the opinion in subparagraph (3) above as if it were addressed to the Purchaser; (5) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that no litigation is pending, or to the knowledge of the Seller threatened, against the Seller in any court: (i) to restrain or enjoin the sale or delivery by the Seller of the Bonds; (ii) in any manner questioning the authority of the Seller to issue, or the issuance or validity of, the Bonds; (iii) questioning the constitutionality of any statute, ordinance or resolution, or the validity of any proceedings, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds; (iv) questioning the validity or enforceability of the Bond Ordinance; (v) contesting in any way the completeness, accuracy or fairness of the Official Statements; (vi) questioning the titles of any officers of the Seller to their respective offices or the legal existence of the Seller under the laws of the State of Washington; or (vii) which might in any material respect adversely affect the transactions contemplated herein and in the Official Statements to be undertaken by the Seller; (6) A certificate signed by authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the officers of the Seller who signed or whose facsimile signatures appear on the Bonds were on the date of execution of the Bonds the duly elected, qualified and acting officers of the Seller and that their signatures are genuine or accurate facsimiles; (7) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the Seller has not been and is not in default as to principal or interest payments on any of its bonds or other obligations, and has not failed to honor the provisions of any law providing for the restoring of a debt service reserve fund to required levels; (8) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that, from the respective dates of the Official Statements and up to and including the date of Closing, the Seller has not incurred any material liabilities, direct or contingent, nor has there been any material adverse change in the financial position, results of operations or condition, financial or otherwise, of the Seller, except as described in the Official Statements; (9) A certified copy of the Bond Ordinance; (10) A definitive copy of the Final Official Statement, signed on behalf of the Seller by the City Finance Director; (11) A non—arbitrage certificate signed by an authorized officer of the Seller; (12) A certified copy of this Purchase Contract; and 4 (13) Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and documents as the Purchaser may reasonably request to evidence the truth, accuracy and completeness, as of the date hereof and as of the date of Closing, of the representations and warranties contained herein and of the statements and information contained in the Official Statements and the due performance by the Seller at or prior to Closing of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the Seller. 6. The Seller shall pay the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel and the Seller's other consultants and advisors and the costs of preparing, printing and executing the Bonds. The Purchaser shall pay the cost of printing and distributing the Official Statements (except in the circumstances and to the extent set forth in paragraph 7 hereof), and the Purchaser's expenses relative to Closing, including the cost of federal funds and the Purchaser's travel expenses. 7. If, during the period ending on the earlier of April 15, 1989, or the date on which the Purchaser shall have completed the distribution and delivery to the public of all of the Bonds, any material adverse event affecting the Seller or the Bonds shall occur that results in the Final Official Statement containing any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state any material fact necessary to make the Final Official Statement, or the statements or information therein contained, in light of the circumstances tinder which they were made, not misleading, the Seller shall notify the Purchaser and, if in the opinion of the Seller and the Purchaser such event requires a supplement or amendment to the Final Official Statement, the party whose omission, misstatement or changed circumstance has resulted in the supplement or amendment will at its expense supplement or amend the Final Official Statement in a form and in a manner approved by the Seller and the Purchaser. 8. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Seller under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to its respective address set forth above. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Purchaser under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, Washington 98104 (Attention: Richard B. King, Vice President, Public Finance). 9. Upon acceptance of this Purchase Contract, this Purchase Contract shall be binding upon the Seller and the Purchaser. This Purchase Contract is intended to benefit only the parties hereto. The Seller's representations and warranties shall survive any investigation made by or for the Purchaser, delivery and payment for the Bonds, and the termination of this Purchase Contract. Should the Purchaser fail (other than for reasons permitted in this Purchase Contract) to pay for the Bonds at Closing, the amount set forth in paragraph i of Exhibit A shall be paid by the Purchaser as liquidated damages in full, and costs shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. Should the Seller fail to satisfy any of the foregoing conditions or covenants, or if Purchaser's obligations are terminated for any reason permitted under this Purchase Contract, then neither the Purchaser not the Seller shall have any further obligations under this Purchase Contract, except that any expenses incurred shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. 5 10. This offer expires on the date set forth in paragraph h of Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON INC. Richard B. King Vice President Public Finance — Seattle ACCEPTED by the City of Kent, Washington, this day of February, 1989. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON By Dan Kelleher, Mayor ATTEST: By Marie Jensen, City Clerk RBK/rm18C Enclosures 6 (13) Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and documents as the Purchaser may reasonably request to evidence the truth, accuracy and completeness, as of the date hereof and as of the date of Closing, of the representations and warranties contained herein and of the statements and information contained in the Official Statements and the due performance by the Seller at or prior to Closing of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the Seller. 6. The Seller shall pay the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel and the Seller's other consultants and advisors and the costs of preparing, printing and executing the Bonds. The Purchaser shall pay the cost of printing and distributing the Official Statements (except in the circumstances and to the extent set forth in paragraph 7 hereof), and the Purchaser's expenses relative to Closing, including the cost of federal funds and the Purchaser's travel expenses. 7. If, during the period ending on the earlier of April 15, 1989, or the date on which the Purchaser shall have completed the distribution and delivery to the public of all of the Bonds, any material adverse event affecting the Seller or the Bonds shall occur that results in the Final Official Statement containing any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state any material fact necessary to make the Final Official Statement, or the statements or information therein contained, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the Seller shall notify the Purchaser and, if in the opinion of the Seller and the Purchaser such event requires a supplement or amendment to the Final Official Statement, the party whose omission, misstatement or changed circumstance has resulted in the supplement or amendment will at its expense supplement or amend the Final Official Statement in a form and in a manner approved by the Seller and the Purchaser. 8. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Seller under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to its respective address set forth above. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Purchaser under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, Washington 98104 (Attention: Richard B. King, Vice President, Public Finance). 9. Upon acceptance of this Purchase Contract, this Purchase Contract shall be binding upon the Seller and the Purchaser. This Purchase Contract is intended to benefit only the parties hereto. The Seller's representations and warranties shall survive any investigation made by or for the Purchaser, delivery and payment for the Bonds, and the termination of this Purchase Contract. Should the Purchaser fail (other than for reasons permitted in this Purchase Contract) to pay for the Bonds at Closing, the amount set forth in paragraph i of Exhibit A shall be paid by the Purchaser as liquidated damages in full, and costs shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. Should the Seller fail to satisfy any of the foregoing conditions or covenants, or if Purchaser's obligations are terminated for any reason permitted under this Purchase Contract, then neither the Purchaser not the Seller shall have any further obligations under this Purchase Contract, except that any expenses incurred shall be borne in accordance with Section 6. 5 10. This offer expires on the date set forth in paragraph h of Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON INC. Richard B. King Vice President Public Finance — Seattle ACCEPTED by the City of Kent, Washington, this day of February, 1989. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON By Dan Kelleher, Mayor ATTEST: By Marie Jensen, City Clerk RBK/rm18C Enclosures 6 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF BONDS a. Purchase Price: $_ per $100.000 par value (a total of $ ), plus accrued interest from March 1, 1989, to the date of Closing. b. Denominations: $5,000, except for Bond No. 1, which shall be in the denomination of $5,605.79. C. Dated Date: March 1, 1989. d. Form: Fully registered with privileges of exchange at the expense of the Seller. e. Interest Payable: Annually on March 1, commencing March 1, 1990. % for Bond Nos. 1 - % for Bond Nos. for Bond Nos. % for Bond Nos. % for Bond Nos. % for Bond Nos. % for Bond Nos. for Bond Nos. % for Bond Nos. f. Maturity Schedule: Bonds shall mature on March 1, 2001. The Seller has reserved the right to redeem the Bonds prior to maturity on any interest payment date in chronological order. The estimated retirement schedule is as follows: Bond Bond Year Amount Nos. Year Amount Nos. 1990 80,605.79 1 - 16 1995 130,000.00 103 - 128 1991 95,000.00 17 - 35 1996 120,000.00 129 - 152 1992 105,000.00 36 - 56 1997 120,000.00 153 - 176 1993 110,000.()0 57 - 78 1998 100,000.00 177 - 196 1994 120,000.00 79 - 102 1999 90,000.00 197 - 214 g. Method of Payment: Federal Funds draft. h. Offer Expires: February 21, midnight. i. Liquidated Damages: $2,000. j. Location and Estimated Closing Date: Seattle, Washington, March 15, 1989. k. Net Interest Cost: % Average Interest Rate: % 1. Bond Counsel: Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Seattle, Washington. In. Method of Payment: Federal Funds draft. EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF BONDS a. Purchase Price: $ per $100.00 par value, or $ plus accrued interest from March 1, 1989, to the date of Closing. b. Denominations: $5,000 or integral multiples thereof within a single maturity. C. Dated Date: March 1, 1989. d. Form: Fully registered with privileges of exchange at the expense of the Seller. e. Interest Payable: February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 1990 f. Maturity Schedule: Bonds shall mature on February 1 of each year in the amounts and shall bear interest at the rates set forth below: Due Principal Interest Due Principal Interest 2/1 Amount Rate 2/1 Amount Rate 1990 $120,000 % 1998 $205,000 % 1991 130,000 1999 215,000 1992 140,000 2000 230,000 1993 145,000 2001 250,000 1994 155,000 2002 265,000 1995 165,000 2003 285,000 1996 180,000 2004 305,000 1997 190,000 g. Redemption: The City reserves the right to redeem the Bonds maturing on and after February 1, 1996, in whole, or in part in inverse order of maturity (and by lot within a maturity in such manner as the Bond Registrar shall determine) on February 1, 1995, and on any interest payment date thereafter, at par, plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. h. Net Interest Cost: i. True Interest Rate: % j. Liquidated Damages: $2,000. Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: CANTERBURY PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. SU-88-5 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval of a 20 lot single-family residential preliminary subdivision located on the northeast corner of proposed 100th Ave. S.E. and S.E. 248th St. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, staff report, minutes, findings and recommendation 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner. January 4 . 1989 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) Approval with 11 conditions 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember Ss��`� moves, Councilmember seconds t modify the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to on w' /disagree the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of c nal approval. DISCUSSION• TV) ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4A KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 15, 1989 MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: Fred N. Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director SUBJECT: HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE CANTERBURY PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. SU-88-5 On December 21, 1988, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider the Canterbury preliminary subdivision. This is a 4.41-acre, 20-lot, single-family residential subdivision located on the northeast corner of proposed 100th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street. The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of this preliminary subdivision with the following conditions: A. Prior to Recordation of Plat: 1. Increase lot widths for proposed lots 4, 51 71 14, and 17 so that these lots meet the recommended minimum width of 30 feet. 2 . Reconfigure or eliminate proposed lot 17 to reduce street frontages to a maximum of two for any lot. 3 . The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that all lots must conform to the solar access setback regulations of the Zoning Code. 4. The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that those properties fronting on two more-or-less parallel streets (currently proposed lots 3 , 4, 51 14 , 15, 16, 17 , and 18) must have only one street access. Obtain City approval of detailed enctineering drawings for the following improvements and either construct and/or bond for the same: 5. Storm System. Provide on-site storm water detention in accordance with City Drainage Code and provide public storm drainage facilities within all public roadways and roadway improvements required as a condition of this subdivision. 6. Sanitary Sewer. Provide city gravity sanitary sewer system to service all lots. Extend sanitary sewers from SE 248th Street along 100th Avenue SE to the north property line of the plat. 7 . Water. Extend the City water main on SE 248th Street to the north property line of this plat. The size thereof MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS February 15, 1989 shall be in accordance with that specified in the City Water Comprehensive Plan. Extend the City water main internal into the plat to provide domestic water service and fire flow capabilities to all lots. A minimum six inch main is required. 8. 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) . Dedicate adequate right-of-way to accommodate 25 foot radius curb returns at intersections and 45 foot curb returns for cul-de-sacs, 50 feet right-of-way minimum in tangent sections. 9. 100th Avenue SE. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way to construct improvements required under SEPA. A 35 foot curb return radius is required at the intersection with SE 248th Street. 10. SE 248th Street. Improve to collector street standards. Half street pavement width shall be 18 feet as measured from the centerline of the right-of-way. The westbound land shall be widened and overlain with asphalt pavement such that its minimum width shall be 12 feet. Included in the half street improvements shall be curb and gutter, cement concrete sidewalk, street lighting, undergrounding, storm drainage and other related improvements. 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. CA:FNS:ca 2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: CANTERBURY SUBDIVISION #SU-88-5 APPLICANT: RUPERT ENGINEERING, INC. REQUEST: A request for preliminary subdivision approval for 20 single-family residential lots. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the northeast corner of proposed 100th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street. APPLICATION FILED: 10/18/88 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFIANCE: 10/27/88 MEETING DATE: 12/21/88 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 1/4/89 RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Lauri Anderson, Planning Department Ed White, Public Works Department Gary Gill, Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Nigel Southey, applicant Andy Rykles, applicant Comments Dale Hartman Gene Gillespie Anthony Zupen Jeannie Hartman WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None INTRODUCTION After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application. 1 Findings and Recommendation Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Rupert Engineering, Inc. , requested a preliminary subdivision approval for a single-family residential development totalling 20 lots. 2 . The subject property, which is 4 .41 acres in size, is located on the northeast corner of proposed 100 Avenue SE and SE 248th Street. 3 . The applicant proposes as previously indicated, to develop 20 single-family residential lots. The average lot size is 7, 535 square feet with the largest lot being 6, 146 square feet and the smallest lot being 7, 209 square feet. The evidence establishes that the resulting density will be approximately 4 . 5 units per acre on this R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, zoned site. 4 . Surrounding zoning and land uses in the vicinity include a similar density single-family residential district to the north while property to the east is zoned R1-7.2 , Single Family Residential, as well. Further to the east, beyond 104th Avenue SE, there is an 0, Professional and Office, district. To the south and southwest, across SE 248th Street, zoning is MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. The area located to the west, across proposed 100th Avenue SE is zoned R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential. 5 . All of the lots meet or exceed minimum lot size although some of the lots (lots 4 , 51 7 , 14 and 17) have narrow lot widths. 6. The subject site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map and the East Hill Plan Map for multiple family residential uses. However, clearly the goals, objectives and policies outlined in both Plans strongly support single-family residential uses as proposed on the site. 7 . The site is currently undeveloped with the exception of a single-family rental residence in the vicinity of proposed lots 15 and 16. This residence will be demolished upon development of the plat. 8 . The topography of the site is fairly hilly with a gradual slope to the west of about eight percent. In addition, a view of the site along with a view of the video tape and the evidence presented at the time of the hearing establishes that the parcel is covered with a number of large trees of both the evergreen 2 Findings and Recommendation Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 and deciduous variety. There is a considerable amount of forested undergrowth which exists along with walking paths through the site which apparently are utilized area residents for recreational purposes. 9 . The site has access to SE 248th Street by way of proposed 100th Avenue SE. This street (SE 248th Street) is classified as a collector arterial with a public right-of-way width of 60 feet and actual width of paving of 24-feet. The street has a narrow shoulder and no sidewalks. Traffic mitigation measures are required as part of the SEPA conditions. Within the subdivision there will be two cul-de-sacs to serve the proposed lots. Full street improvements will be provided and the rights of way will be deeded to the City of Kent. 10. There is an existing eight-inch water main to serve the subject site and there is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main stub to SE 248th Street about 800 feet west of the subject property. The sewer main is available to serve the subject property and all lots will be connected to the City sanitary sewer system. At the time of the public hearing some residents in the vicinity expressed concern with respect to whether they would be required to involuntarily connect to the sewer system as a result of the proposed development. The evidence establishes that although the sewer system will be available to anyone who desires to connect to it, such connection will not be connected unless an adjoining resident's septic tank no longer functioned. 11. In addition, residents in the vicinity expressed some concern with respect to storm drainage and the evidence establishes that on- and off-site plans of storm drainage improvements will be required as part of final plat approval. 12 . The staff report, with its recommendation of conditional approval, is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS 1. The preliminary subdivision, as proposed, meets the goals and policies of the Comprehensive and East Hill Plan texts. 2 . Land use in the vicinity is primarily single-family residential with some multifamily residential development to the southwest. 3 Findings and Recommendation Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 3 . The lots either meet or exceed minimum lot size although some lots need to have increased lots width and need to be reconfigured to reduce street frontage. 4 . Utilities are available to serve the subject property. RECOMMENDATION For each of the above reasons, the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner is CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Recordation of Plat: 1. Increase lot widths for proposed lots 4, 5, 7 , 14 , and 17 so that these lots meet the recommended minimum width of 30 feet. 2 . Reconfigure or eliminate proposed lot 17 to reduce street frontages to a maximum of two for any lot. 3 . The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that all lots must conform to the solar access setback regulations of the Zoning Code. 4 . The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that those properties fronting on two more or less parallel streets (currently proposed lots 3 , 41 5, 14, 15, 16, 17 , and 18) must have only one street access. Obtain City approval of detailed engineering drawings for the following improvements and either construct and/or bond for the same• 5. Storm System. Provide on-site storm water detention in accordance with City Drainage Code and provide public storm drainage facilities within all public roadways and roadway improvements required as a condition of this subdivision. 6. Sanitary Sewer. Provide city gravity sanitary sewer system to service all lots. Extend sanitary sewers from SE 248th Street along 100th Avenue SE to the north property line of the plat. 7 . Water. Extend the City water main on SE 248th Street to the north property line of this plat. The size thereof shall be in accordance with that specified in the City 4 Findings and Recommendation Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 Water Comprehensive Plan. Extend the City water main internal into the plat to provide domestic water service and fire flow capabilities to all lots. A minimum six inch main is required. 8 . 