Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 02/20/1990 City of . Kent City Council Meeting Agenda Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members Judy Woods, President Leona Orr Steve Dowell Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Jim White February 20, 1990 Office of the City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1990. 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 {` 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS None 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B. Approval of Bills C. LID 335 - 77th Ave. So. Street Improvements - Ordinance D. Centennial Clean Water Grants E. Eastbrook Business Park Rezone - Ordinance F. Planning Commission Appointments G. Bill of Sale - Bridgewater Condominiums IV H. Bill of Sale - Lake Meridian Marketplace I. Out of State Travel J. Winterbrook II Preliminary Subdivision Multi-Family Housing Implementation - Ordinances & Resolutions L. Driving Range Improvements M. Hand Held Meter Reading System Pesvluf� orl N. LID 328 - West Valley Highway Street Improvements 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Eastbrook Business Park Preliminary Subdivision B. Private Security Agencies - Agreement with Count C. King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan cc ivtav\ce- t. D. Transportation Benefit District Agreement and Resolution E. Nosler Utility Account Adjustment Sale of Properties j -ju, i ,�f �r,�l 5 SIDS A. Miscellaneous Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Improvements 6 . REPORTS CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through N be approved. Discussion Action - 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the special Council meeting of January 30, 1990 and the regular Council meeting of February 6 , 1990 with the following correction to page 3 of the February 6 minutes: "Each property is assessed a share of the cost. The total esti- mated cost for the project is $128, 732. 50. " should read "Each property is assessed a share of the cost of the signal, the total of which is estimated to be $128, 732. 50. " 3B. Approval of Bill s. 1°' Approval of payment of the bills received through February 16, 1990 after auditing of the operations Committee at its meeting at 4 : 30 p.m. on March 1, 1990 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers z Amount �_.. r t� i I ..,, 1 IL.♦ 1 i i. J�jC i��. Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 2/6/90 130866-131532 $741, 759 . 31 Council Agend4 Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington January 30, 1990 Proper legal notice having been given by the City Clerk, Mayor Kelleher called a Special Meeting of the Kent City Council to order at 7 : 00 p.m. at the United Methodist Church. Present: Councilmembers Dowell, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr and Woods, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney Driscoll , Planning Director Harris and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Approximately 100 people were in attendance. Councilmember White was absent. Mayor Kelleher announced that the purpose of the special meeting is: 1. To consider a recommendation from the Planning Commission to amend the City .of Kent City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the East Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan and the Kent Zoning Code and Map (CPZ-89-3) . 2 . To consider a recommendation from the Plannigg Commission to amend the City of Kent City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the Valley Floor Subarea Comprehensive Plan and the Kent Zoning Map (CPZ-89-4) . He also noted that the Council has the option to approve, disapprove, or modify and approve as modified, the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and East Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan amendments as set forth by the Planning Commission in the Findings and Conclusions approved December 11, 1989 . The Council may also vote to refer the recommendations back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. Jim Harris, Planning Director, noted that in 1985 the Council asked the Planning Department to analyze the housing situation. He explained that a study was done and many meetings were held, which indicated that the citizens of Kent were most concerned about the increasing number of apartments and a sense of overcrowding. He then explained subsequent actions by the Council as follows: 1. Adoption of Resolution 1123 promoting development of single family residential uses and establishing a goal of achieving an average density recftction of 20% on all undeveloped multi-family zoned land. (December 1 , 1986) 2 . Adoption of Resolution 1145 endorsing and directing the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner to proceed with Options B and C in the "Report on Multi-Family Density" . (September 15, 1987) 3 . Approval of the Planning Commission ' s recommendations with modifications. (June 21, 1988) 1 January 30 , 1990 Special Meeting 4 . Adoption of Ordinance 2788 reducing multi-family residential densities for lots of more than 15, 000 square feet in size by 20% on an interim basis and adoption of Resolution 1172 directing an update of the Housing Element of the city' s Comprehensive Plan, including an area-by-area study of single family and multi- family housing densities . (July 5 , 1988) Harris stated that the Planning Commission has since held workshops and hearings on this issue and has made recommendations to the Council , which will be considered tonight. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager, pointed out that since 1980, 6 , 660 units of multi-family development has been erected in the City of Kent and 314 single family units have been constructed. He said that currently 70% of housing is multi-family and 30% is single family, giving Kent the highest ratio of multi-family in the County, possibly in the State. Satterstrom stated that the Mayor and Council have initiated several programs including an affordable housing study, adoption of multi-family design standards , passage of a zero lot line ordinance, and adoption of a new housing element. Lauri Anderson of the Planning Department noted that meetings had been held in which citizens voiced their concerns about residential development. She said that transportation and a mix of housing types were primary considerations. Anderson also noted that the Planning Commission had explored the idea of a new zoning district, R1-5 . 0, which would allow 5, 000 square foot minimum lot size, and they had devised a single family designated overlay area which identifies single family areas which warrant protection. She also pointed out that two open houses were held, and that the citizens at these meetings all favored 100% East Hill reduction option. She said that under the Planning commission' s recommendation for East Hill, of the 21 areas, 6 would not be changed, 9 areas would change from multi-family to single family, and the remainder would change from a higher density to a lower density. Janet Shull of the Planning Department stated that on the Valley Floor there was emphasis on retaining density. She said there were four areas identified for their potential to become multi-family. Shull stated that there were a total of 14 multi-family areas identified by staff, and that the Planning commission recommended no change on 4 of them, a lesser density on 4 of them and single family on 4 . She pointed out that two of the areas had been divided. Linda Martinez , Chair of the Planning Commission, noted that twelve public hearings and six work sessions has been held, and that a great deal of public input was received. She said the Commission had studied the issue and made recommendations and asked the Council to make a decision tonight. 2 January 30 , 1990 Special Meeting Carol Stoner of the Planning Commission noted that the main issues on East Hill were public facilities, providing a mix of housing types, school overcrowding and inadequate transportation. She said that as of 1-1-89 , 79% of existing housing on East Hill was multi-family. She said that the Commission had recommended that R1-5. 0 zoning be applied to approximately 16 acres of land on East Hill , and that the Council apply a single family designation overlay to protect existing single family neighborhoods . Tracy Faust of the Planning Commission noted that four meetings had been held regarding the Valley Floor and that input had been received from at least fifty people. She stated that their input was taken into consideration, as well as Resolution 1172 and the 20% reduction when the Commission made their recommendations. She urged the Council to accept the Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission tonight. JOHNSON MOVED to approve as modified, the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and Subarea Comprehensive Plan amendments as set forth by the Planning Commission in the Findings and Conclusions approved December 11, 1989 , and to include the Mayor ' s recommendation to amend the Zoning Code as outlined in his memo as dated on January 30 , 1990. Woods seconded. The Clerk then read the Mayor' s January 30, 1990 memo regarding 5 , 000 square foot lots into the record, a copy of which has been filed. Mann proposed as a friendly amendment, and further MOVED that the City compensate affected landowners in an amount equal to the difference paid in property taxes on land on which zoning would change in this proposed ordinance. Houser seconded. Johnson did not accept this as a friendly amendment. The Mayor and Council agreed to limit comments from the audience to five minutes each. Paul Morford, 21264 132nd Avenue S . E . , addressed the Council regarding the 5, 000 square foot lots in the North Park area. He pointed out that a permit to build 16 duplexes is vested, but that this would be a good opportunity to build 32 single family homes instead. Morford proposed that the 5 , 000 square feet be changed to 4 , 600 square feet. He noted that in 1985 the City had conducted an affordable housing study, and maintained that the single family homes on 4 , 600 square foot lots would meet the objectives of that report. Mr. Heutmaker, the owner, and Mr. Canfield, the architect, both agreed that 32 single family homes could be built in this area on 4 , 600 square foot lots, and urged the Council to give their approval . Dee Eklund, noted that the Chamber of Commerce had studied the Planning Commission ' s recommendations and had distributed their report to the Council tonight. Eklund stated concern that without increasing density on the valley floor, you cannot plan for commuter rail or mass transit. 3 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting The Chamber also supports further use of the zero lot line concept which would increase single family dwellings at more affordable prices and encouraged building condos and co-ops. She also stated that they recommend that the Hearing Examiner process be included before final zoning changes are enforced. Jim Flick, 9408 S . 218th, questioned the total cost of compensating landowners whose zoning is changed, and how it would be funded. Bill Juede , representing Triangle Properties, noted that in the rezone, their property was changed from Industrial to MRG, which is 16 units . He said they have agreed to change their plan to multi-family, but would like a higher density. Don Knapp , 25046 38th Avenue South, voiced concern about overcrowded schools and streets. Dennis Beckwith, 10860 S .E. 196th St. , Renton, asked to be deleted from the rezone list. He then read a letter he had written to the Mayor and City Council , and a petition signed by neighbors. Mr. Basemore , architect for Bill Jeude stated that with MRM zoning they wouldn 't need any compensation and that MRM was needed in order to break even. He noted that his client was not resisting participating in road improvements and that large apartments were planned which would accommodate families. Bob Jenkins , of 626 S . 2nd Avenue stated that he had purchased multi- zoned property 25 years ago as a retirement investment and to downzone this now would seriously affect his retirement years. Mr. Sanders . of 10925 SE 244th St. , stated that any changes to zoning would affect owners and that the Council must ensure a nominal impact to the community in order to be acceptable to the landowners. Edith Lambert, 6702 34th Ave. NW, Seattle, stated that she owned property at 110th Ave. SE and SE 256th St. which was zoned for multi- family before annexation to Kent and was supposed to remain so according to the Planning Department. She pointed out that owners paid taxes in accordance with multi-zoning and now would be downzoned without any compensation for the devaluation of the property. She stated that the government cannot devalue property by restricting its use without compensating the owners . Gary Conner, of E. Ward St. , stated that speaking of compensation was premature in that it was not known how much the downzoning would cost the City in taxes or how much the owners might be paid in compensation. 4 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting State Representative Elmira Forner, member of the Planning Commission, stated that Kent is asked to make some tough decisions for the future. A man from the audience noted that apartment construction should be slowed down and further that the taxes were already too high on single family housing. He noted traffic problems and overcrowding of schools on East Hill . Morgan Llewellyn stated that the City should consider the economic impact of downzoning and pointed out that young people couldn 't afford to buy homes. He noted that apartment dwellers probably included the children of some of those speaking here tonight. Kathy Meyers , 23829 lllth P1 . SE, noted that she lived in an apartment and stated that perhaps the Council could set a limit to the number of years to be considered for compensation. Anne Biteman stated that she opposed Mann' s proposal and that her taxes were already high. Jeannette Burridge of 522 49th SW, Seattle attorney, stated that the Constitution protects the individual ' s right to build apartments on property which is so zoned and that the Council is pledged to support the Constitution. Hugh Leiper stated that he lives at 1313 W. James in a condo. He noted that the figures given in the report were incorrect in that 1500 condos were counted as apartments . He noted that if apartments were restricted within the city they would be built outside the city limits and still use the city' s overcrowded streets . He suggested that the City seek an expert to train staff in long range planning, as Bellevue had done. Paul Mann stated that he had conferred with the City Attorney and WITHDREW his proposed amendment to Johnson ' s motion. A representative of Goodman Management of 13836 NE 8th, Bellevue, stated that he represented managers of 10 , 000 apartment units in the Kent valley. He clarified that apartment owners paid taxes and the city would notice the difference in tax receipts if the number of apartments was to be reduced by 20% . Paul Morford expressed his concern for the area at Kent-Kangley Road and 116th Ave. SE, noting that the Planning Commission minutes of November 20 , 1989 , page 8 , contains an error and clarified that apartments now existing in the center of the property were not mentioned. The minutes stated that the owners did not want single family zoning, and Morford 5 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting introduced Mr. Wright and Mr. Goddard, the principle owners. Morford read and submitted a list of reasons favoring downzoning and list favoring leaving the existing zoning of MRM. Duncan Bonjorni , attorney for owners of Area MF-6 objected to the proposed downzone from MRM to MRD and stated that substantial sums had been spent over the past six months through the permit process. Upon the Mayor' s question, Bonjorni clarified that certain costly actions were required before the application for the permit can be made. City Attorney Driscoll clarified that ordinances were not effective until 30 days after passage. Maureen McNamara of 23839 94th Ave. S urged the City to accept the Commission' s recommendation and noted that apartments are not low cost housing at $600 and $700 per month rent. Richard Hill spoke for the Carpinito family, owners of property on the Valley floor, supporting the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Charles Goddard stated that downzoning would reduce the value of his property by half and that no one would build a single family residence on his property, as it was surrounded by apartments. Frank Chopp stated that he supported the Planning Commission recommendation. Carol Morford referred to site MF-3 on 100th Ave. SE, north of James St. , a location of existing apartments, stating that the proposal would place her property into a non-conforming use. She suggested that the proposed ordinance not include existing apartments. Ralph Wright stated he had owned his 2 1/2 acres on the Kent-Kangley Road for 35 years and had paid high taxes on it in anticipation of his retirement. Paul Mann asked the City Attorney to advise the audience of the reason she advised him to withdraw his motion. Driscoll noted that courts at both Federal and State level had made it very clear that the action that the Council is considering tonight is not the constitutional taking that would mandate compensation for the property owners for diminished value, therefore, the Council has no obligation to make any payment. If the Council has no obligation, we have to look for the authority to make such payment. Article 8 , Section 7 , of the constitution prohibits the making of a gift of public funds to an individual. Without the obligation to make the payment, Council would be in violation of that provision if it were to make payments to the property owners. 6 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting Brad Bell stated that he thought that some owners in the area were not aware of the proposed downzoning. He recommended that the Council appoint an individual to go over the zoning proposals on a case by case basis with those property owners who have questions. Ed Heineman of SE 244th St. recommended that the Council approve the Planning Commission ' s recommendation first and then work out the problems later, such as individual appeals and/or possible compensation to some in hardship situations . Kathy Myers suggested that Council should consider the percentage of those speaking in the interest of the community as opposed to those speaking in interest of personal gain. She noted that care should be taken in allowing 5 , 000 square foot lots. Ed Flick of S . 218th St. praised the work done by the Planning Commission and noted that ample notice was given. He recommended that the Council take action tonight. Upon Chris Grant ' s question, Fred Satterstrom noted that some projects are in the permit process. It was determined by Mayor Kelleher that under the lower density proposal , there would be 23% fewer apartment units than there would have been under the existing zoning. Grant recommended adoption of Johnson' s motion. He referred to Wright ' s situation and asked if there was some service oriented zoning that would fit this property. Lauri Anderson of the Planning Department, stated that community service uses were allowed under conditional use permits. Gail Williams of 21817 93rd Ave. S , stated that those living in the area of site MF-11 did not want multiple zoning in spite of Mr. Beckwith ' s petition. Robert Clayton of 26047 116th SE, asked about two day care businesses he owned. Laurie Anderson stated that these operated under a special use permit and would not be affected. Elbert Sanders noted that new construction single family is not affordable housing. What must be considered here is what is best for the City of Kent. Howard Bromley stated that he thought that the purpose was to downzone undeveloped property. He said a zoning change for his property at 116th Ave. SE and the Kent-Kangley to single family residential would be a mistake. 7 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting Larry Bramwell stated he represented Dale Snow who has an application pending for multiple zoning for property on SE 240th near 104th Ave. SE, which is completely surrounded by multiple family and commercial property. The SEPA review has been completed and a statement of non- significance has been issued. He pointed out that apartment owners certainly do pay taxes . Barry Anderson, 600 S . Central , referred to site MF-11 on the valley floor, noting that in 1976 this was considered too steep for a residential plat. The Planning Department suggested that the best use of the property was for a planned unit development and this became the City' s first planned unit development. Mr. Beckwith now owns the property. He requested that this parcel remain at MRG zoning. The Mayor clarified for Bill Dinsdale, 13700 SE 266th St. , that in the past, there were two issues dealing with compensation, one of which was the zoning both on the south side of Kent and west of the Green River. He said that in both of those instances the Council took similar action to what they are considering tonight. He pointed out that the Council had been asked to consider compensation for the reduction in the value of the property and the Council declined to do so. The City was sued and did not lose the case. The Mayor noted that at about the same time, agricultural items were dealt with through a County program which was called a Purchase of Development Rights Program. Under this, the proceeds of a bond issue were used to buy the development rights, and so use of the land could be controlled . Dinsdale said he feels compensation is a major issue. He stated that ten years ago he had bought a piece of property as an investment which was zoned multi- family. He said the City should not devalue anyone' s property without consideration for that person. He said he feels he should not have to subsidize a program which a citizen ' s group has subjected him to. Arnold Hamilton, 25410 SE 113th, stated that if apartments go in, his property will be devalued by 50% . He said there should be buffer zones between single family and multi-family . Johnson pointed out that the issue is city-wide zoning, not individual pieces of property, and it is reasonable that Comprehensive Plans and zoning districts must be subject to change from time to time. He explained that property owners may apply for a variance or a rezone. He stated that the purpose of zoning is to promote the welfare of the community, rather than to protect the value of an individual ' s property. He pointed out that the City did not require compensation when property increased in value, through zoning, and therefore should not be expected to pay compensation when property is downzoned. He pointed out that the new developments do not pay for their fair share for existing services 8 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting or for existing roads, schools or parks and said the City must act for the benefit of the community. He read a statement which has been filed as a part of the record. Upon Mann' s question, Lauri Anderson noted that there is currently a provision in the Zoning Code which deals with non-conforming residential uses and which states that, in terms of density, residential uses that were in existence prior to 1984 are not deemed non-conforming. Anderson also noted that the MF-3 area has quite a bit of existing multi-family development around it, but that there is single family housing in the area and the Planning Commission felt it would be suitable to zone single family adjacent to the already existing single family. Upon Mann' s question, Anderson explained that citizens have had an opportunity to talk with Planning about any errors in the study. Satterstrom pointed out that the Planning Commission did not conduct a site-by-site analysis, but rather an area-wide analysis on a policy level on the undeveloped areas that the staff brought forward for analysis . Satterstrom explained that after action is taken tonight, property owners would have several alternatives in addition to conforming with that zoning, such as appeal through court, or application for a rezone or for a variance. He noted for Mann that normally if a rezone has been denied by the Hearing Examiner and the Council, the property owner has to wait one year before applying again, but that in this case they may not have to wait. Upon Dowell ' s question, Mayor Kelleher stated that the minimum lot size stated in the memo, which is part of the motion, is 5 , 000 square feet. He clarified that a request had been made from the audience to further reduce this to 4 , 600 square feet. DOWELL MOVED to change the minimum lot area to 4 , 600 square feet. Houser seconded. The Mayor explained for Orr that this would pertain to every piece of property that is within the proposed R1-5 . 0 zoning district, not just those mentioned by property owners tonight. He also clarified that it would affect only pre-existing lots. He explained that the amendment says that if you have a pre-existing lot within one of the areas proposed in the R1-5. 0 zoning district, then you can develop that pre-existing lot with minimum lot area of 4 , 600 square feet minimum lot width 40 feet , and maximum side slope 15% Lauri Anderson noted for Paul Morford that there are other properties besides North Park which would be zoned R1-5 . 0 but there are no other non-conforming lots in other areas. Dowell noted that no new small lots are being created. He then read a letter from Councilmember White stating that he is opposed to the Planning Commission' s recommendation without a compensation package being included. JOHNSON MOVED that the 9 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting letter be made a part of the record. Woods seconded. MANN MOVED to amend the motion to include all of the transcripts of tonight' s discussions and all of the materials before the Council . Johnson accepted this as a friendly amendment and the motion as amended carried. The Mayor then stated that the motion before the Council is to amend the main motion by changing the language in his memo dated January 30, 1990, so that on page three the minimum lot size would be 4, 600 square feet. The amendment then carried, with Woods and Orr voting nay. The main motion to approve as modified the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and Subarea Comprehensive Plan amendments as set forth by the Planning Commission in the Findings and Conclusions approved December 11, 1989 , and to include the Mayor ' s recommendation to amend the Zoning Code as outlined in his memo dated January 30, 1990 , as amended to 4 , 600 square feet, than carried unanimously. The meeting then adjourned at 10 : 25 p.m. The following letters were filed for the record at this meeting: Memo dated January 30 , 1990, to Council President and Council Members from Mayor Kelleher regarding 5, 000 square foot lots. Letter dated January 26 , 1990 , from Councilmember White to City Council . Letter dated January 22 , 1990, to Council from Ralph J. Wright. A report to the Kent City Council on the Kent Area Housing Studies from the Kent Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors dated January 17 , 1990 . Factors Favoring Down Zone and Factors Opposing Down Zone filed by Paul Morford. Letter to Council from Duncan A. Bonjorni dated January 30, 1990. Letter dated January 30, 1990 , to Mayor, Council and City Law Department from Mr. and Mrs . Dennis Beckwith. �zCt�_ Marie Jen CMC� City Cler 10 Kent, Washington February 6, 1990 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem/Council President Woods. Present: Councilmembers Dowell, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr and White, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney Driscoll , Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Finance Director McCarthy, Fire Chief Angelo, Personnel Director Olson, Assistant City Administrator Hansen, and Information Services Director Spang. Mayor Kelleher, Police Chief Frederiksen and Parks Director Wilson were not in attendance. Approximately 40 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Mayor Pro Tem/Council President Woods welcomed Boy COMMUNICATIONS Scouts from Troop 405 and their leader Randy Hamlin. The Scouts then lead the flag salute. (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1A) Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem/Council President Woods announced that Kevin Swinford of the Water Division of Public Works has been selected as Employee of the Month for February. She noted that his public relations skills are one of his greatest assets , and commended him for his dedication to the job. Tim Heydon, Public Works Operations Manager, noted that Swinford is taking courses after hours to further his career with the City. He praised him for his cheerful attitude and for promoting the Kent Cares philosophy. (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1B) National Child Passenger Safety Awareness Week. Mayor Pro Tem/Council President Woods read a proclamation declaring the week of February 11-17 , 1990 as National Child Passenger Safety Awareness Week in the City of Kent. The proclamation was presented to Lynda Anderson, Manager of the Drinking Driver Task Force. (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1C) American History Month. Mayor Pro Tem/Council President Woods read a proclamation declaring the month of February to be American History Month in the City of Kent. The proclamation was presented to Boy Scout Troop 405 . 1 February 6 , 1990 PUBLIC (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1D) COMMUNICATIONS Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Appreciation Day. Mayor Pro Tem/Council President Woods noted that Kent has been selected as a winner in the 1989 Prevention of Impaired Driving Awards Program and read a proclamation designating February 8 , 1990 , as Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Appreciation Day. The proclamation expressed appreciation for past and present members of the Task Force and was presented to Lynda Anderson, Manager of the Task Force. CONSENT JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR V be approved, with the exception of Item J which was removed by Councilmember White. White seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of January 16 , 1990 . HEALTH AND (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M) SANITATION AT & T Building. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 556 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of 23183 68th Ave. S . and release of cash bond after expiration of the one year period. SEWER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30) 116th Ave S E Sanitary Sewer Extension. AUTHORIZATION to establish a charge in lieu of assessment for future connections to sanitary sewer main constructed by the City on the Fire Training Center on 116th Ave. S . E. as recommended by the Public Works Committee . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P) Side Sewer Repair Maintenance and Operation. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2897 denoting that responsibility for the repair, maintenance and operation of a side sewer is that of the property owner even if it falls within public right-of-way, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. 2 February 6 , 1990 STREETS (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) LID 335 - 77th Ave S Street Improvements. This date has been set for the public hearing on formation of LID 335 for street improvements of 77th Ave. S . from S . 212th to S. 202nd and of S . 206th St. from 77th Ave. S. to the west end of the railroad tracks. The City Clerk has given the property notification to the property owners and the Director of Public Works described the project. He pointed out that currently there is no drainage system in the project area, and listed improvements as follows: 1. Curb and gutter 2. Cement concrete sidewalks except along the railroad right-of- way 3. Widened roadway, 36 feet between curbs 4. Storm drainage system 5. Street lighting (installed on Puget Power poles) 6. Street trees 7. Sanitary sewer and water main stubs to properties as required a. Channelization and traffic signing 9. Traffic signal at the intersection of S. 212th Street and 77th Avenue South Wickstrom stated that the project will be funded 100% by the Local Improvement District method, and that the estimated total cost is $1, 261,704 . 10. Each property is assessed a share of the cost. The total estimated cost for the project is $128 , 732 . 50 . He noted that to approve an LID, there must be support from at least 40% of the proposed LID assessments, and that 48% of the properties are presently encumbered by LID no protest covenants . Mayor Pro Tem/Council President Woods declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the audience and no correspondence has been received. WHITE MOVED to close the public hearing, Houser seconded and the motion carried. WHITE MOVED that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the Ordinance creating LID 335 for 77th Ave. S . Street Improvements. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. 3 February 6, 1990 STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) LID 300 Pay-off. AUTHORIZATION for an early pay- off of LID 300 as recommended by the Operations Committee. Early pay-off is recommended because of differential between the amount that the City is paying in interest expense on the LID and the amount currently earned on city investment. Also the item is being recommended because strong economic growth in the last half of 1989 has provided additional funds in the Capital Improvement Program making a cash pay- off possible. Even with this pay-off, additional CIP funds above what was included in the original CIP are available for other purposes . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) LID 328 - West Valley Highway Improvements , Phase I. ACCEPT as complete the contract with Gary Merlino Construction Company for Phase I of LID 328 - West Valley Highway Improvements and release of retainage after receipt of releases from the State. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) Asphalt Overlays . ACCEPT as complete the contracts with M.A. Segale for the 1988 Phase I and Phase II asphalt overlays and the 1989 asphalt overlay projects and release of retainage after receipt of releases from the State. STREET VACATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B) Street Vacation - Portion of Alexander Ave. No. STV- 90-1. This public hearing will consider a request by Gary J. Chilcoate to vacate a portion of Alexander Ave. lying between Guiberson Street and Maclyn Street. Proper legal notice has been given by the City Clerk. Mayor Pro Tem/Council President Woods declared the public hearing open. It was determined that Mr. Chilcoate had requested the vacation so that his carport would be within the proper sideyard setback. Robert Anderson , 1205 E. Guiberson, stated that this would only solve a portion of the problem and it 4 February 6, 1990 STREET VACATION would appear that a variance would address the entire problem. Planning Director Harris stated that the building is in violation of the Zoning Code and Mr. Chilcoate is trying to bring it into compliance. The matter of the front yard setback will be addressed separately. He assured Mr. Anderson that Mr. Chilcoate is following the proper procedure. There were no further comments and JOHNSON MOVED that the public hearing be closed. White seconded and the motion carried. JOHNSON THEN MOVED to approve Alexander Ave. Street Vacation No. STV-90-1 with one condition as recommended by staff and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance upon receipt of compensation. Houser seconded and the motion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3U) Anderson Street Vacation. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1228 , setting a public hearing date for March 20, 1990 on the Anderson request for vacation of a portion of West Valley Highway. PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3S) SUBDIVISION Eastbrook Business Park Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-5 . AUTHORIZATION to set February 20, 1990 for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of conditional approval of an application by KPFF Consulting Engineers for an 11 lot industrial subdivision. The property is 38 acres in size and is located east of 80th Ave. S . between S. 180th Street and S . 188th Street. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) Canterbury Place Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89- 4 . This public meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of conditional approval of an application by Baima and Holmberg, Inc. for a 15 lot single family residential subdivision. The property is located north of S .E. 248th Street between 98th Ave. S . and proposed 100th Ave. S. (extended) . JOHNSON MOVED to accept the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of conditional approval of Canterbury Place Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-4 . White seconded and the motion carried. 5 Februry 6, 1990 REZONE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) Eastbrook Business Park Rezone No. RZ-89-1. This public meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of conditional approval of a request by KPFF Consulting Engineers to rezone approximately 36 acres from M2 (Limited Industrial) to M1 (Industrial Park District) . The subject property is located east of 80th Ave. S . between S. 180th Street and S . 188th Street. JOHNSON MOVED to accept the findings of the Hearing Examiner, to approve the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of conditional approval of Eastbrook Business Park Rezone No. RZ-89-1 and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance. White seconded and the motion carried. CITY PROPERTY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N) Conveyance of Real Property. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1227 , superseding Resolution No. 1131 and providing that conveyance of real property through deed and/or dedication to the City should be free and clear of encumbrances subject to the discretion of affected department, as approved by the Public Works Committee. MAINTENANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) CONTRACT Elevator Service Contract. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an agreement with A & M Elevator, Inc. to extend our service contract for maintenance of elevators in City Hall, as recommended by the Operations Committee. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Mayoral Appointments. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s appointments as follows : Planning Commission Colleen Miller to replace Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner, who resigned. This term will expire 12/31/91. Human Services Reappointment of Peter Mourer through 12/31/90. Arts Commission Keiko Cullen to replace Don Campbell, who resigned. This term will expire 10/91. 6 February 6, 1990 POLICE DEPT. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) Private Security Agencies. AUTHORIZATION to renew the Interlocal Service Agreement with King County for two years for licensing and enforcement of City Ordinances pertaining to private security agencies and individual guards, as recommended by the Operations Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3T) Jail Health Services. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Jail Health Services contract as approved by the City Attorney. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3V) Parking Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2898 , authorizing designation of parking staff for Police and Fire vehicles on Gowe St. between 3rd and 4th Avenues. FIRE DEPT. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) Remodel of Station 71. ACCEPTANCE of the construction contract with C.E. Skinner, Inc. for completion of the remodel construction for Station 71. This contract was completed within the scheduled time frame. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3Q) Fire Academy Contract. AUTHORIZATION to enter into a contract with the State of Washington, Department of Community Development, to provide a drill master to State Fire Academy 90-1 subject to review by the City Attorney. The Kent Fire Department will be sending 14 firefighter recruits to the State Fire Academy in February for training. The State has requested that Battalion Chief Orndorff act as Drill Master for this academy. The State has agreed to reimburse the City $20, 000 to cover the Battalion Chief ' s regular salary and estimated costs of overtime incurred in order to assign another Battalion Chief to handle Battalion Chief Orndorff ' s current assignments. This contract is the same as last year's contract. 7 February 6, 1990 (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3R) FIRE DEPT. Aerial Apparatus. AUTHORIZATION to call for bids for construction of an aerial apparatus. The Fire Department was given approval to purchase an aerial apparatus out of the Public Safety Bond Issue. It is necessary to go out to bid following a mutual agreement to terminate the City ' s first contract for construction of the apparatus . PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE Venture Fund Authorization. APPROVAL of the use of Venture Funds in the amount of $1, 144 for Parks employee Becky Giles, as recommended by the IBC and by the Operations Committee at their February 1, 1990 meeting, to attend a Swimming Pool and Aquatics Conference in Phoenix between March 1 and March 7 . This item is a venture fund request because the City currently does not operate a swimming facility but has been asked many times to consider taking over the Forward Thrust Pool at Kent-Meridian High School . Staff feels it is appropriate that an individual on the City staff be aware of what is involved in aquatics management. White questioned sending an employee to a swimming pool conference when the City does not have a swimming pool and further questioned the fact that this was a parks employee and the matter had not been before the Parks Committee. Johnson stated that the Venture Fund was established to permit City employees to attend seminars in order to gain information which would be beneficial to the City. He stated that the matter did not go to the Parks Committee because at the Operations Committee February 1 it was decided that the Operations Committee would be the Venture Fund Committee and the committee recommended that this request for Venture Funds be approved. He noted that timely reservations had to be made and pointed out that the County had approached the City about taking over the Forward Thrust Swimming Pool . 8 February 6, 1990 PERSONNEL McCarthy stated that he received the request on January 10 or 11. The Venture Fund rules call for applications to be considered by a small senior staff committee and two councilmembers. He noted that he had suggested that the Internal Budget Committee take the place of senior staff and that the Operations Committee take the place of the two councilmembers . Council President Woods had agreed with this and it had been decided that even if an application was not recommended by the Internal Budget Committee, it would still be considered by the Operations Committee. He noted that this procedure was for this application only and the process would be discussed with the Council as to how applications would be processed in the future. Woods noted that she had asked that the process be streamlined because of the timelines. White objected to policy having been set by other than the City Council , noting that policy was not set by staff or by committees. He noted that notice was given in January for the March conference, and the established policy for Venture Fund applications was not followed. Dowell noted that in addition to the cost of the seminar someone would have to fill in for the employee attending the conference. He noted that he agreed with White that proper procedure did not relate to the Operations Committee at all and that surely the matter should have come before the Parks Committee which had met on January 25 . Woods stated that the $10, 000 Venture Fund is a separate item in a special fund and is not part of any department' s budget. Dowell read some of the rules for Venture Funds and stated that the application did not meet the criteria and that processing rules had not been followed. Woods noted that she was responsible for fast-tracking this item. JOHNSON MOVED to approve Item 3J and Houser seconded. The motion carried with White and Dowell opposing. 