HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 07/17/1990 ■
cit 0
v
f Kent
.
Cit
J Meeting
y Counci
A enda
g
r�
1 .N
�e
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Steve Dowell
Leona Orr Jon Johnson
Christi Houser Jim White
Paul Mann
July 175 1990
office of the city clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 17 , 1990
Summary Agenda
City of Kent Council Chambers
Office of the City Clerk 7 : 00 p.m.
NOTE: An explanation of the agenda format is given on the
back of this page.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
,,A. Proclamation - National Recreation and Parks Month
Proclamation - National Night Out
Presentation - Centennial Quilt
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
Campbell Appeal - S. 218th St. Rezone
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan
--- 1991 Budget
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
Bills
--C� Contribution to Task Force
Bill of Sale - Fred Meyer
Bill of Sale - Hemlock Acres No. 17
SFr. Bill of Sale - Hunters Run Too
-6� Bill of Sale - Wildberry
hf. Bill of Sale - Shannon Short Plat
,,Y Tree Preservation Ordinance ,1 [ 3 ",
_T:" Central Telephone System Upgrade
Hemlock Acres Final Plat Meeting Date
Electronic Home Detention System - Resolution
Window Washing Contract
Elevator Service Contract
_4 Solictation for Sale or Purchase of Narcotics - Ordinance 3
Staffing for City Attorney's Office
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
,�A Kent East Corporate Park Rezone
Bond Purchase Contract and Ordinance CLID 328/334
South 218th St. Rezone RZ-90-2
5 . BIDS
Council Chambers Sound System
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIpO'NS
7 . REPORTS
_- _8 . EXECUTIVE SESSION OF APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTES REGARDING
LITIGATION. Action is anticipated.
9 . ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A. Prg,,clamation - National Recreation and Parks Month
B. Proclamation - National Night Out
C. Presentation - Centennial Quilt
'I r�
i Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 17 , 1990
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - S0. 218TH ST. REZONE
2 . SUMMARY STATEM NT: Council consideration of the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation should be considered before this
hearing. See Item 4C.
This public hearing will consider an appeal by Lawrence M.
Campbell from the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial of
an application to rezone 7 .76 acres from CM-11 commercial
manufacturing, to M-2, limited industrial. The property abuts
the south side of So. 218th St. from approximately 820 feet east
of 84th Ave. So. to the Drainage District No. 1 drainage ditch.
3 . EXHIBITS: Appeal form (see additional information in Other
Business section 4C)
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner May 30 1990
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
Denial
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve/deny the appeal; if approved, to allow City staff to
condition the approval and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
.q rC 11 Ei r'
Office of the City Clerk l L
220 S . a th �Uf'1 12 1990
9yoj 8-2-3370 CJ�-Y
City of Kent rl7 0,�' KEW
Order for Transcript for ERK
Appeal from Decision of Hearing Examiner
Resolution 896
Ordinance 2233
Date -TUNE /2 / 970 Appeal filed CZ -90
Appellant ' s Name LAWRENCE M, CANPB6L L - APPG/CANT
Address /607 SO• GENreAC AVE. Solr6 A -/ Aev WA 98032
Phone 8$'¢ z¢70
Hearing Examiner ' s File No . SOUTAf 2/ Te STReET
Date of Hearing Examiner Public Hearing_�Q_
Date of Hearing Examiner ' s Decision 111A O / 0
Notice of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of
the action taken by the Hearing Examiner and must be accompanied by
a $25 filing fee . Treasurer ' s Receipt # / 2 7 g S�
Within 30 days of the Hearing Examiner ' s decision, the appellant shall
order from the City Clerk a full transcript of the hearing held before
the Hearing Examiner and must post at the time of the order, security
in the amount of $100 for each tape to be transcribed . If the actual
cost incurred by the City exceeds the amount posted, the appellant
shall be required to reimburse the City fcr the excess amount. If the
cost is less tham the amount posted , any credit due will be returned
to the appellant. p
Order for Transcript received —f Treasurer ' s Receipt # z 7 8 s �� (100 . 00)
1
Kent City Council Meeting
�1 Date July 17 , 1990
U Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: 1991-1996 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
(TIP)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for a public
hearing on the update of the City's Six Year Transportation
Improvement Plan. The Director of Public Works will review the
projects included in this year's TIP.
3 . EXHIBITS: Array of projects for six year TIP
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner. May 30 1990
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
Denial
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ —
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
ii
Councilmember 6 moves, Councilmember GJc1 seconds
Mh--h e:artng= be =c�� that Resolution No. be adopted
approving the 1991-1996 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan.
r,
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, adopting the Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program 1991 to 1996.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Six-Year Transportation Improvement
Program 1991 to 1996, as set forth in the attachments hereto and
herewith filed with the City Clerk, is hereby adopted.