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) . Dedicate adequate right-of-way to accommodate 25 foot radius curb returns at intersections and 45 foot curb returns for cul-de-sacs, 50 feet right- of-way minimum in tangent sections. 9 . 100th Avenue SE. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way to construct improvements required under SEPA. A 35 foot curb return radius is required at the intersection with SE 248th Street. 10. Southeast 248th Street. Improve to collector street standards. Half street pavement width shall be 18 feet as measured from the centerline of the right-of-way. The westbound land shall be widened and overlain with asphalt pavement such that its minimum width shall be 12 feet. Included in the half street improvements shall be curb and gutter, cement concrete sidewalk, street lighting, undergrounding, storm drainage and other related improvements. 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. Dated this 4th day of January, 1989. - kL DIANE L. VANDERBEEK Hearing Examiner 5 Findings and Recommendation Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 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. 6 CITY OF BENT planning S 272N0 + - • u.m Sr I 3 232N0 A SE 232NO ST W SE (D I I S SI 3E 23214 VL m 2321-0 G S > PL y SE 233RO+ n2 n a r"'••n� O� Imo° . w S ya• = 571^= x O O -Y 1 •^ • b SF 236TH Sl '2J j S 276iH f'J J:; 0 yA a IPvt) + ST 4pt Q` r N t v x SE 236tH PL At Ef I• 23 E 27BTM m 0 A 5238TH 'l. Q x EM) m SC 27YTH ST O l j N O N _ ^ ST S 2J9t PL P = S 2.0 sT a I^ 1' ° : 5E oT O i EAST HILL m S 2.IST ST ¢ TM ELEMENTARY x > m SCHOOL S + 3 •^ S 2.2NOQ t A ST .E ST 1 7 S 2.3RO SMITH 2 Sr = S ♦.TH ST N SITE O u SE 21r ST > m N o , UTfti'.,'�„E• O�•L ST.JAMES > Ao SCHOOL .•.Ja t t> ,y a fir ' '•' WERAN0 x N S 246TH STCw ST 247TH a > PL ¢ CHERRY OL � ,' Oq ST F x L I - O �KILL ST P C. t- P w i S 248TH SI SE N 248TH ST V `E MACLYN ST ;_t`2�ii•T 9F � � Z ...J•- N > BERSON > SST -- /\ J >< ..•, C SEA T7 LE "' '•� ST ,rrLE ST n.-a I.r r .�,\ > E'LiYi, u.I.•.LEI - W I' E CHICAGO ST .fir J� V J•iCM1 S 252NL ST N SE 1 1 J j N C LAUREL ST ¢ j 40 J �•,'J *�M1.`v, FAST HILL ` - < oo ti• :'>j'°tE ILNTLR x . u E HEMLOCK ST 5[ 257N0 O r 1 •� + ~O yy'1 'v .-•�4 •b S iER y NJ u r OY \• •'King ri.��,! St [ FILBERT ST �n u ;I_Coun ly * C515 i ♦+.J Police q +� = Z V x; N ¢ _, 1 < A CO a`�.'..r+ O ]�VENT-MERIDIAN j+ r pa•.E. • O 1■SR.MI.SCHOOL S E m WAl IUT N ST ')'\ m O 1.'•IJ� SE 2567H J > 'l O C + MAPLE Sr -u •- •` � •_+ M y r1 V1 II I-r a� O.Vii•f. r——— - � ..1•.1. 4.�r;JgOJ C •ru'� .. N W '� qF >•' SE 2EOTH 5T r SE ESCENI FMcc WILL, 26C NTARY SCHOOL APPLICATION Name CANTERBURY SUBDIVISION LEGEND Number SU-88-5 Dafe 12/21/88 applicatiaa site Request. Preliminary Plat VICINITY MAP SCALE = 1• :l000r CITY OF KENT _ planning � 1� • rt R 7 . 2 o = S .I01 T E 7� I \ • 'y } V ❑� i.l I I � �r E{ i r . e 4 \ i . 3B2.3 iJ l 1 SPORj FIELO 1_• --------- ! •: APPLICATION Name CANTERBURY SUBDIVISION LECENO: Number SU-88-5 Date 12/21/88 application site .,B,,,,B,,.•.B Request !re, iminary P, ,t toning boundary ••••••• ZONING/TOPOGRAPHY SCALE = 1• :200' CITY OF KENT planning LU lot 4 ' ti•• — rt . •• =,fir p u y0, AOe r� P 0 1 C 3 7 w J 9 E LIJ tn _7 E . AC, W 5�3p J_ ' 1 _ _ - - a .3 , E 1 2a �> I E E sZ^� `% Ile ��' a: _ •i � /a 8 )JD 94 g 1 � 3 17 /G 0 Ld Z.S. 04.0 �J .,�ininTninnu u� uTo1nllfffll�ID iriRMinln� _ . ` ..SE . 2487H. S7. SE. 248TH. ST. f nC �•. 40.9 76 ,. ti Pcc. E ,�• a too s :1 1 1 , APPLICATION Name CANTERBURY SUBDIVISION LEGEND Number SU-88-5 Dale 12/21/88 application site Request Preliminary Plat SITE PLAN SCALE = 1'• :loo' HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES December 21, 1988 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Diane L. VanDerbeek, Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, December 21, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Ms. VanDerbeek requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports, agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing were available by the door. Ms. VanDerbeek briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. All those who intended to speak were sworn in. HARRIS Rezone #RZ-88-7 The first item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider the request by John R. Ewing & Associates, 1314 S. Central #200, Kent, WA 98032 , for a rezone from MHP, Mobile Home Park, to GC, General Commercial. The site is located on the west side of N. Washington Avenue (SR 181) , approximately 616 feet south of W. James Street. (1-82) Carol Proud, Kent Planning Department, presented the staff report. The applicant did not submit a site-specific rezone request; however, he stated in the environmental checklist that a mini-warehouse facility may be constructed on the site. Some transparencies were shown depicting 1) the location of the site and 2) existing zoning and uses surrounding the site. Ms. Proud commented that a ten foot landscaping strip would be required between this property and the mobile home park to the north. A video of the site was shown. A brief history of the site was presented. Ms. Proud discussed the criteria that must be considered when reviewing a rezone application. The staff recommendation is approval with conditions. A correction to condition A was made; it should read: " . . . .deed to the City for street purposes the easterly 17 feet of the property such that the westerly half street right-of-way width for West Valley Highway (Washington Avenue) is fifty (50) feet" . Ms. VanDerbeek asked if the applicant would like to comment. (1-390) Larry Onorati, J. R. Ewing & Associates, 1314 S. Central #200, Kent, WA 98031, stated the correct size of the site is 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes December 21, 1988 65 feet x 483 .9 feet or 0.71 acres, not the 2 .99 acres that was stated in the staff report. The applicant concurred with the conditions recommended by staff. There was no public testimony. The hearing closed at 3 : 20 p.m. CANTERBURY SUBDIVISION Preliminary Plat #SU-88-5 The second item on the agenda was a public hearing to consider the request by Rupert Engineering, Inc. , 1501 West Valley Highway N. , #101, Auburn, WA 98002 , for preliminary subdivision approval for 20 single-family residential lots. The subject property is 4 . 41 acres in size and is currently zoned R1-7 .2 , Single-Family Residential (minimum lot size allowed is 7,200 square feet) . (1-451) Lauri Anderson, Kent Planning Department, presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson showed some view foils depicting 1) the location of the site and 2) surrounding zoning. A brief history of the area was given. A video of the site was shown. Ms. Anderson presented a view foild which showed a schematic drawing of the proposed plat. Lots 4 , 51 71 14, and 17 do not meet the minimum width requirement. Further, the solar setback regulations would need to be met. Lots 14 and 17 will have some difficulty in meeting the solar setback requirements. In addition, with the configuration on Lot 17, a house could be located close to the intersection. Therefore, the Planning Department is requesting that the applicant either redesign Lot 17 or incorporate it into the adjacent lot and reduce the three street frontages on the internal cul-de-sac to a maximum of two. The goals, objectives and policies were discussed of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan. Planning staff is requesting that a comprehensive tree plan prior to any development on the site. The staff is recommending approval with conditions. Ms. VanDerbeek asked if the applicant would like to comment. 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes December 21, 1988 (1-820) Nigel Southey, representing applicant, stated the applicant wishes to retain a substantial amount of the woodlands and natural beauty of the site. Mr. Southey commented that one of the concerns was the designated 30 feet that should have been obtained from the property owner to the west of 100th Avenue SE at SE 248th Street; thus, the applicant was required to donate an extra 25 feet of property to the City. This donation created part of the problem with Lot 17 . Further discussion with the applicant's engineers indicated the lot lines on Lot 17 could be adjusted and still meet the minimum requirements of the Code. There are no objections to the remainder of the City' s conditions. (1-923) Andy Rykles, Rupert Engineering, 1501 West Valley Highway N. , Auburn, commented the subdivision map would have been submitted showing the required 30 feet he had known about it. Further, it wasn't realized there would be a problem with the triple frontage in the cul-de-sac area of Lot 17. Mr. Rykles commented the problem with Lot 17 was caused by the requirement of an additional 25 feet from the applicant rather than from the property to the west. Mr. Rykles requested approval of the preliminary plat with the triple frontage. (1-1047) Gary Gill, Public Works Department, stated the single- family residence would not allow the street to be developed in a straight alignment. There should not be a problem with sight distance with the street. Ms. VanDerbeek asked if there were any public comment. (1-1150) Dale Hartman, 9849 S. 245th Place, Kent, WA 98031, commented there were problems with lot lines in the area. He felt the City should survey the property in the area. Mr. Hartman commented there was a drainage problem in the area and a drainage plan should be required and implemented. Also, how far is 100th going to be developed? (1-1320) Gene Gillespie, 10116 SE 248th, Kent, WA 98031, resides to the west of the site. He wanted to know how many lots there are and what the price range of the homes will be? Further, will storm drainage be required? (1-1370) Anthony Zupen, 9928 S. 248th, Kent, WA 98031, asked if 100th will be developed all the way through. Also, is 248th going to be widened? Mr. Zupen asked if sewers will be constructed in the area. 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes December 21, 1988 There was no further public testimony. (1-1430) Mr. Gill stated that in each project, the developer is required to have the property surveyed; the survey is then submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A storm drainage plan is required to be submitted and approved when the property is developed. Another requirement is the full half-street improvement of 100th Avenue SE. The street, 100th Avenue SE, would not extend past the property frontage. The north half of 248th Street is also to be improved. Further, the developer will be required to provide both. sanitary sewer and water improvements to service the plat. When utility improvements are done at the expense of a private developer, the developer may require a latecomer' s agreement from the City. This would allow a developer to be reimbursed for part of his cost in extending the facilities when other property owners connect to the utility. (1-1765) Ms. Anderson commented there were 20-lots proposed; however, there could be fewer depending on a condition concerning Lot 17 were imposed and then this would be a 19-lot plat. The requirement for the 30-foot lot widths is along the cul-de-sac frontage. The Code requires a 70-foot lot frontage overall; one can drop to 56 feet if the average lot width reaches the 70-foot requirements. However, on a turnaround on a cul-de-sac there is not a stated minimum lot width; it has been City policy to require a 30- foot width. (1-1903) Mr. Southey commented the price range for the homes is between $120, 000 and $150, 000. (1-1945) Jeannie Hartman, 9849 S. 245th Place, Kent, WA 98031, did not understand the intention of the improvements to 100th Place SE. She wanted to know why the improvements were shown 30 feet into their property. In addition, would this development be surrounded. by a fence? Ms. Hartman stated there is a blind spot on the road that needs to be considered. (1-2025) Mr. Gill stated the 30 feet on the north shown for 100th Avenue SE is incorrect. There is not an additional 30 feet; there is a total of 60 feet--30 feet on each side. Mr. Gill commented there is a blind dip in the road to the west of the intersection. This would be carefully considered when reviewing the drawings in order to alleviate the problem. Ms. VanDerbeek asked if the applicant intends to fence the project. 