9 February 6, 1990 PERSONNEL (ADDED TO AGENDA) (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D) •Teamsters Labor Contract Settlement. Personnel Director Olson stated that a settlement has been reached with the Teamsters Union on a three-year agreement. He said that the contract had been ratified on January 29, 1990 , and includes a 4% wage increase which would be reflected on the paychecks of February 20 , 1990 . Upon a question from Dowell, Olson clarified that this covers City Shops and Golf Course employees. HOUSER MOVED to approve the Teamsters Labor Contract Settlement Agreement. Mann seconded and the motion carried. (ADDED TO AGENDA) Personnel Director. City Administrator Chow commended Don Olson on his recent negotiations with the Teamsters Union and announced that, effective today, Mr. Olson has been appointed as the new City of Kent Personnel Director. He noted that refreshments would be served after tonight ' s meeting in honor of Mr. Olson. PUBLIC SAFETY (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) Flood Disaster Assistance Representative. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires that a representative from the City of Kent be authorized to act as agent for the purpose of obtaining federal funds for disaster relief. This person is responsible for coordination of efforts of the various city departments in the timely filling of disaster assistance paperwork. Failure to appoint a representative may result in denial of federal assistance. A resolution has been prepared by the City Attorney. MANN MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 1229 , designating Chief Angelo as City of Kent agent for the purpose of obtaining federal funds for disaster relief. Houser seconded and the motion carried. PARKS AND (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) RECREATION Tot Lot Rehabilitation. ACCEPT as complete the Kent North Park Tot Lot Rehabilitation (Kiwanis Tot Lot 10 February 6, 1990 PARKS AND No. 2) project and authorization to release RECREATION retainage to Golf Landscaping upon receipt of State releases. Contract $22 , 194 . 00 Sales Tax 1, 797 . 71 Change Order 0 Total Cost $23 , 991 . 71 (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) 1990 City Art Plan. APPROVAL of the 1990 City Art Plan which outlines public art projects in general terms for 1990 through 1994 and lists specific projects for 1990 . 1990 projects include the Mural Partnership Program for downtown Kent, artwork at the new fire stations, a sculpture for the new library, City art collection purchases and a Miniature Golf Art Design Team Project. (BIDS - ITEM 5A) Special Populations Resource Center - Kitchen Renovation. Last year' s bid for the Special Populations Resource Center Kitchen Renovation project exceeded the available block grant monies . The Council has budgeted the funds necessary to complete the project. The low bidder, Mayer Construction Company, Inc. , is willing to complete the project for the amount of the bid. The Attorney' s Office has determined that the bid is still valid, since the Council did not reject the bids last year. DOWELL MOVED to award the Resource Center Kitchen Renovation project to Mayer Construction Company in the amount of $53 , 208 plus tax for the base bid and alternate #2 . White seconded and the motion carried. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through February 5, 1990 after auditing of the Operations Committee at its meeting at 3 : 00 p.m. on February 15, 1990 . 11 February 6, 1990 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/10/90 87166-87167 $ 43 , 701. 43 1/16 - 1/29/90 87551-87625 237 , 669 . 63 1/30/90 87630-87998 $1 , 148 , 739 . 86 $1 , 430 , 110 . 92 1/30/90 87626-87629 $ 28 , 808 . 45 1/31/90 87999-88284 390 , 652 . 85 $ 419 , 461 . 30 Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Numbers Amount 1/20/90 130239-130864 $ 736, 533 . 35 REPORTS (REPORTS - ITEM 6B) Operations Committee. Houser noted that the time of the Operations Committee meeting is being changed to 4 : 30 p.m. on the 1st and 15th of each month. (REPORTS - ITEM 6C) Public Works Committee. White noted that the Public Works Committee will meet at 3 : 00 p.m. on the first and third Tuesday of each month in the Public Works Conference Room. (REPORTS - ITEM 6D) Planning Committee. Johnson noted that the Planning Committee will meet at 4 : 00 p.m. on the first and third Tuesday of each month. (REPORTS - ITEM 6G) Enterprise Zone. Planning Director Harris stated that in January, Mayor Kelleher asked the Planning Department to develop a proposal for an enterprise zone for downtown Kent. Harris reported that the Planning Department has recommended, and the Mayor has approved, the following process: The Mayor will proclaim his intention to establish an Enterprise Zone Committee or Task Force. The purpose of the 12 February 6, 1990 REPORTS committee will be to develop recommendations on the types of economic incentives and regulatory relief which should be examined within the context of the enterprise zone designation. This group might also assist with determining the boundaries of the zone designation. Members of the Enterprise Zone Committee will represent a cross-section of the downtown community including representatives from the Kent Downtown Association. Non-downtown interests should also be represented in order to give the committee a wider perspective. City staff will assist the committee with their charge, and staff representation will come from the Planning, Engineering, Fire and Law Departments with the Planning Department playing the role of coordinator. The committee will be given a 60-90 day period to complete its work. The final report of the committee will be presented to the Mayor for his review, consideration and approval . Following his review, the report will be submitted to various City departments for their full evaluation of the impacts and alternatives to the recommendations. The final report, with concurrence by the Mayor, together with the staff evaluation, will then be referred to the Council ' s Planning Committee for a recommendation or action. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 00 p.m. Marie Jensen, CMC City Clerk 13 Kent City Council Meeting �\ Date February 20, 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LID 335 - 77TH AVE. S. STREET IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of. Ordinance creating LID 335 - 77th Ave. S. Street Improvements. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• _--— Council Agenda Item No. 3C CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ordering the improvement of 77th Avenue South from S. 212th Street to S. 202nd Street and S. 206th Street from 77th Avenue South to the west end at the railroad tracks, including water and sewer improvements, all in accordance with Resolution No. 1223 of the City Council; establishing Local Improvement District No. 335 and ordering the carrying out of the proposed improvement; providing that payment for the improvement be made by special assessments upon the property in the District, payable by the mode of "payment by bonds"; and providing for the issuance and sale of local improvement district warrants redeemable in cash or other short-term financing and local improvement district bonds. WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 1223 adopted December 19. 1989, the City Council declared its intention to order the improvement of 77th Avenue South from S. 212th Street to S. 202nd Street and S. 206th Street from 77th Avenue South to the west end at the railroad tracks, and fixed February 6, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. , local time, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing all matters relating to the proposed improvement and all objections thereto aad for determining the method of payment for the improvement; anal WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works caused an estimate to be made of the cost and expense of the proposed improvement and certified that estimate to the City Council, together with all papers and information in his possession touching the proposed improvement, a description of the boundaries of the proposed local improvement district and a statement of what portion of the cost and expense of the improvement should be borne by the property within the proposed district; and WHEREAS, that estimate is accompanied by a diagram of the proposed improvement showing thereon the lots, tracts, parcels of land, and other property which will be specially benefited by the proposed improvement and the estimated cost and expense thereof to be borne by each lot, tract and parcel of land or other property; and 11HEREAS, due notice of the above hearing was given in the manner provided by law, and the hearing was held by the City Council on the date and at the time above mentioned, and no objections to the proposed improvement were received, and all persons appearing at such hearing and wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it to be in the best interests of the City that the improvement as hereinafter described be carried out and that a local improvement district be created in connection therewith; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN as follows: Section 1 . The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington (the "City") , orders the improvement of 77th Avenue South from S. 212th Street to S. 202nd Street and S. 206th Street from 77th Avenue South to the west- end at the railroad tracks as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. All of the foregoing shall be in ac.-ordance with the plans and specifications therefor prepared by ihe Director of Public Works of the City and may be modified by the City Council as long as such modification does not affect, the purpose of the improvement. Section 2. There is created and established a local improvement district •to be called Local Improvement District No. 335 of the City of Kent, Washington (the "District" ) , the boundaries or territorial extent of. the District being more particularly described in Exhibit D attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. -2-- Section 3. The total estimated cost, and expense of the improvement is declared to be $1,261,704 . 10. The entire cost and expense shall be borne by and assessed against the property specially benefited by such improvement included in the District which embraces as nearly as practicable ,a11 property specially benefited by such improvement. Section 4 . In accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.44 .047, the City may use any metliod or combination of methods to compute assessments which may be deemed to fairly reflect the special benefits to the properties being assessed. Section 5. Local improvement district warrants may be issued in payment of the cost and expense of the improvement herein ordered to be assessed, such warrants to be paid out of the Local Improvement Fund, District No. 335, hereinafter created and referred to as the Local Improvement Fund, and, until the bonds referred to in this section are issued and delivered to the purchaser thereof, to bear interest from the date thereof at a rate to be established hereafter by the City Finance Director, as issuing officer, an-1 to be redeemed in cash and/or by local improvement district bonds herein authorized to be issued, such interest-bearing warrants to be hereafter referred to as "revenue warrants. " In the alternative, the City hereafter may provide by ordinance for the issuance of other short-term obligations pursuant to Chapter 39.50 RCW. The City is authorized to issue lo,_,al improvement district bonds for the District which shall bear interest at a rate and be payable on or before a date to be hereafter fixed by ordinance. The bonds shall be issued in exchange for and/or in redemption of any and all revenue warrants issued hereunder or other short-teim obligations hereafter authorized and not redeemed in cash within twenty days after the expiration of the thirty-day period for the cash payment without interest of -3- assessments on the assessment roll for the District. The bonds shall be redeemed by the collection of special assessments to be levied and assessed against the property within the District, payable in annual installments, with interest at a rate to be hereafter fixed by ordinance under the mode of "payment by bonds, " as defined by law and the ordinances of the City. The exact form, amount, date, interest rate and denominations of such bonds hereafter shall be fixed by ordinance of the City Council. such bonds shall be sold in such manner as the City Council hereafter shall determine. Section 6. In all cases where the work necessary to be done in connection with the making of such improvement is carried out pursuant to contract upon competitive bids (and the City shall have and reserves the right to reject any and all bids) , the call for bids shall include a statement that payment for such work will be made in cash warrants drawn upon the Local Improvement Fund. Section 7. The Local Improvement Fund for the District is created and established in the office of the City Finance Director. The proceeds from the sale of revenue warrants or other short-term obligations drawn against the fund which may be issued and sold by the City and the collections of special assessments, interest and penalties thereon shall be deposited in the Local Improvement Fund. Cash warrants to the contractor or contractors in payment for the work t:o be done by them in connection with the improvement and cash warrants in payment for all other items of expense in connection with the improvement shall be issued against the Local Improvement Fund. Section 8. Within fifteen (15) days of the passage of this ordinance there shall be filed with the City Finance Director the title of the improvement and District number, a copy of the diagram or print showing the boundaries of the District and the -h- preliminary assessment roll or abstract of such roll showing thereon the lots, tracts and parcels of land that will be specially benefited thereby and the estimated cost and expense of such improvement to be borne by each Lit, tract or parcel of land. The City Finance Director immediately shall post the proposed assessment roll upon his index of local improvement assessments against the properties affected by the local improvement. Section 9. 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 PREPARED BY: FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN By_G� +�. Opt _ -t -- Passed the day of February, 1990. Approved the day of February, 1990 . Published the day of _—. 1990 . I 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 Kenn. as hereon indicated. (SEAL) Marie Jensen, City Clerk SUI-248- -5- EXHIBIT "A" LID 335 77'TIl AVENUE S. AND S. 206TH S'1'R1:E'T 1MPROVE"ENT (S. 212T11 ST. '10 S. 20211D ST. ) LFGALJL> scluP'rzoN See Exhibit "B" attached and made a part hereto. STREET 111PROVEMENTS The project is the improvement of 77th Avenue South from S. 212th Street to S. 202.11d Street and S. 206th Street from 77th Avenue South to the west end at the railroad tracks. The project includes the following improvements: 1. Curb and gutter 2. Cement concrete sidewalks except along the railroad right-of- way 3. Widened roadway, 36 feet between curbs 4. Storm drainage system 5. Street lighting (installed on Puget Power poles) 6. Street trees 7. Channelization and traffic signing B. Traffic signal at the intersection of S. 212th Street and 77th Avenue South It should be noted that the roadway lies already been improved at the northwest corner of 77th Avenue South and S. 206th Street. Therefore, this portion of the roadway is not included in the project. WATER VAIN Includes the installation of stubs from the existing water main to the right-of-way line at various points within the project limits. SANITARY SEWER Includes the installation of stubs from the existing sanitary sewer main to the right-of-way line ❑t various points within the project limits. TOTAL PROJECT COST: $1 ,261 ,704 .10 LID SNARE: $1,261,704 .10 EXHIBIT "B" LID 335 77TH AVENUE S. AIID S. 206'i'Il C-'TREET IMPROVEMENT _ (S. 212TH ST. TO S. 20211D ST.) LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of Section 1, Township 22 North, Range 4 and Section 12, Township 72. North, Range 4 East W.H. , King County, Washington described as follows: Portion of said Section 1 lying Easterly of C.M. and St. Paul Railroad also known as Union Pacific Railroad and Westerly of Burlington Northern Railroad; AND ALSO That Portion of the fortheast quarter of the Iorthwest quarter AND the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 12 lying Easterly of C.11. 6 St. Paul Rallioaa also known as Union Pacific Railroad, Westerly or Burlington Northern Railroad and North of the North margin of South 212th Street; EXCEPT that portion of said Section 12 described as follows: That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of East of C.N. and St. Paul Railroad right-of-way beginning at a point 70 feet North of Centerline of O'Brien Road S. 212th Street and 53 feet East of centerline of C.N. & St.. Paul Railroad main line; thence N O1."01122" Fast 425.51 feet: thence West 10 feet; thence 11 01"01122" East 29.49 feet; thence S 88°50'38" East 207.10 feet; thence S 26"28'00" East 26.11 feet; thence S O1001 '22" West 447.40 feet; thence 11 85055'38" West 210. 15 feet to beginning less road; AND ALSO EXCEPT The South 209 feet of the west 104.5 feet of Lhe East 209 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter less road; A14D ALSO EXCEPT The East 304.5 feet of the South 209 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter less the Fast 10 feet; AND ALSO EXCEPT That portion of undesignated Tract, Town of Van lying West of Front Street 44est 50 feet of South 200 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 12 Township 22 North Range 4 East less County road and the East 10 feet of the South 209 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said section, less County road; AND ALSO EXCEPT That portion of undesignated Tract, 'Town of Van West of Front Street, the East 70 feet of the West 120 feet of the South 200 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 12, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, less County road; AND ALSO EXCEPT That portion of undesignated Tract, l'own of Van West of 77th Avenue South (Front Street) ; beginning 120 feet Fast of the Southwest corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 12, Township 22 North, Range 4 East; thence North 150 feet; thence East 120 feet; thence South 150 feet; thence West 120 feet to the True Point of Beginning less, County Road; ADD ALSO EXCEPT That portion of undesignated Tract, Town or Van West of Front Street; beginning 240 feet Fast of the Southwest corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter or Section 2.2, Range 4 East; thence Borth 150 feet; thence EasC to the West line of Front Street in Town of Van; thence Southerly to the South line of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; thence West to Beginning, less County Road, less Easterly 60 feet measured parallel to Front Street, less street. 312-89 1 (� Kent City Council Meeting 1� ' Date February 20 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER GRANTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreements with the Department of Ecology for the Centennial Clean Water Projects and to establish budgets for funding received therefrom. 3 . EXHIBI'4S 4 . RECOMMENDW BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES _ FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _— SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: -- ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- Subject: CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER GRANTS - FISCAL NOTE ator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 02/15/90 at 1632 . THE CITY WILL BE RECEIVING 4 INDIVIDUAL GRANTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ATTACHED MATERIAL FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THE GRANTS TOTAL $209 , 239 . THE FUNDS WILL BE MATCHED WITH ALREADY BUDGETED CITY FUNDS OF $3 , 586, 045 TO MAKE IDENTIFIED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMNTS. SINCE NO ADDITIONAL CITY FUNDS ARE REQUIRED, THE IBC RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANTS WITH THE CORRESPONDING INCREASES IN THE PROJECT BUDGETS . City of Kent, Washington Kent Public Works Committee Date February 20 , 1990 Category 1. SUBJECT: Centennial Clean Water Grants 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Department of Ecology approved grant funding for the five projects submitted. Grant agreements have been received for funding for Lake Fenwick Restoration (Parks Department project) ; Water Quality/Management Plan; Mill Creek/Earthworks Study; Kent Valley Detention/Wetland Facility and Garrison Creek Wetland/Erosion Control Facilities. We are requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreements for the four Public Works Projects and to establish the budget for funds received therefrom. 3 . EXHIBITS: 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Don Wickstrom 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO x YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS • 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: . Public Works Committee December 13 , 1988 Page 2 that all five projects submitted to the Centennial Clean Water Fund for grants have been approved. Biteman inquired about the permit process and if this position would help that. Wickstrom explained that an engineer position has been approved in the 1989 budget which was originally submitted for the Water Quality Program but will be initially used to facilitate the permit process. Wickstrom reiterated that the department has an unusual number of large construction projects without adequate staff so we are reviewing staffing needs. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of creation of the special project engineer position. Green River Management Agreement Wickstrom reminded the committee of the city' s participation with the County and other Valley cities in the Green River Management project of flood control, levee maintenance, and capital improvements associated with the levee work. Wickstrom identified several levee areas in the Kent area requiring capital improvements to raise the freeboard to FEMA requirements which could result in an expenditure to the City of $4 million. Wickstrom continued that discussions within the' group now are centering on how to distribute the costs. One concept is that each city would be responsible for their share of the project costs. Impoundment Reservoir Biteman stated he thought the impoundment reservoir concept was a good one and inquired about the status of the Tacoma pipeline project. Wickstrom stated Tacoma was about to apply for their Army Corps of Engineers permit to cross the river. This supposedly will trigger any legal protests by the Indian tribe. Once this issue is resolved Tacoma should be able to obtain bonding and begin the project. r L.I.D. 334 - Derbyshire Sewer Improvements Wickstrom indicated the bids received were within the engineer' s �� estimate; however, a portion of the installation was required to be extra deep to service areas outside ,the LID boundary. This resulted in increased, costs. As done on previous projects, the City has paid the cost involved in the extra depth requirement. Wickstrom requested the transfer of $28 , 000 from the unencumbered sewerage utility fund to this project for this extra-depth cost. The Committee unanimously approved the transfer. Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EASTBROOK BUSINESS PARK REZONE ORQ NANETP' 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance ! A) rezoning approximately 36 acres from M2 , Limited Industrial , to M1 , Industrial Park District, upon the application of Eastbrook Business Park, as approved by the Council on February 6, 1990. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council(Committee, Staf; , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended _ Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIOD: $ — SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• --- ACTION: -- Council Agenda Item No. 3E i l I, !I i I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, providing for the rezone of property located east of 80th Avenue South between South 180th Street and South 188th Street, consisting of approximately 36 acres in King County, Washington from M2, Limited Industrial, to M1, Industrial Park District. �l WHEREAS, on December 20, 1989 the Hearing Examiner held al public hearing to consider the rezone of the area described in attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference; and I WHEREAS, the applicant requested that the property be rezoned from M2, Limited Industrial, to M1, Industrial Park ( District; and it lWHEREAS, following 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 his findings, conclusions, and 1� recommendations for conditional approval on January 3, 1990, in i� Eastbrook Business Park: Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation I liof the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent; and i it WHEREAS, on February 6, 1990, a hearing was held before ( the City Council at 7 o'clock p.m. , in the City Hall of the City I, jlof Kent, upon proper notice given; NOW, THEREFORE, i i THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The findings, conclusions and conditional �irecommendations of the Hearing Examiner as set forth in Eastbrook Business Park: Findings, Conclusions 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. i i I'I i I I i Section 2. Zoning for this site, generally located east ! of 80th Avenue South, between South 180th Street and South 188th j Street, and legally described in the attached Exhibit A, tl incorporated by this reference, is hereby changed from M2, Limited Industrial, to M1, Industrial Park, subject to compliance with conditions set forth in Section 3. Section 3. The rezone is subject to the following conditions as set forth in the Findings, Conclusions and (' Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent as referenced above: I A. The applicant shall complete a traffic study to identify any increase in projected p.m. peak hour trips generated ' from rezoning the property from M2 to M1. The study shall also recommend mitigation measures to reduce the impact of any traffic increase. This study shall be completed prior to the issuance of II any building permit through the subject property and must be i reviewed and approved by the City. in lieu of constructing the recommended mitigation measures, the applicant/developer may elect to execute a corridor participation agreement with the City. Any trips generated under M1 zoning that exceed what would be generated under M2 zoning shall be charged to the applicant/ developer at a rate equal to 100 percent of the standard vehicle i, trip rate, rather than the normal 50 percent rate. I B. The applicant will complete a traffic study to i , determine if the rezone will add ten or more vehicle trips to the intersections of S.R. 167/South 180th Street and/or S.R. 181/South 180th Street. If ten or more vehicle trips will be added, then �Ithe applicant/developer shall conduct a traffic analysis to determine measures necessary to mitigate the impacts. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take I effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final, passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR II li 2 II i II i it I ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK I I� APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 I jl iSANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY II ' PASSED the day of 1990. APPROVED the day of 1990. i PUBLISHED the day of 1990. I I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, ( Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK I I I I ' I , I it i I 1824O-290 3 - II I 1 4 ' Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointments to the Planning Commission, as follows: Willie Gregory to replace Carol Stoner, who has resigned. His term will become effective immediately and will continue through 12-31-92 . Frank Chopp to replace Leona Orr. His term will become effective immediately and will continue through 12-31-91. 3 . EXHIBIT : None 4 . RECOMMENDED �Y: Mayor - (Committee, ` Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: _ SOURCE OF FUNDS : _ 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• _ ACTION• - Council Agenda Item No. 3F M E M O R A N D U M TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR - / DATE: FEBRUARY 71 1990 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF WILLIE GREGORY TO THE KENT PLANNING COMMISSION I have recently appointed Willie Gregory as a member of the Kent Planning Commission. Mr. Gregory will replace Carol Stoner who has resigned. Mr. Gregory is a recent graduate of the University of Puget Sound Law School and is currently employed by the Associated Council for the Accused. He has had a continuing interest in land use issues and should be a valuable asset to the Commission. Mr. Gregory' s term will become effective immediately and continue until 12/31/92 . I submit this for your confirmation. DK:jb cc: Ed Chow, City Administrator Jim Harris, Planning Director Planning Commission Members M E M O R A N D U M TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR DATE: FEBRUARY 7 , 1990 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF FRANK CHOPP TO KENT PLANNING COMMISSION I have recently appointed Frank Chopp to serve as a member of the Kent Planning Commission. Mr. Chopp will replace Leona Orr. Mr. Chopp retired from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard after 32 years of service and had previously been employed at the Todd Shipyards. He is currently a member of the National Council of Senior Citizens and the Association of Federal Employees and has had a continuing interest in land use issues. Mr. Chopp' s term will become effective immediately and will continue through 12/31/91. I submit this for your confirmation. DK:jb cc: Ed Chow, City Administrator Jim Harris, Planning Director Planning Commission Members i Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: BRIDGEWATER CONDOMINIUMS IV 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 506 feet of water main extension and 150 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of James Street and Russell Road for Bridgewater Condominiums IV and release of cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. 3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED Y: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED F SCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL PERSO EL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE UIRED: $ _ SOURCE OF S • _ _ - 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• _ ACTION• _ Council Agenda Item No. 3G LI 14 ' SITE1 7,e 111 51 F.. r .. _ 4r. . KENT, 2 cr c• � A ._, 23 " S1 ,1_ N ruts w Eolloti' :� s nD i of atmov,i o- 1.. RUSSFL! O ..S1._.. Ptr,Ul'' J) ROAD `) - , • > )RIVE A(w P11 qk. 'L 1t10, j011 5! Z o N>nii:of SMII H ' S _ _.I L W V1 -- M E UR rv.A.').`. Frti ittt.•• � ,c ■c 23 , T� 'AFN7 �f�`'�_� l H .T 11 Ill C OU E'., j • CFI' va.- VN S'. .. 11 11°° ,.:'FUN � ".I CA fs Fn vt Y I ea *ntEFvall n > I J R I ' y • ' , no VICINI P SCALE: 2" a 1 MILE± BRIDGEWATER IV x' Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LAKE MERIDIAN MARKETPLACE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the bill of sale and warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 1, 939 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of Kent-Kangley and 132nd Ave. S.E. and release of cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. r 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity .Aap 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: ,/Public Works Director _ (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS ' 7 . CITY COUMCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3H rw ,� y y lOBTH AVE 9E ( --- - �' ' . I' aq cam.-•�I . 111TH Rya VE SE 17l TH AV E SE - - I ( I It T VIE 51 11LLT AVE SE ' J • I N ( S e L-----^__...__ I RYE SE 116TH A 4E u LIOTH�:AIV:E 117TH RVE SE I I 118TH SE u 115TH AVE J rJ 11 i y • �� u r m U U y ZL N m � =a y � ae x ^ I 35 y rn S x a z 211TH V y J 24TH RVES m ( N ( .127TH -------------- AVE S H1gzti 3S .. II 2 TH AVE SE S u rn 1 T p 1 7 N _ -d U 13200 AVE N � u , a rn U � .L m W N n z .. - 0 H V 4 , .. rn V r D n m Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ^vvm�r-� TE- TRIPS -- GENAMAP USERS CONFERENCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval for Public Works GIS Coordinator to attend Genamap Users Conference in Fort Collins, Colorado, March 25 - March 28 . 3 . EXHIBITS: ,Supporting material from Public Works Committee packet. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: `Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL P RSONNEL IMPACT_ NO X YES FISCAL PERSONNEL NO : Recommended Not Recommended _ 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: 700 . 00 _ SOURCE OF FUNDS: Aeria Mapping Protect Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• _. ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3I City of Kent, Washington Kent City Council Meeting Date: Category SUBJECT: Genamap User ' s Conference - Ft. Collins, Colorado held March 25 to March 28 , 1990 SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Public Works GIS Co-ordinator to attend an out of state Genamap User' s Conference held in Ft. Collins, Colorado, March 25 to March 28 , 1990. Funds are available in the Aerial Mapping Project budget. EXHIBITS : Memo from Kurt Palowez to Don Wickstrom RECOMMENDED BY: Don Wickstrom UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: X NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $700 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Aerial Mapping Project Fund CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: City of Kent, Washington Fiscal Analysis Sheet Fund: Aerial Mapping Department:Public Works Cost: $700 . Proposal Title Genamap User ' s Conference - Ft. Collins, Colorado held March 25 to March 28 , 1990 Proposal Description: This request would provide travel expenses for the GIS Co-ordinator to attend the Genamap User' s Conference held in Ft. Collins, Colorado held March 25 to March 28 , 1990 . The funding for attending this conference is available from the Aerial Mapping Project Fund. Relationship to Council Target Issues and Operational Priorities: This request would enable the City to continue to update and enhance the GIS system thus promoting general efficiency in departmental operations . Since maps are being created for use by many divisions within the City, improvements and enhancements could provide city benefit. Fiscal Impact: $700 to be funded from the Aerial Mapping project fund. Options and Alternatives : Not attend and miss the opportunity to discover share problems and discover enhancements. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 7 , 1990 To: Don Wickstrom �ii From: Kurt Palowez e*p Re: Genamap User ' s Conference - March 25 to March 28, 1990 Every year, a User ' s Conference is held in Ft. Collins, Colorado for Genamap clients . Normally, I do not ask to go to out-of-town G. I . S . conferences . For the last 2 years , however, I have attended this particular event. This conference does not deal in generalities ; the whole purpose of it is to examine the use of Genamap, which is the G. I . S . technology we have invested in. Users spend 3 days exchanging information, discussing problems and customizing the software to meet our needs . At each of the previous conferences I have given a presentation of what we are doing with our system in Kent. I 've talked about progress we 've made, the methods we 've used and some of the problems we have encountered. The feedback I get, along with the ideas from other user presentations , certainly make this trip worthwhile. There is no registration fee for the conference. This is a give and take situation; Genasys needs user input to become aware of "bugs" and to prioritize enhancements . The only costs are transportation, lodging and meals . I estimate the total costs to be $700 . Funding would logically come from our "G. I . S . Budget" which is referred to as the Aerial Mapping Project. This is a no-nonsense, necessary event which should be budgeted for every year. J222-90 Attachment YOUR THE NEV TO A SUCCVSSPIJI, 1!SF S CON VVItEN(11.1 1 The 1990 Genasys Users Conference will officially begin 8 : 00 AM Monday morning March 26 and conclude Wednesday at noon March 28 . However, to give you the opportunity to meet the new users as well as see old comrades, we have scheduled a cocktail party for Sunday night March 25 between 6 : 00 PM - 8 : 00 PM. The location of the party will be .Listed on the reader board in the lobby of the University Park Holiday Inn in Pt. Collins, Colorado. Once again the conference will be held at the lovely University Park Holiday Inn in Ft. Collins, CO. The corporate room rate wil..l. be $56 . 50 for a single room and $61. . 50 for a double room, . Contact either. Debb.le ITer.nbloom or myself and we wi.l.l be happy to make reservations for. you . Your annual. support free includes registration for up to four people. You are welcome to bring additional people at a registration fee of. $250 per person . This fee includes .lunch all three days , coffee breaks , the cocktail party and much more. The key to a successful conference is your par.ti.cipation. If you are interested in giving a pr.esentaticn at the conference please let me know and I will do my best to accommodate you . Please contact me no later then January 25 , 1990 with information regarding room reservations and the number of people attending. We look forward to seeing you in March . Happy New Year! Tom Dr.amb.l.e Assistant Marketing Administrator 11. 1) . ThIs yonr at the conference, there w.1.1.1 be a mapping contest. Whoever supplies the best map will. go home with the first place trophy. All map entries become property of Genasys . Bring your maps ! ,•I,.^l u,,r.;.L,I n,,.l,l :ll nl, .l ul I,nl „Illlr, I ..I. ,.nL.1111' 'I. I., I III II ":'1•I II lI:I PRELIMINARY USERS ' CONFERENCE SCHEDULE S[1NDAY MARCH( 25 , 1.990 6 : 00 - 8 : 00 Cocktail Party MONDAY MARCH 26 , 1990 8 : 00 - 8 : 30 Registration 8 : 30 - 10 : 00 Introduction 10: 00 - 10 : 15 Break 1.0: 1.5 - 11. : 30 User. Presentations 1.: 30 - 1 : 00 Lunch 1: 00 - 2 : 15 User Presentations 2 : 1.5 - 2 : 30 Dr,eak 2 : 30 - 5 : 00 Tour TURSDAY MARCH 27 1990 8 : 00 - 8 : 30 Coffee/Opening Remarks 8 : 30 - 1.0 : 00 Presentations 1.0 : 00 - 1.0 : 15 Break 1.0 : 1.5 - 11. 30 Presentations 1.1 : 30 - 1. : 00 Lunch 1.: 00 - 3 : 00 User Presentations 3 : 0 0 - 3 : 15 Break 3 : 1.5 - 5 : 00 Mapping Contest WrDNEIS MARCH 28 . 1990 8 : 00 - 8 : 30 Opening Comments 8 : 30 - 10 : 00 New Products and Enhancements 1.0 : 00 - 10 : 15 Break 10 : 15 - 11: 1.5 Enhancements Continued 11 : 15 - 11 : 30 Closing Remarks 1.1 : 30 - 1: 00 Lunch Conference Officially Over Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20, 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WINTERBROOK II PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. SU-89-6 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: `' Set March 6 for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval of a request by Townsend-Chastain and Associates, Inc. for a 12 lot single family residential subdivision. The property is located north of S. 272nd St. approximately 500 feet east of 41st Pl . S. and directly south of Cardiff Street. 3 . EXHIBITS- `None 4 . RECOMMENDED B�: Planninq Department (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCA PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL PERSONNEL OTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3J Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20, 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1 . 1 . SUBJECT: ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS IMPLEMENTING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt the Resolutions and Ordinances necessary to implement Council direction of February 6, 1990 on the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Mayor related to the multi-family housing study. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from City Attorney' s office, Resolutions and Ordinances. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council , February 6, 1990 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT__ NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended__ 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3K OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: February 15, 1990 TO: Judy Woods, City Council President. Councilmembers FROM: Carolyn Lake, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES RESULTING FROM COUNCIL HOUSING ELEMENT WORK PROGRAM I . INTRODUCTION In response to Resolution 1172 the Planning Department conducted a study of multifamily residential densities throughout the City. The staff also reviewed ways to encourage new single family development. The detailed studies followed a major update of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element approved by Council in February, 1989. Resolution 1172 directed staff to conduct this study in area-by-area steps. II . WEST HILL AREA The Planning Commission held two public hearings on this study area, on July 24 and August 14, 1989 and issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions on August 28, 1989. At the August 14 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to amend the West Hill Subarea Plan. Proposed text amendments include deleting certain language in Goal 2, Policy 2 of the Housing Element and adding a new policy under Goal 1 of the Public Facilities Element. Map amendments include redesignating one site from MF-40 (24-40 multifamily units per acre) to MF-24 (12-24 units per acre) , and creating a single family designated area overlay for a portion of the West Hill Planning Area. The Commission also recommended amendments to the City's official Zoning Map, rezoning three areas of West Hill to a less dense multifamily designation. III . VALLEY FLOOR AREA The Planning Commission held four public hearings on this study area on September 25, October 23, November 20 and November 27, 1989 and issued their findings and conclusions on December 11 , 1989. At the November 27 public hearing the Planning Commission voted to amend the city-wide Comprehensive Plan and Valley Floor Subarea Plan. Proposed amendments to the Valley Floor Subarea Plan including adding certain language in Goal 2, Objective 2 of the Housing Element adding two new policies under Goal 2, Objective 1 of the Housing Element and adding a new policy under Goal 1 , Objective 2 of the Public Utilities Element. Valley Floor Plan Map amendments include redesignating two areas from multifamily (MF) to single family (SF) ; redesignating one area from (IBP) light industrial business park to (MF) multifamily; and creating a single family designated area overlay for a portion of the Valley Floor Planning Area. The Planning Commission also recommended amendments to the City Zoning Map, rezoning eight areas of the Valley Floor Map to a less dense residential designation, and rezoning two areas from a non-residential designation to a low density multifamily residential designation. City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, to bring that map into conformance with the proposed zoning changes, include redesignating two areas from multi- family (MF) to single family (SF) and redesignating one area from (I) industrial to (MF) multifamily. IV. EAST VALLEY AREA The Planning Commission held five public hearings on this matter on August 28, September 18, October 16, November 20 and November 27, 1989 and adopted their findings and conclusions on December 11 , 1989. The Planning Commission voted to amend the city-wide Comprehensive Plan, the East Hill Subarea Plan and the Kent Zoning Code and map. Propos•?d amendments to the East Hill Subarea Plan include adding two new policies under Goal 1 , Objective 1 of the Housing Element; deleting certain language in Goal 2, Objective 1 , Policy 2 of the Housing Element; adding one new policy under Goal 2, Objective 2 of the Housing Element; and adding one new policy under Goal 1 , Objective 1 of the Public Facilities and Services Element. Subarea Plan Map amendments include redesignating seven areas from multifamily (MF) to single family (SF) redesignating one area from single family (SF) to multifamily (MF) ; redesignating six areas to a different (MF) multifamily - 2 - density; redesignating two areas to a different (SF) single family density; and creating a single family designated area overlay for a portion of the East Hill Planning area. Recommended zoning changes include creation of the R1-5.0 single family residential (5,000 square foot lot minimum lot size) , zoning district and zoning map changes to 15 multifamily areas. City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map amendments to bring that map into conformance with the proposed zoning changes include redesignating seven areas from multi- family (MF) to single family (SF) and redesignating one area from (SF) single family to (MF) multifamily. V. COUNCIL ACTION On September 19, the City Council adopted by reference the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations for proposed action relating to the West Hill Zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments. The City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances and resolutions, to be passed by Council simultaneous to and as a part of the final action on all three areas of the Housing Element Work Program. On January 30, 1990 the City Council adopted by reference the Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendation for the proposed action relating to the East Hill and Valley Floor Zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments. Additionally, on that date the Mayor proposed and the Council adopted an amendment to the Nonconforming Development Regulations, zoning code 15.08. 