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
8660-300
CITY OF KENT
SIX YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1991 - 1996
WASHING70N
Don E. Wickstrom, P.E.
Director of Public Works
NLO
Q '3'S '3Atl H vi 2�
O N ti -
r
Cc
a
z
w = -
w 3'S '3Atl HIVOL :
O
OC -
CL
O
F x R► - H'A'3 H.LN30:
0CL
N -
Z
Q
nunu►n►►►► nuu►u►n u�
Cc
Q :
Cc -
Q �
w
} � p
X -• •,� -
N
•�
�i N
5��
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1991 TO 1996 PROJECT LISTING
ANNUAL ELEMENT 1991
(First Year)
Priority
1990 1991 ANNUAL ELEMENT 1991
17 1 272nd/277th St Cor. Project - Auburn Wy to Kent-Kangley
8 2 196th/200th St Cor. Project - Orillia Rd to WVH (West)
23 3 196th/200th St Cor. Project - WVH to EVH.
X 4 Metro Park & Ride Lot - Interchange with I-5 & SR 516
18 5 SE 256th St. and 104th Ave. SE.
19 6 SE 260th St. and 104th Ave. SE.
X 7 76th Ave. S. and S. 212th St.
X 8 Military Road & Reith Road.
X 9 Reith Rd. and Kent-Des Moines Rd. (SR 516) .
20 10 Central Ave. (SR 516) - Willis St. to Smith St.
30 11 SE 256th St. - Kent-Kangley Rd. to 116th Ave. SE.
3 12 72nd Ave. S. - S. 194th St. to S. 196th St.
10 13 Crow Road By-Pass (SR 516) .
6 14 Railroad Grade Crossing Replacement (City-Wide) .
13 15 Canyon Drive - Hazel Ave. to Weiland St.
7 16 Canyon Drive Guardrail Replacement.
22 17 East Valley Highway - S. 180th St. to S. 192nd St.
12 18 64th Ave. S . - S . 212th St. to Meeker St.
X 19 77th Ave. S . - S . 202nd St. to S . 212th St.
X 20 VMS Upgrade
SECOND/THIRD YEAR 1992-1993
27 21 James St. and Central Ave.
29 22 Kent-Kangley Rd. and lllth Ave SE.
X 23 72nd Ave S. and S. 212th St.
X 24 100th Ave SE and SE 240th St.
X 25 Lincoln Avenue and James Street
X 26 WVH to 1st Ave/Meeker St/Lincoln Ave/Smith St.
1 27 Military Rd. - S . 228th St. to SR 516 .
X 28 4th Ave - Willis St. to James St.
X 29 James St. - 94th Ave S. to 100th Ave. S .
X 30 James St. - Alvord Ave. to Hazel Ave.
X 31 S . 212th St. - WVH to 84th Ave. S.
X 32 S. 228th St. - Military Rd. to 68th Ave S . (SR 181) .
11 33 WVH - S. 180th St. to S . 189th St.
5 34 City-Wide Traffic Signal Installation and Impvt.
4th. 5th & 6th YEARS 1994
24 35 Central Ave. and S 259th St.
26 36 N. Central Ave. and Smith St.
X 37 4th Ave. S. and Willis St.
21 38 SE 240th St. and 104th Ave. SE.
X 39 101st Ave. SE and SE 256th St.
X 40 94th Ave S - Canyon Dr. to James St.
28 41 SE 248th St. - 94th St. to 116th Ave SE.
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1991 TO 1996
PROJECT SUMMARY
City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date _
City No 0615 Adoption Date_
County No. 17 Resolution No
---------------------------------
-----=------------------------------------
P PROJECT IDENTIFICATION I PROJECT COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
r I I
I DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION I FUNDING SOURCE ]TOTAL
0
SCHEDULE I------------------------------i
r (Street name or number, I Y E A R (FEDERAL ! I (FUNDS
i Co. road name or number, ! 89 90 91 92-94 ! ] I I
t termini beginning & end. 11st 2nd 3rd 4,5 ! Pro-1AMT TIB!Local I
y Describe work to be done.) !Annt 6th IAMT gram! I I
No !Elmt I ! ! I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I CITY COUNCIL TARGET ISSUES - 1ST YEAR ! 1 I ! I 1 ! !
I--------------------------------------------------I...........................................................