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes December 21, 1988 (1-2140) Mr. Southey commented that has not been decided at this time. There was no further testimony. The hearing closed at 4 : 10 p.m. RUTH/KENT EAST HILL SHOPPING CENTER Rezone #RZ-88-4 The last item on the agenda was a continued public hearing to consider the conditions recommended for the application submitted by Barghausen Engineers, Inc. , 18215 72nd Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 , for a rezone from MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, and O, Professional and Office, to CC, Community Commercial. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of 104th Avenue SE and SE 260th Street, bounded by SE 264th Street to the south and 100th Place SE (Crow Road) on the east. The hearing was to consider the conditions recommended by City staff only. (1-2259) Kathy McClung, Planning Department, stated the conditions recommended by the City staff were listed in the staff report written for the September 21, 1988 hearing, from the public testimony or the Hearing Examiner suggestion. Further, during the testimony one of the applicant' s representatives expressed a willingness to place some type of public art on the building. . (1-2355) Jay Derr, representing applicant, stated there were no problems with the conditions as listed. Mr. Derr made some clarifications on conditions 2 , 6 and 10. A member of the public had some inquiries concerning an access shown on the site plan. Upon further discussion, it was discovered that the property in question had not been purchased by the applicant yet. It was decided that until the purchase decision was made, the driveway question could not be answered. The City would be reviewing final construction plans only. 5 Hearing Examiner Minutes December 21, 1988 There was no further testimony. The hearing closed at 4 : 35 p.m. DIANE L. VANDERBEEK Hearing Examiner 6 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1988 FILE NO: CANTERBURY SUBDIVISION #SU-88-5 APPLICANT: Rupert Engineering, Inc. REQUEST: A request for preliminary subdivision approval for 20 single-family residential lots. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Lauri Anderson STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The proposal is for the subdivision of a 4 .41 acre parcel into 20 single-family lots. The average lot size is 7, 535 square feet with the largest lot being 8, 146 square feet and the smallest lot being 7,209 square feet The resulting subdivision will provide for 20 detached single family homes at a density of approximately 4 .5 units per acre. B. Location The subject property is located on the northeast corner of proposed 100th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street (Lot 32 , R.O. Smith's Orchard Tracts Addition) . C. Size of Property The subject property is 4 .41 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 is also zoned R1-7 .2 . The property to the east is zoned R1-7. 2 , with an O, Professional and Office, district beyond along 104th Avenue SE. To the south and southwest across SE 248th Street, zoning is MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. The area located to the west, across proposed 1 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 100th Avenue SE, is zoned R1-9.6, Single Family Residential (9 , 600 square feet minimum lot size) . 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 4, 51 71 14 and 17 have narrow lot widths. 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. The minimum preferred lot width is 30 feet, however. Lots 4 , 51 71 14 and 17 as shown have lot widths of less than 30 feet at the street. The proposed widths should be increased to meet a minimum of 30 foot standard. 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. Based on a 20 foot assumed building height, preliminary calculations indicate that lots 14 and 17 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. Lot 17 has a particularly difficult configuration. In addition to the narrow lot width and restricted building area due to the solar access setback, this lot fronts on three streets: proposed 100th Avenue SE, SE 248th Street and the local cul-de-sac. This lot should be redesigned- -perhaps incorporating it into lots 14, 15, 16 and 18--to reduce street frontages to a maximum of two for any lot. 2 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 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 (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. One Subdivision Code provision is not addressed by the proposed preliminary plat, however. Those properties fronting two more or less parallel streets (currently lots 3, 4 , 5, 14, 15, 16, 17 , and 18) must have only one street access. Driveways must be restricted to meet this requirement. 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 3 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 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. 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. 4 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 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. 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 20 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. 5 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 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. 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. 6 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 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. 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 20 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 58 persons. As a condition of subdivision approval, the two internal cul-de-sacs to the site will be fully developed. In addition, improvements will be made to 100th Avenue SE and SE 248th Street. A traffic study and mitigation measures to control the traffic impacts due to the Canterbury 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 August 31, 1988, the Kent Planning Department received a letter from the Superintendent of the Kent School District. In his letter, George Daniel emphasized the fact 7 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 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 City does not have a vehicle to collect fees from developers in order to accommodate costs of adding facilities for the School District. Currently, the Planning Department is working with the City Attorney' s Office in order to determine the feasibility and legality of addressing this growing problem. As a result of street and sidewalk improvements, pedestrian and vehicular traffic will have safe and efficient access through the area. Kent Public Schools has requested that the developer consider providing school bus waiting areas and/or pull-offs to serve the children from the subdivision. These measures would further enhance the safety of nearby residents. 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. Presently, the undeveloped site is crossed by trails which indicate that local residents use the woodland for recreation. Development of the site will end such use. The developer of the Canterbury 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. 8 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 II. HISTORY Site and Area History The proposed subdivision occupies Lot 32 of R.O. Smith's Orchard Tracts Addition. This site was part of the East Hill Well Area 2 (Area A) Annexation to the City which occurred in the spring of 1987. This annexation was the result of the City taking over and improving 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 . III. LAND USE Land use in the area is almost exclusively residential. 1. The site itself is currently undeveloped except for a single family rental residence in the vicinity of proposed lots 15 and 16. This residence will be demolished in the event the plat is approved. 2 . To the south across SE 248th Street are single family residences, a duplex and the new Forest Creek Apartments. 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 October 27, 1988 with the following conditions: 1. The developer shall analyze the storm drainage basin (downstream) and tributary to this development and make any improvements deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. These improvements will include, but may not be limited to, the installation of an adequately sized culvert under SE 248th Street. 2 . The developer shall intercept any drainage that flows on site from adjacent properties and provide easements 9 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 to the outlet across SE 248th Street and provide on- site detention and biofiltration for on-site drainage. 3 . The developer of the Canterbury 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 "D, " "E" or "F" or which will be at level of service "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 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 Canterbury Subdivision development. A. The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement in the form of a no-protest LID agreement to participate in the formation of an LID to construct the S. 272nd/277th Street corridor project. The minimum benefit to the above development is estimated at $21, 360 based upon 20 p.m. peak hour trips entering and leaving the site and the capacity of the S. 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 S. 272nd/277th Street corridor which will provide additional capacity for traffic volumes within the area of the above mentioned development. 4. The developer shall construct full street improvements to 100th Avenue SE for the portion where adequate right-of-way exists. The remainder shall be half- street improvements, minimum 24 feet wide (gravel 10 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 shoulder one side) , curb and gutter, sidewalk (one side) , street lighting, underground utilities. In addition, storm drainage sized for the service area shall be required. B. Significant Physical Features Topography and Vegetation The subject site is presently undeveloped ground except for the existing single family rental residence and the unpaved area of proposed 100th Avenue SE. The topography is fairly hilly, with a gradual slope to the west of about 8 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 The subject property has access to SE 248th Street by way of proposed 100th Avenue SE. SE 248th Street is classified as a collector arterial. The street has a public right-of-way width of 60 feet while the actual width of paving is 24 feet. The street has a narrow shoulder and no sidewalks. The average daily traffic count on SE 248th Street is 2, 800 vehicle trips per day. Traffic mitigation conditions have already been determined as part of the SEPA review process. One Hundreth Avenue SE and SE 248th Street will be improved. Street lighting and full street improvements will be required at the intersection. The two cul-de-sacs in the Canterbury 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 eight-inch water main is available in SE 248th Street to serve the subject property. Water 11 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision ISU-88-5 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. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System There is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main stub to SE 248th Street, approximately 800 feet west of the subject property. This sewer main is available to serve the subject property. 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. 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 September 14, 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 December 21, 1988 public hearing. 12 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 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. 