100, relating to the new proposed R1-5.0 zone. The City Attorney was directed to prepare the necessary ordinances and resolutions to be passed by the Council simultaneous to and as a part of the final action on all three areas of the Housing Element Work Program. All resolutions and ordinances, necessary to implement the Council 's legisla- tive policy of multifamily density reduction and encouragement of single family housing, resulting from the Housing Element Work Program are accordingly presented to Council . 5854L-28L - 3 r ORDINANCE NO. Ii - AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from the Planning Department Housing Element Work Program, amending the Housing and Public Facilities and Services Elements of the West Hill Land Use Plan and City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis of multifamily density for East Hill, West jHill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text' and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and i WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Council to develop a work program j for the area by area analysis; and II WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020, RCW 35A.63.073 and RCW 35A.63.100(5) empowers a city council to authorize the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations to the City Council On Comprehensive Plan Text amendments; and WHEREAS, the CityCouncil b Ordinance 2796 y Odi granted to j the Planning Commission authority to consider and make recommendations on Comprehensive Plan text amendments, and authorized Comprehensive Plan text amendments to be made simultaneously with or prior to amendments to the zoning code; andl I WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, amendments to the West Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan Text, amending the West Hill Land Use Plan Housing, and Public Facilities and Services Elements were I recommended to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35A.63.073 and the Kent City Ordinance 2796, hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on July 24, 1989 and August 14, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission's IFindings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for the proposed amendments were issued on August 26, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on September 19, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: i Section 1. The Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law adopted by the Kent Planning Commission on August 28, 1989 are adopted by reference in totality by the Kent City Council. Section 2. The Kent West Hill Subarea Land Use !I Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element is amended as follows: Housing Element Goal 2: Policy 2: The West Hill Plan Land Use Map will serve as a general guide for future development of the West Hill. I F}exib}e-re9identia}-deye}epment-means-khat-speeifie-deve}epmenE- prepasa}a-at-densities-samewhat-higher-than-Shawn-on-the-band-Use Map-map-be-apprapriaEe-en-eertain-sites-where-naEnra}-feetdres-ere I preserved-and-adegcfate-baffering-af-}ewer-density-deve}apment-ie proyided- 2 - i Section 3. The Kent West Hill Land Use Plan, Public Facilities and Services Element is amended as to add the following! language: Public Facilities and Services Element Goal 1: Objective 2: Policy 2: Restrict residential densities in areas unconnected to City sewer. Section 4. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, West Hill Land Use Plan, Land Use Classifications Section, is amended to add the following: Single Family Designated Area Overlay: ' LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS The land use classifications used in display and explanation of the alternative proposed patterns of development of West Hill are similar to current East Hill, King County Community Plan and Greater Des Moines Plan designations. The classifications are an expansion over current City of Kent designations on West Hill*. This expansion means that designated residential densities are more precise and that zoning ordinances and regulations that follow can be more easily determined to express the intent of this new plan. Also, classifications similar to those of surrounding and overlapping plans mean easier int:erjurisdictional coordination. Single Family Residential The four single family residential classifications used on West Hill range from one dwelling unit per acre (du/ac) to a maximum ofl six du/ac. One dwelling unit per acre is similar to the permitted density of the City of Kent Residential-Agricultural zone. An example of development in a six du/ac designated area is the Cambridge subdivision. This is equivalent to R-1 7,200 zoning or 7,200 sq. ft. lot sizes. * Only the classifications that can apply to West Hill alternative maps are described. 3 Single Family (1 du/ac) A minimum density intended for use in areas that may be environmentally sensitive to development, or where higher density may not be desirable because of the public expense involved in supplying urban services. Single Family (2 to 3 du/ac) Buildable lot sizes of 15,000 to 20,000 square feet, providing a high percentage of open space/separation between units. Single Family (3 to 4 du/ac) Buildable lot sizes of 10,000 to 15,000 square feet. In suburban/urban areas, this subdivision's designated density can be supplied many urban services more efficiently and economically than lower densities. Single Family (4 to 6 du/ac) Much of West Hill residential area is already developed within this density range; lots range from 7,200 to approximately 10,Ooo square feet. At this density, public transportation is economically feasible, although at a lower level of service. Single Family Overlay Designated Area The Single-Family Designated Area approach is intended to foster the following objectives through the individual area plans The goals of this overlay area are to: a) conserve existing single-family-neighborhoods, bl to protect single family neighborhoods from incompatible uses and c) to promote new single-family development The single family designated areas are intended to encompass large, areas of contiguous, existing single-family development They may!also include small existing neighborhood commercial sites which 1 serve the single-family neighborhood. I 4 - Multi-family Residential There are three higher density classifications devoted to multifamily type units. Over the years, the line between single family and multifamily residences has become increasingly indistinct. Clustering, some condominium units, townhouses and row houses are examples of what could be called a low density multifamily, or attached high density, single family. Multi-family (7 to 12 du/ac) Low density attached dwelling units including duplexes, townhouses and low rise apartment and condominium complexes, with a correspondingly high percentage of open space per unit. i Multi-family (12 to 24 du/ac) While the impact upon public facilities and services increases with higher densities, traditional multifamily units in this density category generally use less of these facilities and services per unit.* Multi-family (24 to 40 du/ac) j The highest residential density range shown on the alternatives, a complex developed within this range must be carefully located where adequate public facilities and services can be supplied, and where the negative impacts of such high density on surrounding uses is minimized. Such development may be fitting for, among others, special purposes such as provision for lower priced rentals units for students, close to community colleges. * For example, automobile trip-ends (roundtrips) generated by a single family unit are estimated at an average of 10 per day, while that for multi-family units is 6.1 per day. I 5 - I I Mobile Home Parks Mobile home park designated areas are shown by the MHP symbol on the proposed alternative land use maps. In Kent, a specific mobile home park zoning classification is used, while in King County, they are permitted in higher density multi-family zones. Mobile home parks provide a distinctly different living environment as compared to both single and multi-family housing, and are therefore shown separately. Commercial I This category includes several commercial and commercially related! uses. Community Retail Includes businesses that provide retail goods and services such as supermarkets, hardware stores, drugstores, restaurants, etc. This' classification refers to retail uses which generally serve the daily shopping requirements of a community. Neighborhood Business Limited retail and office development compatible with adjacent residential uses, intended to serve residents within one mile. (None found on West Hill proposed alternatives) . Community Facility This designation applies to all public schools, utilities, fire and police stations, and other lands in public use. Open Space On West Hill, land designated open space generally refers to areas associated with street and road right-of-way or setbacks, areas dedicated as open space in subdivision development, and other areas used as "buffer zones" between conflicting land uses. On Alternative 4, "open space" connotes areas of minimum development. 6 - i Constrained Areas I This applies to all Class III Critical Areas as defined by King County, combined with the degree of slope (see first four policies of Matrix, Table 1. Class III Critical Areas consist of environmentally sensitive lands. This sensitivity is due to severe natural hazards such as landslide or erosion potential, potential for seismic (earthquake) activity, and flooding tendency. Constrained areas also cover all "wetland/unique and fragile areas" greater than one acre in size according to general criteria from the Valley Studies program. Parks i Includes all existing and proposed public parks. Section 5. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, West Hill Land Use Plan and their appendices are amended to provide that all references to the Housing and Public Facilities and Services Elements be in conformity with the changes in the text asl set out in Sections Two, Three and Four. Section 6. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and West Hill Land Use Plan, shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Section 7. Any act consistent with the authority and iiprior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. I i ( DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 7 - i ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: I i SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1990. APPROVED the day of 1990. i PUBLISHED the day of _ 1990. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinancel No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon iindicated. I (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK i I 7610-270 8 - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from the Planning Department Housing Element Work Program, amending the West Hill Comprehensive Plan Map and the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Map, instituting a single family designated area overlay and amending from MHP and MF-40, 24-40 to MF 24, 12-24 one area of the West Hill. WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis Of multifamily density for East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020, RCW 35A.63.073 and RCW 35A.63.100(5) empowers a city council to authorize the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations to the City Council on Comprehensive Plan Map amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Ordinance 2796 granted to the Planning Commission authority to consider and make recommendations on Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, and authorizing Comprehensive Plan Map amendments to be made simultaneously with or prior to amendments to the zoning code; and WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, changes to the West Hill Comprehensive Plan Map, a part Of the Comprehensive Plan and Map, amending certain designations in one area within the West Hill and adding a "single family designated" area overlay were recommended to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35A.63.070 and RCW 35A.63.073 of the Revised Code of Washington and Kent City Ordinance 2796, hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on July 24, 1989 and August 14, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for Proposed amendments were issued on August 18, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on September 19, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Kent Planning commission dated August 28, 1989 are adopted by reference iA totality by the Kent City Council. Section 2. Area MF-o3 is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Section 3. The Kent Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to change the designation for area MF-03 as indicated on Appendix B - "West Hill Plan Map" incorporated herein b; reference as follows: a. Amend Area MF-03 designation from MHP and MF-40, 24-40; to MF-24, 12-24. 2 - Section 4. The Kent Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to add a Single Family Designated Area Overlay to that area described in Section 2(b) herein, and as shown on Appendix C - West Hill Plan Map, incorporated herein by reference. The Single Family Designated Area Overlay designation is defined in the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Kent West Hill Land Use Plan. Section 5. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Map, West Hill Subarea Plan Map and their appendices and maps are amended to provide that all references to said area MF-03 , and that area included within the single family designated area overlay shall be in conformity with the changes in those area designations as set out in Sections Three and Four. Section 6. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Map, West Hill Subarea Plan Map, and associated Map amendments shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of _ 199o. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1990. 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 1990. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 7620-270 3 - EXHIBIT "A" WEST HILL LEGALS WEST HILL AREA MF-3 That portion of the SW i of the SW ; of Section 15, Township 22 N. , Range 4 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Subdivision; Thence north along the west line of said Subdivision a distance of 30 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing north along the west line of said Subdivision a distance of 1,040 feet; Thence east parallel with the south line of said Subdivision a distance of 150 feet to the westerly margin of Interstate Highway 45; Thence southerly along said westerly margin to a point which lies 60 feet north of the south line of said Subdivision; Thence west parallel with the south line of said Subdivision a distance of 75 feet; Thence south parallel with the west line of said Subdivision a distance of 30 feet; Thence west parallel with the south line of said Subdivision to the True Point of Beginning. .Nlrll a APPENDIX - B b JJ_ �\ 00 Nrl�� 000 — �J 9 O t r - i u, 3 LCC• d • _lIDl E e 8 8 Y 8 uul - 4 8 0 _lnuau tl 8 u� ti< Y8V 8 e v 0 - G j 'm lr Y Y -----� © r ro 8 QT nrl t unuil e �.,. I •.1 6 nil + 8 a LOA l 1 • 1L4 •ter '2 INN•N -m-■ STUDY AREA BOUNDARY �, ) RENT CITY LIMIT ------ DES MOINES CITY LIMIT �• „ WEST HILL STUDY AREA r- 1 V�v ml e_ 6iGp LL���.. trrirll • SI:AI.I,IN�NIfI'� ` � YNY,fN,NiM�l�lll'I.IN VVV .IIIYNf L APPENDIX — C ` o ;'• SINGLE FAMILY y DESIGNATED AREA J ♦o° CONCEPT I<;,,',;:; ws3 j r _ I f i ir• ! a E ,r Wct —u E sr a H H fl - O l II e N.Y . O a S 181� E R-0600 t�A 11 e s Y 4C O .N'lyi Otl cc " ' __ Y•f ��•wnr � C j i C C •i.- o , r^� DC 5 • E r1pi oom■ STUDY AREA BOUNDARY CC SR ':' • -j KENT CITY LIMIT Iculsit ' --- DES MOINCS CITY LIMIT 5 WEST HILL h .. S.I:J,Or STUDY AREA I] S-7200 rrtq -nuns tiR'-. 'Will -�—' Il n+ nl:Al.i?IN NI?lil• •:;:;M;:�:::: �,,,YI■. CCC I � mal� 4.n.m..uwu4arrr,•„Nra, :•t tl� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from the Planning Department Housing Element Work Program, amending the Kent City Zoning Map designations for three areas in the West Hill Area. WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis of multifamily density for East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020, RCW 35A.63.100(2) and RCW 35A.63.140 empowers a city council to authorize the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations to the City Council on Zoning Map amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Ordinance 2796 granted to the Planning Commission authority to consider and make recommendations to the Kent City Council on Zoning Map amendments, and authorized the Planning Commission to hear and consider Comprehensive Plan Map amendments simultaneous with or prior to amendments to the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Kent City Zoning Map changing certain designations in three areas within the West Hill were recommended to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35A.63.100(2) of the Revised Code of Washington and the Kent City Ordinance 2796, hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on July 24, 1989 and August 14, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for the proposed amendments were issued on August 28, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on September 19, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Kent Planning Commission dated August 28, 1989 are adopted by reference in totality by the Kent City Council. Section 2. Areas MF-01, MF-02 and MF-03 are legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Section 3. The Kent City Zoning Map is amended to change the designation for areas MF-01 through MF-03 as indicated on Appendix B - "West Hill Study Area Map" incorporated herein by reference as follows: a. Amend Area MF-01 designation from medium density multifamily (MRM) to garden density multifamily residential (MRG) . b. Amend Area MF-02 designation from medium density multifamily (MRM) to garden density multifamily residential (MRG) . C. Amend Area MF-03 designation from high density multifamily (MRH) to garden density multifamily residential (MRG) . All use designations are defined in the Kent Zoning Code. - 2 - Section 4. The City of Kent Zoning Map, its appendices are amended to provide that all references to said areas MF-01 through MF-03 shall be in conformity with the changes in those area designations as set out in Section Three. Section 5. The amendments to the Kent City Zoning Map shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1990. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1990. BAN 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 1990. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 7630-270 - 3 - EXHIBIT "A" WEST HILL LEGALS WEST HILL AREA MF-2 That portion of the SE 4 of the NW T of Section 15, Township 22 N. , Range 4 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Subdivision; Thence north along the west line of said Subdivision a distance of 385 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing north along the west line of said Subdivision a distance of 610 feet; Thence N 88.18120" E a distance of 660 feet to the Kent city limits line; as established under Ordinance #1347; Thence south parallel with the west line of said Subdivision a distance of 490 feet; Thence in a southwesterly direction a distance of 670 feet plus/minus to the True Point of Beginning. WEST HILL AREA MF-01 That portion of the SW ,, of the SW i of Section 10, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Subdivision, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence N 00.52128" E 150 feet; Thence S 89.33 '04" W 440.45 feet; Thence S O1.45'29" W 0.64 feet; Thence S 89.42'29" W a distance of 430.41 feet to the east margin of Military Road S. , Thence south along said east margin to the south line of said Subdivision; Thence east long the south line of said subdivision to the True Point of Beginning. WEST HILL AREA MF-3 That portion of the SW h of the SW i of Section 15, Township 22 N. , Range 4 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Subdivision; Thence north along the west line of said Subdivision a distance of 30 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing north along the west line of said Subdivision a distance of 1,040 feet; Thence east parallel with the south line of said Subdivision a distance of 150 feet to the westerly margin of Interstate Highway #5; Thence southerly along said westerly margin to a point which lies 60 feet north of the south line of said Subdivision; Thence west parallel with the south line of said Subdivision a distance of 75 feet; Thence south parallel with the west line of said Subdivision a distance of 30 feet; Thence west parallel with the south line of said Subdivision to the True Point of Beginning. l'�IIKf-iPI.iNN/�� APPENDIX —� B ° o 4� B J Lu�St11 S� a1.4s"'ll � �_ le' 4 p u a M — 1. n a n� u m� e p p MF-2 0 o � 0 a i a a/ ac F= ai m a ir Y II n IvrmmA ® yU F. t nuu `I ly.a r r \ 9 rmmr STUDY AREA BOUNDARY --- `) —•-- KENT CITY LIMIT 14,,,,,1 • , -------• DES MOINES CITY LIMIT i WEST HILL STUDY AREA r � }3r -ttnrn � " ' �n -'•. a n. � . �y r u rr SCAI.K IN VNI:I' Q' .Y L '"'bbbb �� ` f• Mlrlq TllYM.11A1I111:IlMIN pI V'LL{r o 1 rnvnlauulrm u i ORDINANCE NO. I AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from the Planning Department Housing Element work Program, amending the Housing and Public Facilities and Services Elements of the Valley Floor Subarea Land Use Plan and City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis of multifamily density for East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and i WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said I area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and I WHEREAS, the Council had directed that Planning to work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020, RCW 35A.63.073 and RCW 35A.63. 100(5) empowers a city council to authorize the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations to the City Council on Comprehensive Plan Text amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Ordinance 2796 granted to the Planning Commission authority to consider and make recommendations on Comprehensive Plan text amendments, and authorized Comprehensive Plan text amendments to be made simultaneously with or prior to amendments to the zoning code; and i WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Valley Floor Subarea I Comprehensive Plan Text, amending the Valley Floor Land Use Plan Housing, and Public Utilities Elements were recommended to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 35A.63.073 of the Revised Code of Washington and the Kent City Ordinance 2796, hearings were held before the Planning Commissions of the City of Kent on September 25, October 23, November 20 and November 27, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning j Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission'sI Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for proposed amendments were issued on December 11, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on January 30, 1990; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law adopted by the Kent Planning Commission on December 11, 1969 are adopted by reference in totality by the Kent City Council. I Section 2. The Kent Valley Floor Subarea Land Use comprehensive Plan, Housing Element (Resolution 873 as amended by � Resolution 924) is amended as follows: HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ON THE VALLEY FLOOR, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT. - 2 - i GOAL 1: Preserve and expand existing residential neighborhoods located close to necessary public facilities and services. l Objective 1: Encourage the rehabilitation of existing residential neighborhoods. Policy 1: Encourage neighborhood rehabilitation through the Housing and Community Development Program. Policy 2: Ensure that the needed community services are easily accessible to neighborhood residents. GOAL 2: Guide new residential development into suitable areas on the Valley Floor. includin Objective 1: Encourage diverse residential developments, g ) multifamily development, inte areas adjacent to commercial and retail districts, major transoortation corridors and major commuter transit routes. Policy 1: Develop a capital improvement program for public streets, utilities and facilities on the Valley Floor. Policy 2: Permit and encourage multifamily residential development where necessary services are available. Policy 3: Encourage construction and rehabilitatioI of housing units offering a diversity of size, densities, age and style. _Policy 4: Emphasize planned unit developments where densities and dwelling types are mixed. Policy 5: Provide for assisted housing (e.g. , for the elderly, low income, etc. ) . Policy 6• Retain agricultural and rural residential opportunities Policy 7• Provide for mobile home Parks and manufactured housing GOAL 3: Assure environmental quality in residential areas. Objective 1: Preserve and maintain as much of the natural environment as possible. Policy 1: Prohibit residential development in areae unsuitable for development (e.g. , steep slopes, swamps, etc. ) . - 3 it GOAL 4: Utilization of the valley's amenities by residential population, while assuring protection from conflict with incompatible activities. i Policy 1: Preserve the advantage of proximity to urban services and amenities by providing adequate road improvements, bike/pedestrian pathway;, and transit connections to Kent and the park-and-ride lot. Policy 2: Assure that adequate recreation facilities are programmed and that financing for them is tied to approvals of new residential development. Policy 3: Seek a diversity of building types that I will enhance the valley's scenic qualities. i Section 3. The Kent Valley Floor Land Use Plan, Public �I Utilities (Resolution 873 as amended by Resolution 924) is amended i as to add the following language: I PUBLIC UTILITIES_ELEMENT it OVERALL GOAL: PROVIDE A PLANNED AND COORDINATED UTILITY SYSTEM FOR THE VALLEY AREA. GOAL 1: Assure an ample supply of high quality water. Objective 1: Develop a comprehensive water plan encompassing both facilities and service. Policy l: Develop water.- systems based on phased development decision. GOAL 2: Provide for a planned, coordinated and efficient sanitary sewer system. Objective 1: Develop a comprehensive sanitary sewer plat encompassing both facilities and services. Policy 1: Develop the sanitary sewer plan based onl phased development decisions. Objective 2: Work with Metro, King County and local sewer districts to insure adequate and efficient sewer service. Policy 1: Restrict residential densities in areas unconnected to City sewer. GOAL 3: Provide for a planned, coordinated and efficienj storm drainage and retention system which uses the natural drainage system. Objective 1: Develop a comprehensive storm drainage plan encompassing both facilities and services based on phased development decisions. Policy 1: Develop specific programs to minimize increased storm water runoff. GOAL 4: Provide an efficient means of refuse collection and disposal. objective 1: Work with State, county and surrounding cities to develop a regional solid-waste disposal system. Objective 2: Encourage development of alternative methods of waste disposal. GOAL 5: Assure a balanced, continuous and adequate power supply. Objective 1: Encourage studies of comprehensive power needs and resources. Section 4 . The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, Valley Floor Land Use Plan, Definitions, is amended to add "Single Famill Designated Area Overlay" as follows: Definitions: Adequate - Equal to or sufficient for some (specific) requirement; proportionate or correspondent. Assure - To secure, as against change or risk; insure. To confirm; give confidence to. - 5 - i Biotic Habitats - A general term describing an environment where living animals exist, e.g. , animal life existing around a small pond or wetland area. Capital Improvement Prn - Scheduling/phasing public physical improvements for a community over a certain fperio Of time, with consideration for priorities and financial capabilities of the community. Conserve - To use while consciously attempting not to exhaust the resource. Also, to preserve. Ecosystems - Life systems composed of interactions between plants and animals with other organisms in their environs. Environs - The surroundings common to an area, e.g. , bird habitats and wetlands adjacent to a river or marsh or neighborhoods surrounding a central busi.riess district. I Enhance - To advance, augment or elevate; to improve as in value or desirability. Ensure - To give assurance to. Insure - To assure against loss by a contingent event; to give, take or procure, an insurance on or for. Natural - Pertaining to, in accordance with o I by nature. Being found in its natural state, r determined Neiah_borhood - An area bordered by definite boundaries, with a sameness of social and economic background of the residents, often identified with a significant landmark, such as a school, shopping district, etc. Open Snare General - Vacant lands or other areas including open water areas, roads, streets and highways which do not have structures built on them or over them. 6 - Specific - Areas of natural occurring phenomena - wetlands, streams, rivers and other unobstructed waterways, lakes, etc. ; woodlands, brushlands; open farm lands used for crop and animal husbandry, hillsides and bluffs. Specific - Areas of manmade features - streets, highways„ canals, open yards, parking lots, trails, alleys, landscaped areas, parks and recreational areas without structures, vacant lots. To have real meaning, open space should be related to its purpose and the benefits derived therefrom. For example: Type of Open Space Wetlands Open Space Characteristics Open, not built on, open water areas plus vegetation cover on edges or reeds and other water oriented plants. Purpose To protect the natural drainage systems - to act as storage areas for storm water - I for passive recreational uses - for visua effect - to protect and enhance wildlife, Elora and fauna. Benefits Preservation of land as open space with the intent that the benefits to the general public of holding a wetland as open space (or other type open space land) can be measured or are measurable in relation to harm that might occur to the public's health, safety and general welfare if the wetland is destroyed or allowed to be brilt upon. Phased Development - A governmental planning concept based on the phasing of land development over an extended time period, usually to coincide with a city's capacity to provide necessary services and/or minimize adverse conditions. Pollution - Defilement; impurity. 7 - Point and Non Point Sources of Pollution - Point refers to a specific place producing pollutants - a factory. Non point refers to sources not tied to a specific site - moving autos, trucks and airplanes. Preserve - To keep from destruction. To keep intact or to maintain. Promote - To contribute to the growth or benefit of; to further. To advance from a given grade or class as qualified for one higher. Protect - To cover or shield from injury or destruction; to defend; guard. Provide - To look out for in advance. Residential - A human living environment involving a primary shelter. Low Density - 12 to 16 apartment units per acre. Medium Density - 17 to 24 apartment units per acre. High Density - 24 to 42 apartment units per acre. Scenic Route - A route/road classified as scenic because Of its proximity to natural environs with beautiful and picturesque views. Service Growth - A term used to describe an expanding public service system, i.e. , extensions of roads, sewers and water lines and other utilities. Setback Levee - A bend in a river with a levee setback from where the normal levee would be located. Intended to store additional water and to be used for limited recreational/ agricultural activities duringdry y period;. I - 8 - Single Family Overlay Designated Area: The Single-Family Designated Area approach is intended to foster the following objectives through the individual area plans. The goals of this overlay area are to a) conserve existing single-family neighborhoods bl to protect single-family Deighborhoods from incompatible uses and c) to promote new single-family development The single family designated areas are intended to encompass large areas of contiguous existing single-family development. They may also inclnd small gZisting neicthl2grhood commercial sites which serve the single-family neighborhood Trafficways - Established or proposed rights-of-way for movement of people and goods by different modes of transportation Urban Design - Deals with the physical/environmental qualities of cities, it is concerned primarily with the visual and other sensory relationships between people and their environment. Correspondingly, urban design is inextricably connected to all substantive areas of planning concern, such as housing, transportation, commerce, and industry and it applies to regional, city-wide, district and neighborhood scales of analysis. Promoting a historic preservation theme in the CBD is an example of urban design. Wetlands The Soil Conservation Service has defined and located the wetlands of the Green River valley. The Soil Conservation Servicl definition is: Type I Wetlands Seasonable wet but dry during most of the growing season - have value for waterfowl in the winter. - 9 - i Type II Wetlands Wetlands having water at or near the surface and seldom any standing on the surface - little if any value to waterfowl. Type III Wetlands Generally wet through most of the growing season with water depths of six inches or more. Used for feeding and nesting. Type IV Wetlands Retain their water throughout the year. They have a high waterfowl value. Type VII Wetlands These wetlands have standing water for much of the year and are covered with a growth of trees - not good for waterfowl but can sustain small fur animals. Section 5. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, Valley Floor Land Use Plan and their appendices are amended to provide that all references to the Definitions, Housing & Public Utilities Elements be in conformity with the changes in the text as set out in Sections Two, Three and Four. Section 6. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Valley Floor Land Use Plan, shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Section 7. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. i 10 - i Section B. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage as provided by law. BAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1990. APPROVED the day of 1990. PUBLISHED the day of 1990. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK (SEAL) 8210-290 - 11 - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from the Planning Department Housing Element Work Program, amending the Valley Floor Subarea Comprehensive Plan Map, instituting a single family designated area overlay and amending the designations for three areas within the Valley Floor (amending Resolution 1128, as amended by Resolution 1170) . WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis of multifamily density for East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020, RCW 35A.63.073 and RCW 35A.63.100(5) empowers a city council to authorize the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations to the city Council on Comprehensive Plan Map amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Ordinance 2796 granted to the Planning Commission authority to consider and make recommendations on Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, and authorizing Comprehensive Plan Map amendments to be made simultaneously with or prior to amendments to the zoning code; and WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, changes to the Valley Floor Subarea Comprehensive Plan Map a part of the Comprehensive Plan Map, amending certain designations within the Valley Floor and adding a "single family designated" area overlay were recommended to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35A.63.070 and RCW 35A.63.073 of the Revised Code of Washington and Kent City Ordinance 2796, hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on September 25, October 23, November 20 and November 27, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for proposed amendments were issued by the Planning Commission on December 11, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on January 30, 1990; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Kent Planning Commission dated December 11, 1989 are adopted by reference in totality. Section 2. Areas MF-06, MF-11 and 0-04A are legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and inccr.porated by reference. Section 3. The Kent Valley Floor Subarea Comprehensive Plan Map (Resolution 1128 as amended by Resolution 1170) is amended to change the designation for areas MF-06, MF-11 and 0-04A - 2 - as indicated on Appendix B - "Valley Floor Plan Map" incorporated herein by reference as follows: a. Amend Area MF-06 designation from MF to SF. b. Amend Area MF-11 designation from MF to SF. C. Amend Area 0-04A designation from IBP to MF. Section 4. The Kent Valley Floor Subarea Comprehensive Plan Map (Resolution 1128 as amended by Resolution 1170) is amended to add a Single Family Designated Area Overlay to that area described in Section 2(b) herein, and as shown on Appendix C - Valley Floor Plan Map, incorporated herein by reference. The Single Family Designated Area Overlay designation is defined in the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Vallee Floor Land Use Plan. Section 5. The City of Kent Valley Floor Subarea Plan Map and its appendices and maps are amended to provide that all references to said areas MF-06, MF-11 and 0-04A, and that area included within the single family designated area overlay shall be in conformity with the changes in those area designations as set out in Sections Three and Four. Section 6. The amendments to the Valley Floor Subarea Plan Map, and associated Map amendments shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Passed at a regular meeting of the city Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1990. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1990. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY - 3 - 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 1990. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 08200-290 4 - EXHIBIT A VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-6 That portion of the SE i of Section 13, Township 22 N. , Range 4 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Subdivision; Thence west along the south line of said Subdivision to a point of intersection with the west margin of Northern Pacific Railway, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence continuing west along the south line of said Subdivision to the southwest corner thereof; Thence north along the west line of said Subdivision to a point which is 255 feet north of the north margin of Cloudy Street; Thence east parallel with said north margin to the center line of Fourth Avenue N. , Thence north along said center line to the center line of S. 234th Street; Thence east along the center line of S. 234th Street to said west margin; Thence south along said west margin to the True Point of Beginning. VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-11 That portion of the NE , of the SW % of Section 7, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows; Beginning at the southeast corner of said Subdivision; Thence east along the south line of said Subdivision a distance of 20 feet to the west margin of 92nd Avenue S, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence continuing west along said south line to the easterly margin of SR 167; Thence in a northeasterly direction along said easterly margin to the south margin of S. 218th Street; Thence east along said south margin to said west margin; Thence south along said west margin to the True Point of Beginning. 1 VALLEY FLOOR AREA 0-4A That portion of the SE T of Section 14, Township 22 N. , Range 4 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington and Meeker's Supplemental Plat of the First Addition to the Town of Kent, recorded in Volume 5, Plat Page 96, Records of King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said plat, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north along the west line of said plat to the northwest corner thereof; Thence east along the north line of said plat to the northeast corner of Lot 1 of said Plat; Thence south along the east line of said lot to the north line of the south 128 feet of Lot 2 of said plat; Thence east along the north line of the south 126 feet of said Lot 2 a distance of 386 feet; Thence south parallel with the west line of said Lot 2 to the center line of S. 238th Street (aka Morton Street) ; Thence east along said center line to the northerly produced line of Lot 6 of said Plat; Thence south along said produced line to the northwest corner of said Lot 6; Thence continuing south along the west line of said Lot 6 to the south line of said Section; Thence west along the south line of said Section to the True Point of Beginning. 2 OW -I- t I�tf✓1`!i b yg sl r A �.CSf, r APPENDIX B � • „t . a -V ► I 4� ,E- r l ► %� { ui' �r / I11"I _I` :�� iTUDT AEEA.IDUNDAEY I�F'I3�, 1 N[HT CITY LIMITS I., Ili r Ir �+-� ,'^ �� r-: �%� I �'�-' '"� n' il�l�f��__-_lih-�:�4� 1•'�' r 55r. s' l7 VALLEY FLOOR i / J STUDY AREA T - i _ 1' ''" FF a.:r: . / , 1 •I , _ / W I !d _ APPENDIX C 10 ,, c co 1 1 M f . Ili ILL IN �`I,JJ,� , .:�1'?. ,13F1:�•.�. �:� ! f'• .... 91NOLB FAMILY h•.,•,,.' _ .1%. ya1 .. DESIGNATED AREA l ,\ , .4' �'_\. a JJ '1�: I '(��+1':�A��,•�: II I,Y .I \\::.�� � .�. I ' LL 1 '''' `m^�'{ 'S ,• ��+ ITUDT ARYA,eDUNDARY ._.� I./ J �" "a':. a .-.^ 1 ..,•may;• ,'a_'.. ri%'>•�. :,.I 1 •i:. >:.�:::`.> ,' p— .a xcnz mrr wore p `I(/ 'Y' 1� � i ii G - � j .I-.r•.�'4y4: 1'1P rr�I—q'-4` u! 4.� I 8I i• � -� _ �' - ,�e�_ tl Ili '*'•i.r I �y�: ''�� ' sr ��`� �� � I f� _ I u I;�I�'Jii,l�, i II ��'tir �,y=,_� rr'ifffj!1'3 VALLEY FLOOR, STUDY AREA WTI I j _ �\ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from 'the Planning Department Housing Element Work Program, - amending the City of Kent Zoning Map designations for eight areas of the Valley Floor to a less dense residential designation and rezoning two areas of the Valley Floor from a non-residential designation to a low density multifamily designation. WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density Of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis of multifamily density for East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020, RCW 35A.63.100(2) and RCW 35A.63.140 empowers a city council to authorize the Planning commission to hear and make recommendations to the City Council on Zoning Map amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Ordinance 2796 granted to the Planning Commission authority to consider and make recommendations to the Kent City Council on Zoning Map amendments, and authorized the Planning Commission to hear and consider Comprehensive Plan Map amendments simultaneous with or prior to amendments to the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the city Council; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Kent City Zoning Map changing certain designations in ten areas within the Valley Floor were recommended to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of ROW 35A.63.100(2) of the Revised Code of Washington and the Kent City Ordinance 2796, public hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on September 25, October 23, November 20 and November 27, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for Proposed amendments were issued by the Planning commission on December 11, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on January 30, 1990; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Kent Planning Commission dated December 11, 1989 are adopted by reference in totality. Section 2. Areas MF-02, MF-04, MF-05, MF-06, MF-08, MF-9A, MF-11, MF-12, OP-02 and OP-04A are legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Section 3. The Kent City Zoning Map is amended to change the designation for areas MF-02, MF-04, MF-05, MF-06, MF-Og, MF-9A, MF-11, MF-12, OP-02 and OP-04A as indicated on Appendix B - "Valley Floor Study Area Map" incorporated herein by reference as follows: a. Amend Area MF-2 designation from medium density multifamily (MRM) to duplex multifamily (MRD) . - 2 - b. Amend Area MF-4 designation from duplex multifamily (MRD) to single family 7,200 square foot lots (R1-7.2) . C. Amend Area MF-5 designation from medium density multifamily (MRM) to duplex multifamily (MRD) . d. Amend Area MF-6 designation from duplex multifamily (MRD) to single family 5,000 square foot lots (R1-5.0) . e. Amend Area MF-8 designation from high density multifamily (MRH) to medium density multifamily (MRM) . f. Amend Area MF-9A designation from high density multifamily (MRH) to medium density multifamily (MRM) . g. Amend Area MF-11 designation from garden density multifamily (MRG) to single family 9,600 square foot lots (R1-9.6) . h. Amend Area MF-12 designation from garden density multifamily (MRG) to single family 7,200 square foot lots (R1-7.2) . i. Amend Area OP-02 designation from limited industrial (M2) to garden density multifamily (MRG) . j. Amend Area OP-04A designation from industrial agricultural (MA) and general commercial (GC) to garden density multifamily (MRG) . All use designations are defined in the Kent Zoning Code. Section 4. The City of Kent Zoning Map, it's appendices are amended to provide that all references to said areas MF-02, MF-04, MF-05, MF-06, MF-081 MF-9A, MF-11, MF-12, OP-02 and OP-04A of the Valley Floor Area Study shall be in conformity with the changes in those area designations as set out in Section Three. Section 5. The amendments to the Kent. City Zoning Map shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1990. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1990. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 3 - 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 1990. _ (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 8190-290 - 4 - EXHIBIT A VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-2 That portion of the NE i of the SW $ of Section 24, Township 22 N. , Range 4 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, lying north of the center line of Crow Street, lying south of the center line of W. Willis Street and lying east of the center line of Block A of the Plat of Crow's First Addition to Kent, recorded in Volume 4, Plat Page 29, Records of King County, Washington; AND that portion of the SE � of said Section 24 lying south of the center line of W. Willis Street, lying west of the center line of Northern Pacific Railway and lying north of the south line of the Plat of Waterman's Acre Tracts to Kent, recorded in Volume 12, Plat Page 11, Records of King County, Washington. VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-4 That portion of the NW ; of Section 19, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said subdivision, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence south along the east line of said Subdivision to a point of intersection with the centerline of Summit Street; Thence in a southerly direction along said center line to a point of intersection with the center line of North Star Road; Thence southwesterly, westerly, northwesterly along the center line of North Star Road to a point of intersection with the center line of Smith Street; Thence west along the center line of Smith Street to a point of intersection with the center line of Alvord Street; Thence northerly along the center line of Alvord Street to the north line of said Subdivision; Thence east along the north line of said Subdivision to the True Point of Beginning. 1 VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-5 That portion of the SE h of the SE 5 of Section 13, Township 22 N. , Range 5 East, W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Subdivision; Thence north along the east line of said section to the southeast corner of the Plat of Walmsleys Addition to Kent, recorded in Volume 45, Plat Page 15, Records of King County, Washington, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence west along the south line of said plat to a point of intersection with the center line of Woodford Avenue; Thence north along said center line to a point of intersection with the south line of Lot 3, Block 2, of said plat produced east; Thence west along said produced line to the southeast corner of said lot; Thence continuing west along the south line of said lot to the center line of Block 2 of said plat; Thence north along the center line of said Block 2 to the south margin of George Street; Thence continuing along the center line of said Block 2 produced north to the center line of Block 3 of said plat; Thence continuing north along the center line of said Block 3 to the north line of said plat; Thence west along the north line of said plat a distance of 140 feet; Thence north parallel with the east line of said subdivision a distance of 120 feet; Thence east parallel with the north line of said plat to the east line of said Section; Thence south along the east line of said Section to the True Point of Beginning. VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-6 That portion of the SE N of Section 13, Township 22 N. , Range 4 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Subdivision; Thence west along the south line of said Subdivision to a point of intersection with the west margin of Northern Pacific Railway, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence continuing west along the south line of said Subdivision to the southwest corner thereof; Thence north along the west line of said Subdivision to a point which is 255 feet north of the north margin of Cloudy Street; Thence east parallel with said north margin to the center line of Fourth Avenue N. , Thence north along said center line to the center line of S. 234th Street; Thence east along the center line of S. 234th Street to said west margin; Thence south along said west margin to the True Point of Beginning. 2 VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-8 That portion of the SE z of the NW k of Section 18, Township 22 North, Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Subdivision, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north along the east line of said Subdivision a distance of 628.89 feet to the south line of the north 694.50 feet of said Subdivision; Thence west parallel with the south line of said Subdivision a distance of 573.17 feet; Thence S 01.0715411 W 10 feet; Thence west parallel with the south line of said Subdivision a distance of 220 feet; Thence S 01.0715411 W 5 feet; Thence west parallel with that south line of said Subdivision to the west line thereof; Thence south along the west line of said Subdivision to the southwest corner thereof; Thence east along the south line of said Subdivision to the True Point of Beginning. VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-9A That portion of the SE ; of the NW � of Section 18, Township 22 N, Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Subdivision; Thence north along the east line of said Subdivision a distance of 628.89 feet to the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north along the east line of said Subdivision a distance of 290.25 feet; Thence west parallel with the north line of said Subdivision a distance of 713 feet; Thence south parallel with the east line of said Subdivision a distance of 300.25 feet to the south line of the north 704.50 feet of said Subdivision; Thence east parallel with the north line of said Subdivision a distance of 140 feet; Thence N 01.0715411 E 10 feet; Thence east parallel with the north line of said Subdivision to the True Point of Beginning. 3 VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-11 That portion of the NE � of the SW � of Section 7, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Subdivision; Thence east along the south line of said Subdivision a distance of 20 feet to the west margin of 92nd Avenue S, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence continuing west along said south line to the easterly margin of SR 167; Thence in a northeasterly direction along said easterly margin to the south margin of S. 218th Street; Thence east along said south margin to said west margin; Thence south along said west margin to the True Point of Beginning. VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-12 That portion of the SE i of the SW i of Section 6, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Subdivision; Thence north along the east line of said Subdivision a distance of 513.05 feet; Thence west parallel with the south line of said Subdivision a distance of 255.30 feet to the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence S 15.0012511 W to the northerly margin of S. 208th Street; Thence westerly along said northerly margin to the east margin of SR 167; Thence north, east and north along said east margin to a point which lies 513.05 feet north of the south line of said Subdivision; Thence S. 89.5310511 E to the True Point of Beginning. VALLEY FLOOR AREA 0-2 That portion of the N s of the SE z of Section 13, Township 22 N. , Range 4 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, lying southeasterly of the center line of SR 167, lying westerly of the west margin of the Northern Pacific Railway and lying northerly of the center line of S. 234th Street. 4 VALLEY FLOOR AREA 0-4A That portion of the SE i of Section 14, Township 22 N. , Range 4 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington and Meeker'.s Supplemental Plat of the First Addition to the Town of Kent, recorded in Volume 5, Plat Page 96, Records of King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said plat, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north along the west line of said plat to the northwest corner thereof; Thence east along the north line of said plat to the northeast corner of Lot 1 of said Plat; Thence south along the east line of said lot to the north line of the south 128 feet of Lot 2 of said plat; Thence east along the north line of the south 128 feet of said Lot 2 a distance of 386 feet; Thence south parallel with the west line of said Lot 2 to the center line of S. 238th Street (aka Morton Street) ; Thence east along said center line to the northerly produced line of Lot 6 of said Plat; Thence south along said produced line to the northwest corner of said Lot 6; Thence continuing south along the west line of said Lot 6 to the south line of said Section; Thence west along the south line of said Section to the True Point of Beginning. 5 �rcENrrurmv if �,i %� `,,. :�_ rt.!➢� AYv tbn r I 1 Y 1 rt y % ;/ iI ! APPENDIX B .._ " Ii-- — I �♦ i ,II� I ` III _ ► / I F"lI ► '„ E:... III--� -- _ � ; 9A P fl► i,: .:�. —� ' p. III s, — P 4a.., M 1' , _ _ f _I r ...•• ]TVBT ABSA.BBUNUABY ! BENT CITY LIMIT! '•1 ; �I 1 �I .1� 1, , I11Jill I .II 'y .5. r � t.. VALLEY FLOOR I j i :` l: STUDY AREA IL .. 11 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from the Planning Department Housing Element Work Program, amending the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Map by amending designations for three areas within the Valley Floor Study Area (amending Resolution 1128 as amended by Resolution 1170) . WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis of multifamily density for East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020, RCW 35A.63.073 and RCW 35A.63.100(5) empowers a city council to authorize the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations to the City Council on Comprehensive Plan Map amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Ordinance 2796 granted to the Planning Commission authority to consider and make recommendations on Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, and authorizing Comprehensive Plan Map amendments to be made simultaneously with or prior to amendments to the zoning code; and WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35A.63.070 and RCW 35A.63.073 of the Revised Code of Washington and Kent City Ordinance 2796, hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on September 25, October 23, November 20 and November 27, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for proposed amendments for three areas were issued by the Kent Planning Commission on December 11, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on January 30, 1990; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Kent Planning Commission on December 11, 1989 are adopted by reference in totality. Section 2. Areas MF-06, MF-11 and 0-04A are legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference. section 3. The Kent Comprehensive Plan Map (Resolution 1128 as amended by Resolution 1170) , is amended to change the designation for areas MF-06, MF-11 and 0-04A as indicated on Appendix B - "Valley Floor Plan Map" incorporated herein by reference as follows: a. Amend Area MF-06 designation from MF to SF. b. Amend Area MF-11 designation from MF to SF. C. Amend Area 0-04A designation from I to MF. Section 4. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Map and its appendices and maps are amended to provide that all references to said areas MF-06, MF-11 and 0-04A shall be in conformity with the changes in those area designations as set out in Section Three. - 2 - Section 5. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Map and associated Map amendments shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of _.. 1990. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this _ day of 199o. 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 , 1990. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 8180-290 - 3 - EXHIBIT A VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-6 That portion of the SE , of Section 13, Township 22 N. , Range 4 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Subdivision; Thence west along the south line of said Subdivision to a point of intersection with the west margin of Northern Pacific Railway, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence continuing west along the south line of said Subdivision to the southwest corner thereof; Thence north along the west line of said Subdivision to a point which is 255 feet north of the north margin of Cloudy Street; Thence east parallel with said north margin to the center line of Fourth Avenue N. , Thence north along said center line to the center line of S. 234th Street; Thence east along the center line of S. 234th Street to said west margin; Thence south along said west margin to the True Point of Beginning. VALLEY FLOOR AREA MF-11 That portion of the NE , of the SW i of Section 7, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Subdivision; Thence east along the south line of said Subdivision a distance of 20 feet to the west margin of 92nd Avenue S, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence continuing west along said south line to the easterly margin of SR 167; Thence in a northeasterly direction along said easterly margin to the south margin of S. 218th Street; Thence east along said south margin to said west margin; Thence south along said west margin to the True Point of Beginning. 1 r VALLEY FLOOR AREA 0-4A That portion of the SE k of Section 14, Township 22 N., Range 4 E. ,. W.M. , King County, Washington and Meeker's Supplemental Plat of the First Addition to the Town of Kent, recorded in Volume 5, Plat Page 96, Records of King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said plat, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north along the west line of said plat to the northwest corner thereof; Thence east along the north line of said plat to the northeast corner of Lot 1 of said Plat; Thence south along the east line of said lot to the north line of the south 128 feet of Lot 2 of said plat; Thence east along the north line of the south 128 feet of said Lot 2 a distance of 386 feet; Thence south parallel with the west line of said Lot 2 to the center line of S. 238th Street (aka Morton Street) ; Thence east along said center line to the northerly produced line of Lot 6 of said Plat; Thence south along said produced line to the northwest corner of said Lot 6; Thence continuing south along the west line of said Lot 6 to the south line of said Section; Thence west along the south line of said Section to the True Point of Beginning. 2 O'N. rCD � 1 4'�fl fC&MlPLtNNi :�I ���,,. ', ,.✓ � :�— �,.fl°;+. �'� . =bra::: APPENDIX B . I D `. � • 1 , ♦. —'ll� I I�'!__:. �11 ,�11� 1_—/—;.�—III 4 ' 11 • IP Tl 1��r, dU:+--���: 'l:��r ._- � !T-� lil'�i- �� ' 11-I•'.o rc' - �' .�.. ' M LL ILL—I �- STUDY nnen.eQUMDAAY • _4.p I, l••'�'�,1 -'•Nub XSXT 01 Y LIMITS f1 i .y ����' 1l I �1♦.1 VALLEY FLOOR STUDY AREA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from the Planning Department Housing Element Work Program, amending the Housing and Public Facilities and Services Elements of the East Hill Land Use Plan and City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. (Amending Resolution 972 and 1040) WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the city's Comprehensive Plan, including a area by area analysis of multifamily density for East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020, RCW 35A.63.073 and RCW 35A.63.100(5) empowers a city council to authorize the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations to the City Council on Comprehensive Plan Text amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council by ordinance 2796 granted to the Planning Commission authority to consider and make recommendations on Comprehensive Plan text amendments, and authorized Comprehensive Plan text amendments to be made simultaneously with or prior to amendments to the zoning code; and WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, amendments to the East Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan Text, amending the East Hill Land Use Plan Housing, and Public Facilities and Services Elements were recommended to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 35A.63.073 of the Revised Code of Washington and the Kent City Ordinance 2796, hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on August 28, September 13, October 16, November 20 and November 27, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for proposed amendments were issued on December 11 , 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on January 30, 2990; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Kent Planning Commission dated December 11, 1989 are adopted by reference in totality. Section 2. The Kent East Hill Subarea Land Use Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element (Resolution 972 as amended by Resolution 1040) is amended as follows: HOUSING ELEMENT Housing is a significant consideration for local government. Providing services for housing and its inhabitants - 2 - i involve water and waste collection, police and fire protection, schools, roads, parks and social services which represent a major portion of local government expenditures. Housing represents the predominant use of land within the' East Hill area. The goals, objectives and policies of the Housing Element respond to the major concerns Of East Hill residents regarding housing. Housing policies address the need to coordinate the provision of public facilities and services with residential development and to achieve a more effective transition or separation between areas of intensive land use and adjacent residential development. Other policies encourage a wide range of housing types to provide varied housing choices. OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST }TILL RESIDENTS HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GOAL 1: Residential development that is related to the availability of community facilities and services. Objective 1 : When making decisions concerning land use, consider the adequacy of and impact upon roads and other public facilities and services including utilities, police and fire protection, public transportation, schools and parks. Policy 1: Ensure that public facilities and services are available or will be available to support developmen 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. Policy 3: To reduce congestion in residential areas, limit the number of driveways for new development located on arterial streets and provide mutual access (e.g. shared driveways, easements) where-ever possible. Policy 4: Limit opportunities for multifamily development on East }fill particularly in rural_ residential areas 3 - i Policy 5: Provide for increased single-family residential densities as a transition between more intensive and less intensive residential uses GOAL 2: Development patterns that promote residential quality and provide diverse housing opportunity. Objective 1 : Promote flexible residential development approaches to: a) Provide a variety of housing types, densities and prices. b) Enhance residential development character through retention of open space and sensitive natural features (streams, lakes, wetlands, steep slopes) . c) Encourage energy conservation opportunities. d) Permit maximum efficiency in the layout of streets and other public improvements. Policy 1: Permit adjustments tc residential development requirements including, but not limited to, flexible setbacks, lot size averaging and lot clustering. Pa}iev-2a--�phe-Eest-Hi}}-p}en-Land-use-Nap-wi}} serve-ca-n-genere}_garde-for-fatare-deve}opment-ef-the-Eest-Hi}}_ p}exib}e-residentia}-deve}apment-means-that-epeeifie-deve}opment prepese}s-at-dens#toes-somewhat-higher-then-sh own-on-the-Land-use Hep-map-be-appropr}ate-on-eartarn-rites-where-netare}-features-ere preserved-and-edegante-bafferinq-of-}aver-density-deve}epment-is provided- Objective 2: Decisions concerning land use designations and development proposals shall consider surrounding residential land uses and mitigating measures necessary to minimize potential conflicts. Policy 1: Require separation between residential and nonresidential areas and between adjacent lower and higher density residential areas through landscaping, building placement, location of off-street parking, traffic control and other measures. Policy 2• Encourage the retention an rovement of existing rasidential neighborhoods on East Hil_1. - 4 Section J. The Kent East Hill Land Use Plan, Public Facilities and Services Element (Resolution 972 as amended by Resolution 1040) is amended as to add the following language: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT The Public Facilities and Services element includes policies related to utilities, public safety and parks and recreation. East Hill has experienced considerable growth during the past ten years which has had an impact on the provision of these services. For example, the extension of water service to areas previously undeveloped can adversely affect the level of service to developments already receiving water if the system is not adequate to meet the demand of both the new and existing customers. The goals, objectives, and policies of the element emphasize the provision of adequate public facilities and services at all levels to ensure that the needs of existing residents as well as future residents are met. OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A PLANNED AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR EAST HILL THAT PROTECTS THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR EAST HILL SHOULD BE COST EFFECTIVE TO IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN AND SHOULD PROMOTE IN-FELL AND PHASED DEVELOPMENT FROM EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS. GOAL 1: Adequate sewer service for existing development and those areas adjacent to the collection system prior to expanding the system. 1 Objective 1: Assure intensive use of existing sewers prior to developing new trunk lines and interceptors. Policy 1: Promote in-fill development in and around' the east side of Kent. Policy 2: Provide incentives for developers to build in areas where they can hook up to existing sewers. Policy 7: The extension of sewer service in the East Hill Study Area shall have priority over projects which extend into previously undeveloped areas. Policy 4: Restrict residential densities in areas unconnected to City sewer. 5 - i Section 4 . The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, East Hill Land Use Plan, Land Use Classifications Section, is amended to add a "Single Family Designated Area Overlay" as follows: LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS The land use classifications that were utilized in the revision of the East Hill Plan contain a number of changes that make it possible to determine more specific uses and residential densities. Although the new classifications differ from previous East Hill designations (as well as other city comprehensive plans) , they do not create conflicts or inconsistencies. Instead, they are essentially an expansion of previous designations combined with a few new ones that will afford easier interpreta- tion and implementation of the revised land use plan. (As other existing area plans are revised in the upcoming years, the new designations will be incorporated.) In addition, another advantage will be increased coordination with King County because the changes will be compatible with the Soos Creek Plan designations. Single Fam�esidential The single-family land use category is intended to accommodate single-family homes which range in density from one unit per five acres up to six units per acre. The East Hill land use designations include five single-family densities: 1. Single Family (one dwelling unit per five acres) . This designation is utilized by King County as a means to maintain rural character and to prevent premature urban development in areas without adequate roads, schools, utilities and other public facilities and services. 2. Single Family (one dwelling unit per acres) . This designation provides a transition between the urban/suburban and rural areas while still allowing the rural uses and activities) that are not practical in concentrated urban areas. 7. Single Family (two to three dwelling units per acre) . This designation provides areas that accommodate higher residential densities while still maintaining a high degree of open space and building separation. Lot sizes of 15,000 to 20,Oo01 - 6 - square feet usually permit the use of septic systems but access to a public water system is usually necessary. 4. Single Family (three to four dwelling units per acre) . This category provides for lot sizes ranging from lo,000 to 15,000 square feet. Subdivisions and short plats can be designated in areas with this density so that public facilities and services can be provided and maintained in an efficient and economic manner. 5. Single Family (four to six dwelling units per acre) . This designation represents the highest single-family residential density. Developments at this density are usually subdivisions with lots ranging from 7,000 to 10,000 square feet. A full range of public services are provided. single Family Designated Area Overlay The Single-Family Designated Area approach is intended to foster the following objectives through the individual area Plans. The goals of this overlay area are to a) conserve existing single-family neighborhoods b) to protect single-family neighborhoods from incompatible uses and c to promote new single-family development The single family designated areas are intended to encompass large areas of contiguous existing. single-family development They may also include small existing neicrhborhood commercial sites which serve the single-family neighborhood Multi-family Residential The multi-family land use categories are intended to provide areas for the development of apartments, condominiums, townhouses and row houses at densities ranging from seven to 48 units per acre. Multi-family developments should occur adjacent to commercial centers or near arterials or collector streets that provide direct access to needed urban services. The East Hill land use classifications provide a range of three multi-family land use densities. 7 1. Multi-Family (7 to 12 dwelling units per acre) . This designation is intended to provide areas for low density attached dwelling units such as duplexes, townhouses, low rise apartments and condominiums. Properly designed, low-density multi-family developments can serve as transition areas between commercial areas or high density multi-family developments and single-family neighborhoods. 2. Multi-Family (12 to 24 dwelling units per acre) . This is a popular density due to increasing development costs. If designed properly, developments of this density can accommodate more people while still maintaining a quality environment. 3. Multi-Family (24 to 48 dwelling units per acre) . As the highest density shown on the land use map alternatives, this designation recognizes existing developments in the study area. Commercial This category includes several commercially related land uses as follows: 1. Community Retail. This use is intended to provide areas for the provision of personal goods and services such as supermarkets, hardware stores, drugstores, restaurants, etc. These uses generally provide the day-to-day shopping needs of the community. 2. Commercial Manufacturing. The uses along Central Avenue in the study area are represented by this classification which includes some retail establishments, light industrial operations, commercial and wholesale uses. 3. Neighborhood Business. This designation includes limited retail and office development compatible with adjacent residential uses. Neighborhood businesses are intended to serve residents living within a radius of orie mile. 4. Office. This designation allows for a number of activities that constitute the general uses found in professional offices, such as medical, legal and counseling services. - 8 - 5. Limited Commercial/Office. This designation applies to the area on either sides of 104th Avenue Southeast between the two commercial centers. The Limited Commercial/Office designation is intended to permit a more intense use of this area while providing a transition between community retail uses and residential uses. Office use and smaller commercial businesses having a lower potential for traffic generation are examples of uses with this designation. Community Facility This designation is applied to all public schools, Utilities, fire and police stations and public lands (such as county and state land) . Open Space These areas are defined by King County in the Seas Creek Plan as public watersheds and steeply sloped lands that are generally not developable. The slopes are greater than 40 percent. Constrained Areas This description is applied to all "wetland/unique and fragile areas" greater than one acre in size following the general criteria from the Kent Valley Studies program. These areas are illustrated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the East Hill Plan. Constrained Areas also include Class III Critical Areas as defined by King County. These lands include areas classified as environmentally sensitive due to natural hazards (landslide, seismic, erosion, and flooding potential) and areas which support unique, fragile or valuable resources. Parks This description includes all public parks as well as a few private parks such as the Meridian Valley Country Club and the Lake Meridian resort. 9 - Section 5. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, East Hill Land Use Plan and their appendices are amended to provide that all references to the Single Family Designated Area Overlay, Housing, Public Facilities and Services Elements be in conformity with the changes in the text as set out in Sections Two, Three and Four. Section 6. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and East lull Land Use Plan, shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Section 7. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. Section B. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEIIER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY 10 - PASSED the day of 1990. APPROVED the day of 1990. PUBLISHED the day of 1990. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK (SEAL) 8160-290 - 11 - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from the Planning Department Housing Element Work Program, amending the East Hill Comprehensive Subarea Plan Map, instituting a single family desig- nated area overlay and amending sixteen area designations within the East Hill planning area. (Resolutions 1027 as amended by Resolution 1040 and 1051) WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis of multifamily density for Fast Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map Zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020, RCW 35A.63.073 and RCW 35A.63.100(5) empowers a city council to authorize the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations to the City Council on Comprehensive Plan Map amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Ordinance 2796 granted to the Planning Commission authority to consider and make recommendations on Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, and authorizing Comprehensive Plan Map amendments to be made simultaneously with or prior to amendments to the zoning code; and WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, changes to the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map, amending certain designations within the East Hill and adding a "Single Family Designated" area overlay were recommended to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35A.63.070 and RCW 35A.63.073 of the Revised Code of Washington and Kent City Ordinance 2796, hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on August 28, September 18, October 16, November 20 and November 27, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the proposed amendments were adopted by the Planning Commission on December 11, 1989 and were recommended to the city Council for adoption; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on January 30, 1990; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Kent Planning Commission dated December 11, 1989 are adopted by reference in totality. Section 2. Areas MF-01, MF-02, MF-03, MF-04, MF-05, MF-06, MF-07, MF-12, MF-13, MF-14, MF-15, MF-16, MF-18, MF-19, MF-20 and MF-21 are legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Section 3. The Kent East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to change the designation for areas MF-01, MF-02, MF-03, MF-04, MF-05, MF-06, MF-07, MF-12, MF-13, MP-14, MF-15, MF-16, MF-18, MF-19, MF-20 and MF-21 as indicated on Appendix B - "East Hill Plan Map" incorporated herein by reference as follows: a. Amend Area MF-01 designation from MF-24 to MF-12. b. Amend Area MF-02 designation from MF-24 to SF-6. C. Amend Area MF-03 designation from MF-24 to SF. d. Amend Area MF-04 designation from MF-12 to MF-24. - 2 - e. Amend Area MF-05 designation from MF-24 to SF-6. f. Amend Area MF-06 designation from MF-24 to MF-12. g. Amend Area MF-07 designation from MF-24 to MF-12. h. Amend Area MF-12 designation from MF-12 to SF-6. i. Amend Area MF-13 designation from MF-12 to MF-24. j. Amend Area MF-14 designation from MF-24 to SF-4. k. Amend Area MF-15 designation from MF-24 and CR to SF. 1. Amend Area MF-16 designation from SF-6 to SF-1. m. Amend Area MF-18 designation from MF-12 to SF-6. n. Amend Area MF-19 designation from SF-6 to MF-12. o. Amend Area MF-20 designation from SF-6 to SF. p. Amend Area MF-21 designation from MF-24 to MF-12. Section 4. The Kent Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to add a Single Family Designated Area overlay to that area described in Section 2(b) herein, and as shown on Appendix c - East Hill Plan Map, incorporated herein by reference. The Single Family Designated Area Overlay designation is defined in the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Kent East Hill Land Use Plan. Section 5. The City of Kent East Hill Subarea Plan Map and its appendices and maps are amended to provide that all references to said areas MF-01, MF-02, MF-03, MF-04, MF-05, MF-06, MF-07, MF-12, MF-13, MF-14, MF-15, MF-16, MF-18, MF-19, MF-20 and MF-21, and that area included within the single family designated area overlay shall be in conformity with the changes in those area designations as set out in Sections Three and Four. Section 6. The amendments to the Kent East Hill Subarea Plan Map, and associated Map amendments shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1990. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1990. '— DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 3 - JKEVT PLANKIJI,. r I ti APPENDIX C '11 ' I'• ''1� • _Vy,'/ II1� y� r^ _ :•1;Imo:�YY�J.I�_ , �I •'--�� �'Il ''\��� u4 '' � 1 \ `�� I••,•✓•,I�tr41'- I Imo' �11 '1� '� ryu..w 1' �` .111.11r fI uu71 I .... � •::tip 1� � � IJ:%.Ik JF ., I 7.. ..... i'z jlY,7l, Ifl—:'h '31t; '� �In,Y',•r 1,.: 11.• 11! E'....�.:..y '1'.11I1" i:)p :): ::!:.:;-1�-r�l'ii�.7� ,�� �/ III .1 i ..Nt, ]J✓ , I' _ �fi� � ` 1 is"t'ii[: ia:Gi I i''•:St�':?:'s>i a;':,2;;'1t3t .. I. / Fti%?;••_i2'ti 3INOLE 7ANILY DESIGNATED AREA 1 i 1tp�a., axv"iti'' ��.•���?�""'��01` DY AREA HOUND RY EENT DITY LlntlxE 11+ I iL V.I�,�uu1i-!:t�/511. III �i::.i." ' � "�•<ii�!„ 1 a�+l. ..1.^ ...., 3�� ` l .fl'°'1� ��, I I. [` It 1 t1(jlll rr All AST' HILL tim I I / del; I y STUDY AREA i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from the Planning Department Housing Element Work Program, amending the City of Kent Zoning Map designations for fifteen areas within the East Hill study area (amending Resolution 2513) . WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis of multifamily density for East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020, RCW 35A.63.100(2) and RCW 35A.63.140 empowers a city council to authorize the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations to the city Council on Zoning Map amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Ordinance 2796 granted to the Planning Commission authority to consider and make recommendations to the Kent City Council on Zoning Map amendments, and authorized the Planning Commission to hear and consider Comprehensive Plan Map amendments simultaneous with or prior to amendments to the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Kent City Zoning Map changing certain designations in fifteen areas within the East Hill were recommended to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35A.63.100(2) of the Revised Code of Washington and the Kent City Ordinance 2796, hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on August 28, September 18, October 16, November 20 and November 27, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for proposed amendments were issued by the Planning Commission on December 11, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on January 30, 1990; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Kent Planning Commission dated December 11, 1989 are adopted by reference in totality. Section 2. Areas MF-01, MF-02, MF-03, MF-05, MF-06, MF-07, MF-12, MF-14, MF-15, MF-16, MF-17, MF-18, MF-19, MF-20 and MF-21 are legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Section 3. The Kent City Zoning Map is amended to change the designation for areas MF-01, MF-02, MF-03, MF-05, MF-06, MF-07, MF-12, MF-14, MF-15, MF-16, MF-17, MF-18, MF-19, MF-20 and MF-21 as indicated on Appendix B - "East Hill Study Area Map" incorporated herein by reference as follows: a. Amend Area MF-01 designation from garden density multifamily (MRG) to duplex multifamily residential (MRD) . b. Amend Area MF-02 designation from garden density multifamily (MRG) to single family 7,200 square foot lots (R1-7.2) . C. Amend Area MF-03 designation from medium density multifamily (MRM) to single family 5,0oo square foot lots (R1-5.0) . - 2 - d. Amend Area MF-05 from duplex multi-family (MRD) to single family 7200 square foot lots (R1-7.2) . e. Amend Area MF-06 designation from medium density multi-family (MRM) to duplex multi-family (MRD) . f. Amend Area MF-07 designation from medium density multi-family (MRM) to duplex multi-family (MRD) . g. Amend Area MF-12 designation from garden density multi-family (MRG) to single family 7200 square foot lots (R1-7.2) . h. Amend area MF-14 designation from medium density multi-family (MRM) to single family 9,600 square foot lots (R1-9.6) . i. Amend Area MF-15 designation from medium density multi-family (MRM) to single family 5,000 square foot lots (R1-5.0) . j . Amend Area MF-16 designation from garden density multi-family (MRG) to residential agricultural (RA) . k. Amend Area MF-17 designation from medium density multi-family (MRM) to garden density multi-family (MRG) . 1. Amend Area MF-18 designation from medium density multi-family (MRM) to single family 7200 square foot lots (R1-7.2) . in. Amend Area MF-19 designation from high density multi-family (MRH) to duplex multi-family (MRD) . n. Amend Area MF-20 designation from high density multi-family (MRH) to single family 5,000 square foot lots (R1-5.0) . o. Amend Area MF-21 designation from medium density multi-family (MRM) to duplex multi-family (MRD) . All use designations are defined in the Kent Zoning Code. Section 4. The City of Kent Zoning Map, its appendices are amended to provide that all references to said areas MF-01, MF-02, MF-03, MF-05, MF-06, MF-07, MF-12, MF-14, MF-15, MF-16, MF-17, MF-18, MF-19, MF-20 and MF-21 of the East Hill Study Area shall be in conformity with the changes in those area designations as set out in Section Three. Section 5. The amendments to the Kent City Zoning Map shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1990. - 3 - 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 1990. hfARIE JENSEtJ, CITY CLERK (SEAL) 8150-290 4 - " •ai""r \ NKFNPPl ANW t. 1 , APPENDIX ,B ill;:. ,• _ 1 ...�.�. ILL 1.7 I _ �••' 1'I�Y� I I�l'ii 1: i - 'I, I +r•, •. YI it Iri.T.l.fywl; IJ. } _1 — — STUDY AREA:BOUNDARY J7. , .• 12 , %ENT CITY LIMITS • i fY• Ir�JI� .t��hhhhhh,' ,�'_. •� :a I '_,_";• �;`:`li:" , 15 iV ZEE N I 141 `y I w• ��,t .:a:..ytl:,.�i• '»\4 III_L•, `i� A�l' �� EAST:S T'r;1l HILL La'� .� STUDY ARIA • � ,I�I' � ,al ICI I 1• I ti•uM •Y.Y.Y I 1' , "� 4.1� 1.1..• I I •. ' Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1990. 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 1990. MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK (SEAL) 8140-290 4 EXHIBIT A EAST HILL MF-01 That portion of the NE ; of the NW ; of the SW%, of Section 17 , Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the said subdivision, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence south along the east line of said subdivision a distance of 225 feet; Thence west parallel with the north line of said subdivision a distance of 230 feet; Thence north parallel with the east line of said subdivision to the north line of said subdivision; Thence east along the north line of said subdivision to the True Point of Beginning. EAST HILL MF-02 That portion of the S %, of the NW % of the SW %, of Section 17, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said subdivision; Thence east along the north line of said subdivision at a distance of 30 feet to the easterly margin of 100th Avenue SE, being the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing east along said north line at a distance of 234 feet; Thence S 00 -00149" W 330 . 63 feet; Thence N 89 - 37129" W 234 feet to said easterly margin; Thence north along said east margin to the True Point of Beginning. EAST HILL MF-03 That portion of the SW % of the SW ; of Section 17 , Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said subdivision, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence east along the northerly line of said subdivision to the northeast corner of the W ', of the SW % of the SW '14 of said Section; Thence south along the east line of said W , to a point which lies 290.73 feet north of the south line thereof; Thence N 89 -29155" W 454 feet; Thence S 01^ 44 ' 47" E 41 . 46 feet; Thence west parallel with the southern line of said subdivision a distance of 187 . 28 feet to the west line thereof; Thence north along the west line of said subdivision to the True Point of Beginning. 1 EAST HILL MF-05 That portion of the NW %, of the NE z and the NE , of the NW , of Section 19 , Township 22 N, Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at a point of intersection of the east margin of Summit Street (aka Peter Sarr Road #158) with the north line of the south 231 feet of the NE ; of the NW '-, of said Section, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north, northeasterly along said east margin to a point of intersection with the northerly line of the SW , of the NW ; of the NE ; of said section; Thence east along the north line of the SW ; of the NW of the NE , of said section to a point which lies 300 feet east of the west line thereof; Thence south parallel with the west line of the SW ; of the NW ; of the NE '-, of said Section a distance of 320 feet; Thence east along the south line of the north 320 feet of the SW , of the NW ; of the NE , of said Section a distance of 15 feet; Thence south parallel with the west line of the SW , of the NW ',, of the NE ', of said Section a distance of 103 . 