1 IS. 272nd/S. 277th St. . Aubrun Way to Kent-Kangley! 4161 ! 4288 ! 5526 1 2305 1 1 14652 TIBI 1628 1 16280
!Construct new four/five lane roadway including I ! I I I I !
!curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, ! I ! I 1
Ichannelization, new bridge construction & signal a! I ! I I I I
(Kent-Kangley Rd. I I ! I I
I
2 IS 1961200th Corridor Improvement (West Leg) 1 468 1 2233 ! 2904 1 1 1 5044 TIBI 561 1 5605
10rillia Rd. to West Valley Highway
!Major widening of S. 200th St, from Orillia Rd. ! ! ! I
!to the Russell Rd., curb & gutter, sidewalk, ! ! ! ! ! I ! !
]lighting, grading, paving, construct bridge over
!Green River, install a new signal at Orillia Rd., ! ! ! I I 1
Iminor realignment of Russell Rd, at Green River,
Irechannelization of Russell Rd./S. 196th St.
! I
(from Green River to West Valley Highway. This is
!a joint project with King County and Tukwila. ! ! ! ! !
! ! I
3 !S. 196th/200th St. Corridor Imp. (Middle Leg) ! 941 ! 1706 ! 6032 ! 8820 ! 1 15750 TIBI 1750 ! 17500
(West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway I ! ! ! ! I ! I
!Construct new four/five lane roadway provide major! ! ! ! ! I I
[widening improvements to S. 196th St. from West
I
!Valley Highway to 72nd Ave.S., construct a bridge !
I !
(structure over UP & BN railroad tracks, major
(widening of S. 196th St. from 78th Ave. S. to ! I I
!East Valley Highway, install traffic signal a ! ! ! I
!East Valley Highway & S. 196th St, with street ! ! ! ! 1
! I I
!lighting, sidewalk & channelization. ! ! I ! ! I I I
I ------------------- -------------------------------------------------
4 (Metro Park & Ride Lot ! 1440 ! 960 ! I ! 2160 TIBI 240 1 2400
(Expansion of present Metro facility Located at
I I
ISR•516 & Military Rd. to accommodate between
!200-300 vehicles.
I
I I
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1991 TO 1996
PROJECT SUMMARY
City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date
City No 0615 Adoption Date
County No. 17 Resolution No.
P PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ! PROJECT COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS I
r ! I I
! DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION ! FUNDING SOURCE (TOTAL
o I SCHEDULE !------------------------------I
r (Street name or number, ! Y E A R !FEDERAL I 1 !FUNDS
! Co. road name or number, 1 89 90 91 92-94 ! 1 1 1
t termini beginning & end. 11st 2nd 3rd 4,5 1 Pro-IAMT TIBILocal I
y Describe work to be done.) !Ann[ 6th !AMT gram[ I I
No !Elmt ! I I I
--------------- --- - --------------------
------------------------------- -- --
I INTERSECTIONS - 1ST YEAR I ! ! ! ! ! I I
i.....................................................................
5 ISE 256th St. and 104th Ave SE ! 700 ! 1 1 ! 1 630 TIBI 70 1 700
[Intersection improvements to include: Widening of! ! ! ! I 1 I 1
1104th Ave. to provide a double exclusive I I I I ! I !
Isouthbound left-turn lane, install a right turn ! ! ! ! 1 ! I !
lonly lane on the northeast corner cf SE 256th St ! ! ! I t 1
I& 104th Ave., rechannelize SE 256th St. between ! ! ! ! ! 1
1104th Ave & Kent-Kangley Rd/SE 256th St., & ! 1 ! ! I ! ! !
!provide siginalization & channetization ! ! ! ! ! I I I
limprovemnets at SE 256th St & Kent-kangtey Rd.. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
I !------------------ -----------------------------I--------------.-----
6 ISE 260th St. and 104th Ave SE ! 350 1 ! ! 1 175 TIB! 175 ! 350
[Intersection improvements to include minor ! ! I ! I ! I
]widening of 104th Ave. S.E. for northbound left ! I ! I I I
Iturn lane. New signal & interconnect, curb, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I
[gutter, and sidewalk. I ! I ! I I
I !----------- ---•-- ---------•-------—------.
7 176th Ave S. & S. 212th St. ! 50 ! ! 42 FAUS! t 8 ! 50
(Rebuild the traffic island in the SE and SW ! I ! I ! 1 !