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 R1-7.21 Single Family Residential, 7200 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. Lots 4, 51 71 14, and 17 should have increased lot widths. Lot 17 should be reconfigured or eliminated to reduce street frontage. All lots (but particularly Lots 14 and 17) must conform to the solar access setback regulations. E. Land use in the area is predominantly single family residential with some multifamily residential across SE 248th Street to the southwest. F. The proposed subdivision will have access to SE 248th 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: 13 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 A. Prior to Recordation of Plat: 1. Increase lot widths for proposed lots 4, 51 71 14, and 17 so that these lots meet the recommended minimum width of 30 feet. 2 . Reconfigure or eliminate proposed lot 17 to reduce street frontages to a maximum of two for any lot. 3 . The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that all lots must conform to the solar access setback regulations of the Zoning Code. 4 . The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that those properties fronting on two more or less parallel streets (currently proposed lots 3, 4, 51 14, 15, 16, 17 , and 18) must have only one street access. Obtain City approval of detailed engineering drawings for the following improvements and either construct and/or bond for the same: 5. Storm System. Provide on-site storm water detention in accordance with City Drainage Code and provide public storm drainage facilities within all public roadways and roadway improvements required as a condition of this subdivision. 6. Sanitary Sewer. Provide city gravity sanitary sewer system to service all lots. Extend sanitary sewers from SE 248th Street along 100th Avenue SE to the north property line of the plat. 7 . Water. Extend the City water main on SE 248th Street to the north property line of this plat. The size thereof shall be in accordance with that specified in the City Water Comprehensive Plan. Extend the City water main internal into the plat to provide domestic water service and fire flow capabilities to all lots. A minimum six inch main is required. 8. 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 14 Staff Report Canterbury Subdivision #SU-88-5 signs, and related appurtenances) . Dedicate adequate right-of-way to accommodate 25 foot radius curb returns at intersections and 45 foot curb returns for cul-de-sacs, 50 feet right-of-way minimum in tangent sections. 9 . 100th Avenue SE. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way to construct improvements required under SEPA. A 35 foot curb return radius is required at the intersection with SE 248th Street. 10. SE 248th Street. Improve to collector street standards. Half street pavement width shall be 18 feet as measured from the centerline of the right-of- way. The westbound land shall be widened and overlain with asphalt pavement such that its minimum width shall be 12 feet. Included in the half street improvements shall be curb and gutter, cement concrete sidewalk, street lighting, undergrounding, storm drainage and other related improvements. 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 December 9, 1988 15 CITY OF BENT planning S 233N0 I • - - • cn.r.r p„ S 232ND _ ; SE 232ND 3TR n SE Sr Sf SE IrJU VL 3321�O N I • Jr SE 233RO< P T�jY r O Je 1 ( tJ < 1• y4, = SiHCi V N y G t ( Z N r SE 236TH SI OT v i S 336TH 'rJrj��y �rS 6A P (RH) < Sr W Oh X W SE 2367H PL 'A ON O 7 " W 0 SE 237TH ST yE W P < 6 l( _ v< Fr i •I•� � - C 338TH � (Prq SE 23Y TH Sr < Z O a= - Q ST S9 E c- _ PL SE OT 3 240 ST u \r O JST- EAST HILL S 2e ST ¢ T' ELEMENTARY L O M SCHOOL J i 3 < '^ S 2A2NDQ [ ST N ip ,E ST S S 2A3RO z D ST z _ SITE o SMITH ST S OATH N N SE 2AJ W � .al "ST C > EITf^J.'\�„L•�'Tyh ST.JAM ES > F SCHOOLin a WEIL.ANO SA = jo S 246TH STti•r , \ ST 2A7TH CHERRY OC � 4 Sr MILL STSr SE 2ABTH ST MACLYN ST �T CATTLE �\TILE ST yO.\ _t + 0 E CHICAGO ST \!rJ'e1 3 732NL T 1 i ✓. tt ` FAST IiILL < E LAUREL ST W °oa' '%y°efr CLNTLR F . E HEMLOCK ST O RTER 4TCY,_A O\1 •cn SE 155T0 S N Z ; i •t\-_�";K ing ( ST '^ E FILBERT ST ,J.A = i m 4 t t,C O t *y 915 lice A J p a WTF ]._v.\� O RENT—MERIDIAN ira = 2:W ii \^ ¢ 3 >< < O\„�,(• �O I SR.HI. SCHOOL r2 E WA III LIT N Si 1 SE 236TH 0 W Z O G < MAPLE ST nv I},x u •4.J1 •.i _ z in t •_� rC .. tin i T:vOJ \1'\I'4 . . J• W SE SE 260TN ST N 260 fe. 1 SCENIC HI LLr� r ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0 a > APPLICATION Name CANTERBURY SUBDIVISION LEGEND Number SU-88-5 Dale 12/21/88 application site Request Preliminary Plat VICINITY MAP SCALE = i" :moo 1 CITY OF KENT • � I \ � 1 , ` 1 planning � R 7 . 2 Yoo l•�i R11111111 IRIIII IIRRRII IIIIRR IIIY 9 . N L- O Ion I !1 ❑I i-1 U. Il � � ' f 31 -* r I / I SPORTFIEL 1 F - -- I 1 •~ APPLICATION Name CANTERBURY SUBDIVISION LEGEND : Number su-s8-s Date I2/21/88 application site RRIRIIIIIIIIIR,RR Request. Preliminary Plat toning boundary ••••••• ZONING/TOPOGRAPHY SCALE = 1" :200 CITY OF KENT planning e r lot 4 N ti•• - ' y0, A08 C7 03 P"' ^r ` 7 . + B W << LLJ_ Ac. LJ 5!� 0 1= ' I s . I 2E lS0 94oil , 1 3 /G 33,A 3 Ld AL. s .O �Jj �nnmTnmml nMp011i Aifil�imfm111ID� M -4 . SE. 2487H. ST. J SE. 2 4 8 T H. S7. f at 'I, G29 715 •� b PCL. F _ p 1 - O /nt 1 { I APPLICATION Name CANTERBURY SUBDIVISION LEGEND Number. SU-88-5 Dale 12/21/88 application site Request Preliminary Plat SITE PLAN SCALE = 1• :1oo' Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 -- Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE FOR RUTH/KENT EAST HILL SHOPPING CENTER REZONE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. providing for the conditional rezone of the Kent East Hill Shopping Center from MRM, Medium Density Residential and O, Professional and Office to CC, Community Commercial. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, memorandum from Planning Department 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds 4 t')j ywt' v n Stx t O DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4B KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 16, 1989 TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members FROM: Fr N. Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director SUBJECT: Ruti Rezone Ordinance - Additional Condition On February 7, 1989, the Kent City Council voted to approve the Ruth/Kent East Hill Shopping Center rezone (File #RZ-88-4) with conditions as recommended by the Hearing Examiner. The attached rezone ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney and contains the conditions approved by the City Council . The attached rezone ordinance contains an additional condition that was inadvertently omitted from the conditions considered by the Hearing Examiner. This condition was originally recommended by the Fire Department in conjunction with the rezone application. This condition is #14 in the attached rezone ordinance and reads as follows: 14 . Additional fire protection measures, including requiring the building to be equipped with sprinklers, may be applied at the time of development plan review, if so determined by the Fire Department. The applicant has been notified of this condition and has indicated concurrence. /s ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, providing for the rezoning with conditions of approximately .85 acres from MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, and 15.55 acres from 0, Professional and Office, to CC, Community Commercial, for property located at the southwest corner of 104th Ave. S.E. and S.E. 260th St. , and bounded by 100th Pl. S.E. (Crow Road) to the west and S.E. 264th St. on the south. WHEREAS, an application for a rezone of the Ruth/Kent East Hill Shopping Center was filed on July 26, 1988 for the property described in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, .the applicant requested that the property he rezoned from MRM, Medium Density Multifamily, and 0, Professional and Office, to CC, Community Commercial; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held public hearings to consider the rezone of the property on September 21, 1988, October 5, 1988, and October 19, 1988; and WHEREAS, following the public hearings and consideration of reports and testimony submitted into the record on the proposed rezone and the staff recommendation, the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent rendered her Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations in "Ruth/Kent East Hill Shopping Center: Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent"; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a hearing on December 21, 1988 to consider appropriate conditions on the rezone proposal; and i WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner issued an order amending previous Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent on the Ruth/Kent East Hill Shopping Center on January 4, 1988 to incorporate the conditions; and WHEREAS, request for reconsideration was filed with the City and Hearing Examiner on December 23, 1988; and WHEREAS, after due consideration and reconsideration the Hearing Examiner determined that the request for reconsideration contained no new facts or evidence and, as such, denied the request for reconsideration on January 4, 1989; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 1989, a hearing was held before the City Council at 7 o'clock p.m. in the City Hall of the City of Kent, upon proper notice given; and WHEREAS, the condition set forth below, recommended by the Fire Department and agreed to by the applicant, was inadvertently excluded from the conditions to be considered by the Hearing Examiner: Additional fire protection measures, including requiring the building to be equipped with sprinklers, may be applied at the time of development plan review, if so determined by the Fire Department; and WHEREAS, the Council determines that the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation should be modified to include this additional condition; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings, Conclusions, and Conditional Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner as set forth in "Ruth/Kent East Hill Shopping Center: Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent" and amendments thereto pursuant to the Amended Order of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent, which are on file with the Kent City Clerk, are hereby 2 - adopted and the Findings, Conclusions, and Conditional Recommendations in the amended Order are concurred with for this site. The additional condition set forth above is added as a condition to this rezone. Section 2. Zoning for this site, generally located at the southwest corner of 104th Ave. S.E. and S.E. 260th St. and bounded by 100th P1. S.E. (Crow Road) to the west and S.E. 264th St. on the south, and legally described in the attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby changed from MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, and 0, Professional and Office, to CC, Community Commercial, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 3 below. Section 3. The rezone is subject to the following conditions as set forth in the amended Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent, and the additional condition referenced above: 1. Eliminate the driveway on SE 260th Street at the northwestern corner of the site. Align driveway entrances off of SE 260th Street with 101st Avenue across the street. 2. No parking shall be allowed directly off the main drive aisles within the site; instead, these aisles shall be lined with landscape islands a minimum of five feet in width. 3. The parking located along the west property line shall be marked for "employees only". 4. Buildings and roofs should be finished with quality, nonreflective, earth-toned materials so as to reduce glare to surrounding areas. 5. A sign plan shall be required which will indicate all sign locations and show that illumination from signs will not adversely affect neighboring residences. - 3 - 6. Foundation landscaping shall be required along the front and side building facades to break-up the barren appearance of walls and lessen the bulky appearance of the structures. The landscaping shall consist of everareen and deciduous trees at a minimum height of 12 feet, with supporting shrubs and ground cover. 7. All landscaping shall be irrigated. 8. All interior landscape islands shall be a minimum of five feet in width and planted with at least one tree, at a minimum height of 12 feet and minimum caliper of two inches. Shrubs and/or ground cover shall also be included in these landscape islands. 