81 feet to the north line of the south 231 feet thereof; Thence S 87 -47147" W to the True Point of Beginning. EAST HILL AREA MF-06 That portion of the NW ', , NE ; and SE ', of Section 19, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the center line of SR 516 with the center line of Smith Street, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence southeasterly along the center line of SR 516 to a point which lies 350 feet west of the east line of the NW ', of the SE ' of said Section; Thence east parallel with the south line of the NW , of the SE ' of said Section a distance of 150 feet; Thence north parallel with said east line to the north line of the SE %, of said Section; Thence west along said north line to the center line of 94th Avenue S. ; Thence north along the center line of 94th Avenue S. to the north line of the S ' of the NW ; of the SE ', of the NE ; of said Section; Thence S 87 .51129" W 591. 59 feet; Thence S 0-25148" E 70 feet; S 35^ 13 ' 18" W 28 .30 feet; Thence S 87 .51129" W 50 feet; Thence S 85-06137" W 275 . 48 feet; Thence N 18 -01153" E 6. 58 feet; Thence S 76-48100" W 29 . 57 feet; Thence N 61-20 ' 55" W 126 . 98 feet; Thence N 10 -26107" E 40 feet; Thence N 76.22 ' 53" W 100 . 03 feet; Thence north parallel with the east line of the NW % of said Section to the center line of North Star Road; Thence northwesterly along to center line of North Star Road to the center line of Smith Street; Thence west along the center line of Smith Street to the True Point of Beginning. 2 EAST HILL AREA MF-07 That portion of the N � of the SE , of Section 19, Township 22 N, Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 1 of the Plat of Fairfield, recorded in Volume 28 , Plat Page 42 , Records of King County, Washington, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence south along the east line of said plat to the southeast corner thereof; Thence west along the south line of said plat to the southwest corner thereof; Thence north along the west line of said plat to the northwest corner of Lot 8 of said plat; Thence continuing north parallel with the north, south center line of the SE %, of said Section to the north line of said Section; Thence east along the north line of said Section a distance of 300 feet; Thence south, a distance of 30. 01 feet to the True Point of Beginning. EAST HILL AREA MF-12 Lots 2 , 31 4 , and 5 of Kent Short Plat #86-1 , recorded under Auditor' s File #8702240677 , also known as Tax Lots 278 , 284 , 285 and 286 of Section 20, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington. EAST HILL AREA MF-14 That portion of the W =, of the SW ; of the SE =, of Section 20, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Subdivision; Thence east along the south line of said Subdivision to the southeast corner thereof; being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north along the east line of said subdivision a distance of 180 feet; Thence N 88 - 2715211 W 156 . 01 feet; Thence S 01- 0413611 W 180 feet to the south line of said Subdivision; Thence east along the south line of said Subdivision to the True Point of Beginning. 3 EAST HILL AREA MF-15 That portion of the SW ', of Section 20 and the NW , of Section 29, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 20, also being the northwest corner of said Section 29 , being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north along the west line of said Section 20 to a point of intersection with the center line of State Highway No. 5-A; Thence southeasterly along said center line to a point of intersection with the center line of 100th Place SE produced north; Thence south along said produced center line to the south margin of said State Highway; Thence continuing south along the center line of 100th Place SE to the southwest corner of Lot 10 of the Plat of Brown Hill, recorded in Volume 65, Plat Page 85, Records of King County, Washington; Thence east along the south line of said Lot 10 to the east line of said plat; Thence south along the east line of said plat to the southeast corner thereof; Thence N 88 - 5213811 E a distance of 144 feet to the west margin of 101st Avenue SE; Thence south along said west margin to the south line of the NW %, of the NW , of said Section 29 ; Thence west along the south line of the NW '-, of the NW ', of said Section 29 to the southwest corner thereof; Thence north along the west line of the NW % of said Section 29 to the True Point of Beginning. ,BAST HILL AREA MF-16 The south 150 feet of the SW ; of the NW %, of Section 29, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, lying westerly of 100th Place SE. EAST HILL AREA MF-17 The south 472 . 18 feet of the north 502 . 18 feet of the west 325. 10 feet of the east 625. 10 feet of the SE ; of the NW ; of Section 29 , Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington AND the east 240 . 52 feet of the west 630 . 52 feet of the south 667 . 17 feet of the SE , of the NW , of said Section 29 . 4 EAST HILL AREA MF-18 That portion of the NE '-, of Section 29 , Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at a point of intersection of the center line of 116th Avenue SE (aka the east line of said Section) with the center line of Kent-Kangley Highway, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north along the east line of said Section to a point which lies 625. 07 feet south of the north line of the NE , of said Section; Thence west parallel with said north line a distance of 654 . 94 feet; Thence S 0- 0515711 E 165. 63 feet; Thence east parallel with said north line a distance of 117 . 66 feet; S 3 - 2912011 W to a point of intersection with the center line of Kent-Kangley Highway; Thence southeasterly along the center line of said Highway to the True Point of Beginning. EAST HILL AREA MF-19 Lots 6 through 15, Block 6, of the Plat of Washington Central Improvement Co. Is First Addition to Kent recorded in Volume 3 , Plat Pages 97 , Records of King County, Washington; AND the northwesterly half alley in Block 6 of said Plat; AND ALSO, the west half of S. Kennebeck Avenue lying adjacent to Lots 14 and 15 of Block 6 of said Plat. EAST HILL AREA MF-20 That portion of the SW h of the NW ; of Section 19, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said subdivision; Thence south along the east line of said Subdivision to a point of intersection with the south margin of Cemetery Road, also being the north line of the Plat of Cherry Hills Estate, recorded in Volume 63 , Plat Page 52, Records of King County, Washington; Thence northwesterly along the north line of said plat to the northwest corner thereof, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence S 9- 3110011 W 205 feet; Thence N 65- 3010011 W 345 feet; Thence S 24 - 15100" W 100 feet; S 35 - 001001, W 230 feet; Thence N 41-0010011 W to the center line of Titus Street; Thence northeasterly along the center line of Titus Street to a point of intersection with the center line of Cemetery Road; Thence southeasterly along the center line of Cemetery Road to a point of intersection with the westerly line of Lot 25 of said Plat produced northeasterly; Thence southwesterly along said produced line to the True Point of Beginning. 5 EAST HILL AREA MF-21 hat portion of the NW %, and the NE z of Section 19, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, being defined as follows: Beginning at a point of intersection of the center line of Summit Street with the north line of the south 231 feet of the NE 4 of the NW � of said Section; being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence east along said north line to the west line of the NW ; of the NE ; of said Section; Thence continuing west along the north line of the south 231 feet of the NW ; of the NE ; of said section to a point which lies 555 feet west of the east line of the SW , of the NW ; of the NE h of said Section; Thence south parallel with said east line to the south line of the SW h of the NW ; of the NE ' of said Section; Thence continuing south parallel with the east line of the NW ; of the SW � of the NE ; of said Section a distance of 326. 60 feet; Thence N 8 - 16137" W 86 . 87 feet; Thence N 55 -29107" W 50 . 68 feet; Thence N 66-48137" W 85 . 80 feet; Thence 83 - 10107" W 44 . 82 feet; Thence S 56. 27153" W 32 . 07 feet; S 77 -53153" W 43 . 28 feet; Thence S 87-54153" W to the center line of North Star Road; Thence northeasterly along the center line of North Star Road to a point of intersection with the center line of Summit Street; Thence north along the center line of Summit Street to the True Point of Beginning. 6 KENT PLANNI�{,L� i _airWc \ - tfXb ..., .�,:_'` . _ � " I: j ;•I,'ail APPENDIX B ON TI-11 y „f !I � •1 1'�'-tom- t ''��f'�:rl I f _ _ Lq,,...OC. 3 1• . _.h- _ I ....(arcs.. t N; 1' •` , r n�IV ,'^+�'�, t �4 »"=' ——— STUDY AREA.BOUNDARY 12 5 l',�� •>;,, / ' ' RENT CITY LIHITE , � ♦ �,,.. � .,t:'I ,�tikQ�y q\, .(J'.� .. P.cA I� 1_��.._�'{� 'I,Y�� •;�`s: �.n -1r ^,.tl .I I I t' 'i€��\-,i:aa:�' , , �fy•llr _•,.. f. 17 EAST HILL_ STUDY AREA t1 .'it , EO f ' a G 1� � • '' 1 Imo'' IIl.,l1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from the Planning Department Housing Element Work Program, amending the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Map, amending eight area designations within the East Hill area (amending Resolution 1027 as amended by Resolution 1040 and 1051) . WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis of multifamily density for Fast Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020, RCW 35A.63.073 and RCW 35A.63.100(5) empowers a city council to authorize the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations to the City Council on Comprehensive Plan Map amendments; and WHEREAS, the City council by Ordinance 2796 granted to the Planning Commission authority to consider and make recommendations on Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, and authorizing Comprehensive Plan Map amendments to be made simultaneously with or prior to amendments to the zoning code; and WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35A.63.070 and RCW 35A.63.073 of the Revised Code of Washington and Kent City Ordinance 2796, hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on August 28, September 18, October 16, November 20 and November 27, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for proposed amendments were issued on December 11, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on January 30, 1990; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recommended by the Kent Planning Commission dated December 11, 1989 are adopted by reference in totality. Section 2. Areas MF-02, MF-03, MF-05, MF-12, MF-14, MF-15, MF-18 and MF-19 are legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Section 3. The Kent Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to change the designation for areas MF-02, MF-03, MF-05, MF-12, MF-14, MF-15, MF-18 and MF-19 as indicated on Appendix B - "East Hill Plan Map" incorporated herein by reference as follows: a. Amend Area MF-02 designation from MF to SF. b. Amend Area MF-03 designation from MF to SF. C. Amend Area MF-05 designation from MF to SF. d. Amend Area MF-12 designation from MF to SF. e. Amend Area MF-14 designation from MF to SF. f. Amend Area MF-15 designation from MF and C to SF g. Amend Area MF-18 designation from MF to SF. h. Amend Area MF-19 designation from SF to MF. Section 4. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Map, its appendices and maps are amended to provide that all references to said areas MF-02, MF-03, MF-05, MF-12, MF-14, MF-15, MF-18 and - 2 - MF-19 shall be in conformity with the changes in those area designations as set out in Section Three. Section 5. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and associated Comprehensive Plan Map amendments shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 199o. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1990. 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 _ 1990. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 8130-290 - 3 - EXHIBIT A EAST HILL MF-02 That portion of the S '; of the NW ', of the SW , of Section 17, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said subdivision; Thence east along the north line of said subdivision at a distance of 30 feet to the easterly margin of 100th Avenue SE, being the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing east along said north line at a distance of 234 feet; Thence S 00- 00149" W 330. 63 feet; Thence N 89 -37129" W 234 feet to said easterly margin; Thence north along said east margin to the True Point of Beginning. EAST HILL MF-03 That portion of the SW , of the SW , of Section 17 , Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said subdivision, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence east along the northerly line of said subdivision to the northeast corner of the W � of the SW '-, of the SW ' of said Section; Thence south along the east line of said W %2 to a point which lies 290. 73 feet north of the south line thereof; Thence N 89 -29155" W 454 feet; Thence S 01^ 44 ' 47" E 41 . 46 feet; Thence west parallel with the southern line of said subdivision a distance of 187 . 28 feet to the west line thereof; Thence north along the west line of said subdivision to the True Point of Beginning. 1 EAST HILL MF-05 That portion of the NW ; of the NE ; and the NE ; of the NW ; of Section 19, Township 22 N, Range 5 E. W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at a point of intersection of the east margin of Summit Street (aka Peter Sarr Road #158) with the north line of the south 231 feet of the NE %, of the NW h of said Section, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north, northeasterly along said east margin to a point of intersection with the northerly line of the SW h of the NW ; of the NE z of said section; Thence east along the north line of the SW , of the NW of the NE ', of said section to a point which lies 300 feet east of the west line thereof; Thence south parallel with the west line of the SW k of the NW ; of the NE ; of said Section a distance of 320 feet; Thence east along the south line of the north 320 feet of the SW , of the NW , of the NE , of said Section a distance of 15 feet; Thence south parallel with the west line of the SW h of the NW h of the NE ; of said Section a distance of 103 . 81 feet to the north line of the south 231 feet thereof; Thence S 87 -4714711 W to the True Point of Beginning. EAST HILL AREA MF-12 Lots 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 of Kent Short Plat #86-1, recorded under Auditor' s File #8702240677 , also known as Tax Lots 278, 284 , 285 and 286 of Section 20, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington. EAST HILL AREA MF-14 That portion of the W '; of the SW ': of the SE ; of Section 20, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Subdivision; Thence east along the south line of said Subdivision to the southeast corner thereof; being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north along the east line of said subdivision a distance of 180 feet; Thence N 88-27 ' 52" W 156. 01 feet; Thence S 01-0413611 W 180 feet to the south line of said Subdivision; Thence east along the south line of said Subdivision to the True Point of Beginning. 2 EAST HILL AREA MF-15 That portion of the SW %, of Section 20 and the NW , of Section 29, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 20, also being the northwest corner of said Section 29 , being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north along the west line of said Section 20 to a point of intersection with the center line of State Highway No. 5-A; Thence southeasterly along said center line to a point of intersection with the center line of 100th Place SE produced north; Thence south along said produced center line to the south margin of said State Highway; Thence continuing south along the center line of 100th Place SE to the southwest corner of Lot 10 of the Plat of Brown Hill, recorded in Volume 65, Plat Page 85, Records of King County, Washington; Thence east along the south line of said Lot 10 to the east line of said plat; Thence south along the east line of said plat to the southeast corner thereof; Thence N 88 - 52138" E a distance of 144 feet to the west margin of 101st Avenue SE; Thence south along said west margin to the south line of the NW of the NW , of said Section 29 ; Thence west along the south line of the NW ; of the NW � of said Section 29 to the southwest corner thereof; Thence north along the west line of the NW %, of said Section 29 to the True Point of Beginning. EAST HILL AREA MF-18 That portion of the NE ; of Section 29, Township 22 N. , Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, defined as follows: Beginning at a point of intersection of the center line of 116th Avenue SE (aka the east line of said Section) with the center line of Kent-Kangley Highway, being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; Thence north along the east line of said Section to a point which lies 825 . 07 feet south of the north line of the NE , of said Section; Thence west parallel with said north line a distance of 654 . 94 feet; Thence S 0- 0515711 E 165 . 63 feet; Thence east parallel with said north line a distance of 117 . 66 feet; S 3 - 2912011 W to a point of intersection with the center line of Kent-Kangley Highway; Thence southeasterly along the center line of said Highway to the True Point of Beginning. 3 _ �+• �^\;' .. � is _ i ^� APPENDIX B r 1� .71 •1 1 n.. � lIp J,1J,�I •j ' ' I' I. —• Ir.:.j�^ .lira?:.. L nr ...' I( I i- - }r 1 a.T '' .J ' •+ I ,12. STUDY AEEA'.ECUU➢ADY I KENT CITY LIMITS 1 1 r i 1 'Lj '/ ` •<L' 1i `�I' .ii uv ux� ,,,,y 5,l: i! r..^. , MIT tl LL I ��., t"1jj'ICS• !� lc:.l r„�*U W •'^ I Alit k� I EAST` HILL . Lam•' \\ 1 STUDY �( AREA 1 �Y I// � 11 �� , •' 1 I Ir-y ♦ 1 'AL`•--J=IL_ \ -.4.: 1 , \ I I ' a loo loco•"�looa rig; EAST HILL AREA MF-19 Lots 6 through 15, Block 6 , of the Plat of Washington Central Improvement Co. Is First Addition to Kent recorded in Volume 3 , Plat Pages 97 , Records of King County, Washington; AND the northwesterly half alley in Block 6 of said Plat; AND ALSO, the west half of S. Kennebeck Avenue lying adjacent to Lots 14 and 15 of Block 6 of said Plat. 4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, creating a R1-5.0, Single Family Residential district amending Section 15.04.020 of the Kent City Code. WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced a desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and I WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area by area analysis of multifamily density for East Hill, West Hill and valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through text and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, Kent City Code 2.32.050 (Ordinance 2469, Section 1) authorizes the Planning Commission to hear and make recommendations to the City Council on Zoning Text amendments; and WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Kent City Zoning Text Section 15.04.020 of the Kent City Code, creating a new residential zone R1-5.0, was recommended to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Kent City Code 2.32.050 (Kent City Ordinance 2469 Section 1) and the provisions of RCW 35A.63.100(2) , public hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on August 28, September 18, October 16, November 20 and November 27, 1989 to iconsider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for proposed amendments to the Kent Zoning Code Text were issued on December 11, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission concerning the zoning code text amendments at a public meeting on January 30, 1990; NOW, THEREFORE, i I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: � Section 1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recommended by the Kent Planning Commission on December 11, 1989 relating to amendments to Kent City Code Section 15.04.020, creating a R1-5.0 Single Family Residential district are adopted by reference in totality. Section 2. The Kent City Code 15.04.020 is amended to create a R1-5.0, Single Family Residential district as follows: 15.04.020. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. iPurpose: It is the purpose of these districts to stabilize and preserve low density, single-family residential neighborhoods. It is further the purpose to provide a range of minimum lot sizes in order to promote diversity and recognize a variety of residential environments. i I A. Districts Established by Lot Area i The following single-family residential districts are established: 1. R1-20. 20,000 square feet minimum lot area. 2. R1-12. 12,000 square feet minimum lot area. i 3. R1-9.6. 9,600 square feet minimum lot area. 4. R1-7.2. 7,200 square feet minimum lot area. 5. R1-5.0. 5.000 square feet minimum lot area. I 2. Rooming and boarding of not more than three (3) persons. 3. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of Section 15.08.040. B. Minimum Zoning Area R1-5.0. 15,000 square feet (3 lots) C. Maximum Zoning Area R1-5.0. 8 acres B-D. Principally Permitted Uses I. One single-family dwelling per lot. 2. Crop and tree farming. e-E. Special Permit Uses The following uses are permitted provided they conform to the development standards listed in Section 15.08.020. 1. Churches. 2. Nursery schools and day care centers. B-F. Accessory Uses 1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as garages, carports, minor structures for storage of personal property. E-G. Conditional Uses General Conditional Uses as listed in Section 15.08.030. F-H. Development Standards 1. Minimum lot !i a. R1-20. 20,000 square feet. b. R1-12. 12,000 square feet. C. R1-9.6. 9,600 square feet. d. R1-7.2. 7,200 square feet. e. R1-5.0. 5,000 square feet. I 3 - i i I 2. Minimum lot width. a. R1-20. 70 feet. b. R1-12. 70 feet. C. R1-9.6. 70 feet. d. R1-7.2. 70 feet. e. R1-5.0. 50 feet. — I 3. Maximum site coverage. I a. R1-20. 30 percent. b. R1-12. 30 percent. C. R1-9.6. 30 percent. d. R1-7.2. 30 percent. e. R1-5.0. 40 percent. 4. Minimum Yard requirements. a. Front yard. 20 feet. b. Side yard. 5 feet. C. Rear yard. 8 feet. d. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. 15 feet. 5. Height limitation. a. R1-20. Two and one-half (2-1/21 stories not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet. b. R1-12. Two and one-half (2-1/2) stories not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet. iC. R1-9.6. Two and one-half (2-1/2) stories not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet. d. R1-7.2. Two and one-half (2-1/2) stories not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet. e. R1-5.0. Two and one-half (2-1/2) stories not exceeding thirty (30) feet. 6. Interior yards. Interior yards shall not be ( computed as part of the site coverage. 7. Additional standards. See Chapter 15.08, General and Supplementary Provisions, for requirements concerning accessory buildings and additional standards PROVIDED: that solar access setback requirements of Kent- City Code 15.08.230-234 shall not apply to the R1-5.0 zone. G7I. Signs The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 shall apply. H-J. Off-Street Parking The off-street parkinq regulations of Chapter 15.05 shall apply. 4 - I 17K. Development Plan Review Development plan review is required when the property to be developed is classified as view property. Section 2. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1990. APPROVED the day of 1990. PUBLISHED the day of 1990. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. {SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK I 8170-290 - 5 - ORDINANCE NO. - /- AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, resulting from the Planning Department Housing Element Work Program, amending Kent City Zoning Code 15.08.100 relating to Non-conforming Development Regulations. i WHEREAS, the Kent City Council, by Resolution 1123, evidenced its desire to achieve reduction in the density of multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1172, directed the Planning Department to conduct a study and proposed update of the housing element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including a area by area analysis of multifamily density for East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas; and WHEREAS, the Council directed that the results of said area-wide study are to be proposed for implementation through tex and/or map zoning amendments to be presented to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council had directed that the Planning Department work with the City Coun(:il to develop a work program for the area by area analysis; and WHEREAS, Kent City Code 2.32.050 (Ordinance 2469, Section 1) authorizes the Planning commission to hear and make recommendations to the City Council on Zoning Text amendments; and i i WHEREAS, public notice and opportunity for input on the Work Program process, procedure and results has been of the I highest priority to the City Council; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Kent City Zoning Text creating a new residential zone R1-5.0, amending Section 15.04.020 of the Kent City Code, were recommended to the Planning Commission; and I I I jWHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Kent City Code 2.32.050 and the provisions of 35A.63.100(2) , public hearings were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Kent on August 28, September 18, October 16, November 20 and November 27, 1989 to consider the proposed amendments; and I WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning iCommission and its final deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendations for proposed amendments to the Kent Zoning Code Text concerning the ill R1-5.0 zone were issued on December 11, 1989; and i I WHEREAS, the Kent city Council considered the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and recommendations of the Planning Commission concerning the R1-5.0 zoning code text amendments at a i public meeting on January 30, 1990; and WHEREAS, there exist approximately 42 lots within areas I which the Planning Commission has recommended for the R1-5.0 designation that meet the lot size requirement, but do not meet other requirements of the proposed zoning designation; and I i� WHEREAS, under the proposed R1-5.0 zoning designation approximately 33 single family homes could be developed on these same 42 lots; and I WHEREAS, one facet of the Housing Element Work Plan is to encourage single family housing within the City of Kent; and I WHEREAS, the Mayor has recommended an amendment to the nonconforming development regulations of the Kent City Zoning Code (Section 15.08.100) , relating to the proposed R1-5.0 zone, to maximize the number of lots eligible for development as single family housing, in advancement of the legislative policy of the Housing Element Work Program promoting single family housing; NOWI THEREFORE, I I - 2 iI it I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Kent City Zoning Code 15.08.100 is amended as follows: 15.08.100. NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT. A. Purpose. The intent and purpose of these provisions are: I 1. To assure reasonable opportunity for use of legally created lots which do not meet current minimum requirements for the district in which they are located. �I 2. To assure reasonable opportunity for use, maintenance, and improvement of legally constructed buildings, structures, and site development features which do not comply with current minimum requirements for the district in which they are located. 3. To assure reasonable opportunity for continuation of legally established uses which do not conform to use regulations for the district in which they are located. I 4. Encourage the eventual replacement of nonconforming uses having potentially undesirable impacts on conforming uses. 5. Encourage the eventual upgrading of nonconforming buildings, structures, and site development features which do not comply with current minimum requirements for the district in which they are located . B. Applicability. Nonconforming uses, structures, lots or signs are not favored by law and this code and it is to avoid injustice that this code accepts such elements. To benefit from the protection given to nonconforming development, such use, structure, lot or sign must have been lawfully established prior to June 20, 1973 or pursuant to a county resolution in effect at 3 . I i i the time of annexation which rendered it nonconforming. This section distinguishes between and defines nonconforming uses, major nonconforming buildings/structures, minor nonconforming buildings/structures, nonconforming lots of record, and I nonconforming signs. Different requirements are made applicable to each of these categories. The degree of restriction made applicable to each separate category is dependent upon the degree ,Ito which that category of nonconformance is a nuisance or incompatible with the purpose and requirements of this code. C. Nonconforming Uses. 1. Restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming uses are in addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming structures, lots and signs, and in the event of any conflict the most restrictive provision shall apply. 2. Expansion of nonconforming uses. No existing lbuilding, structure, or land devoted to a nonconforming use shall The expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed, intensified, or structurally altered unless the use thereof is changed to a use permitted in the district in which such building/structure, or land is located except as follows: a. When authorized by Conditional Use Permit, a nonconforming use may be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed, intensified, or structurally altered on land under the same ownership as of January 1, 1984. 3. Change of nonconforming use. When authorized by the Planning Director, a nonconforming use may be changed to a use of a like or more restrictive nature. 4. Extension of nonconforming uses. When authorized by the Planning Director, a nonconforming use may be extended throughout those parts of a building which were manifestly designed or arranged for such use prior to the date iwhen such use of such building became nonconforming if no structural alterations except those required by law are made therein. - 4 - I I i 5. Discontinuance of nonconforming uses. When a nonconforming use of land or a nonconforming use of all or part of lla structure is discontinued or abandoned for a period of six (6) months, such use shall not be resumed, not withstanding any reserved intent not to abandon such use. Normal, seasonal cessation of use, or temporary discontinuance for purposes of maintenance or improvements shall not be included in determination of the six month period of discontinuance. 6. Reversion of a nonconforming use. If a ( nonconforming use is changed to a permitted use, the nonconforming use shall not be resumed. I 7. Residential exception to nonconforming use status. Legally established residential uses located in any residential zoning district and in existence as of January 1, 1984 shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of density provisions and shall be a legal use. D. Nonconforming Buildings/Structures. 1. Restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming structures are in addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, lots and signs and in the event of any conflict, the most restrictive provisions shall apply. 2. Major nonconforming buildinqs/structures. No major nonconforming structure may be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or otherwise structurally altered or changed nor may any major nonconforming building, structure or lot be occupied after discontinuance or change in use unless said structure, use and associated grounds, and development are brought into compli- ance with use and minimum development standards of the district in which such structure is located except as follows: I a. Any major nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, war, riot, or other natural disaster, and where cost of restoration exceeds fifty (50)I percent of the fair market value of the structure at the time of i damage, shall not be restored or reconstructed and used as before i i . such happening; however, where cost of restoration does not exceed) fifty (50) percent of the fair market value of the structure at the time of damage, the structure may be restored, reconstructed and used as before, provided that the work be completed within one) (1) year of such happening. b. Such repairs and maintenance work as required to keep the structure in sound condition may be made to a major nonconforming structure provided no such structural alterations shall be made except such as are required by law or ordinance or authorized by the Planning Director. 3. Mino nonconformin4 buil inns/structures. No minor nonconforming structure may be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or otherwise structurally altered or changed nor i may any minor nonconforming building, structure or lot be occupied after discontinuance or change in use unless said structure and associated grounds, and development. are brought into compliance with the minimum development standards of the district in which such structure is located, except as follows: � I a. Any minor nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, war, riot, or other inatural disaster, and where the cost of restoration exceeds fifty (50) percent of the fair market value of the structure at the time of damage, shall not be restored or reconstructed and used as „ before such happening; however, where cost of restoration does not exceed fifty (50) percent of the fair market value of the struc- ture at the time of damage, it may be restored, reconstructed and used as before, provided that it be completed within one (1) year of such happening. b. Such repairs and maintenance work as IIrequired to keep it in sound condition may be made to a minor nonconforming structure provided no such structural alterations ( shall be made except such as are required by law or ordinance or authorized by the Planning Director. 4. Planning Director's authority. The Planning Director may waive specific development standard requirements 6 - I i i and/or impose additional requirements when all the following criteria are met: a. Owing to special circumstances'a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Code or other land use regulatory ordinances of the City will result in unnecessary hard- ship. b. The waiver of development requirements is in harmony with the purpose and intent of City ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. i C. The proposed use, building, and ( development will function without adverse impact upon adjacent ! property, development in the area or the city as a whole. it d. (When) A Conditional Use Permit is not irequired. E. Nonconforming Lots. 1. Restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming lots are in addition to the regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, structures and signs, and in the event of j conflict, the most restrictive provisions shall apply. 2. Nonconforming lots of record. a. Residential districts. In any district i which single family dwellings are permitted, a single family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record as of June 2c, 1977, notwithstanding limita- tions imposed by other provisions of this code. Such lot must be in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements for area and/or width that are generally applicable in the district, provided tha yard dimensions and requirements other than those applying to area L and/or width of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. I 7 - I I i In all single-family zoning districts, with the exception of the R1-5.0 zoning district. if two or more i lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record prior to June 20, 1973, and if all or part of the lots do riot meet the minimum require- ments established for lot width and area, the land involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this code, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this code, nor shall any division of II any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this code. 1 I In the R1-5.0 zoning district, if two or more, single-familv-zoned lots or combination of lots and portions) of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record ' prior to June 20, 1973, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the below-described minimum requirements established for lot width, lot area and topography, the land involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this I code, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this code, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a_ lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this code_ j Minimum lot area: 4600 square feet Minimum lot width: 40 feet Maximum site slope: 15 ercent II b. Other districts. In any other district, permitted building and structures may be constructed on a noncon- forming lot of record, provided site coverage, yard, landscaping and off-street parking requirements are met. Such lots must be i separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership prior to June 20, 1973 and if all or part o the lots do not meet the minimum requirements established for lots width and area, the land involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this code, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes i II i compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this code, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this code. F. Nonconforming Signs. 1. Restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming signs are in addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, structures and lots, and in the event of conflict the most restrictive provisions shall apply. 2. Nonconforming signs. a. Signs that were legally existing as of June 20, 1973 that do not conform to these regulations shall be considered nonconforming signs. Nonconforming signs may not be moved, relocated, altered or added to without receiving approval from the Planning Department. II b. No sign permit shall be issued to allow legal signs on property having an .illegal or nonconforming sign until such time as the nonconforming or illegal sign(s) is modified to conform to this code. ii 3. Amortization period of nonconforming signs I a. Abandoned signs. Must be removed within ninety (90) days. b. Number and _tvpe of signs. The number and I type of allowable signs for each occupancy must conform to the 11 regulations of this code by January 1, 1988. Section 2. The City of Kent Zoning Text, is amended to provide that all references to said Section 15.08.100, Nonconforming Development Regulation, shall be in conformity with ! those changes as set forth in Section 1. Section 3. The amendments to the Kent City Zoning Code Text shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the Office of the 9 Ij it i Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request. Section 4. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final' passage as provided by law. I DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ( ATTEST: i MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 'I1APPROVED AS TO FORM: I i IISANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY III PASSED the day of _. 1990. 1I1APPROVED the day of _ 1990. iPUBLISHED the day of 1990. it I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance IINo. passed by the City council of the City of Kent, ' Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) II MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 823O-290 10 I t\N, ;`� Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DRIVING RANGE IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Parks Department to make the following improvements at the Riverbend Driving Range and complex: A. Repair Roof - tar and shakes ; B. Renovation of walls, ceiling, doors, shelving and storage, and remodeling at complex (most of work done by Maintenance staff) ; C. Replace 19 sets of Kuroco mats and tees, and purchase 57 replacements. t 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo to Mr. Chow. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: /i Operations Committee Parks Department Staff (Committee, Itaff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X FISCAL PER ONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITM REQUIRED: $31 , 729 _ SOURCE (W FUNDS: Riverbend Golf Complex Revenue 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Coundilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: — ACTION• —.. Council Agenda Item No. 3L MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- Subject: DRIVING RANGE - FISCAL NOTE Bator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 02/09/90 at 1404 . THE DRIVING RANGE IS BADLY IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENTS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ATTACHED MEMO FROM THE PARK DEPARTMENT. AT THIS POINT IN TIME IT CAN NOT BE GUARANTEED THAT THE GOLF COMPLEX ENTERPRISE FUND CAN PAY FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS BUT THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED FOR THE FACILITY TO GENERATE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF REVENUE POSSIBLE. THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED NO MATTER WHAT DECISION IS MADE ON THE OPERATION OF THE PRO SHOP. PENDING THAT DECISION OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ARE ALSO NEEDED DEPENDING ON THE ARRANGEMENTS. SINCE THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED TO GENERATE REVENUE, THE IBC RECOMMENDS THEM AND THAT THEY BE CHARGED DIRECTLY TO THE GOLF FUND WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT ENOUGH ADDITIONAL REVENUE WILL BE GENERATED TO COVER THE COST. CITY OF RENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT February 2 , 1990 TO: Mr. Chow FROM: Barney Wilson SUBJECT: DRIVING RANGE IMPROVEMENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------- Since we are getting closer in making a decision regarding merchandising at the Driving Range, I feel it would be appropriate to do the following improvements: Cost Estimate 1) Repair Roof - tar and shakes $ 7 , 914 2) Renovation of walls, ceiling, doors, shelving and storage, and remodeling at complex (most of work done by 8, 000 Maintenance staff) 3) Replace 19 sets of Kuroco mats and tees, and purchase 57 replacements. We have asked for comments from our users, and they like Kuroco. 15, 815 $31, 729 We wish to wait on the carpet and rubber mats until a decision is made on merchandising. If we decide to lease out a portion of the building, we will need to install a security partition. The carpet and mats would then be a different configuration. We will need to prepare an updated budget figure for the carpet and partition. Thank you in advance for a timely decision on this issue. cc Tony McCarthy, Finance Director Neil Sullivan, Riverbend Golf Complex Manager Lee Anderson, Riverbend Golf Complex Superintendent Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20, 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: HAND HELD METER READING SYSTEM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to--purshase hand held meter reading system directly from Radix Corporation. Originally this was included in the utility billing system, but due to difficulties with the vendor thisshould be handled separately. Pic, 39, 1L> ,- f t � 3 . EXHIBITS: R olution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: O on Committee (Committee, St ff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL P SONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL PERSONNEL NOT Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS : Autom tion Plan 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember ves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• .._ ACTION• \ Council Agenda Item No. 3M RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to the sole source purchase of Electronic Meter Reading System equipment. WHEREAS, the Council authorized the creation and implementation of a city-wide Automation Plan on August 15, 1986; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent Finance Department desires to acquire Radix Hand-Held Meter Readers for enhancement of its utility billing and collection system; and WHEREAS, the Finance and Information Services Departments have examined available hardware manufacturers and software vendors meeting desired automation system requirements designed by Idaho Computer Services, including demonstration and use of such meter devices; and WHEREAS, as a result of said study the Finance and Information Services Departments have determined that Radix Hand-Held Meter Reading System devices and software constitute the only suitable software and hardware system meeting existing multiple utility billing operation, maintenance, and system specifications; and WHEREAS, the Departments have also concluded that Radix is the only single source vendor for software and hardware needed for upgrading the City's utility meter reading system and that said devices are compatible with existing Idaho Computer Services software installed by the City. The Departments have also determined that Radix is the only area vendor capable of providing for maintenance, training, service, and warranty work; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Council finds that the purchase of the Radix Hand-Held Meter Reading System equipment and software is clearly and legitimately limited to a single source or supply within the vicinity of the City of Kent; and further finds that such devices are subject to special market conditions, including availability of training and compatibility with installed Idaho Computer Services software within the City's existing automation system. Section 2. Public bid requirements for purchasing any Radix Hand-Held Meter Reading System devices and software, as described in the City's Request for Proposal, Radix Response, Radix Order Schedule No. 7640, Radix Sales and Maintenance Agreements, and Radix letter of December 15, 1989, are hereby waived for purposes of RCW 35.23.352 and Kent City Code 4.02.010 and that the said purchase is clearly and legitimately limited to a single source or supply within near vicinity and are subject to special market conditions warranting the purchase of said devices and software. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1990. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1990. 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 1990. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 8270-290 2 - l Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LID 328 - WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY STREET IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set March 20, 1990 as the date for a public hearing on confirmation of the final assessment roll for LID 328 . 3 . EXHIBI\B : 4 . RECOMMic Works Director (Com Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGRSONNEL IMPACT:_ NO X YES FISCAL PERSONNEL NO Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember mo s, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3N d Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20, 1990 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: EASTBROOK BUSINESS PARK PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. SU-89-5 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval of a request by KPFF Consulting Engineers for an 11 lot industrial subdivision. The property is approximately 38 acres in size and is located east of 80th Ave. S . between S . 180th St. and S . 188th St. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, staff report, minutes, findings and recommendation 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner January 3 1990 approval with 12 conditions (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITTURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember Y-\ moves, Councilmember ���` � seconds Ij to agree with/disagree-_-with/modi€y the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to approve/disapprove/set a public hearing to modify and approve as modified the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval of Eastbrook Business Park Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-5 with 12 conditions. DISCUSSION• ACTION. Council Agenda Item No. 4A KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 15, 1990 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS , PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: EASTBROOK BUSINESS PARK PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION #SU-89-5 The Kent Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on December 20, 1989 to consider a request by KPFF Consulting Engineers for an 11-lot industrial subdivision. The subject property is approximately 38 acres in size and is located east of 80th Avenue South between South 180th Street and South 188th Street. On January 3 , 1990 the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the Eastbrook Business Park Preliminary Subdivision #SU- 89-5 with the following conditions: A. Prior to recordation of the final plat: 1. Provide detailed engineering drawings and bond for or construct the following: a. gravity sanitary sewer facilities to service all lots ; b. public water to all lots in a manner which meets domestic and fire flow requirements ; C. storm drainage facilities to drain all roadways and lots ; d. improvements to S . 186th Street and S. 184th Street in a manner which meets industrial access road standards (such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, 36 foot curb-to-curb paving, street lighting , underground utilities, street signs and related appurtenances. The intersections with 80th Avenue S . shall align with the proposed roadways on the west side of 80th Avenue S . Curb return radii shall be 60 feet. Cul-de-sac curb returns shall be 60 feet. e. widening of 80th Avenue S . to provide left turn pockets for S . 184th Street and S . 186th Street. A traffic study shall be completed by the applicant/developer to determine existing traffic conditions on 80th Avenue S. and probable future traffic impacts under both three-lane and five-lane conditions . The detailed requirements of the study must be agreed to by the City ' s Traffic Section. If the study indicates that additional right of way will be necessary for the widening of 80th Avenue S . , the applicant/developer shall dedicate and deed this additional right-of-way to the City. f. reconstruction of the entire pavement section of 80th Avenue S . for the entire frontage thereon. This shall be MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FEBRUARY 15, 1990 accomplished by grinding and repaving or by overlaying the existing pavement as determined necessary by a pavement analysis prepared by a qualified consultant and approved by the City. g. cement concrete sidewalks for the entire property frontage on 80th Avenue South; 2 . Deed to the City the tracts that are designated for open space and drainage purposes. 3 . Remove the buildings identified on Tract A. B. Prior to the issuance of a development permit for any lot: 1. Construct all improvements required under Condition A (1) . 2 . Execute an agreement approved by the City for the continuous maintenance of the open space tracts designated on the preliminary plat. The agreement shall specify each property owner ' s responsibility to maintain each individual tract and include a mechanism for charging and collecting the costs thereof from the affected properties. The agreement shall also include a provision recognizing the city ' s right to oversee the preservation and maintenance of the open space to insure that it is being accomplished appropriately as determined by the City. The City' s rights shall include the right to take over the agreement including the levying and collection of charges from the affected properties. CA:JPH:ca Attachment 2 Si aT 3 rd StJ e IX 1 s 1drH109 — r to I / 0 I�� i f B 4A (n W 4 r w , - � o- 8 LU N. Q k1S-H1991>�... I � IS Hj891 (-7 I ZZ • i •' , - .i31� { t a'- L �eS zL j j L§�! !:: t1 -._'� ?Y ,;,pp :3Yr zE s Ip � ; { •{ � Lat i { � ' { @ � + � j''' ' j ' - -- ... -:... L'sfin'aF 6 2!� L. t L•e 9 '! 4 !{x 33 3! 6= i —u ... -`a i•�a�Y� f.. t• t o c`7 kit m1f; aj 3 r, � �f[��F't �:. {E !L f! •P Q= � Li - sa P.; t i _j xs !, � 1 x I � r.• ! S �_ KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF DECEMBER 20, 1989 FILE NO: EASTBROOK BUSINESS PARK #SU-89-5 APPLICANT: KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS REQUEST: A request for preliminary subdivision of 38 acres to create 11 industrial lots. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Williams STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The proposal is to subdivide approximately 38 acres into 11 industrial lots. The average proposed lot size is 113 , 000 square feet. The minimum lot size proposed is 85, 000 square feet. The applicant also proposes to rezone the plat from M2 , Limited Industrial, to Ml, Industrial Park. B. Location The subject property is located east of 80th Avenue S . between S. 180th Street and S. 188th Street. C. Size of Property The subject property is approximately 38 acres in size. D. Zoning The zoning of the subject property is Mi, Industrial Park, and M2 , Limited Industrial. Only the northernmost portion of the property is currently zoned M1. E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies 1 Staff Report Eastbrook Business Park #SU-89-5 of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development, and spending decisions. Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City ' s intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject property as I, Industrial . Elements of the Comprehensive Plan are addressed below followed by Planning Department comments . ECONOMIC ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION. GOAL 1 : Promote diverse industrial development in industrially developed areas. Policy 2 : Promote industrial subdivisions. Planning Department Comment: The subject property is located between West Valley Highway and East Valley Highway. The surrounding area is zoned and developed with industrial uses. The proposed subdivision is, therefore, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. VALLEY FLOOR PLAN The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the west half of the subject property as I , Industrial, and the east half as IP, Industrial Park. Elements of the Valley Floor Plan are addressed below and followed by the Kent Planning Department comment. 2 Staff Report Eastbrook Business Park #SU-89-5 ECONOMIC ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION. GOAL 1: Promote fill-in development of industrially developed area. Planning Department Comment: The subject property is located in an area that is characterized by industrial development. As such, the proposed subdivision is considered fill-in development, which would prevent sprawl, and is, therefore, consistent with this portion of the Plan. II . HISTORY A. Site History A tentative plat meeting was held for this project on March 30, 1989 . The comments generated in that meeting are contained in this report. B. Area History The subject property is part of a 2 , 990 acre area that was annexed to the City in February 1959 under Ordinance #1013 . In the mid-1960 ' s industrial development began in earnest in the valley. Today, relatively few parcels as large as the subject property remain undeveloped. III . LAND USE Land uses in the area are predominantly industrial. A more specific discussion of surrounding land uses occurs below: 1. The applicant has an approved preliminary plat to subdivide 66 acres into 21 lots directly to the west of the subject property (Westbrook Business Park) . 3 Staff Report Eastbrook Business Park #SU-89-5 2 . Some relatively small lots directly to the north and east and south of the subject property are undeveloped, but development proposals are pending for at least two of them. 3 . Land uses in the general area are mostly industrial in all directions. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Environmental Assessment A final Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance (#ENV-89-33) was issued for the proposal on October 20, 1989 with the following conditions: 1. Biofiltration shall be incorporated into the master drainage control plan for the plat. 2 . For any floodway fringe areas being filled as part of the grade and fill operation, offsetting storage shall be provided for 50 percent of the volume filled. 3 . Provide a as-built field topographical survey by a Washington State licenced land surveyor denoting the location of Springbrook Creek in relation to the subject property. For the portion of the creek lying within the subject property, grant to the City an easement for drainage utility purposes of same. The width of said easement shall extend 15-feet landward from the top of channel bank (both sides) , in order to accommodate channel access maintenance roads. 4 . Provide a detailed engineering plan to the City for review and approval denoting how the operational and maintenance requirements of the Springbrook Creek channel, as determined by the City and Drainage District #1, will be achieved, and construct improvements. 5 . Acquire approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Fisheries, and King County Drainage District #1 prior to any work in or around Springbrook Creek. 6. Provide a habitat inventory of the Westbrook and Eastbrook sites. Said inventory should detail impacts 4 Staff Report Eastbrook Business Park #SU-89-5 to the observed red tailed hawk and other wildlife present on the sites, and provide mitigation for same. B. Significant Physical Features Topography and Hydrology The site is flat and is covered mostly with grasses and some trees . Springbrook Creek flows generally along the eastern edge of the subject property. Some wetlands are located along the western edge of the site. The applicant proposes to mitigate filling the wetlands by creating manmade wetlands on the site located across the street. These manmade wetlands are to mitigate the filling of wetlands on the Eastbrook and Westbrook sites . There is a single-family residence and barn located on the subject property. They are located in an area designated for open space. The property will be deeded to the City. There are no plans to raze the structures. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property has access to 80th Avenue S . , which is classified as a collector arterial . The street has a public right-of-way width of 60-feet. The actual width of paving on the street is 40-feet. The street is improved with two lanes of asphalt paving and curb and gutter. New left turn pockets will be required for the two cul-de-sacs proposed to serve the site. 2 . Water System An existing 12-inch water main located in Both Avenue SE at the southern property line is available to serve subject property. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System There is a 72-inch Metro sewer main in 80th Avenue S . to serve the subject property. 5 Staff Report Eastbrook Business Park #SU-89-5 4 . Storm Water System The applicant will be required to design and construct a system to collect, detain and treat storm water prior to discharging it into the City system. 5. LID' s None at the present time. V. 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 Drainage District #1 Department of Ecology Army Corps of Engineers Washington State Department of Transportation In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 300 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing. Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. VI . PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as I , Industrial. B. The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the site as I, Industrial and IP, Industrial Park. C. The site is presently zoned M1, Industrial Park, and M2 , Limited Industrial. 6 Staff Report Eastbrook Business Park #SU-89-5 D. Land uses in the area are predominantly industrial. E. A mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for the plat on October 20, 1989 . F. The site is flat and covered with native grasses and some trees. Springbrook Creek flows along the eastern portion of the subject property. G. The site has access to 80th Avenue S. H. There is an existing 12-inch water main and an existing 72-inch sewer main in 80th Avenue S. to serve the site. VII . STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A SUBDIVISION 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, insuring that the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be attained; that the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of land shall be insured; that proper provisions for all public facilities (including circulation, utilities, and services) shall be made; that maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be taken into consideration; that conformance with provisions set forth in the City of. Kent Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be insured . Planning Department Comment: The proposed plat is in general conformance with the regulations of the Subdivision Code. The proposed lots meet the minimum lot size requirements of both the Ml and M2 zoning Districts (one- acre in M1 ; 20, 000-square feet in M2) . The private road system will be developed to Code standards including curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street lighting. All proposed sewers, water mains, and other utilities will comply with applicable City requirements. Allowed sign area in the M2 and Ml zoning districts is based on the street frontage of a lot. Lots 3 , 4 and 9, because of their locations at the ends of cul-de-sacs, have little street frontage and therefore would be allowed correspondingly little 7 Staff Report Eastbrook Business Park WSU-89-5 sign area (50 square feet for Lots 3 and 4 , and 45 square feet for Lot 9 , under M1 ; 75 and 68 square feet, respectively, under M2) . There are some areas along the eastern edge of the subject property, along Springbrook Creek, that are designated as open space. These tracts should be deeded to the City. The Fire Department has indicated that street signs would be required for the cul-de-sacs (S. 184th and S. 186th) the applicant proposes to construct to serve the proposed lots. VIII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a preliminary subdivision, the City staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed 11 lot subdivision subject to the following conditions: A. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL PLAT: 1. Provide detailed engineering drawings and bond for or construct the following: a. Extend gravity sanitary sewer facilities to service all lots. b. Extend public water to all lots which meets domestic and fire flow requirements. C. Extend storm drainage facilities to drain roadways and lots. d. Improve S. 186th Street and S. 184th Street to industrial access road standards (i.e. , curbs, gutters, sidewalks, asphalt paving (36-feet curb to curb) , street lighting, underground utilities, street signs and related appurtenances. The intersections with 80th Avenue S . shall align with the proposed roadways on the west side of 80th Avenue S. Curb return radii shall be 60- feet. Cul-de-sac curb returns shall also have a radii of 60-feet. e. Widen 80th Avenue S. to provide left turn pockets for S. 184th Street and S. 186th Street. The 8 Staff Report Eastbrook Business Park #SU-89-5 minimum roadway section shall be 58-feet from curb to curb. The roadway shall be widened symmetrically about the existing centerline. The length of the turn pockets shall be based on a traffic study that predicts the number of turning movements and the types of vehicles that will be using the site at full build-out. The detailed requirements of the study shall be determined by the City' s Traffic Section. Also dedicate and deed the additional right-of-way necessary for this widening of 80th Avenue S. f. Reconstruct the entire pavement section of 80th Avenue S . for the entire frontage thereon. This shall be accomplished by grinding and repaving or by overlaying the existing pavement as determined necessary by a pavement analysis prepared by a consultant and approved by the City. g. Provide cement concrete sidewalks for the entire property frontage on 80th Avenue S. 2 . Deed to the City the tracts that are designated for open space and drainage purposes. 3 . Provide the City with an inspection report on the condition of buildings in Tract A. The inspection shall be done by an independent inspection company approved by the Kent Building Official. Depending on the results of the report, the City shall direct the owner to remove or repair the buildings. B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ANY LOT: 1 . Construct all improvements required under Number 1, above. 2 . An agreement shall be developed to the City' s satisfaction and executed for the continuous maintenance of the open space tracts designated on the preliminary plat. Addressed in said agreement shall be the specifics associated with the property owner' s responsibility to operate and maintain said tracts including a mechanism for charging and collecting the costs thereof from the affected properties. Also included therein will be the City' s right to oversee 9 Staff Report Eastbrook Business Park WSU-89-5 said operation and maintenance to insure that it is being accomplished appropriately as determined by the City. Additionally, the City shall also have the right to take over same including levying charges, etc. , and collecting the cost thereof from and on the properties. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 13 , 1989 10 .CITY Or KENT planning. (S 180TH ST) (D SW . 43RD ST 1<r 1 • ••1' 671 w KENT CITY LIMITS r i yo 4 ZOR ILL 114 r? T OSCHO L. D NAC) . T�n 5T2ND } S 1 Q t f W H h t H ST W l N i ST - L 190TH ST � 8ptry N PL y S w 19 S 192ND ST 'r' ST r 2 . H O � m � 1 I S 194TH ST i r S 196TH S1 > 1' Q . W F < � m _ S 200TH ST •� r APPLICATION Name Eastbrook Business Park LEGEND .Number #RZ-89-1 S�I_Rg-� Dale F)PfPmhPr 9n, 1gu4 zoning on site Request RP700e; PrP1 imiQarV. Plat City boundary a -�—�- city limits VICINITY MAP SCALE = I° = I000' '� CITY Or KENT planning An won ■p■I -- 1-� Coo a19.. v O a o i 2"F o 22.6 .2v.3 .x1.t IIL r�-•11 o .22.9 •.•.Y;. :: .2..1 •- :'• .• .21.x i .24.1 X. .21 a> y.e ♦1 6.• ° ° }$ } } .I] :. .....:::• ::•:. :::•ieA: iJ ::: a:•::.o:.: 22 • f• C CUM II• tl APPLICATION Name Eastbrook Business Park LEGEND .Number ##RZ-89-1 ; SU-89-5 Dale _pcmber 20 1989 appiicaiioo sile --- zoning boundary Request RP7nnp : Prel imi oar: Prel imi nark P1 at city limits ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP SCALE = 111 = 4001 -all CITY OF RENT planning. ld vice L� - � ... li I I I � '1•FyJf -- \ L - 31 \ \ i J i r , s I {L - -is VIABl -S APPLICATION Name Eastbrook Business Park LEGEND .Number #RZ-89-1; SU-89-5 Date December 20] 1989 application site zoning boundary Request Rezone; Preliminary Plat - city limits SITE PLAN SCALE = No scale PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are prepared only for the convenience of those interested in the proceedings of the Land Use Hearing Examiner. These minutes are not part of the official record of decision and are not viewed, referred to, or relied upon by the Hearing Examiner in reaching a decision. These minutes also are not part of the record of review in the event a decision of the Hearing Examiner is appealed. Copies of the tape recordings of the Hearing Examiner proceedings, or a complete written transcript of these recordings, are available at a charge from the City of Kent. Please contact Chris Holden at the Kent Planning Department (859-3390) if you are interested in obtaining an official transcript. HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES December 20, 1989 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, December 20, 1989 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall , Council Chambers. Mr. Hunter 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 and agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting testimony was sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony. EASTBROOK BUSINESS PARK Rezone 4RZ-89-1 A public hearing to consider the request submitted by KPFF Consulting Engineers, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite #900, Seattle, WA 98101, for a rezone of approximately 38 acres from M2, Limited Industrial, to M1, Industrial Park. The property is located east of 80th Avenue S . , between S . 180th and S . 188th. Scott Williams, Planning Department, presented the staff report. Mr. Williams presented some view foils depicting 1) the location of the property, and 2) the current zoning of the site as well as the surrounding zoning. A brief video of the site was shown. Mr. Williams submitted to the record (Exhibit 2) applicant ' s requested change to recommended Condition A. 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes December 20, 1989 Mr. Hunter asked if the Public Works Department would like to comment on this requested change. Ed White, Assistant Transportation Engineer, gave a brief explanation of the corridor mitigation process. Mr. White commented the fees were based on the City paying 50 percent of the cost of the corridor and the developer/property owner paying the other 50 percent. Mr. White remarked that when a zoning change is requested, the developer/owner is assessed the entire cost of those trips that exceed the trips generated under the current zoning. Mr. Williams stated the staff is recommending approval with conditions . Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. Don Corson, Project Director for Glacier Park Company, felt this was an appropriate rezone request based on the current development in the area. Mark Stiefel , KPFF Consulting Engineers, requested approval of the clarification language shown in Exhibit 2 related to the mitigation measures recommended by the City. There was no public testimony. The hearing was closed at 3 : 25 p.m. EASTBROOK BUSINESS PARK Preliminary Plat #SU-89-5 A public hearing to consider the request submitted by KPFF Consulting Engineers, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite #900, Seattle, WA 98101, for an 11-lot preliminary plat. The property is located east of 80th Avenue S. , between S. 180th and S. 188th. Scott Williams, Planning Department, submitted to the record a letter requesting rewording of condition A.E (Exhibit 2) . Mr. Williams commented one of the conditions of the preliminary plat is that 80th Avenue S . is to be widened to 58 feet from an existing width of 44 feet. The applicant is requesting that a traffic study be completed prior to that widening to determine if the widening is necessary. Mr. Williams provided staff comments on the signage that would be allowed for some of the lots. Mr. Williams showed on the view foil 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes December 20, 1989 that under the current Code little signage would be allowed on Lots 3 , 4 , 8 and 9 . Mr. Hunter asked about the wetlands mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Williams commented the applicant is working with the Army Corps of Engineers to fill the wetlands and to mitigate the loss by creating wetlands on the west side of 80th Avenue. Mr. Williams commented conditions regarding the wetlands have been made through the SEPA process. Gary Gill, City Engineer, remarked there was no objection to the requested revision to the condition asking for a traffic analysis . However, Mr. Gill would like it made clear that the City would be making the final decision on the road size based on the analysis. Mr. Gill commented this roadway would be classified as an industrial collector and the standards used would be 44 feet from curb to curb. The road was built in the 1970 's and is currently 45 feet in width. Don Corson, Project Director for Glacier Park Company, stated this plat is a quality plat. Springbrook Creek is an unusual amenity and will be capitalized on. In addition, the mitigation planning for the wetlands will be a state of the art. Mr. Corson commented the applicant is willing to do a traffic study to make sure information received will benefit everyone. Mark Stiefel, KPFF Consulting Engineers, commented that a traffic study would be valuable for the subdivision as well as for the rezone request. This study would identify impacts this development would have on the existing roadway system. This study could also identify requirements for upgrading. Mr. Gill commented on the cost issue. Mr. Gill commented presently there is a 40 foot roadway capable of being constructed into four lanes. However, if the study indicates that turn lanes are required to accommodate the cul-de-sac streets that will intersect with 80th Avenue, the costs for constructing the turn lanes should be borne by the developer. There was no further testimony. The hearing closed at 3 : 40 p.m. 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes December 20, 1989 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT INC. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit WSMA-89-2 A public hearing to consider the request by Triad Development, Inc. , PO Box 88070, Seattle, WA 98138 for a shoreline substantial development permit to build an 80-unit multifamily apartment project within 200 feet of the Green River. The site is within an MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, zoning district. The subject property is located west of W. Valley Highway (SR 181) , abutting the Green River to the north, SR 516 (Willis Street) to the south and the Signature Pointe development to the west. Carol Proud, Planning Department, presented the staff report. Ms. Proud submitted to the record a revised site plan dated December 14 (Exhibit 2) . Ms. Proud showed some view foils depicting 1) the site plan and 2) the zoning of the site as well as surrounding zoning. A video of the site was shown. Ms. Proud reviewed the proposed site plan change. The staff is recommending approval with conditions. Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. Fred Grimm, Triad Development, gave a brief history of the project. There was no further testimony. The hearing was closed at 4 : 07 p.m. 4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT FILE NO: EASTBROOK BUSINESS PARK #SU-89-5 APPLICANT: KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS REQUEST: A request for approval of an 11-lot industrial subdivision of 38 acres. LOCATION: The subject property is located east of 80th Avenue S. between S. 180th Street and S. 188th Street. APPLICATION FILED: 6/29/89 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: 10/20/89 MEETING DATE: 12/20/89 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 1/3/90 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions STAFF REPRESENTATIVE : Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Scott Williams, Planning Department Ed White, Public Works Department Gary Gill , Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Don Corson, Glacier Park Company Mark Stiefel, KPFF Consulting Engineers WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None INTRODUCTION After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application. 1 Findings and Conclusions Eastbrook Business Park #SU-89-5 FINDINGS 1. The applicant (KPFF Consulting Engineers) , on behalf of the owner of the property (Glacier Park Company) , seeks approval of a preliminary plat of approximately 38 acres into 11 industrial lots. This application is filed in conjunction with a request for a rezone from M2 , Limited Industrial , to M1, Industrial Park, File No. RZ-89-1. These Findings, Conclusions and Decision apply only to the application for preliminary plat approval . A separate recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to the City Council will be issued for the rezone request. 2 . The subject property is located east of 80th Avenue S . , between S . 180th Street and S . 188 Street. 3 . The City-wide Comprehensive Plan designates the property as I , Industrial . The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the west half of the property as I , Industrial , and the east half of the property as IP, Industrial Park. The property is currently zoned mostly as M2 with a small northern portion designated as M1. The surrounding area is zoned industrial and developed with industrial uses. 4 . The average proposed lot size in the preliminary plat is 113 , 000 square feet with the smallest proposed lot being 85, 000 square feet. 4 . The subject property has access to 80th Avenue South. The street has a public right-of-way width of 60 feet. The current paving is 40 feet in width with curb and gutter. The Washington State Department of Transportation has expressed concern about the impacts the proposed rezone may have on State intersections in the area. 5 . An existing 12-inch water main is available to serve the property. There is a 72-inch Metro sewer line available to serve the property. 6 . A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on this application on October 20, 1989 . conditions were applied relating to drainage, filling of floodway fringe areas, wetlands permits and wildlife habitat impact mitigation. 7 . No one presented any opposition to this application. 2 Findings and Conclusions Eastbrook Business Park #SU-89-5 CONCLUSIONS 1 . The purpose of the subdivision regulations, which includes the requirement for preliminary plat approval, is to: provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the City of Kent, insuring that the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be attained; that the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of land shall be insured; that proper provisions for all public facilities . . . shall be made; that maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be taken into consideration; that conformance with provisions set forth in the City of Kent Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be insured. Section 2 . 3 . 2 of the Kent Subdivision Code sets forth the particular requirements for an application for preliminary plat approval. That section details nine specific requirements that must be met before a preliminary plat can be recommended for approval . Based on the Findings detailed above, and with the conditions recommended in the Decision below, the application will conform to the standards set forth in City ordinances and should be APPROVED. 2 . It is necessary to apply certain conditions to approval of this application in order to assure conformance with the standards set forth in City ordinances . Specifically, conditions related to traffic impacts, public utilities and open space are necessary to detail activities required of the applicant. Traffic studies are necessary, in part, to help resolve a disagreement between the City and the applicant regarding the need for additional right of way along 80th Ave. South. DECISION The preliminary plat application should be APPROVED subject to the following conditions : A. Prior to recordation of the final plat: 1. Provide detailed engineering drawings and bond for or construct the following: 3 Findings and Conclusions Eastbrook Business Park 4SU-89-5 a. gravity sanitary sewer facilities to service all lots ; b. public water to all lots in a manner which meets domestic and fire flow requirements; C. storm drainage facilities to drain all roadways and lots; d. improvements to S . 186th Street and S . 184th Street in a manner which meets industrial access road standards (such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks , 36 foot curb-to-curb paving, street lighting , underground utilities, street signs and related appurtenances. The intersections with 80th Avenue S . shall align with the proposed roadways on the west side of 80th Avenue S. Curb return radii shall be 60 feet. Cul-de-sac curb returns shall be 60 feet. e. widening of 80th Avenue S . to provide left turn pockets for S . 184th Street and S . 186th Street. A traffic study shall be completed by the applicant/developer to determine existing traffic conditions on 80th Avenue S . and probable future traffic impacts under both three-lane and five-lane conditions . The detailed requirements of the study must be agreed to by the City ' s Traffic Section. If the study indicates that additional right of way will be necessary for the widening of 80th Avenue S . , the applicant/developer shall dedicate and deed this additional right-of-way to the City. f. reconstruction of the entire pavement section of 80th Avenue S. for the entire frontage thereon. This shall be accomplished by grinding and repaving or by overlaying the existing pavement as determined necessary by a pavement analysis prepared by a qualified consultant and approved by the City. g. cement concrete sidewalks for the entire property frontage on 80th Avenue South; 2 . Deed to the City the tracts that are designated for open space and drainage purposes . 3 . Remove the buildings identified on Tract A. 4 Findings and Conclusions Eastbrook Business Park #SU-89-5 B. Prior to the issuance of a development permit for any lot: 1. Construct all improvements required under Condition A (1) 2 . Execute an agreement approved by the City for the continuous maintenance of the open space tracts designated on the preliminary plat. The agreement shall specify each property owner' s responsibility to maintain each individual tract and include a mechanism for charging and collecting the costs thereof from the affected properties. The agreement shall also include a provision recognizing the City' s right to oversee the preservation and maintenance of the open space to insure that it is being accomplished appropriately as determined by the City. The City' s rights shall include the right to take over the agreement including the levying and collection of charges from the affected properties. Dated this 3rd day of January, 1990 . /\\\ THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS. Request of Reconsideration Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 Fourth Avenue S . , Kent, WA 98032 . Reconsiderations are answered in writing by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually, new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council . 5 Findings and Conclusions Eastbrook Business Park #SU-89-5 A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an appeal is filed. 6 CITY Or KENT planning 181 (S 180TH ST) i ' sw . 43RD ST KENT CITY LIMITS r S 20RtLLlp _rt is ST aSCHO L. / 5T > NAG !' < iii rp t v 5 182NO ST / ^7 9 y 4 H ST m ST 1: 190TH ST � 80Th H PL 9 S > 9 - > try • ¢ O L. i • S 192nD Si ST_ r 0 i m 1 $ 194TH S_ l I � r S 196TH S1 N j > a w ti — - m S 200TH ST r T APPLICATION Name Eastbrook Business Park LEGEND .Number appficalion site kRZ-89-1 Sii-Rg-s Data f1PcPmhPr 20 14Ro zoning boundary Request RP7nne- Prnliminary Plat city limiis VICINITY MAP SCALE = I° = I000r CITY OF DENT planning 0 r% my 1r— f_ va 32.6 � ♦31.t .iJ.2 ... •• ..0.• IN It Xv L ru ) mil'f;'.. '`• �.•' —I — I a•� �. : :r•:::::.::is.:::.::::::.:•::.�;:•Y ..�. � (v l� r �. #:.:•:...:.:::.:: o d ?,. .v: APPLICATION Name Eastbrook Business Park LEGEND '���� � appiicaliou site #RZ-89-1 ; SU-89-5 Dale ne�Pmber ?0 1989 Number _m zoning boundary Request Rezone ' PrPlimina_ry Plat - al limits ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP SCALE = 1° = 4001 CITAr or DENT planning L - J ` I N n I � - N Eastbrook Business Park LEGEND APPLICATION Name applicalia� site Number #RZ-89-1 ; SU-89-5 0a18 December 20, 1989 zonN houadary Request Rezone; Preliminary Plat_ _ Clty IIm11S SITE PLAN SCALE = No scale A& 'y. i . �., Kent City Council Meeting } Date February 20 1990 �A'•. v Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: Wj4jH-'COUNTY-R�-NG PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES . 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At its meeting on February 6, 1990, the Council approved the agreement with the County for the provision of private security agencies for a period of two years. The County has since contacted the City and stated that there was a typographical error and it intended to offer a contract for only one year. Therefore, approval is requested of a contract with the County for the provision of private security agencies for January 1, 1990 through December 31 , 1990. e' f F, 3 . EXHIBITS: Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL I PACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recom ended. Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS : / _... ri 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: , / l y^ _' ^_^ k Councilmember �-u ti`,.v�. move, �-�._�.=,_�r t' seconds authoriz -� the Mayor to sign the agreement with King County for the provision of private security agency services for a period of January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990 . C)rC S '% cncEd o- � cv' C (3_I-f I'e J . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4B PRIVATE SECURITY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day 1 of , 19_, between KING COUNTY, State of 2 Washington , hereinafter called the "County," and the CITY OF 3 KENT, Washington, a non-charter code city, hereinafter called the 4 5 "City, " under authority of Title 39 , Revised Code of Washington, 6 and particularly RCW 39.34.080, King County Ordinance No. 1388, and CITY OF KENT Ordinance No. 2387. 7 WITNESSETH: 8 WHEREAS, the County and the City have jurisdiction to 9 10 regulate the activities of private security personnel including, but not by way of limitation, private guards, merchant patrolmen, 11 12 and detectives within their respective boundaries; and WHEREAS, the business of private security presents 13 14 peculiar licensing and law enforcement problems of a multi- 15 jurisdictional nature; and WHEREAS, it is desirable in order to adequately protect 16 17 the interests of the County and the City, and the citizens thereof, 18 to provide for a uniform County-wide system of licensing such 19 private security activities and the persons therein engaged; and 20 WHEREAS, the County and its employees and more par- 21 titularly the Business License Section, Division of General 22 Services, Department of Executive Administration, are well 23 qualified and able in matters relating to the licensing and 24 enforcement of laws relating to the conduct of the private 25 security business; and 26 WHEREAS, the City desires to obtain the assistance of 27 the County in matters relating to the licensing and enforcement 28 of laws relating to the conduct of the private security business 29 and the persons engaged in such activities; and 30 31 32 33 I WHEREAS, the County is ready, willing and able to act 2 to assist the City in matters relating to the licensing and 3 enforcement of such laws. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of payments, mutual 5 agreements and covenants hereinafter contained and subject to the 6 terms and conditions hereinafter stated, it is hereby understood 7 and agreed by the parties hereto as follows: 8 1. The City has enacted and shall amend from time to g time Ordinance No. 2387, which is substantially similar to King i 10 County Code Chapter 6.24, as now or hereafter amended. 11 2. The City shall delegate the power to determine eli- 12 gibility for licenses issued under the terms of the above men- 13 tioned City Ordinance to the Director of the King County 14 Department of Executive Administration and their authorized 15 representatives subject to the conditions set forth in the above 16 mentioned City Ordinance and subject to the review power of the 17 King County Board of Appeals. 18 3. The City shall delegate the power to enforce the 19 terms of the above mentioned City Ordinance including the power 20 to deny, suspend or revoke licenses issued thereunder, to the 21 Director of King County Department of Ixecutive Administration 22 and their authorized representatives subject to the conditions 23 set forth in the above mentioned City Ordinance and subject to 24 the review power of the King County Board of Appeals. The power 25 and duty to issue notices of violation and court citations for 26 (violations of the above mentioned City Ordinance shall be jointly 27 exercised by the Director of the King County Department of 28 xecutive Administration and their aut-horized representatives and 29 the CITY OF KENT. Not withstanding the fact that any 30 nisdemeanor complaint filed or misdemeanor citation issued by the 31 ing County in the performance of its responsibilities under this 32 33 -2- i I I Contract will allege a violation of the above mentioned 2 Kent Ordinance, such complaint or citation shall be issued in the 3 name of and prosecuted by and on behalf of the State of 4 Washington. All fines and forfeitures resulting from such County 5 initiated prosecutions shall belong to King County. 6 4. The County shall perform, to the best of its ability, 7 all services relating to licensing and enforcement of City 8 Ordinance relating to private security activities and the persons 9 conducting same and the above mentioned City Ordinance. Except 10 as otherwise hereinafter provided for, the minimum level of 11 service which will be provided shall be the same minimum level of 12 service that is and shall be hereinafter during the terms of this 13 agreement provided for the unincorporated areas of the County by 14 the aforementioned King County Department of Executive 15 Administration. 16 5. The rendition of such services, the standards of per- 17 formance, the discipline of employees and all other matters 18 incident to the performance of such services and the control of 19 personnel so employed shall remain in the County. In the event 20 of a dispute between the parties as to the extent of the services 21 to be rendered hereunder, or the minimum level of manner of 22 performance of such service, the determination of the Director of 23 the King County Department of Executive Administration shall 24 prevail unless within ten days of such determination made in 25 writing, the City files a written notice of appeal with the 26 Director. Copies of such notice shall also be filed with the 27 King County Executive and the City Manager of Kent. In such 28 event, the dispute shall then be submitted for review to 29 a three member panel composed of the County Executive, the City 30 Manager and a third member of their choosing who shall not be an 31 officer or employee of either King Court,✓ or the City of 32 33 -3- I Kent. A decision or determination agreed upon by a majority of 2 said panel shall be final and conclusive in all respects as 3 between the parties hereto. 