!corners of 76th Avenue S. at 212 St for an ! ! ! I I !
ladditional NB left lane. ! ! ! I I
I !---------------------------------------------------------------------
8 !Military Road & Reith Road ! 50 ! ! ! 42 FAUS! ! 8 ! 50
(Remodel existing intersection and provide new ! ! ! ! ! I ! I
Idetection and controller. ! ! ! 1 ! 1
! -•--------------- ------•--•----..-..-----...------....-----.....----
9 1Reith Road and Kent-Des Moines Road (SR-516) ! 15 ! ! 1 ! 12 FAP 1 I 3 ! 15
!Rechannelize Reith Road west of Kent-Des Moines Rd! ! ! ! ! !
Ito add an eastbound right turn lane. Provide left! ! ! ! I ! I
!turn protected phasing & channetization for west ! ! ! ! !
!leg of intersection. ! ! ! ! ! ! !
I ! ! ! ! I I I
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1991 TO 1996
PROJECT SUMMARY
City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date
City No 0615 Adoption Date_
County No. 17 Resolution No.__
-------------- -------
P PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ! PROJECT COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF.DOLLARS I
r ! ! !
i DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION I FUNDING SOURCE (TOTAL
0
! SCHEDULE I ------------------I
r (Street name or number, ! Y E A R IFEDERAL I I IFUNDS
i Co. road name or number, 1 89 90 91 92-94 ! 1 1 !
t termini beginning & end. list 2nd 3rd 4,5 1 Pro-IAMT TIBILocal I
y Describe work to be done.) IAnnl 6th !AMT gram! I I
No !Elmt ! I I I
I STREET SEGMENTS - 1ST YEAR ! ! ! I 1 ! I I
1--------------------------------------------------!----------------- -------.------------------------------*---------•--
I ! I ! ! I 1 ! I
10 ICentraL Ave. (SR-516) Willis St. - Smith St. ! 370 1 723 1 ! 1 1 984 TIBI 109 1 1093
!Minor widening to include northbound right turn ! I ! ! I I !
(lane At Titus St., two way left turn lane, storm I ! I ! 1 I I I
(drainage & channelization. ! 1 ! I I I I I
1 [* Central Ave. & Gowe St. ) ! ! ! ! I ! ! !
I1----------------- ---------------------------------------------------
11 !S.E. 256th St. - Kent-Kangley Rd. to 116th Ave SE ! 493 ! 557 ! ! 1 1 945 TIB! 105 ! 1050
Ilmprovements to include roadway widening, drainage! ! !
Icurb, gutter & sidewalk, lighting, paving, ! ! ! I !
IchanneLizati On, signing & landscaping ! ! ! ! ! ! I !
! !--------------------------------*-----------------I------------------
12 172nd Ave. S. - S. 194th St. to S.196th St. 1 250 ! ! 1 ! 1 ! 250 1 250
(Construction of a new two lane roadway with ! ! ! I I I
Icurb & gutter, sidewalk, grading, paving, street ! ! I I ! I
!lighting, channelization and landscaping. ! I ! ! ! !
I !----------------- ----------------------- ---------------------------
13 !Crow Road By-Pass (SR-516 By-Pass) 1 900 ! ! ! 1 ! ! 900 ! 900
!Minor widening to improve turning radius at ! ! ! ! ! ! I I
197th Pt. S. & Canyon Dr. and SE 260th St & 108th ! ! ! ! ! I I
(Ave SE, with signalization at Kent-Kangley Rd. I ! ! ! ! ! I !
I(SR-516) & 108th Ave SE also include curb & ! ! ! ! ! ! I !
!gutter, sidewalks, lighting, grading, paving, ! ! I !
Ichannelization and signing. ! ! ! ! ! ! I I
I---•----------------------------------------------I---------------- ------------------.----------------
! MISC. IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - 1ST YEAR ! ! ! ! I I I
I-------------------------------------------------- I---------------- -------------.-...-..-------------------------------
14 !Railroad Grade Crossing Replacement (City-Wide) ! 120 ! ! 108 RRP ! 1 12 1 120
(City wide railroad crossing replacement ! 1 ! I ! ! I I
(program. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I
! ! ! ! ! !
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1991 TO 1996
PROJECT SUMMARY
City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date
City No 0615 Adoption Date_
County No. 17 Resolution No.__
------------------------------------------------------------------ -
-------------------------------------------- ---------------------- -----
! PROJECT COSTS I
P PROJECT IDENTIFICATION N THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS !
r I I 1
i DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION ! FUNDING SOURCE (TOTAL
o '
! SCHEDULE !-----------------•....._..--•-1
r (Street name or number, I Y E A R IFEDERAL I ! [FUNDS
i Co. road name or number, 1 89 90 91 92.94 1 1 1 1
t termini beginning & end. 11st 2nd 3rd 4,5 ! Pro-!AMT TIB1Local I
y Describe work to be done.) IAnnl 6th IAMT graml I I
No !ELmt I ! 1 !