9. Shopping cart return areas shall be interspersed throughout the parking lot and screened with landscaping in addition to the required parking lot landscape islands. 10. All building facades facing public streets shall provide some type of architectural relief, either in the form of fenestration, building modulation, or surface treatment. 11. Lighting shall be provided for the rear employee parking lot which is located along the west property line. 12. The proposed Target Store (or other subsequent tenant) shall provide a vehicular pick-up area for customers picking up large purchases. The pick-up area shall be located in an area which will not conflict with pedestrian or vehicular circulation. 13. In addition to the above conditions the applicants representatives expressed a willingness to provide some type of public art work on the walls of the shopping center buildings where it faces public - 4 - 'E streets. Such public art shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to its installation. 14. Additional fire protection measures, including requiring the building to be equipped with sprinklers, may be applied at the time of development plan review, if so determined by the Fire Department. Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1989. APPROVED the day of 1989. PUBLISHED the day of , 1989. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereo indicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 07050-250 5 - Exhibit A TOTAL PARCEL The south 135 feet of the north 165 feet of the east 130 feet of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter 'of Section 29, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the east 30 feet thereof for - 104th Avenue SE. Parcel A Lot 1, City of Kent Short Plat #79-19, recorded under Recording Number 7911130996. Parcel B Lot 2, City of Kent Short Plat #79-19, recorded under ' Recording Number 7911130996. TOGETHER WITH that portion of 101st Avenue SE vacated by Ordinance No. 2356, recorded under Recording Number 8208020670, which would attach by operation of law. Also The south 135 feet of the north 165 feet of the east 210 feet of the ,southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the east 130 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH an easement for road and utility purposes over the north 30 feet of the east 210 feet of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 29; EXCEPT the east 30 feet thereof for road. Also The south 135 feet of the north 165 feet of the east 290 feet of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 22 North, Range 5 East W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the east 210 feet thereof. Also The southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion thereof lying westerly of the easterly line of T.E. Crow Road, as conveyed to King County by deed recorded under Recording Number 439183, records of King County; AND EXCEPT that portion of the north 330 feet thereof lying easterly of said T.E. Crow Road. Also Lot 3, City of Kent Short Plat #79-19, recorded under Recording Number 7911130596. TOGETHER WITH the west 30.00 feet of that portion of 101st Avenue SE vacated by Ordinance No. 2356 under Recording Number 8208020670; , AND EXCEPT street deeded to City of Kent under Recording Numbers 8209150434, 8209150436 and 8209150438. Kent City Council Meeting I �1 Date February 21. 1989 ll� Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: PERFORMING ARTS FACILITY: SCHOOL/CITY COOPERATIVE PROJECT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Informational discussion regarding a prospective joint project. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Barney Wilson, Director; Letter to Dr. George Daniel, Superintendent Kent School District from Mayor Dan Kelleher 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Discussed with Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4C KENT PARKS AND RECREATION February 14 , 1989 TO: MAYOR KELLEHER, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY ADMINISTRATION LJ FROM: BARNEY WILSON{ DI'" RECTOR SUBJECT: PERFORMANCE ARTS FACILITY: SCHOOL/CITY COOPERATIVE PROJECT At the January 6, 1989 Council Meeting, Councilman White noted that some remodeling was planned for Kent-Meridian High School and the Arts Commission had contacted the School District to encourage a cooperative venture to establish a Performing Arts Center. The Mayor was to write a letter to the District to express City interest. _ The January 13 correspondence from the Mayor to George Daniel (see attached) expressed interest in the proposal. Mr. Gerry Winkle, Business Manager for the School District, plans to be at the February 21, 1989 Council Meeting to bring the Council up to date on recent opportunities. Since negotiations and property acquisition might be involved, we are planning for a short executive session to discuss the project - where we are and potential for the future. BW/ry cc George Daniel Gerry Winkle F L CITY OFjCiV Dan Kelleher, Mayor !n CiT January 13 , 1989 Dr. George Daniel, Superintendent Kent School District 12033 S.E. 256th Kent, WA. 98031 (J, Dear'P4 iel At their meeting of January 3 , 1989 the Kent City Council requested that I send you a letter expressing the Cityrs interest in working together to establish a Performing Arts Center, even though no funding for such a project has been discussed. If you wish to pursue this matter with us please contact Jim Harris, Acting City Administrator. \-Sincerely, Dan Kelleher Mayor DK: am cc: Jim Harris, Acting City Administrator Jim White, City Council President • t �l 220 4ih AVE.SO.,/KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE NOW 859.0000 "w '1 Kent City Council Meeting �V Date February 21. 1989 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ZONING ON EAST HILL WELL ANNEXATION AREA 2 , AREA C 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On March 15, 1988 the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2771 establishing the zoning for East Hill Well Annexation Area No. 2 . A question has been raised as to whether or not the ordinance reflects the Council intent as stated at the March 1, 1988 meeting as it relates to the zoning for the undeveloped portion of the Stratford Arms property. Ordinance Ag3q is presented amending Ordinance 2771 to reflect the Council's intent that the undeveloped Stratford Arms property be zoned medium density multifamily residential. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY. (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Ordinance No. )23�� amending Ordinance 2771, clarifying the Council's intent that the undeveloped portion of the Stratford Arms site be zoned medium density multifamily residential. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4D V� G C Kent City Council Meeting \ Date February 21. 1989 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - HOUSING ELEMENT NO. CPA-88-4 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Council Resolution No. 1172 directed the Planning Department to develop a proposed update of the Housing Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The extensive proposed amendments were developed in part through a citizens advisory committee appointed by the Mayor and representing diverse housing interests. At it's January 30 public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Council approve the Housing Advisory Committee proposal for the Housing Element update. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Mayor, staff report including proposal on pages 39 through 47, Planning Commission minutes, Resolution No. 989 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission, January 30, 1989 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember dLt moves, Councilmember u'o seconds to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the Housing Advisory Committee proposal for the Housing Element update of the City's Comprehensive Plan. DISCUSSION: YE'U ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4E LJ �. 1 r FEB 1989 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY OF KENT February 15, 1989 CITY CLERK TO: City Council Presi ent 'm White and Council Members FROM: Mayor Dan Kelleher a SUBJECT: SUBMITTAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ON AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT As per RCW 35A.63 . 072 and City Council Resolution No. 989, I am forwarding to you the Planning Commission's recommendation on amending the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed revisions were developed by a nine-member Housing Advisory Committee working with the Planning Department staff. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposal on January 30, 1989. At the hearing the Commission voted unanimously to amend the Comprehensive Plan as proposed by the Housing Advisory Committee. The proposed amendment is presented in pages 39-47 of the Planning Department report entitled "Proposal for a Housing Element Update. " Also as per RCW 35A. 63 . 072 and Council Resolution No. 989, within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Council at a public meeting shall vote to approve or disapprove or to modify and approve as modified the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Council may also refer it back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. Attached with this memo are the following: 1. Council Resolution No. 989 2 . Staff Report "Proposal for a Housing Element Update" 3 . Planning Commission hearing minutes. DS:ca Attachments ^1I �P 1 Brenda aco er Deputy City 1 rk RESOLUTION NO. .R 9 A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, concerning the procedure for City Council review of recommendations of the Planning Commission for the Kent Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.060 directs every City to direct its planning agency to prepare a comprehensive plan for anticipating and influencing the orderly and coordinated development of land and building uses of the code city and its environs; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.070 sets forth specific requirements for notice and public hearing by the planning agency concerning a comprehensive plan, or successive parts thereof; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.071 and RC4l 35A.63.072 provides for transmission of comprehensive plan recommendations, and consideration by the City' s legislative body in public meeting of those recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent has established a Planning Commission to conduct public hearings pursuant to Chapter 35A.63 RCW; and WHEREAS, it is a disservice to the Planning Commission and the members of the public who appear At Commission hearings for the Council to accept and consider information not before the Commission, and to conduct supplemental hearings; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.072, within sixty days of receipt of recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council will consider the recommendations at a public meeting. Section 2. At the public meeting the Council will also consider such other written submittals that are filed; with the City prior to the public meeting, concerning the recommendations of the Planning Commission. r Section 3 . Following the public meeting the Council shall vote to approve, or to disapprove, or to modify and approve as modified, the comprehensive plan. The Council may also vote to refer the comprehensive plan back to the planning Commission for further proceedings, in which case the Council shall specify the time within which the Planning Commission shall report back its findings and recommendations on the matters referred to it. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent Washington this �_ day of ry 1983. Conc rred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1983. 