4 6. The City agrees that all fees collected by the 5 County pursuant to the licensing and registration of private 6 security persons shall be and remain the property of the County 7 subject to the provisions of Clause 7 of this contract. 8 7. The County shall pay over t.o the City on a yearly 9 basis the sum of: 10 a. $50.00 for each Class A License issued to an 11 agency having its principal office in the City; 12 b. $50.00 for each Class B License issued to an 13 agency having its principal office in the City; 14 C. $83.33 for each Class C License issued to an 15 agency having its principal office in the City; 16 8. The parties agree that al:- fines levied by a court 17 of competent jurisdiction for violation of the City ordinance 18 subject to this agreement shall become the property of King 19 County unless the Complaint or Citatio;. issued for such violation 20 was issued by the City of Kent. 21 9. All liabilities for salaries, wages, and other 22 compensation, injury, sickness, liability to the public for 23 intentional or negligent acts or any other liability arising from 24 the performance of the King County Business License Section 25 ereunder shall be that of the County. To such purpose, the 26 ounty shall save the City harmless from any liability arising 27 rom performance of the King County Business License Section. 28 10. Neither party, its officers or employees shall 29 ssume any liability for the intentional or negligent acts of the 30 ther party or any of its officers or employees. As to the 31 bligations and responsibilities assumed by or allocated to each 32 33 _4_ 1 1 party pursuant to this agreement, said parties shall secure and 2 maintain with responsible insurers such insurance as is 3 customarily maintained by public bodies with respect to the 4 operation and enforcement of the Government Services being the 5 subject matter of this contract and the incidents thereto, all to 6 the extent that such insurance can be secured and maintained at 7 reasonable cost. Upon request, each parry shall make available 8 to the other party a certificate of such insurance when in force. 9 11. Either party shall have the right to cancel this 10 agreement at any time upon the giving of 30 days written notice 11 to the other of such cancellation. In the event of such 12 cancellation, all monies allocated under this Agreement shall 13 become immediately due and payable. The cancellation of this 14 Agreement shall not affect the validity of any license issued 15 pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2387 as now or hereafter amended. 16 12. Unless sooner terminated as provided for herein, 17 this agreement shall be effective January 1, 1990 and shall 18 terminate on December 31, 1990 It is further agreed that should 19 both parties desire to continue this Agreement after said ter- 20 mination date, this Contract may be renewed for the period of one 21 year on the same terms and conditions upon the giving of written 22 notice by either party to the other not less than 30 days before 23 the expiration of this Agreement. 24 13. This writing embodies the whole agreement of the 25 parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions or obligations 26 other than those contained herein. The parties further agree 27 that no liability shall attach to either of the parties by reason 28 of entering into this contract except as expressly provided 29 therein. 30 31 32 33 -5- 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this 2 agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove 3 written. 4 5 KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT 6 BY BY 7 County Executive City Mayor I 8 9 ATTEST: 10 11 rAPPROVEED 12 Executive Administration, 13 14 O FORM: 15 16 uting Attorney Deputy City Attorney 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 OPSKENI(CO.3 ) 33 _6_ I �rJ J (K Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20, 1990 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE PLAN 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan was developed establishing a comprehensive program for the handling of solid waste meeting local needs and consistent with the state solid waste management priorities as mandated by SHB 1671. The Plan identifies the responsibilities of the Cities and of the County in implementation of the waste reduction and recycling elements thereof, including the establishment of aggressive goals calling for 35 percent waste r- reduction and recycling by 1992 , 50 percent by 1995, and 65 n a5Q percent by 2000 . The Cities are required to implement their,t"! program by mid-1992 . It is recommended that Ordinance be adopted approving the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan reserving certain authorities to the City. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance; executive summary of 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: f tt, Councilmembe moves, Councilmember J- seconds 0 Ordinance c' be adopted approving the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and determining that King County shall not exercise any power over the level and type of service that Kent provides, and that the EIS prepared by the County be accepted as being in compliance with Kent's SEPA requirements. DISCUSSION' ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4C DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 14, 1990 TO: MAYOR KELLEHER ACID CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON WICKSTROMI� RE: KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN In May of 1989 the Governor signed SHB 1671 resulting in major policy changes in solid waste management placing the responsibility on county and city governments to assume primary responsibility for solid waste management and to develop and implement aggressive and effective waste reduction and source separation strategies. Each County within the State, in cooperation with the various cities located within such county, are required to prepare a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The cities within the county could either prepare its own comprehensive plan; participate with their respective county in preparation of a joint plan or authorize the county to include the city' s plan within the comprehensive county plan. The 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is the joint plan for King County and twenty-six of its cities including Kent. The Plan has been reviewed by the Solid Waste Interlocal Form which represents all twenty-six cities on King County solid waste management issues (Kent participates) . The Forum recommends approval thereof with their amendments (see attached) . The Solid Waste Management Plan was developed to establish a comprehensive program for meeting the solid waste needs of the participating jurisdictions consistent with the State Is solid waste management priorities. The plan identifies the responsibilities of the cities and of the county in implementation of the Plan. Those identified for the cities are: o Provide the minimum Waste Reduction and Recycling (WR/R) services of household collection both single and multifamily, yard waste collection for residential and nonresidential, rate structures for garbage collection services to encourage participate in WR/R programs ; o Establish variable can rates for household garbage collection services; o Adopt purchasing policies to ensure the City' s purchase of goods made from recycled materials; o Adopt minimum requirements for new construction to provide adequate space for recycling collection systems ; o Monitor progress toward goals and prepare an Annual Report to King County. The County ' s responsibilities are the same as the cities plus they are required to: o Prepare an analysis of collection options for multifamily dwellings to comply with SHB 1671; o Implement yard waste composting programs; o Research and development; o Nonresidential WR/R consultations and technical assistance programs; o Market development activities ; o WR/R promotion, education, public involvement, and school programs; and o Special waste recycling. The cities have the option of implementing the nonresidential programs and yard waste composting programs instead of the County and they may obtain some funding from the County for same. The Plan sets out an aggressive implementation schedule with goals of 35 percent waste reduction and recycling by 1992 , 50 percent by 1995 and 65 percent by 2000. The cities are required to have implemented their programs by mid-1992 . The Cities ' responsibilities identified in the Plan represent both a modification and expansion of what we are presently doing. As such, there are budgetary implications. To minimize same, we recommend that the City not opt to do the yard waste collection program. The responsibility thereof would thusly remain with the County. Presently, the City is using the additional 3% utility tax on garbage collection services to fund all the City' s garbage related activity. This source generated approximately $181, 000 annually. It should be noted this fund was originally established to build a reserve in the event the City is drawn into the cleanup costs associated with closure of the Kent Highlands Landfill. This potential still exists. The activities funded include the recycling program, the Fire Department ' s Household Hazardous Waste and Sara Title III programs, legal services associated with the landfills and also the reimplementation of the garbage utility and Public Works closure monitoring of both Kent Highlands and Midway landfills. These expenses are summarized in the following table. In essence, they exceed available ongoing revenues. As such, independent of the Comp Plan requirements, with the end of the County grants in 1991, additional revenues would have to be developed anyway. Of the Comp Plan requirements, expanding recycling to multifamily collection, variable rates for household garbage and recycled materials purchasing policy have the most significant financial impact. Per expanding the Recycling Program to multifamily, there are some 11, 183 apartment units in Kent. In discussions with Kent Disposal, this correlates to about 16 , 774 yards of garbage or 2 , 796 6-yard dumpster pickups per month. A potential recycling program would involve replacing the 6-yard dumpster with a 4-yard dumpster for garbage and a 2-yard dumpster for recyclables. Using the hauler' s present rate for garbage service, the cost would be $43 , 023 per month or $516, 276 per year. Assuming 40% thereof is related to tipping fees, a guesstimate of the cost of a multifamily recycling program (assuming also 100% participation) would then be $310, 000. To institute the variable garbage rate program would most likely require the City to reinstitute a garbage billing function. To do so would require additional staffing in the Finance Department plus computer support service. These costs are estimated at $85, 000 annually. Per the recycled materials purchasing policy, the City presently annually spends $25, 500 on printing and photocopy paper. The use of recycled paper for same would cost approximately $11, 600 more per year. There are also indications that this paper would result in increased photocopy maintenance, etc. Lastly, the efforts associated with meeting these requirements can not be absorbed into the Public Works Department without additional staffing assistance. As such, we have estimated the costs of same to be $40, 000 to $45 , 000 annually. The following table summarizes the possible annual costs attributed with carrying on the present program plus incorporating the additional requirements reflected in the Solid Waste Comp Plan. Residential Recycling Program $127,500 Household Hazardous Waste 30, 000 Sara Title III 13 , 281 Legal Services 38 , 000 Billing and Rate Setting 85, 000 Midway/Kent Highlands Monitoring 50, 000 Multifamily Recycling 310, 000 Recycled Materials Purchase Policy 12 , 000 Public Works Administration 45 , 000 $710, 281 Present Revenue $180, 000 Because the City doesn't really have any other choice other than adoption of the Solid Waste Comp Plan, it is recommended that it be adopted with the amendments of the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum. The financial implications are only presented here to give you a better understanding of what some of the near term ramifications are. Whether they can be deferred to the 1991 budget remains unanswered at this point. ENVIRONMENTAL FUND WORKING CAPITAL ANALYSIS BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 1-1-90 $244 , 541 1990 PROJECTED REVENUES GARBAGE UTILITY TAX $180 , 853 RECYCLING GRANT $ 20 , 000 TOTAL 1990 REVENUES $200, 853 1990 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES FIRE ADMINISTRATION HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE $ 30, 000 SARA TITLE III $ 13 , 281 FIRE ADMINISTRATION TOTAL $ 43 , 281 *FALL & SPRING CLEANUP - RECYCLING $ 30, 000 RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM $127 , 500 PUBLIC WORKS RECYCLING/CLEANUP TOTAL $157 , 500 1990 NET EFFECT ON FUND BALANCE $72 WORKING CAPITAL 12/31/90 $244 , 631 *MONIES PRESENTLY USED TO FINANCE LEGAL SERVICES AND LANDFILL MONITORING Plan errata and clarifications are shown with stfikeoul- rnerkings and 9T',— :sWm- In addition; the Plan revisions recommended by the Solid Waste Inierlocal Forum (Resolution 89-005) regarding land clearing and demolition waste are also indicated with gray shading on pages vii and viii [December 27, 19891 Proposed 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Executive Summary New Solid Waste Directions separate recyclable materials for recycling. The solid waste system must add collection systems for King County for source separated recyclable materials and rely less On disposal systems. But with these King County recently adopted aggressive combined efforts, a new solid waste system will waste reduction and recycling goals for solid evolve that is both convenient and cost effective. waste management in December 1988. These This Plan responds to the needs and ideas goals were adopted alter almost a full year of presented by the public and reflects a intensive review and input by citizens, partnership approach to solid waste management government officials, and the solid waste in King County. This Plan proposes to bring industry. In achieving these goals, King County King County and its cities and citizens together citizens will reduce the amount of solid waste to meet a goal of reducing the solid waste generated, will reuse and recycle far more than stream .2cneratcd in King County by 65 percent ever before, and will dispose of the remaining by the y I c:ir 2000. waste in an environmentally safe and cost- - effective manner. Change is a major theme throughout this decumePA-. The solid waste management system will COntifILIC to evolve in response to the document. In May of this year, the Governor growing Public demand for new directions. signed Substitute House Bill 1671, which Local governments are challenged to ensure resulted in major policy changes in solid waste delivery of recycling services to every citizen in management. This Plan fully implements the King County while coordinating with the private new planning requirements mandated in this recycling industry. Similarly, the efforts of the legislation. King County has responded rapidly private sector in the areas of collection, to this new law because it will enhance County- processing, market development and reprocessing wide efforts to make waste reduction and must be Supported. Finally, every citizen in recycling (WRiR) the primary management King County Must learn how to reduce waste strategy for solid waste handling. generation and recycle more kinds of materials, As WR/R moves to the forefront of the and must practice this knowledge in every aspect Solid waste system, many changes will be of their lives. This Plan sets the stage for necessary. Persons who live or work in King reaching t'lcsc goals. County must learn to create less waste and to Executive Sunmiary tt .>.... .... Purpose capacity and to reduce impacts at Cedar Hills. Several proposals to haul waste to arid area This Plan establishes a comprehensive landfills in Washington and Oregon have been system of programs and facilities to reduce waste offered. This Plan authorizes consideration of generation, recycle, reduce the amount of waste out-of-county disposal service through a public to be land611ed, maintain and improve levels of request for proposals process. Regional service in King County's system of transfer alternatives for out-of-county disposal will be stations and landfills, and continue to mitigate pursued where feasible. the impacts of previous landfilling. This Plan is not the final solution, but a picture of existing Waste Reduction/Recycling conditions and proposed actions based on the available facts, and the beliefs and attitudes of Waste retlnchon.and Yeeychng has emerged the agencies and people involved in this as a fiindamer tau element of fhe eaunty.. solid program. As in any planning process, all parties waste manatertent system: King County has interested in King County solid waste adopted a waste reduction and recycling goal of management must participate in the ongoing 65 percent by the year 2000. Interim goals of ram.development of the program. Continued 35 percent by 1992 and 50 percent by 1995 have p p g involvement in the policy development and also been adopted. in efdef to fneet these implementation of the program is essential to ..ts of Substitute House Bi ll aL L41SB1 this Plan's success. ��"�"'� �n �hat must eeetif __" b d i aFeaS- Major Themes of This Plan ef the County. T� Eba and fuFal areas, -_-_these Cedar Hills Regional Landfill inels adsupo tT e Pla reeogntze he Waste reduction and recycling will extend development of al( stages of the recycling the useful life of the Cedar Hills Regional process source separation matertals collcctibn Landfill. It is now the primary disposal facility and pcocessmp, mar>rettng of maferlals, the serving King County, a region with a growing remanufacture and development t7f new economy and population, and a growing waste products, and the puzchase nE these products A ar[netshi between cities and the generation rate. Cedar Hills is an extremely p p valuable resource and it would be a formidable County is also an essential element of the l�Igtt challenge to a find suitable replacement. The Plan expands locfll government efforts tei Waste reduction and recycling will also reduce and teeyele waste and establish tntntmu?n. reduce landfill related impacts by reducing the WR/R services that must b prot�idect'tn urizan amount of solid waste that must be disposed. and.Tura t King County This expanded role Even the best operated facilities will cause emphasizes SpvrCe Searattdn OI recyclablOS ftdtt; impacts that can only be mitigated by reducing fhe waste stream as x necessary step To utCrease the volume of material that must be handled. recycling actttes Both cities and the County This Plan also authorizes out-of-county have:.roles and Tesponsibdities'to tmplemeUtutg disposal of King County waste to preserve WR/R1.programs. Waste reduction and YecyClir Executive Summary 1tt ga�Is can aaly be M hreved l" bath the ctttes and System Definition the svounty act to i tplement the Plan. Twenty-six of King County's twenty-nine Changing Authorities, Roles and cities have signed Solid Waste Interlocal Agreements with King County. These Responsibilities Agreements identify the participants in this This Plan describes progress that has been planning process and in the King County made and changes that are still necessary to disposal system. The cities which have not accomplish these goals. This Plan recommends signed the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement are a number of State legislative changes needed to Seattle, Milton, and Carnation. The City of accomplish the recommendations in this Plan, Seattle has a contract to dispose at the Cedar although the Waste Not Washington Act has Hills Landfill and has stated its intention to accomplished a number of these. The roles and leave the King County system by the end of responsibilities of government to provide 1992. Milton berders-en is part of both King services, and of citizens to change behavior, and Pierce C-e�r}ty Countres and is part of its must continue to evolve. Finally, some of the the Pierce County solid waste planning system. basic ways of doing business in the solid waste It is anticipated that Carnation will close its industry will change. This Plan recommends landfill and sign an interlocal agreement with programs and capital projects and assigns King County to use the County disposal system. responsibility for accomplishing program Following rncarporatianr ttae cittes c E Sea lac objectives. and Federal Way are expectedIP- tp erit r i[tt0 Success will require behavioral changes by these interloca! agreements individuals at home and at work. Waste These Solid Waste Interlocal Agreements reduction and recycling are now basic elements are fundamental to this Plan because they define of responsible solid waste management. Each the participants, and authorize the participants citizen of the County must develop a to use the recommended services and facilities. commitment to waste reduction and recycling as The Solid Waste Forum Interlocal Agreement a basic part of his or her social responsibility. established the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum, a Success will also require cities to bring recycling twelve-member body of elected officials and a services to citizens. The collection and citizen chair representing all jurisdictions recycling industry will also play significant parts participating in the King County solid waste in developing new services and markets for management system. recyclable materials. The transfer and disposal system will require The Planning Process modification to accommodate waste reduction and recycling. One very fundamental change is Programmatic Environmental Impact that the system is being broadened from the Statement traditional operations orientation to one that seeks to reduce the demand for its operations. The Programmatic Environmental Impact Facilities will still be required; they will just be Statement on Solid Waste Management different. Alternatives, issued in September 1988, Executive Summary IV .......... .XXX i highlighted the first phase of this planning June 1, 1989 Close of public comment process. In January 1988, King County period Ordinance 8383 marked the beginning of the first phase. It directed that a range of solid July 14, 1989 Proposed Comprehensive Solid waste management alternatives be evaluated for Waste Management Plan and waste reduction and recycling, energy/resource Final EIS issued; initiate final recovery and landfilling. Interlocal Forum review Based on the Programmatic EIS, this first phase concluded with the adoption of King September 1989 Solid Waste Interlocal Forum County Ordinance 8771 in December, 1988. action on Plan, begins cities' This Ordinance sets some of the most aggressive Plan adoption process and visionary waste reduction and recycling goals ever -- 65 percent of the projected waste stream lmluafy Close of cities' 120-day by the year 2000 through a variety of waste Apra 11 199 adoption period .. reduction and recycling measures. Interim target goals are to reach 35 percent waste reduction I-A 2nd King County Council adoption and recycling by 1992 and 50 percent by 1995. Quarter 1990 of Plan and ffilt to Energy/resource recovery is not included in this Plan. This document builds on these policy appmvaI decisions and marks the beginning of the second phase of this planning process. 1989 Comprehensivd Solid Waste Plan King County Solid Waste Schedule Management Goals A schedule of events leading up to and The County's primary goal is to preserve beyond this date is presented below. It is the environment and public health through the proposed that the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum proper management of solid waste. King take action to approve the Plan in September County is committed to strong and aggressive 1989. waste reduction and recycling programs while upgrading existing solid waste facilities, and March 1, 1989 Draft Comprehensive Solid ensuring the continued development of adequate Waste Management Plan disposal capacity. Issued Waste Reduction is King County's first solid waste management priority. This alternative April 17, 1989 Draft EIS Issued reduces resource consumption and waste generation, minimizing investments in programs May 1989 Public hearings on the Draft and facilities. Plan and EIS held Recycling, the second priority, recovers resources and reduces the solid waste stream, reducinn investments in disposal facilities. Executive Suniniary :dF4 X, .... .. .......... V 4 Landfidling is King County's third priority. County solid waste facilities that are open to the The goals for landfilling are to minimize the public. impacts associated with landfill operations and This p4a* Plail also recommends the mitigate the impacts resulting from past practices following responsibilities for cities and the at existing facilities. Countv. EnerglResource Recovery is not I recommended in this Plan based on the analysis Cities are responsible for: provided in the Programmatic Environmental Providing the minimum WR/R services in Impact Statement on Solid Waste Management incorporated areas of the County; Alternatives and the policies adopted in King . Establishing variable can rates for household County Ordinance 8771. garbage collection services; . Adopting procurement policies to ensure Plan Recommendations that municipal agencies purchase more goods that are made from recyclable or recycled A%fe.:Reidukti Z: cling materials; JOM ecy Adopting minimum requirements for new The d .KeMling- fid.n:::.,.an construction to provide adequate space for ... .. reduction .......... ..Jh t . ...........I re..com W will recycling collection systems- and qJ*Rih&King County Solidw, 'a Monitoring progress toward WRIR goals system A .W.R/ .R goals &�.ac r"61 ts.X I and preparing an Annual Report to the King 0 S. C' nt.r co.mmen a.tj.*n....:U,I*,SG,.,�,.a:.d4:r::Cs.s���. County Solid Waste Division. me ::::: amended by..SUA: 671 b... : King County is responsible for: 6 s"t 01114 1 m' ;i n 1 m ,.W, ,.R R.services fd'e 9. t h tf t: fi I U S t ........ ..........­... .. ....... ....... Providing the minimum WR/R services in OCG w.Url :u.g xf ... aw the unincorporated areas of the County; In urban areas, these requirements include: Establishing variable can rates for household • Household collection of certain recyclable garbage collection services in the unincorporated materials, ifieluding muki family Fesidenees areas of the County; d lfi�farnil 'd��::mu.. Adopting procurement policies to ensure yjesi ences. • Yard waste collection programs for both that County agencies purchase more goods that residential and nonresidential yard waste; and are made from recyclable or recycled materials; . Rate structures for garbage collection . Adopting minimum requirements for new services that encourage participation in WR/R construction to provide adequate space for programs. recycling collection systems which will serve as a In rural areas, these requirements include: model for city requirements; • Collection programs for all recyclable . Monitoring progress toward WR/R goals materials, including yard waste, in the form of and preparing an Annual Report to the King convenient drop box or buy-back collection County Council; and systems and collection programs for all . Preparing an analysis of collection options recyclable materials, including yard waste, at for multi-family dwellings that will comply with the requirements of SHB 1671. Executive Sumnimy Vl In addition, King County is responsible for There is a need for convenient and affordable implementation of the following WR/R service for the pickup of bulky waste (such as programs: furniture and appliances). There are significant • Yard waste composting programs; needs for the collection of recyclables. • Research and development; This Plan also recommends that cities • Nonresidential WR/R consultations and involved in the provision of collection services technical assistance programs; establish a minimum level of service consistent • Market development activities; with those recommended in this Plan and those • WR/R promotion, education, public provided in adjacent incorporated and involvement, and school programs; and unincorporated areas. In addition, King County • Special waste recycling. and the cities should work with the Washington Cities have the option of implementing Utilities and Transportation Commission to nonresidential programs and yard waste support collection rates that involve higher rates composting programs instead of the County. If for higher volumes of mixed waste. a city elects to implement these programs, King County will provide funding proportional to the Transfer size of the program and will not implement that Existing service levels should be maintained program within the city. where adequate and upgraded where inadequate. Financing for the WR/R efforts The four key needs and opportunities for recommended in the Plan will come from three improvement in the operation of King County's sources. First, the Plan recommends that transfer facilities are: revenues to support household collection . to provide adequate tonnage capacity to services be funded as a part of collection service serve all areas in the County; costs. Second, any costs that are incurred in collecting source separated yard waste at drop • to increase customer service capacity; boxes, transfer stations, or rural landfills will be to continue to upgrade facilities to meet full r compliance with state and local regulations; and recovered at the drop-off site. The lee will be less than the disposal fee for solid waste in to accommodate recycling at County transfer facilities. order to encourage diversion from the landfills. Third, all other WR/R costs will be funded MaJtx transfer facility recommendations include modifications to existing transfer stations, through the solid waste disposal fee, which is a c replacements for others, and replacement of continuation of how programs are currently funded. A proportionate share of these three rural landfills with transfer facilities. These actions include: revenues will be available for cities who elect to implement the optional yard waste composting Enumclaw Landfill - replace landfill with transfer station; and nonresidential WR/R programs. Hobart Landfill - replace landfill with transfer station; Collection . Cedar Falls Landfill - replace landfill with Solid waste collection service is found to be drop box station; generally adequate in all areas of King County. Erecutive Summary F Vil • Factoria Transfer Station - Expand or Hobart Landfill apply for a variance to relocate existing transfer station to meet service allow continued operation for five years, demands; complete upgrades, then close the landfill and . Auburn area - construct new transfer station conduct post closure maintenance and to meet service needs, and to replace Algona monitoring; and Transfer Station; and . Vashon Landfill - close existing landfill . Woodinville area - support operation and areas, construct new landfill area, perform post required expansion of Eastmont Transfer closure maintenance and monitoring for closed Station; construct new transfer station if 1111-c2s. Eastmont facility is not placed into operation. Disposal Enforcement 17he Health Department is the enforcement King County will continue to upgrade agency administering solid waste facility permits. existing disposal facilities to meet the This Plan recommends the Health Department requirements of the State Minimum Functional increase oversight and inspection of the waste Standards. Adequate disposal capacity is a stream reaching solid waste facilities. The Solid requirement for responsible management of solid Waste Division will also upgrade its waste waste. stream inspection and screening program. Operations at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill The cities and County should adopt uniform will continue, but the Plan also recommends that litter laws and enforcement policies to reduce King County request and evaluate proposals for illegal dumping and disposal problems. out-of-county landfilling of a portion of the County's waste. If an out-of-county proposal is Special Wastes selected, the County would continue operations at Cedar Hills at a level adequate to allow use Special wastes are those which require of Cedar Hills as a backup facility. This Plan special handling. Many of these waste streams also recommends that King County evaluate the are handled by private operators. availability of land for siting a new regional . Land Clearing and Demolition Waste - The landfill in King County. Plan recommends that King County ensure As has been noted above, the Plan adequate capacity is planned. There is concern recommends that three of the four rural landfills that too much reliance on private sector be replaced with transfer facilities. Other handling has resulted in the absence of true actions related to the rural landfills include: alternatives to the existing, Newcastle facility. . Cedar Falls Landfill - close landfill and Private sector efforts to site a replacement conduct post closure maintenance and facility are underway. The Plan recommends monitoring; that King County select and contract with a Enumclaw Landfill - apply for variance to private sector vendor to provide disposal allow continued operation for three years, then services. King County wj'll is sue close landfill and conduct post closure identificat' d maintenance and monitoring; land clearinkfUemoj't I Jon waste disposal stte The Executive Summary Vlll vendor should be required to institute a waste after screening by the Health Department to screening program to exclude any wastes not insure that they are properly classified as solid permissible by the facility standards. The vendor rather than dangerous wastes. Continued should also implement methods for land acceptance of these wastes should also be clearing and demolition waste recycling. The subject to a special fee as appropriate to cover Plan!a[so proVtdes ft7r a dissal site study the costs of special handling. tneludtng analysis af,the potiential for use of Cedz Hills far disosal ofd, an cle< ringl ITTlpI( I7leIItat10I1 demoltdo- waste .... ...................................... ............................................ Qther recommended County actions are; Chapter V of this Plan presents an Thent5 County should increase the level of implementation schedule for its reduction and recycling of land clearing and recommendations. Responsibilities for the demolition waste , analyze the potential builditi County and for the participating cities are permit requirements: for an-site segregation of identified. Details for these recommendations waste and l'pr requiring contractors to have€and can be found in Chapter III. cteacing/dertt;oiltiori"waste disposal plans, and King County manages activities related to a devglop a regional trterlocsl agreement with. broad range of administrative activities and to otEtec Couritfes for use of King County disp sal he operation of the transfer and disposal sites';and bakgtn discussions with other counties to system. Administrative activities include detetffune cgndttiotis for passible use of out-af- planning, waste reduction and recycling CovnLy Site$ by Ktrig County: programs, technical assistance programs, - Medical Waste - The King County Board of engineering support, and management of the Health reeently adopted new regulations financial requirements of the solid waste system. governing infectious waste effective January 1 Cities manage collection systems within their 19.89. These regulations should be fully responsibility and implement recycling programs implemented through the implementation of pursuant m the adopted goals of the Plan. adequate enforcement and waste screening This Plan establishes the policy framework resources. within which the solid waste program operates. Tires - Efforts to support and encourage Long range considerations are addressed, shorter private sector Lire recycling and disposal services range actions are identified and implemented. should continue. Preparation of an annual report to the King Asbestos Containing Wastes - King County County Council and to the Solid Waste should continue to receive asbestos at Cedar Interiocal Forum is also part of the process Hills, but should ensure resources for proper The annual report will provide a measure of handling are available. These resources include how well the goals of the Plan are being met. waste screening resources. As appropriate, the This provides an opportunity for mid-course County should implement a special handling fee corrections and evaluation of long range policies. to cover the costs of asbestos disposal. As appropriate, the results of these evaluations Contaminated Soil - These wastes, which will be incorporated into updates of this Plan, consist primarily of soils contaminated by which wtll occur at least every three years. petroleum products, are accepted at Cedar Hills Executive Summary ORDINANCE No. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to solid waste management, adopting the proposed King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, determining that King County shall not exercise any powers regarding the levels and types of solid waste services for any aspect of solid waste handling in the City of Kent, and designating the plan for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA. WHEREAS, RCW 70.95.080 requires that each city develop its own comprehensive solid waste management plan, enter into an agreement, prepare a joint city/county plan, or authorize the County to prepare the plan for the city's solid waste management; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent and King County entered into an interlocal agreement for the disposal of solid waste collected within the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent and the Suburban Cities Association have worked cooperatively with the County in the development of the draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, King County has prepared and proposed a draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and submitted it to the City for approval and adoption; and WHEREAS, the Suburban Cities Association, through Resolution 89-005, has recommended approval and adoption of the draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan with addenda; and WHEREAS, Section 10 of Chapter 431 of the Laws of the State of Washington, 1989 Regular Session, amending RCW 70.95.160, authorizes the City to determine that King County shall not exercise any powers regarding the levels and type of service for any aspect of solid waste handling in the City of Kent; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Kent hereby adopts the draft King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan with addenda as recommended by the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum through Resolution 89005 (hereinafter "Plan") . The Plan as adopted herein is further designated for the exercise of substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act rules pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060. Section 2. Pursuant to RCW 7C.95.160, the City of Kent hereby determines that King County shall not exercise any powers regarding the levels and types of service for any aspect of solid waste handling in the City of Kent. King County regulations and ordinances regarding levels and types cf service for any aspect of solid waste handling shall not apply within the corporate limits of the City as may be now or hereafter determined by the City. Section 3. Pursuant to RCW 76.95.030, the City of Kent hereby designates the following materials as recyclable materials: 1. container glass 2. paper 3. aluminum 4. tin cans 5. plastic Other materials may be designated as recyclable as markets become available and as the net cost of collecting and recycling that material becomes equal to or less than the cost of collection, transfer, long haul and disposal. Items in the above list may be removed due to market or other variation. Section 4. The City shall determine solid waste and recycling collection rates, if any, by ordinance and not as set forth in the Plan. 2 - Section 5. The Public Works Director is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of .__ 1990. APPROVED the day of ._ 1990. PUBLISHED the day of .._ 1990. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 8220-290 3 - Ig Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 1990 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT. AGREEMENT AND DT.'SQLNTIG1 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: In October of 1989 a draft agreement for establishment of a TBD was presented to the Public Works Committee for its review. At that time, the Committee authorized the Mayor's signature and the document was finalized. The South County Area Transportation Benefit District Steering Committee has recommended approval of a resolution which authorizes the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement establishing the mechanism for formation of a transportation benefit district. e. recommended that Resolution r " `'�I be adopted authorizing the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement for participation in the Valley Transportation Benefit District. ] i I 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minut s ; letter from Greg Nichols; South County Area Transportation Benefit District Steering Committee Resolution ; Resol ion. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Comm tee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, C I 0(mmission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended _ 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: proximately $27 517 . 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Project budget_. 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: `/ r move, Wiz« a . "I seconds you-xe-i le- f-C, Adopt Resolution Id-'4°1 and authoriz the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement for participation in the South King County Valley Transportation Benefit District. 4-to->t-,�, `Jecc., ����Cl ec" Cl t DISCUSSION• ACTION. - - Council Agenda Item No. 4D DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 14 , 1990 TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND- CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON WICKSTROM \) W/ ) RE: SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND RESOLUTION In October of 1989 , a draft agreement for establishment of a TBD was presented to the Public Works Committee for their review. At that time, they authorized the Mayor' s signature of the document once finalized. In January of 1990, the South County Area Transportation Benefit District Steering Committee passed a resolution recommending the establishment of a flexible TBD for the Green River Valley area based upon the boundaries developed by the Project, Priorities and Boundaries Committee; that all participating jurisdictions (Auburn, Kent, Renton, Tukwila and King County) approve the Interlocal Agreement and that the participating jurisdictions take necessary actions to fund their portion of the first year ' s operating costs. Kent' s share of those costs are estimated to be $27 , 517 for which we have budgeted appropriate funds. It is recommended that Resolution # be adopted authorizing the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement for participation in the Valley Transportation Benefit District. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 10, 1989 PRESENT: JON JOHNSON SUZAN AMUNDSEN JIM WHITE TIM HEYDON DON WICKSTROM MARV BERG BILL WILLIAMSON CAROL STONER GARY GILL JOHN BUCKLEY MARTIN NIZLEK DIANNE HILYARD JIM HANSEN TBD Interlocal Agreement Wickstrom explained that a draft agreement for establishment of a TBD has been prepared by the South County Area TBD Committee and is being presented for review at this time. Advantages of a TBD are two-fold. One we could finance a good portion of the improvements from a voter approved issue and money would be not just from local citizens but from all the users of the planned improvements in the Priority One array. There are some disagreements among bonding counsels whether the latest legislative action cleared up the issues for a test case. The other advantage is that if there is ever a gas tax agreed upon, the TBD and multijurisdictional projects will receive a higher rating for funding allocation. Independent of a GO issue that in itself is a positive reason for trying to form a TBD. Wickstrom stated he would recommend executing the agreement once finalized. How this relates to Kent' s proposed GO issue, if Kent were to proceed with a voter approved issue before this, it would be the demise of the formation of a South King County area TBD. The voters would not be willing to approve two bond issues. That is why Wickstrom recommended we should get through the agreement phase to determine if all parties are willing to sign same. Once the agreement is finalized we would be bringing it before Council for authorization for the Mayor to sign. The Committee unanimously recommended approval for the Mayor to sign. Environmental Task Force Update (Lagoon project Amundsen explained the Lagoon project was delayed about a month ago because of funding concerns raised by DOE. As a new scope of work has just been received from DOE, it is anticipated work can resume on the project next week. Currently, background data is being reviewed and should proceed with development of alternatives next week. Johnson asked how this would affect the time line previously established. Amundsen explained we originally planned to present the information to DOE in January for design funding approval . Subsequently, we received notification from DOE that all information had to be submitted three months in advance of our request for design funds. Since we are not able to meet that Same letter sent to : Ear.lClymer , Mayor , City of Renton Gary Van Dusen , Mayor , City of Tukwila r a. J. R E C E I V E D GREG NICKELS King County Council FEB 5 1990 District Eight January 31 , -1990 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR The Honorable Dan Kelleher Mayor, City of Kent 220 South Fourth Kent, WA 98031 RE: Interlocal Agreement to Establish .the Valley Transportation Benefit District Dear Mayor Kelleher: In 1988 , the City of Kent as well as the cities of Auburn, Renton, Tukwila and King County established the South County Area Transportation Benefit District (SCATBD) Steering Committee to provide policy guidance in developing recommendations for establishing a TBD in the Green River Valley area . For nearly one-half years, the Steering Committee has addressed . itself to this task. On January 16, 1990 , the Steering Committee passed the attached resolution recommending that the Cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila and King County form a TBD in the Green River Valley area and requesting that each city council approve a resolution which (1) authorizes their respective mayors to sign the enclosed interlocal agreement establishing a TBD, (2) approves final city boundaries for inclusion in the TBD, and (3) sets aside sufficient funds to meet expenses for the first year of the TBD ' s operations . I respectfully request consideration and action by the City of Kent on this matter by March 16 , 1990 , in order for the King County Council to take action on this as soon as possible. After considering several alternative approaches, including the alternative of relying on project-by-project intergovernmental agreements, the Steering Committee agreed to an approach which allows as much flexbility as possible in the early stages of the TBD. This approach will allow membership and boundaries to be revised with relative ease during this period in response to the development of a financing and improvement plan which will outline the projects to be completed by the TBD, the manner of financing this work, and the decision-making procedures developed by the TBD Governing Board. A summary of the key points of the agreement is attached. Enclosed with the 402 King County Courthouse, Seattle,Wasninglon,;81C4, (206)296-1008 odm.n n n .men Pam..... The Honorable Dan Kelleher January 31, 1990 Page 2 "flexible" TBD interlocal agreement are background notes describing the reasoning behind various points in the agreement. This material includes a summary description of the alternative approaches considered by the Steering Committee. Possible Future Changes to Membership and Boundaries In considering approval of the "flexible" TBD interlocal agreement, the Kent City Council needs to be aware of posisible changes in TBD members and boundaries . First, when the proposed TBD boundaries were first considered, a portion of what is now the incorporated area of SeaTac was included. Because of the uncertainty of when SeaTac would be able to make a decision about participating in the TBD, the Steering Committee decided to proceed with proposed boundaries that excluded SeaTac, but with the intent of inviting SeaTac ' s participation in the future. Discussions with the SeaTac City Council about that cities ' possible participation in the Valley TBD have begun. Second, the City of Auburn has expressed reservations about participation in the TBD due to concerns about the process for making TBD Board decisions (such as reordering priorities) ; the ability of the TBD Board to impose decisions (projects or obligations) on an unwilling jurisdiction; and the necessity to create a new entity to accomplish what could be accomplished through interlocal agreements . Many of Auburn' s concerns can only be addressed by the TBD Governing Board through the procedures and by-laws it adopts and the financing and improvement plan which will be developed by a consultant and adopted by the Board. Establishing a "flexible" TBD will allow Auburn to easily withdraw from participation in the TBD if it continues to have reservations about the TBD or, should Auburn choose not to participate in the TBD initially, to join the TBD if its concerns are addressed in the future. The Steering Committee has discussed the possibility of the City of Auburn deciding against initial participation in the "flexible" TBD and has concluded that the remaining three cities and King County should move ahead with the TBD formation with the hope that the City of Auburn will reconsider its decision in the future. If the City of Auburn does not approve the enclosed interlocal agreement, the TBD boundaries and membership as given in the interlocal will be revised to reflect this decision prior to signing by the remaining cities and King County. Any other The Honorable Dan Kelleher January 31, 1990 Page 3 changes to boundaries and membership of the TBD will require an amendment of the interlocal agreement and will be brought back to you for approval . TBD Costs and Cost Sharing The Steering Committee has developed a proposed budget for the first year of operation of a "flexible" TBD. The cost includes an executive director, half-time administrative assistant and other basic administrative costs ($114 , 447) , consultant services for preparing a financing and improvement plan as required by statute ($25 , 000) , and one-time costs associated with formation procedures ($14 , 460) . The Steering Committee has recommended that costs be apportioned among the participating jurisdictions according to each jurisdiction ' s share of population,.within the TBD. 'The''estimated share for the City of Kent' is $27; 517 Yi'a's`ed� on,.present.,information.- . Final.. changes` to -the boundaries==may;= -require- adjustments to the percentage share • of' each=-0 `participating jurisdiction....... A table showing the distribution of TBD costs is included in the interlocal agreement background information. Thank your for prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to working with the City of Kent in establishing the first TBD in Washington State. If you or your staff need further information about the interlocal agreement, please contact Paul Tanaka, Director, Department of Public Works at 296-6500. Sincerely, Kin C unty Counc ' ember Greg Nickels, Chair SCATBD teering Comm ' ee GN m cc: Steering Committee Members King County Executive Tim Hill King County Councilmember Robert A. Roegner, Mayor, City of Auburn ATTN: Frank Currie, Director, Department of Public Works Don Wickstrom, Director, Department of Public Works, City of Kent Earl Clymer, Mayor, City of Renton ATTN: Lynn Guttmann, Director, Department of Public Works Gary Van Dusen, Mayor, City of Tukwila ATTN: Ross Earnst, Director, Department of Public Works A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WHEREAS, King County, the Cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila, the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) , Metro, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) , and the Valley Area Transportation Alliance (VATA) have formed the South County Area Transportation Benefit District (SCATBD) Steering Committee for the purpose of providing policy guidance in developing recommendations to establish a transportation benefit district in the Green River Valley area of King County; and WHEREAS , the Steering Committee has identified a prioritized list of transportation improvements needed in the Green River Valley area; and WHEREAS , the Steering Committee has considered several alternatives for forming a TBD, including the alternative of pursuing transportation improvements in the Green River Valley area through interlocal agreements between jurisdictions on a project-by-project basis, and WHEREAS , the Steering Committee has found that the benefits of a TBD include more efficient and effective coordination of transportation improvements than can be achieved through independent effort, access to new transportation revenues, and enhanced opportunities to attract State and federal funding such as the Transportation Improvement Board ; and, WHEREAS, it is desireable that a TBD be established and a TBD governing board be appointed in order to guide development of a financing and improvement plan and to develop procedures for making future project selection and funding decisions and modifications to the plan; and WHEREAS, it is recognized that the participating jurisdictions, TBD boundaries, and improvement plan list may need to be changed as the City of SeaTac is more firmly established and is able to assess its participation in the Valley TBD; and WHEREAS , it is desireable that participating jurisdictions should have the opportunity to reassess their continued participation in the TBD after the financing and improvement i plan is completed and request withdrawal of their membership with relative ease. NOW, THEREFORE, THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT STEERING COMMITTEE, HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT: Section 1. A "flexible" TBD established by County Council ordinance using the published notice method of public notification be established in the Green River Valley area as soon as possible. This TBD should be substantially based on the April 1989 SCATBD Project, Priorities and Boundaries Report. Section 2 . The attached agreement establishing the Valley TBD be approved by the participating jurisdictions of the Cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila and King County, such action to include identifying the final proposed boundaries for the TBD. Section 3 . The estimated operating cost for the first twelve months of a TBD is $153 , 907 , including costs for forming a flexible TBD and for preparing a financing and improvement plan. In approving the Valley TBD interlocal agreement, the participating jurisdictions should also take necessary actions to fund the TBD for the first year as follows: Auburn ($251651) , Kent ($27 , 517) , Renton ($30 , 393) , Tukwila ($8 , 395) , and King County ($61 , 951) . PASSED BY THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT ISTRI T S E NG COMMITTEE, this 16th day of January, 1990 . SCATB Chair K' unty Coun ber Greg Nickels Counci ember Nancy Mathews, City of Renton, Vice-Chair Jim Billing, Puget Sound Council of Governments Councilmember Patrick Burns, City of Auburn Councilmember Steve Dowell , City of Kent Jim Guenther, Washington State Department of Transportation Councilmember Dennis Robertson, City of Tukwila Bill Taylor, valley Area Transportation Alliance Bill Roach, Metro RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding transportation improvements, approving an interlocal agreement with King County and the cities of Auburn, Renton, and Tukwila to form the Valley Transportation Benefit District. WHEREAS, the cities of Kent, Auburn, Renton, Tukwila, King County, the Puget Sound Council of Governments, METRO, Washington State Department of Transportation, and the Valley Area Transportation Alliance have formed the South County Area Transportation Benefit District (SCATBD) Steering Committee for the purpose of providing policy guidance in developing recommendations to establish a transportation benefit district in the Green River Valley area of King County; and WHEREAS, SCATBD representative; are committed to a joint process for securing funding for regional transportation improvement needs within the Green River Valley area of King County; and WHEREAS, the SCATBD Steering Committee has considered alternative means for mutually addressing transportation problems in the South King County area and has concluded that formation of a transportation benefit district (TBD) pursuant to Chapter 36.37 RCW is the most effective means of accomplishing this objective; and WHEREAS, the SCATBD Steering Committee has recommended boundaries for a transportation benefit district and identified a prioritized list of transportation improvements within the proposed boundaries; and WHEREAS, the formation process for a multi-jurisdictional TBD requires that an interlocal agreement among the participating jurisdictions to form a TBD be adopted pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The above recitals are hereby adopted. Section 2. The boundaries of the City of Kent east of Interstate 5 to the easterly boundary from the north to the south boundaries as of January 1, 1990 are to be included in the TBD. Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign an interlocal agreement in substantially the same form as the attached agreement for the purposes of establishing the South King County Area Transportation Benefit District. Section 4. The City Council requests that the King County Council promptly initiate action to establish a transportation benefit district for the area identified in the interlocal agreement through the published notice process of notification of the Council's proposed action. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1990. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1990. 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 1990. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 8260-290 2 - v� Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 1990 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: NOSLER UTILITY ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Operations Committee, at its February 1, 1990 meeting, recommended an adjustment of $108 . 00 to the Nosler utility account for excess water consumption during July through September of 1989 . Correspondence and discussions occurred between the Finance Department and the utility customer with the item brought to the Council Committee's attention following inability to resolve the matter. For information purposes, a proposal on the process to be adhered to prior to bringing a dispute to the Council's attention is enclosed. 3 . EXHIBITS: Operation Committee minutes; memoranda from Customer Services Manager; letter from Noslers; proposal for utility account dispute resolution process 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds To grant/441eW the Nosler request for a utility account adjustment. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4E 1 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES February 1, 1990 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Paul Mann Jon Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Ed Chow Jim Hansen Tony McCarthy �� Sandra Driscoll Barney Wilson Helen Wickstrom Charlie Lindsey Tom Vetsch Becky Giles May Miller Sue Viseth Becky Fowler Teri Mertes GUESTS PRESENT: Mia Nosler, Citizen APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS All claims for the period ending December 33, 1989 in the amount of $419 , 461. 30 and for January 31, 1990 in the amount of $1, 430, 110. 92 were approved for payment. The December 33 payments were for goods and services received in December which will be charged against the 1989 Budget. UTILITY CUSTOMER CONCERN Finance Director McCarthy recapped a dispute, which was discussed at the prior Operations Committee meeting, from a Utility Customer, Mrs. Nosler, who is the owner of property which includes a Beauty Shop, 2nd Hand Store and two apartments connected to the same water meter. The dispute is related to excessive water usage from June 17 to September 12 of 1989 totalling approximately $225. McCarthy commented that the city checked the meter in October 1989 and that no leak could be found. There is no documentation of what caused the high amount of water usage only speculations of possible reasons. McCarthy stated city policy which requires documentation of leak repair to allow adjustments to the account. The adjustment when it is determined to be an outside leak is 50% of the excess water usage and 100% of excess sewer usage since the water didn 't go into the sewer. Mrs. Nosler' s daughter Mia attended the meeting and stated they have been working on this problem with the city since September 1989 . Mia said they received no notice of water problems from the tenants. Councilmember Johnson inquired if the city could run into legal problems if they reimburse this situation with no documentation as to a reason why. City Attorney Driscoll responded this could be a problem because the auditor will question the fact that the city doesn't have a valid reason for reimbursement. Also future inquiries by individuals in similar situations could be a problem. Finance Director McCarthy stated that the city has had past experience like this situation and will have more in the future. Councilmember Mann questioned that if the city makes an exception in this particular situation are we legally bound to follow this policy and could we be subject to legal problems. After some discussion back and forth about efforts to date to resolve the dispute Councilmember Johnson moved to split the bill 1/2 city, 1/2 customer and to have future incidents be reviewed on an individual basis. Councilmember Houser commented that if individuals care enough to come to the Committee than the Council Committee will hear the concern and make a decision. McCarthy responded that this could create many cases coming before the Committee. The Committee recommended Johnsons motion on a 2-1 vote, with Councilmember Mann voting no, costing the city $108 and the adjustment showing on the Nosler' s March bill. This item will be on the February 20 Council Agenda. In order to insure that many requests don't come directly to the Operations Committee Finance Director McCarthy will propose a process for review at the next Operations Committee meeting. TEAMSTER UNION CONTRACT APPROVAL Personnel Analyst Fowler presented the 3 year Teamster Union Contract agreement. Fowler discussed various aspect of the contract including a 4% salary increase, new military leave agreement and smoking, drug and management stipulations. She mentioned that this contract has already been ratified by the Teamster Union. The Committee recommended approval by a vote of 3-0. The item will be reviewed with the full Council at their February 6th meeting. SALARY CHANGE FOR FIRE CHIEF Personnel Analyst Viseth presented, as information only, 3 options in the salary change for the Fire Chief. 1-expand range, 2-create a new salary range, 3-put Fire Chief at Level 1 with City Administrator. Viseth mentioned that with the complexity of the Fire Chiefs job function that it is difficult to find comparable positions. Councilmember Johnson requested that interim Personnel Director Olson attend the next Operations Committee meeting and present options so the Committee can make a recommendation to Council . Johnson also suggested Olson be prepared to examine the other department head positions and the police department positions. MEMO T FILE FROM: CHARLIE LINDSEY, CUSTOMER SERVICES MANAGER SUBJECT: HIGH WATER CONSUMPTION REMEDIES From time to time we have water customers that will have a period when their water consumption is excessively high and the preceding and succeeding periods are normal . The following will be the City ' s policy regarding steps taken to gain remedies . 1. Contact the Utility Customer Service unit and ask that they investigate to determine if there is a leak that can be addressed by the City ' s leak policy. Proper leak documentation must then be submitted in writing. 2 . If there is not a leak that can be addressed by the City ' s leak policy. Then the property owner must investigate other possibilities such as leaky toilets or tenants that used excess water for a period of time. Other possibilities could be use for irrigation during dry periods. 3 . When these steps have been taken and the customer still feels that an adjustment of some sort is warranted then the issue is brought to the attention of the Customer Services Manager. Who will evaluate the situation to determine if there is any way that an adjustment can be justified. 4 . Should the Customer Services Manager be unable to satisfy the Customer then the issue will be discussed with the Finance Director who will evaluate the situation and det- ermin if the customers request can be satisfied. 5 . If the Finance Director be unable to satisfy the customers request the final source for remedy is to the City Council via the Operations Committee. MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Charlie Lindsey, Customer Services Manager SUBJECT: Utility Customer Dispute Account 760-7300 Mrs. Nosler, owner of the property located at 111 2nd Ave S . , which includes a Beauty Shop, a 2nd Hand Store, and three apartments connected to the same meter, has asked to come before the City Council to dispute excessive water charges for the period June 17 to September 12 this year. Mrs. Nosler contends that either there was a temporary fault in the meter or that a Park Department employee inadvertantly connected a sprinkler to their outside hose bibb. My staff checked the meter in October to see if there was possibly a leak and concluded that there was not. The following is an analysis of this accounts consumption history for the previous year. Jul-Sep 88 29 U(nsh+ lob - aZ = 56 x 1.�4 Sep-Nov 88 33 Sf•�f� GL x 6L� IOB,Qo Nov-Jan 89 51 Z �� Jan-Mar 89 32 _ --- Mar-May 89 32 SJ'�. wlr5f�in� Sf wf+l f 610i May-Jul 89 45 Jul-Sep 89 108 Sep-Nov 89 40 As you can see there have been other times that consumption has been a bit higher but the Jul-Sep consumption was three times normal . Mrs . Nosler states that she spoke with all of her tenants and that they all say they there were no leaky toilets or anything out of the ordinary during the period in question. I as well as customer can only speculate as to what might have occurred that could have caused the problem. 1. Someone's toilet might have stuck for a period of time and they deemed it insignificant not realizing how much water a leaking toilet can use. 2 . Someone may have inadvertantly left water running for a period of time and does not wish to admit it fearful that they may be charged for the excess use. I have discussed the situation with the Park Maintenance Superintendent and he contends, that although he had a temporary employee at the time do the watering, that the city has its own meter there and that they did not connect any other hose bibb. The meter register is much like the odometer in a vehicle and when they go bad they gradually slow down and eventually stop. The meter would not be faulty for one reading and correct the next. LltT� Q�ILLIOSC� 'PVT 1Tt RE CEWED NOV 17 1989 ... rl [aL 'J CZ3g<4 I City`I`reasure Ac�T City Df Dent 6?cL_L_ Tt�l �oP�Ir•cP�L ���PvTE l�-oR— llk�'E �i.�C..LL�L4.S11��'. . CZC�'SdDd1`� a l 12 N �j F\�3- s F�p eL t L) Lz) TIC` :`f l Pr I VJT' ��\�•T � l,�.k4:T Ct�ts� Cad..% '�t1,.�C- 6�5��` � �t� 1.�`a1'r1�-+� \7 �ar�l�cotJ �Pa� sY�. R LE- q.Z �. II Kent City Council Meeting �\ Date February 20, 1990 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: SALE OF PROPERTIES RECOVERED AS A RESULT OF DRUG FORFEITURE LAWS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City owns several pieces of real estate as a result of the Police Department's activities to retain the real property proceeds from drug-related transactions as authorized by state law. Three pieces of real estate are ready for sale. It is recommended that the City proceed with the sale of these properties at the minimum price set forth in the attached memorandum and according to the process outlined in the attached memorandum. The Police Department and Law Department would facilitate advertising the property for sale, showing the property on a set date, and selling the properties. The final sale is subject to the approval of the City Council . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Sandra Driscoll and Rod Frederiksen 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Informal Budget Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT_ NO >� YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember ))� ``"" moves, Councilmember � �'� seconds to approve the sale of three pieces of real property for the minimum price recommended, and by the process set forth in the attached memorandum. DISCUSSION: ACTION: -- Council Agenda Item No. 4F OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: February 13, 1990 TO: Honorable Mayor City Councilmembers )0 OM: Sandra Driscoll , City Attorney Rod Frederiksen, Police Chief 91-1-7 SUBJECT: SALE OF PROPERTIES RECOVERED AS A RESULT OF DRUG FORFEITURE LAWS Set forth below is a summary of information relating to three pieces of real estate that the City owns as a result of the Police Department's activities to retain the real property proceeds from drug related transactions as authorized by state law. As recommended by the Informal Budget Committee, it is in the City's interest to proceed with the sale of these properties as soon as possible. This would allow the Police Department to refund to the General Fund the monies used to make payments on these and other properties that were all part of complicated drug related investigations and arrests/convictions. It is recommended that the City proceed with the sale of these properties, at the prices listed below. The Police Department and Law Department propose to facilitate advertising the property for sale as set forth in the attached draft advertisement, show the properties on a set date, and sell the properties. The final sale is subject, as always, to the approval of the City Council . 1 . 39505 308th Ave. S.E. , Enumclaw, WA (house with adjoining vacant tract) Appraised value A. house $194,000 B. vacant tract 65,000 7% fees 18, 130 $277, 130 Recommended sale price $280,000 Amount owing City (estimated) 110,000 Net minimum amount to City $170,000 (approximate) 2. Unimproved Enumclaw property (5 acres) Appraised value $60,000 Fees related to sale 5,000 $65,000 Recommended sale price $65,000 Amount owing by City 0 Net minimum amount to City 65,000 (approximate) 3. 27637 188th P1 . S.E. , Kent, WA (Winterwood) Appraised value $148,000 2% per month appreciated value plus realtor's fees (15%) 12,000 $160,000 Recommended sale price $160,000 Amount owing by City (estimated) 105,000 Net minimum amount to City $ 55,000 (approximate) The net amounts are divided between the City and State (25%/75%) after deduction of authorized expense of investigation. 5830L-9L NOTICE OF PUBLIC SALE OF REAL PROPERTY I . SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON 5 ACRES WITH ABUTTING 5 ACRE TAX LOT located at 39505 308th Ave. S.E. , Enumclaw, Washington (legal description to be provided) . Minimum bid amount of $280,000, including following conditions: cash or conventional bank financing with cash out of underlying security interests; no seller agent/realtor commissions; closing at Stewart Title Insurance Company; buyer and seller share customary closing costs. 2. UNIMPROVED REAL PROPERTY (4.84 ACRES) ON ENUMCLAW PLATEAU located in unincorporated King County near Flaming Geyser State Park described as Tract F, KCSP #276018, Recording #7607060644, a portion of N 1/2 of SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Section 35, Township 21 N, Range 6 E, W.M. , King County, Washington. Minimum bid amount of $65,000, including the following conditions : cash sale only, no seller financing; no seller agent/realtor commissions; closing at Stewart Title Insurance Company; buyer and seller share customary closing costs. 3. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE located at 27637 188th Place S.E. , Kent, Washington (Winterwood Estates at Covington east of Kent; LOT 78, WINTERWOOD ESTATES, DIVISION 6, VOL. 125 OF PLATS, PPS. 58-62, KING CO. WASHINGTON) . Minimum bid amount of $160,000, including following conditions: cash or conventional bank financing only with cash out of all underlying security interests (Home Savings and Loan note may be assumable with consent of Assn. ) ; no seller agent/realtor commissions; closing at Stewart Title Insurance Company; buyer and seller share customary closing costs. [insert location map] FURTHER CONDITIONS - All properties are being sold based on the highest monetary bid submitted that complies with enclosed conditions. Proceeds shall be disbursed pursuant to RCW 69.50.505. All sales are "AS IS" for condition of property. Viewing of property for residences shall be open to public on SATURDAY, FEBRUARY , 1990, and SUNDAY, FEBRUARY , 1990 AT 10:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. Further conditions will be provided in the final purchase and sale agreements. ALL BIDS SHALL BE WRITTEN AND SEALED AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK WITH OFFICES LOCATED AT 220 FOURTH AVE. S. , KENT, WA. 98032 NO LATER THAN CLOSE OF BUSINESS, FEBRUARY , 1990 AT 5:00 P.M. AS NOTED ON THE LOBBY CLOCK ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF KENT CITY HALL. NO BIDDER MAY WITHDRAW HIS/HER BID FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH (30 DAYS) AFTER THE DAY OF BID OPENING. ALL BIDS SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED AS "BIDS" AND BE SUBMITTED ON THE FORM PROVIDED BELOW. ADDITIONAL BID FORMS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE KENT CITY CLERK'S OFFICE UPON REQUEST. BIDDERS ARE REQUIRED TO ENCLOSE IN THEIR SEALED BIDS $5,000 IN A CERTIFIED BANK CHECK OR MONEY ORDER PAYABLE TO "CITY OF KENT, KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT - #89-4308" , AND IDENTIFY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE FACE OF SUCH INSTRUMENT. FAILURE TO INCLUDE SUCH SECURITY WITH THE BID SHALL RESULT IN NON-ACCEPTANCE. SEALED BIDS POSTED WITH A MAILING DATE OF FEBRUARY , 1990 WILL ALSO BE ACCEPTED. ALL QUALIFYING BIOS WILL THEREAFTER BE OPENED AND READ ALOUD BEGINNING AT 5:00 P.M. ON FEBRUARY _ , 1990. IN THE EVENT THAT QUALIFYING IDENTICAL HIGHEST BIDS ARE RECEIVED, PREFERENCE SHALL BE GIVEN FIRST TO ALL CASH OFFERS. SHOULD IDENTICAL HIGHEST BIDS THEREAFTER REMAIN, PREFERENCE SHALL BE GIVEN TO TIME OF BID RECEIPT BY THE CITY CLERK. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY AND ALL BIDS FOR ANY REASON, INCLUDING RECEIPT OF MINIMUM BID AMOUNTS. BIDS SHALL BE OPENED BY THE CLERK WHO SHALL THEREAFTER TRANSFER DATE AND TIME BID NOTATIONS OF RECEIPT ONTO THE SEALED BID FORM. THE CLERK SHALL THEREAFTER SUBMIT QUALIFIED BIDS TO THE CITY'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SHALL BE THE FINAL ARBITER OF ANY DISPUTES OR QUESTIONS CONCERNING QUALIFICATION OF BIDS AND INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROCESS IS DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE AGREEMENT TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. SUCCESSFUL BIDS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE KENT CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACCEPTANCE. WRITTEN NOTICE OF FINAL COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE AND AWARD SHALL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER. AN ESCROW ACCOUNT SHALL THEREAFTER BE OPENED AND CLOSING ARRANGED PER PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND AGREED INSTRUCTIONS WITH STEWART TITLE COMPANY. FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO EXECUTE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITHIN TWO WEEKS AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND BID AWARD SHALL RESULT IN LOSS OF $5,000 DEPOSIT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND AWARD TO THE NEXT HIGHEST QUALIFIED BIDDER. ALL QUESTIONS CONCERNING SALE OF PROPERTIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO: CITY OF KENT 220 4TH AVE. S. KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 ATTN: SGT. BOB CLINE KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT (206)859-6834 Clerk's Use Only Date Received Time Received CITY OF KENT BID FORM LEGAL NAME(S) OF BIDDER To: City Clerk City of Kent 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 Having examined the subject properties, and having read the Notice of Public Sale of Real Property, the undersigned represents his/her authorization to submit an individual lump sum amount for the purchase of the following property/properties: Z--/ Single family residence 27637 188th Place. S.E. , Kent, Washington Dollars (written out) _ (numeric dollars) L/ cash only for full amount Z_/ subject to conventional financing U Single family residence on 5 acres with adjoining 5 acre tax lot 39505 308th Ave. S.E. , Enumclaw, Washington Dollars (written out) _ (numeric dollars) / __/ cash only for full amount L/ subject to conventional financing Unimproved real property on Enumclaw Plateau, Tract F, KCSP #276018 Dollars (written out) _ (numeric dollars) L/ cash only for full amount L/ subject to conventional financing DATE: (signature) (write out full legal name) (address) (phone number) (signature of spouse if married is required unless declined in writing as separate property) (write out full legal name) (address) (phone number) Include copy of by-laws if person signing is acting on behalf of a State corporation. Provide any different address to which Notice of Acceptance and Award shall be mailed. (name) (write out full legal name) (address) (phone number) 5835L-29L i ��� � 1 , c rr l- �r, G l � ��� 7� . _ - � -�._. Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 1990 Category Bid 1. SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS p 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening wasAFebruary 13 with 5 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Shoreline Construction in the amount of $249 , 289 .41. Tf- recommendEf the low bid be accepted. chic' Y ��I;dtL 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid summary; memorandum from Public Works Director. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: ublic Works Director (Committee, St ff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL ERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL PERSONNEL N TE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIREi�: $249 , 289 .41 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Pro 'ect budget 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: � � movej, — -ser>An1-s_ bid in the amount of $249 , 289. 41 from Shoreline Construction be accepted for the miscellaneous sanitary sewer and water main improvements. `�0�:✓1 a r 4k trc� :c ;�� �i rf�r �titufc; � canes ;i DISCUSSION: v/ ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 14, 1990 TO: MAYOR KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON WICKSTROM 0 `l_/ RE: MISCELLANEOUS SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS Bid opening was February 13 with five bids received. The low bid was submitted by Shoreline Construction in the amount of $249 , 289 . 41. The project provides water main improvements on 114th Avenue S.E. and sanitary sewer main improvements on James Street between 2nd to 3rd and between 2nd to Railroad Avenue; State Street; and North Kennebeck. Construction costs are estimated to be approximately $275 , 000. It is recommended the bid from Shoreline Construction be accepted. BID SUMMARY Shoreline Construction $2491289 . 41 Gary Merlino Construction $266, 666 . 66 R.W. Scott $271, 853 . 12 Northwest Cascade $2791070. 69 King Construction $337 , 013 . 64 Engineer' s Estimate $2671799 . 71 . .. .. .. ... I Oo v. D C- ll z _ � � 1 \ I 00 NZ ` )- _ _;•-• J I it _ 1 �� - � • j IM iN 1Vl 1( , � • � - f 1 L ox C7 o _ J / L ] i On fl R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT �t 4 B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE J . % I F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES February 1, 1990 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Paul Mann Jon Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Ed Chow Jim Hansen Tony McCarthy Sandra Driscoll Barney Wilson Helen Wickstrom Charlie Lindsey Tom Vetsch Becky Giles May Miller Sue Viseth Becky Fowler Teri Mertes GUESTS PRESENT: Mia Nosler, Citizen APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS All claims for the period ending December 33 , 1989 in the amount of $419 , 461. 30 and for January 31, 1990 in the amount of $1, 430, 110 . 92 were approved for payment. The December 33 payments were for goods and services received in December which will be charged against the 1989 Budget. UTILITY CUSTOMER CONCERN Finance Director McCarthy recapped a dispute, which was discussed at the prior Operations Committee meeting, from a Utility Customer, Mrs. Nosler, who is the owner of property which includes a Beauty Shop, 2nd Hand Store and two apartments connected to the same water meter. The dispute is related to excessive water usage from June 17 to September 12 of 1989 totalling approximately $225. McCarthy commented that the city checked the meter in October 1989 and that no leak could be found. There is no documentation of what caused the high amount of water usage only speculations of possible reasons. McCarthy stated city policy which requires documentation of leak repair to allow adjustments to the account. The adjustment when it is determined to be an outside leak is 50% of the excess water usage and 100% of excess sewer usage since the water didn't go into the sewer. Mrs. Nosler' s daughter Mia attended the meeting and stated they have been working on this problem with the city since September 1989 . Mia said they received no notice of water problems from the tenants. Councilmember Johnson inquired if the city could run into legal problems if they reimburse this situation with no documentation as to a reason why. City Attorney Driscoll responded this could be a problem because the auditor will question the fact that the city doesn't have a valid reason for reimbursement. Also future inquiries by individuals in similar situations could be a problem. Finance Director McCarthy stated that the city has had past experience like this situation and will have more in the future. Councilmember Mann questioned that if the city makes an exception in this particular situation are we legally bound to follow this policy and could we be subject to legal problems. After some discussion back and forth about efforts to date to resolve the dispute Councilmember Johnson moved to split the bill 1/2 city, 1/2 customer and to have future incidents be reviewed on an individual basis. Councilmember Houser commented that if individuals care enough to come to the Committee than the Council Committee will hear the concern and make a decision. McCarthy responded that this could create many cases coming before the Committee. The Committee recommended Johnsons motion on a 2-1 vote, with Councilmember Mann voting no, costing the city $108 and the adjustment showing on the Nosler' s March bill . This item will be on the February 20 Council Agenda. In order to insure that many requests don't come directly to the Operations Committee Finance Director McCarthy will propose a process for review at the next Operations Committee meeting. TEAMSTER UNION CONTRACT APPROVAL Personnel Analyst Fowler presented the 3 year Teamster Union Contract agreement. Fowler discussed various aspect of the contract including a 4% salary increase, new military leave agreement and smoking, drug and management stipulations. She mentioned that this contract has already been ratified by the Teamster Union. The Committee recommended approval by a vote of 3-0 . The item will be reviewed with the full Council at their February 6th meeting. SALARY CHANGE FOR FIRE CHIEF Personnel Analyst Viseth presented, as information only, 3 options in the salary change for the Fire Chief. 1-expand range, 2-create a new salary range, 3-put Fire Chief at Level 1 with City Administrator. Viseth mentioned that with the complexity of the Fire Chiefs job function that it is difficult to find comparable positions. Councilmember Johnson requested that interim Personnel Director Olson attend the next operations Committee meeting and present options so the Committee can make a recommendation to Council . Johnson also suggested Olson be prepared to examine the other department head positions and the police department positions. OPEN SPACE BOND ISSUE BUDGET Parks Superintendent Wickstrom informed the Committee that King County will be selling the open space bonds in April 1990. The city can incur costs prior to the bond sale as long as the city follows the interim financing guidelines. Councilmember Houser inquired as to how the city knows it will get the money from King County. Wickstrom replied that the application was very vague and as long as we stay within guidelines of $840, 000 for Green River Corridor Trail and $850, 000 for Lake Fenwick Trail then we are performing according to application. Finance Director McCarthy advised setting up separate accounts for both projects and when bonds are sold get reimbursement from King County. To avoid arbitrage regulations King County will reimburse as the city spends the money and not as a lump sum when they issue bonds. The County says that the reimbursement will be within 2 or 3 days of certification of expenditure by the city. The Committee recommended on a 3-0 vote setting up a budget for these projects and approving the financing arrangement with the County. The item will be scheduled for the February 20, 1990 Council meeting. REQUEST FOR INPUT ON VENTURE FUND PROCESS Finance Director McCarthy explained that the original procedure for the venture fund process was to present requests to a Venture Fund Committee of 3 senior staff and two councilmembers. McCarthy then presented an alternative proposal having the IBC review the proposal with a recommendation to the operations Committee eliminating a special committee process that may happen less than once a year. The Committee recommended that this new procedure be addressed at a future Operations Committee meeting. AQUATICS MANAGEMENT VENTURE FUND REQUEST Finance Director McCarthy requested $1, 144 from the venture fund budget of $10, 000 for a city employee to attend a national swimming pool & aquatic conference in Phoenix between March 1-7 . The request is a venture fund request because the city does not currently operate a swimming facility or offer swimming programs, but has over the years been requested by King County to consider a transfer to take over these programs. If such a transfer was to come about, it would be appropriate for city staff to have some knowledge of swimming pool operations. The IBC has recommended this expenditure from the venture fund. The Committee recommended the above request to Council by a vote of 3-0. PRIVATE SECURITY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Finance Director McCarthy informed the Committee that the private security interlocal agreement needs to be renewed. Currently the County is responsible for licensing security guards and running the program as opposed to individual cities which created a problem when a security guard worked in one city and was licensed in another. The committee recommended this renewal to Council by a vote of 3-0 . LID 300 PAYOFF Finance Director McCarthy reminded the Committee that at the end of 1989 LID 301 was paid off because the city CIP fund balance was higher than expected. At that time it was requested that in 1990 LID 300 be reviewed and if the CIP financial position looked favorable payoff the cities share totaling $162 , 000. The 1990 budget shows an extra $359 , 023 in the CIP and the payoff would save the city $49 , 000 in future interest payments. The Committee recommended to Council by a vote of 3-0 the payoff of LID 300 . Finance McCarthy stated that at the next Operations Committee meeting he will give a 1989 year end financial update. NEW MEETING DAYS AND TIME The Committee members decided that future operations Committee meetings will be held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month at 4 : 30pm. The next meeting will be February 13 , 1990 at 4 : 30pm and the following meeting on February 27 , 1990 at 4 : 30pm. These new dates will allow a week leeway before Council meetings avoiding awkward situations when staff assumes committee will approve issues . These set dates will also enable better public information standardization. Finance Director McCarthy suggested that fixed controls may need to be established to enable checks to be sent before approval by Council in association with current voucher time schedule. I