---------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------=-----------------------------
I PROJECTS ALREADY FUNDED 1 ! ! ! I I I !
...................................................
I i I I I 1 1 1
15 (Canyon Dr. (SR-516) Hazel Ave. - Weiland St. 1 740 1 ! ! 1 62 FAUSI 666 TIBI 12 1 740
(Addition of Left turn lanes a Hazel, Smith, I 1 ! ! I HES I I I
I& Weiland St. to include curb, gutter & sidewalk, ! I ! ! ! ! I I
Ichannelization & drainage, remodel existing I I I I I
[traffic signal a Smith St., & Jason Ave. & add I ! ! ! I I I
ladvance warning flasher 1 ! ! I 1 ! 1 I
I !-•----------------- -------I-_----
16 !Canyon Drive Guardrail Replacement 1 20 ! ! ! I 18 HES 1 1 2 1 20
IRepLace existing cable wire guardrail system ! I ! ! I I I
Ion the southwesterly side of Canyon Drive S.E. ! ! ! ! ! ! I I
I !---------------- ----------------------•-----•-•_-----•-----••-----•-
17 (East Valley Highway (S 180th St.-s 192nd St.) 1 1083 ! 2917 ! ! 1 3600 TIBI 400 ! 4000
]Major widening to five lanes, provide drainage, ! ! ! I I I
Isidewalks, curb & gutter, lighting, landscaping, I ! ! ! ! 1
(paving, underground utilities, bridge, and signing! ! ! ! I I ] I
! I------------------------------------------------------- ----•-'
18 164th Ave. S. - S. 212th St. to Meeker St. 1 688 ! 3187 ! 2125 ! ! ! 1 6000 ! 6000
[Construction of new roadway on 64th Ave. S. from I ! ! ! I I I ]
IS. 212th St. to James St., roadway widening from I I ! ! ] ! !
[James St. to Smith St. and signals a 5.212th St., I ! ! ! ! I ! !
IS. 228th St., James St. & Meeker St. I I ! ! ! ! I 1
! !---------------- -------•-•------ ----..
19 177th Ave. - S. 202nd St. to S. 212th St. 1 1300 ! 1 ! ! 1 1300 1 1300
[Widen roadway to 3 lanes with curb, gutter & I ! I I ! I I I
Isidewalk, drainage, paving, channelization, I I ! ! I I I ]
Istreet lighting & landscaping. Install new traffic! I I ! ! ! I !
Isignal a 77th Ave. S. & S. 212th St.. ! ! I I I I I I
I !----------------- --•--------_----- ------
20 [VMS Upgrade ! 150 1 ! 1 125 FAUS! I 25 ] 150
IRepLace existing Traffic Signal Computer with new ! 1 ! I ! I I
]upgraded computer system. ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! !
I ! ! I I !
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1991 TO 1996
PROJECT SUMMARY
City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date
City No 0615 Adoption Date
County No. 17 Resolution No.
--------------------------------------------------------=---------------------
------------------------------------------
P PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ! PROJECT COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS I
r I I I
i DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION I FUNDING SOURCE (TOTAL
0
SCHEDULE 1 ...--I
r (Street name or number, 1 Y E A R !FEDERAL I I IFUNDS
i Co. road name or number, ! 89 90 91 92-94 1 1 ! !
t termini beginning & end. 11st 2nd 3rd 4,5 1 Pro-!AMT TIBILocaL 1
y Describe work to be done.) IAnnL 6th IAMT gram! ! l
No !Elmt
! I I !
---------------------------- --------------------
I INTERSECTIONS - 2ND & 3RD YEAR ! ! ! ! ! I ! I
I-----------------.......------...-----------------!.....................................................................
� I I I I ! ! ! I
21 !James St. and Central Ave. 1 ! 100 ! ! ! 8 FAUS! 90 TIBI 2 1 100
(Minor widening of intersection to accomodate I I ! ! I ! I I
la westbound right turn lane at northwest corner. I 1 ! I ! 1 !
! ! -------------•-----••----•-•-••---------------------------
22 (Kent-Kangley (SR-516) and 111th Ave SE ! ! 1 10 1 1 8 FAUSI 1 2 1 10
(Traffic signal interconnect. ! I ! I I I I I
1 1-----------
23 172nd Ave S. & S. 212th street. ! 1 ! 50 1 I 42 FAUSI 1 8 1 50
!Install a westbound right turn lane at northeast I I ! I ! !