12 ISABEL HOGAN, MAYOR , ATTEST: MARIE JEN. EN CITY` CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: P. -STEPTFEII DiJULIO, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 9 99 passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the DI day of 1714,eci-' , 1983. ��''f'✓k2� %'�--i (SEAL) MARIE JRUSE , CIT. CLERK 5557-94A 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 Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 30, 1989 wetlands, meadows and wildlife habitats. Good water quality in residential areas could be promoted by restricting residential densities in areas unconnected to city sewers in order to protect the water table. Goal 51 Housing Special Populations, encourages housing opportunities for persons with special needs such as senior citizens, the homeless, mentally and developmentally disabled and lower income persons and families. Objectives and policies were created to address concerns for these special populations, such as funding, , coordination and community acceptance strategies. Policies include promoting preservation of lower-income housing, and developing and maintaining a citizen participation process. Leona Orr, 24909 114th Avenue SE, expressed support of the proposal for a Housing Element Update. She was concerned about maintaining the single family neighborhoods and felt that this proposal helped to preserve this housing. She felt that Goal Number 5 was badly needed. The work of the staff was greatly appreciated. Surinder-Pal Khela, 10818 SE 236th, Kent, expressed support of the update. He liked the idea of limiting multifamily development, but felt that it should be handled on a regional basis. He suggested communicating with King County on this issue. Commissioner Ward MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Commission adopt the Housing Element Update as printed and presented to the Commission as Proposal for a Housing Element Update, January 1989 . Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. WELFARE FACILITIES IN THE GC ZONE (ZCA 88-10) Ms. McClung presented the request of South King County Multi- Service Center, an agency which helps low-income people with transitional and emergency housing, for a zoning code amendment to allow transitional housing as an outright permitted use in the General Commercial zone. She indicated on a map the area that is zoned GC and defined transitional housing as a facility operated publicly or privately to provide housing for individuals and/or families who are otherwise homeless and have no other immediate living options available to them. Transitional housing shall not exceed an 18-month period per individual or family. The 18-month period is the maximum time adopted by the code of South King County Multi-Service Center and the City of Bellevue. The GC area was selected because of its close proximity to public transportation, 7 v Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1989 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID ON APPLIANCES, FURNITURE, OFFICE EQUIPMENT FOR NORTH INDUSTRIAL FIRE STATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As part of the construction of the new fire station, bids were let for needed furniture, office equipment and appliances. The bids were broken down into appropriate categories. The Fire Department Administration has reviewed the various packages and is recommending a combination of the low bid vendors. Fire Department recommends bid to be awarded to the low bidder in the following categories: Appliances: Pickering Appliance and Television, Inc. in the amount of $5, 373 . 61; Office furniture and equipment meeting room chairs and tables etc. : Western Office Furniture in the amount of $16,287.86; Kitchen tables, chairs and bed: Oak Tree Decorating Center in the amount of $7,221. 02 ; Day room furniture, chairs, etc. : Van's Furniture in the amount of $3 , 960.80 Writing surfaces: Weyel International in the amount of $2,557 . 3. EXHIBITS: attached is a summary by Project Manager, Pat Pawlak for Chief Angelo reflecting bids received and recommendations to award to low bidders 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Department Administration (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $35,400.29 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Public Safety Bond Levy - North Industrial Fire Station Budget 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds bids as recommended by Fire Administration be awarded to the respective low bid vendors, with the overall total not to exceed $35,400.29. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5A SUMMARY FEBRUARY 16, 1989 TO: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF FROM: F/F PAT PAWLAK P.RP SUBJECT: BID RECOMMENDATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attached, please find the bid summary sheet with recommendations on the following items: appliances, writing surfaces, office and station furniture. Advertising for the bid process on these items started January 29, 1989, and ended with the bid opening on February 14 , 1989 . There were approximately 31 bid packets mailed to various vendors. The Fire Department received 14 bids. After reviewing the bids, my recommendations for awarding the bids is included on the attached bid sheet summary. My recommendation for awarding the audio visual equipment bid will be established at a future time, after research is done on the equipment which was bid. tcn Attachment BID SUMMARY SHEET Item: Station Appliances (refrigerator, dishwasher, range, etc. ) Vendor: Pickering Appliance and Television, Inc. Bid Amount: $5, 373 . 61 Met All Requirements: Yes Vendor: George's Appliance Center Bid Amount: $3 , 876.46 Met All Requirements: No, bid only on refrigerators, gas ranges, microwave ovens. On these above items, Pickering Appliance and Television, Inc. under bid George's Appliance Center. I recommend that we award the bid to Pickering Appliances and Television, Inc. to supply the Kent Fire Department' s North End Fire Station with appliances in the amount of $5, 373 . 61. Item: Kitchen Tables, Chairs and Beds Vendor: Oak Tree Decorating Center Bid Amount: $7, 221. 02 Met All Requirements: Yes I recommend that we award the bid to the Oak Tree Decorating Center to supply the Kent Fire Department ' s North End Fire Station with kitchen tables, chairs and beds in the amount of $7, 221. 02 . Item: Writing Surfaces (meeting room, office, etc. writing surfaces) Vendor: Weyel International Bid Amount: $2 , 557 . 00 Met All Requirements: Yes I recommend that we award the bid to Weyel International to supply the Kent Fire Department' s North End Fire Station with writing surfaces in the amount of $2 , 557 . 00 . Bid Summary Sheet Page 2 Item: Day Room Furniture Vendor: Van' s Furniture Bid Amount: $3 ,960.80 Met All Requirements: Yes Vendor• Levitz Bid Amount: Did Not Bid Met All Requirements: No I recommend that we award the bid to Van' s Furniture to supply the Kent Fire Department' s North End Fire Station with day room and station furniture in the amount of $3 , 960 . 60. Item: Office and Meeting Room Furniture (desk, file cabinets, meeting room tables, chairs, etc. ) Vendor: Western Office Furniture Bid Amount: $16, 287 .86 Met All Requirements: Yes Vendor: Seattle Office Furniture, Inc. Bid Amount: $16,823 . 70 Met All Requirements: Yes Vendor: Boise Cascade Office Products Division Bid Amount: $7, 067 .43 Met All Requirements: No, did not bid on meeting room tables, chairs and chair dollies. Vendor: McDonald-Klein Business Machines, Inc. Bid Amount: $8, 663 .43 Met All Requirements: No, did not bid on one (1) desk, meeting room tables, chairs, and chair dollies. Vendor: Chas. H. Beresford Company ,Bid Amount: $11, 254 . 52 Met All Requirements: No, bid only on meet room tables, chairs, and chair dollies. I recommend that we award the bid to Western Office Furniture to supply the Kent Fire Department' s North End Fire Station with office and meeting room furniture in the amount of $16,287 .86. bid.wpf RECEIVED BID PACKETS APPLIANCES COVINGTON T.V. AND APPLIANCES INC. PICKERING APPLIANCE AND T.V. INC. THE KITCHEN CENTER GEORGES APPLIANCE CENTER MIKE WOODS FURNITURE AND APPLIANCES INC. JACK ROBERTS APPLIANCES G.E. FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE FURNITURE SPACE LTD. WATSON FURNITURE FOSTER OFFICE EQUIPMENT DANWOOD BOISE CASCADE SEATTLE OFFICE FURNITURE INC. WESTERN OFFICE FURNITURE MCDONALD-KLEIN BUSINESS MACHINES, INC. CHAS. H. BERESFORD COMPANY WRITING SURFACES SPACE LTD. FOSTER OFFICE EQUIPMENT DANWOOD BOISE CASCADE WEYEL INTERNATIONAL DAYROOM AND FURNITURE LEVITZ FURNITURE VANS FURNITURE KJERLANDS FINE FURNITURE OAK FURNITURE OAK FACTORY OAK TREE DECORATING CENTER KJERLANDS FINE FURNITURE AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT PHOTO AND SOUND PROLINE A-V AND VIDEO CAPITAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. MCDONALD-KLEIN BUSINESS MACHINES, INC. ITEMS BIDS SENT OUT BIDS RECEIVED APPLIANCES 7 2 OFFICE FURNITURE 9 5 WRITING SURFACES 5 1 DAYROOM FURNITURE 3 2 OAK FURNITURE 3 1 AUDIO VISUAL EQUIP. 4 3 R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE u n D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 14, 1989 PRESENT: JON JOHNSON LAURI ANDERSON BERNE BITEMAN BRIAN R. JONES JUDY WOODS TONY MCCARTHY DON WICKSTROM JOHN MARCHIONE JIM HARRIS ROSETTA JONES JIM HANSEN CLAUDIA JUSTUS DAN STROH STEPHEN ELKINS BILL WILLIAMSON MARTY NIZLEK Comments from Ms. Greenwood on Traffic and Supersonics The Committee was informed that Ms. Greenwood had phoned and stated she was unable to attend the meeting but expressed appreciation for their placing the item on the agenda for discussion. Johnson suggested staff write a letter to Ms. Greenwood informing her that the City has not received a response from the Sonics. When the City does receive a firm proposal from the Sonics the Committee will address her concerns at that time. The Committee concurred with the suggestion. Mrs. Justus Concerns Regarding Intersection of 240th and Benson Highway Mrs. Justus stated she was also concerned about the intersections of 240th and 100th Avenue S.E. , and 240th and 102nd Avenue S.E. Mrs. Justus referred to the motorists taking their free right off 100th onto 240th and also from 240th onto 100th without watching for children. There are children who have to walk on the sidewalks on 240th, cross 100th to get to the ramp to go to school. Mrs. Justus commented she would like to have free right hand turns eliminated at this intersection from about 8:30 to 9: 30 a.m. and 2 : 30 to 3 : 30 p.m. In addition she says the vehicles are not obeying the speed limit on 240th. She said she would also like to see a sidewalk on 100th. Also there is no marked crosswalk on 100th on the north side of 240th. She also said there is need for some type of protective signing. Woods asked if we could have a trial period of restricting free rights for one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon. Biteman commented he did not feel it would be effective for just short periods of time. Johnson questioned if we could restrict free right hand turns. Williamson responded he did not think so based upon the model traffic code that the City has adopted. He Public Works Committee February 14 , 1989 Page 2 added he felt the State Traffic Commission would probably have to approve it. Johnson asked that Williamson research this matter. Biteman requested the crosswalks be painted on 100th and installing a "speed zone when children present" notation to the existing silhouette sign. Mrs. Justus noted the motorists have almost hit the crossing guards. Woods inquired about flashing caution signs that would operate only during the hours the students would be walking similar to what she has seen on the East Coast. Mrs. Jones commented there is a flashing school sign in the Federal Way School District on 16th by Woodmont. Biteman moved that the Transportation Division analyze the situation and make recommendations to the Committee at the next meeting. The Committee unanimously approved. Mrs. Justus commented the "Walk" "Don't Walk" signals at the new Fred Meyer intersection do not give adequate time for pedestrians to cross. In addition there are no wheel chair ramps on one side. Also, the left hand turn signal for vehicles to exit Fred Meyer at 102nd is on at the same time as the "Walk" signal for pedestrians to cross 240th and the vehicles do not yield right of way to the pedestrians. Biteman asked this be included in the previously requested analysis. Mrs. Justus stated most of the problems are created by the free right hand turns especially at 240th and Benson. Marty Nizlek, Transportation Engineer for the City of Kent, indicated his staff had prepared an analysis for this meeting of the 240th and Benson Highway intersection. He commented that during the analysis some of his staff were placed in dangerous situations by the motorists not respecting a pedestrian in the crosswalk. He distributed copies of a signal timing analysis for that intersection. This signal allows pedestrian movement at a rate of 4 feet per second plus an additional 7 second buffer. He recommended that a unique sign be installed which would show a pedestrian in a crosswalk, an arrow indicating turning traffic, and , a supplemental panel below with the word "Caution" . Biteman suggested a large sign that said "Pedestrians Have Right of Way" . Nizlek stated his proposal addresses the situations when pedestrians are already in the crosswalk and the motorists need to be alerted to this. He commented that pedestrians don't always have the right of way and he has concerns that with the wording proposed by Mr. Biteman the pedestrians might be placed in hazardous situations. Biteman moved that the sign as proposed by the Transportation Engineer be installed. Woods stated she was intrigued by Mr. Biteman's suggestion. Johnson commented that if the first type of signing was not effective, the second (Mr. Biteman's proposal) could be Public Works Committee February 14 , 1989 Page 3 tried with the exact wording to be reviewed by the City's Legal Department. The Committee concurred. Nizlek commented that a video of the area is available for the Committee' s review showing the operation of the signal. The Committee asked to view it at the next meeting. Mrs. Justus asked to be informed of the findings. Mrs Rosetta Jones Concerns regarding 272nd/277th Corridor Mrs. Jones distributed a traffic analysis she prepared from information obtained from the County and the State. She commented extending 277th across the valley floor would create an "East Hill situation" on the West Hill. She referred also to the degree of slope on 277th being 12% which is greater than that allowed on federally funded highways. She commented there have been 58 accidents in a two year period at Military and 272nd. She went on to list the accident rates at various intersections on the West Hill. She commented the quality of life of those living on the West Hill near S. 272nd would be badly impaired by this highway. Now it takes approximately 5-10 minutes to make a left hand turn from the northbound SR 167 exit onto 277th. She referred to suggested locations for traffic signals - 40th South, 46th South, Lake Fenwick Road, 55th South & Star Lake Road, two lights needed at overpass at SR 167 one each for northbound and southbound, and East Valley Highway. Mrs. Jones suggested widening Kent Des-Moines Road and using it to carry traffic to the east hill. The Committee reviewed the reasons for the City's commitment to the 272nd/277th Corridor project. Biteman asked if any consideration had been given to extending James across the river and up the hill. Wickstrom responded it has been analyzed many times. The costs involved are tremendous and the grade up the hill would be excessive. Wickstrom added that it might be a misconception that the traffic coming off the east hill on the 277th corridor would be moving to the west hill area. The bulk of the traffic will stay in the valley floor area. Woods asked that Mrs. Jones receive information on the activities of the Mayor's Task Force on Traffic Congestion. The Committee commented they would take Mrs. Jones comments under advisement. Mrs. Jones also addressed the impact of traffic on the quality of Star Lake. (Judy Woods had to leave the meeting at this point. On the Moss Construction/Stephen Elkins Water Availability Request issue, she wanted to be recorded as supporting the Planning Committee' s recommendation that the ordinance remain as is. Items 6, 7 , and Public Works Committee February 14, 1989 Page 4 11 were reviewed and Woods stated she had no problems in supporting the recommendations on these items. In addition, she was supportive of the Canyon Drive issues. ) Moss Construction/Steve Elkins Water Availability Wickstrom reviewed previous actions on this item. It was last referred to the Planning Department to review the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area in question. Their study did not identify the need for any change in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Committee supported these findings. The remaining options available for Committee decision would be to either amend the ordinance deleting the section requiring consistency with the City's Land Use Plan or to recommend the ordinance remain as is and that development be required to be consistent with the City's proposed land use for the area. Elkins stated his request was for an expansion for his industrial building and the water availability would be used simply for the additional restroom facilities required. Johnson asked if there was any way the City could condition a water availability permit by restricting its use. Williamson stated that Mr. Elkins has already signed a agreement with the City wherein he agreed to use the water consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan. By virtue of his industrial use, he is in conflict with the land use plan. Williamson further stated without amending the existing ordinance he did not see how we could condition any water availability and he did not see how we could create an ordinance allowing certain use exceptions without creating major difficulties in policing the ordinance. Biteman asked what the impact would be of amending the existing ordinance deleting the requirement for consistency with the land use plan. Williamson and Wickstrom responded that property would be able to develop in densities or uses other than what the City would allow if the property were within the city limits. Responding to Biteman' s question, Williamson recommended the ordinance remain as is and it be applied strictly. Biteman moved not to amend the ordinance and apply it as written. The Committee concurred. Green River Bridge Replacement Wickstrom distributed copies of an analysis of available funding sources. He related he had reviewed all the public works projects to determine the availability of uncommitted funds. These funds are shown on the summary. In addition, he listed additional funding needs for 1989 for projects that have emanated since preparation of the 1989 budget. These needs exceed the amount of Public Works Committee February 14 , 1989 Page 5 available funds. Wickstrom proposed funding the first six projects shown on his summary from the available funds which he reviewed for the Committee. He noted that most of the funds for the Green River Bridge Replacement would probably not be required until 1990. Funding for the remaining projects, Wickstrom recommended, be addressed at the time those needs come before Council. Wickstrom reviewed these for the Committee as well. Biteman moved that the Director' s recommendations be approved. The Committee unanimously concurred. This approval addresses items 5 (Green River Bridge Replacement) , 9 (Canyon Drive Removal and Replacement of Pylons) and 10 (SR 516/SR 99 Intersection Improvement) on the agenda. Johnson asked if the pylons were going to be replaced on Canyon. Wickstrom commented they will be replaced on a temporary basis with another type of pylon. In designing the Canyon Drive Improvements, the left turn pockets will be constructed in the locations originally intended and the remaining road widened between the left turn pockets so that jersey barriers could be installed in the future as needed. The current design calls for striping these areas to restrict left turns. While the property owners have not been advised as yet, the Transportation Engineer indicates hazards of left turns in specific areas do exist. Wickstrom clarified for Johnson that previously it had been thought a greater shy distance was required for jersey barriers. Further study has been done and it appears there is adequate room for them. Riverview RV Park (Kantor RV Park) Agreement Wickstrom explained the developer is, in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, oversizing and installing to extra depth a sewer main to service an area larger than his immediate development. The developer is requesting the City participate in the costs involved in the oversizing and extra depth. The Director estimated the cost to the City would be approximately $21, 925 and it is his recommendation the City agree to participate and the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement. The Committee unanimously approved the recommendation. Alignment of Crow Road Wickstrom explained this item is in conjunction with the Ruth Rezone. The developer deeded right of way for alignment of Crow Road to the City. To clear his title on his property, the Developer has asked the City quit claim deed back to him any unrequired right of way. The Committee unanimously concurred. Public Works Committee February 14, 1989 Page 6 Canyon Drive Authorization to Establish Budget Wickstrom explained this is a housekeeping matter. The auditors require we have specific authorization to apply for federal funds and to establish a budget for those funds for this project. The Committee unanimously concurred with the request. L.I.D. 331 S E 240th Street Improvement (108th - 116th1 Wickstrom explained there is one parcel on which negotiations are still underway for right of way but to date have not been successful. Wickstrom recommended staff be authorized to pursue condemnation if required. The Committee unanimously approved the request. Other Biteman asked about intersection improvements at Meeker and SR 516. His suggestions were submitted to the Transportation Engineer for review. Executive Session At 5:41 p.m. the Committee adjourned to an executive session to discuss pending litigation and property acquisition. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FUND PROJECT DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE FUNDING 1. 3122 WVH & 180TH PHASE I $489000 2-.----3133--SIDEWALKS 3. 3135 SR 99 & 252NO $4,871 4. 3148 CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY $179813 5. 3160 LID 297 $506 6. 3167 LID 318 - N. CENTRAL $17,106 7. 3170 LID 325 - 76TH AVE. ST. IMPR. $181,000 8. 3183 LID 313 / CBD $65,000 9. 3185 SMITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS $40,000 10. 3191 REITH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS $9,000 # 11. 3198 212TH & 42ND ( ORILLIA ROAD) $113 TOTAL AVAILABLE* $458;409- 3 09 LESS: RESERVE $260,000 BALANCE $198-,409 POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL REALLOCATION SOURCES RUBBER RAILWAY CROSSINGS $48,000 260TH AND 104TH SIGNAL $65,000 TOTAL POSSIBLE REALLOCATION SOURCES $113,000 GRAND TOTALS FOOTNOTE: * SIDEWALK FUND (3133) $75,000 WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL REALLOCATION OF THEIR COMMITMENT TO SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS # $9,000 AVAILABLE IN THIS FUND PRIOR TO CANYON DRIVE PYLON REALLOCATION v 00 V Ol CT7 A W N �--• O tN n \ C Cl 14 =5 tD V) M r O N T n N ;a �--i �-r l0 N m m ."'� O Z Z O to W D O O 0n A C M m c1'i --I G'> -� C7 n ME --I3 r (A Z m O m (n O r cn N ;az C a rr14 _\ v n �, -1 a a) m � D D � po R' � G Z 7O ;a 4.0 O G m N ^ C7 = N 3 m ;;a t0 -i N rn C') Dr C n U -'Q ..A OO %D �-• A r0 N C7 m D � c-) .-. ¢o r+ -n 3 Z o O -n x r- N =IzV' m .. g �c z m C) a \ n s N z ;a -C-I CO) C-) .n. z z m to 00 Z >[ -IC) 00 ;v •E n O z DN z � -mI O Z o, V) � Ca O c) CD a Z z W -NI 3 z x .rco ,.� o to r --I cn --I m -< Lri m m M z c to O m r- m z c UD U) 0 3 r D O N o< m m ;Q D C-) C'� Z O � ,,...� O m O m -*i 3 z n Dm N O C Z Z N v Z O Z t� m m W c c an fn 4A D H m W Z Z to C'l to N Vf Vi 4^ W 3 —I m O O O V A L" vLn O C 3 N W O O O O O W O O O O Z D 00 :E: Z O O O 00 O O O O --I --1 to Z Z O O O to O O O O m a C D r a w r m T C Z O Z nz ^ ^ ^ nGn 3 4-^ .�+ ^ N N ti-. tr+ fn w w to r.-� D O O to t0 t.Tl V 00 000 D r V V V V N t0 W coOD W W H W ;o io O A A A 4p m r ME to CD V v 1 N O o CD O mc� Ql M A t0 W to W