!corner of intersection. I I ! ! ! 1 I !
II---------------------------------•-----------•---------.--------.....
24 I100th Ave S.E. & S.E. 240th St. 1 1 30 ! ! 25 FAUS! 1 5 1 30
!Install pedestrian protection for eastbound & ! ! ! ! 1
Iwestbound travel, and provide loop detection. 1 ! I ! I I
I !------------------ -----
25 ILincoLn Ave. & James St. I 1 130 1 I 1 1 1 130 ! 130
Ilnstall a traffic signal at the intersection of I 1 1 1 1 1 1
ILincoLn Ave. & James St. with vehicle detection I I I ! ! ! ! I
I& opticom. Provide interconnect to existing 1 I ! ! ! ! I 1
(pedestrian signal and railroad signal approximate[! I ! I ! I ! I
1100 feet to the east. Installation requested I ! I ! I I I I
!by Metro to accommodate transit vehicles. I 1 ! ! ! ! I
I ! I I ! ! ! ! I
.------...-
I STREET SEGMENTS . 2ND & 3RD YEAR l ! I ! I I I !
-•-------------- ------------------ ------------------._.--.--------•
I I I I ! ! ! 1 I
26 ISmith St. - West Valley Hwy. to 1st Ave. ! 15 ! 1 1 1 15 1 15
Ilnstall a two-way left turn lane. ! I ! ! ! ! l
! (* 4th Ave. & Smith St. I I ! ! ! !
I !•---------------
27 IMilitary Rd. S. 228th St. to SR-516 ! I 202 11148 ! 1 1 1215 TIBI 135 1 1350
(Widen roadway to 5 lanes with curb, gutter & I ! ! ! ! I I !
!sidewalk. Provide drainage, paving, I I ! I I I I I
Ichannelization, street lighting & landscaping. ! I ! I I I I
II---------------- ---------------------------------------------I------
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1991 TO 1996
PROJECT SUMMARY
City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date
City No 0615 Adoption Date
County No. 17 Resolution No.
P PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ! PROJECT COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS I
r ! 1 !
i DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION I FUNDING SOURCE (TOTAL
o 1 SCHEDULE I----------------•----------.--I
r (Street name or number, ! Y E A R IFEDERAL I I !FUNDS
i Co. road name or number, 1 89 90 91 92-94 1 ! I 1
t termini beginning & end. !1st 2nd 3rd 4,5 ! Pr0-IAMT TIB!Local I
y Describe work to be done.) SAnnl 6th IAMT gram! I I
No lElmt ! I I I
28 14th Ave. . Willis St. to James St. ! ! I 10 ! 1 1 1 10 1 10
l[nstall 2 way left turn lane. [* 4th & Gowe St.) I ! I ! ! ! ! !
1 1----------------— ------
29 (James St. . 94th Ave. S. to 100th Ave. S. ! 30 1 ! 25 FAUSI 1 5 1 30
(install traffic signal interconnect between 100th ! ! ! ! I ! !
lAve. S. & 94th Ave. S., new controller and loop ! I ! ! ! ! !
Idetection at the at the intersection of 94th Ave. 1 ! ! ! ! I I
I S. & James St. I ! ! I ! I !
! I----------—------ -------------------------------------•-----•-----
30 (James St. - Alvord Ave. to Hazel Ave. ! ! 1 250 ! 1 225 HES I 1 25 1 250
!Provide widening for left turn movements into ! ! ! ! ! ! I
(Church of the Nazarene. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I
II------------------ -------------------------------------•---------_-_
31 IS. 212th ST. - West Valley Hwy. to 84th Ave. S. ! ! 600 1 3400 ! ! ! 3600 TIBI 400 1 4000
(Widen to seven lanes with drainage, paving, ! I I ! I I ! !
Isidewalks, curb & gutter, lighting, landscaping, I ! ! I I I ! I
lunderground utilities, channelization & signing. ! ! ! ! ! ! I
I [* 72nd Ave. & S. 212th St. 1 ! I I ! ! ! ! !
I I I I ! ! I !
1--------------------------------------------------I------------------ -----.--._--_-_--------•-•.----------_-----------
I CITY COUNCIL TARGET ISSUES - 2ND & 3RD YEAR I I I I I I I I
1--------------------------------------------------I------------------ -----------------•_--------..
I ! I I ! I I I I
32 IS. 228th St. - Military Rd. to SR-181 ! 1 748 1 610 ! 5642 1 l 6300 TIBI 700 1 7000
(Construct new roadway for S. 228th St., from I ! I I I ! I I
154th Ave. S. to Military Rd. & improve S. 228th Stl I I I ! 1 I I
(from 54th Ave. S. to 64th Ave. S.. I ! l ! I ! ! I
I !•-•---••-----•---------------------•----------------.-_----•--.......
33 (West Valley Highway (S 180th-S 189th) ! ! 65 ! 505 ! 2130 ! 1 2430 TIBI 270 I 2700
!Major widening of West Valley Highway to ! I I I I I l I
!include curb & gutter, sidewalks, lighting 1 I ! ! ! I ! I
Igrading, paving, channelization, signalization, ! ! I ! ! I I
Isigning, and landscaping. I I ! ! ! ! I
I ! ! I ! ! I
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1991 TO 1996
PROJECT SUMMARY
City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date
City No 0615 Adoption Date
County No. 17 Resolution No.
P PROJECT IDENTIFICATION I PROJECT COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS !
r ! I I
i DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION ! FUNDING SOURCE ITOTAL
O
! SCHEDULE I-----------•---------•--------I
r (Street name or number, ! Y E A R [FEDERAL I I [FUNDS
i Co. road name or number, 1 89 90 91 92-94 1 1 1 1
t termini beginning 8 end. !1st 2nd 3rd 4,5 ! Pro-IAMT TIBILocal I
y Describe work to be done.) !Annl 6th !AMT gram! I I
No lElmt ! I I !
I MISC. IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - 2ND & 3RD YEAR ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
I--------------------------------------------------!----------------- -...
I ! I ! I I ! I I
34 [City-Wide Traffic Signal Installation & Imp. 1 1 273 1 1 1 227 FAUSI 1 46 1 273
[Add new traffic signals & provide traffic signal ! ! I I ! !
Imodifications adding protected/permissive phasing ! I I I I I I
let various intersection locations. ! I ! t ! ! I I
1--------------------------------------------------I----------------- --------------.....----------------I---------------
I INTERSECTIONS - 4TH, 5TH, & 6TH YEAR ! ! ! ! I I I I
I---•--•------•------------------------------------ ----------------- -----------------------------..--------------------
I I ! ! ! ! I ! I
35 ICentrat Ave. and S. 259th St. ! ! ! 13D 1 108 FAUS! 1 22 1 130
!Install two phase traffic signal, street lighting ! ! I I I I
I& channelization. I ! ! ! I I ! !
! !----------------- ----------------------------------•-----•----------
36 !N. Central Ave, and Smith St. ! ! I 500 ! 417 FAUS! ! 83 1 500
]Add a new double left turn lane, channelization, I ! ! ! ! ! I I
!street lighting, signal upgrade & signing. ! ! ! ! ! 1 1 I
II----------------- ---------------------------------------•-------
37 ]4th Ave. S. & Willis St. ! I 1 ! 25 1 21 FAUS! 1 4 1 25
Ilmprovements to include: modifying westbound mast 1 1 ! 1 1 1 I 1
larm, installing Protected/Permissive phasing and I ! ! ! ! I
(providing loop detection. ! ! I I I I ! !
! I----------------- ---------------------.------I---------------------
38 !S.E. 240th St. and 104th Ave. S.E. I 1 150 ! 125 FAUS! ! 25 1 150
!Construct additional eastbound acceleration ! I ! I I I
[lane on James St. approximately 600 feet east of ! I ! ! ! I ! I
[the intersection & add protected/permissive phase.! ! ! I I ! I
I !----------------- -----------------------------------------I---------
39 1101st Ave. S.E. & S.E. 256th St. ! I ! ! 1 25 FAUS[ 1 5 1 30
Ilnstall pedestrian protection for eastbound & ! ! 1 1 1
Iwestbound travel, and provide Loop detection. ! ! I ! I I I
I ! ! ! ! I I I
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1991 TO 1996
PROJECT SUMMARY
City/County Kent, Washington Hearing Date
City No 0615 Adoption Date
County No. 17 Resolution No.
P PROJECT IDENTIFICATION I PROJECT COSTS IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS I
r I I !
i DESCRIPTION OF WORK OBLIGATION I FUNDING SOURCE (TOTAL
o ! SCHEDULE I -------I
r (Street name or number, I Y E A R !FEDERAL I I IFUNDS
i Co. road name or number, 1 89 90 91 92-94 1 1 ! 1
t termini beginning & end. !1st 2nd 3rd 4,5 1 Pro-!AMT TIB!Local I
y Describe work to be done.) !Ann! 6th IAMT gram! I I
No !Elmt ! ! i I
I STREET SEGMENTS . 4TH, STH, & 6TH YEAR ! I ! ! ! ! I I
--------------------------------------------------1---------------------
I ! ! ! ! I I I I
40 194th Ave. S. . Canyon Dr. to James St. I 1 1 1 800 1 1 720 TIBI 80 I 800
(Widen to 3 lanes with curb, gutter & sidewalk. I ! I I I I I
(Provide drainage, paving, channelization, ! 1 ! ! ! I ! I
Isigning, street lighting & landscaping. ! ! ! ! ! I I I
I !...---•-•------•-----------------••--------------.-..-..-.-------....
41 1248th St. . 94th Ave S.E. to 116th Ave S.E. ! ! I 1775 1 ! 1597 TIBI 178 1 1775
(Widen to 3 lanes with curb, gutter & sidewalk. ! ! ! ! ! I !
(Provide drainage, paving, channelization, 1 ! I 1 I !
Isigning, street lighting & landscaping. ! ! ! ! ! I ! I
I [" 94th Ave. S.E. & 248th St. I ! I I 1 I !
---------------------------------------------------
I TOTAL 114289 118749 !22585 ! 22277 1 1665 1 60558 1 15708 1 77931
N
Q N
LO
'36 S '3Ab HI 9L L
N P •
a N A�
F00
-
Z `
W00
m
,W '3 S 3Ad HIVOL in - 00
to ��� M
C
w•
CM
T � T ♦
11
� i (A
OC
Q LL'H'A'3 it ll 1N33
x =
0
cc ao N �lluu Illlul .
T T
CL N 'Ill Ily
N
Z 'H'A'M
M lltlllllllltlll Illlllllllll�lllll
cc
,•
• T
Q 0)
W N
} :
x
Z
Cl) co
N
5—�
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: S. 272nd/S. 277th St. Corridor Project - Auburn Way to
Kent-Kangley Rd.
DESCRIPTION: (Project length 2.27 Mi . ) Construct a new four/five lane
roadway with curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lighting,
channelization. Provide new bridge across Green River and
install new traffic signal at either S. 116th St. or S.
132nd St. and Kent-kangley Rd. .
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 1 ,979,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 3,521 ,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,780,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 16,280,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, LID, CITY
PROJECT COST:
ist Yr 4 , 51
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd- ----Yr �_-&_6th Yr--�----Total
- ----
4,161 ,000 4,288,000 5,526,000 2,305,000 16,280,000 `s 1
i� MnA' \ Il 2eoiN Il IL It
K NIL L
. tcxoa N
Jf0!/O/n
[ NICN JCN
1L MTH Sf�� IVTN IT
CI LI
s ^
IT
1 It 1]0IN It
s I
UL 17II1 CO
If 211IT IT )xxo I1
E IlNN It
It
I1 11NIN IT I 1VI
T I1]IITN le1N Y^1 IL 11
]111N It —
�
RUBURN n n
1
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: S. 196th/S. 200th St. Corridor Project - Orillia Rd. to West
Valley Highway (West Leg)
DESCRIPTION: (Project length 1 .40 Mi . ) Major widening of S. 200th St.
from Orillia Rd, to Russell Rd. , curb & gutter, sidewalk,
lighting, grading, paving, construct bridge over Green
River, install a signal at Orillia Rd. , minor realignment of
Russell Rd. at Green River, rechannelization of Russell
Rd./S. 196th St. from Green River to West Valley Highway.
This is a joint project with King County & Tukwila.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 837,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 767 ,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 4,001 ,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 5,605,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, LID, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
----------------------------------------------- ----------
---- -----
468,000 2,233,000 2,904,000 5,605,000
\0!M
IYOIM!t
M
g �
!� 5 • 12dTK ft
w
t9NGL E
L 91rE
AW
\
1
w
! iN ft
,0\1M ff
L BOEJNG REROSPFCE . .� _
2
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: S. 196th/S. 200th St. Corridor Project - West Valley Highway to
East Valley Highway
DESCRIPTION: (Project length 1 .00 Mi. ) Construct new four/five lane
roadway, provide major widening improvements to S. 196th St
from West Valley Hwy. to 72nd Ave. S. , construct bridge over
UP & BN tracks, major widening of S. 196th St. from 78th
Ave. S. to East Vallley Hwy. , install traffic signal at East
Valley Hwy. & S. 196th St. with lighting, sidewalk &
channelization.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 2,762,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1 ,000,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 13,738,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 17,500,00(t
FUNDING SOURCE: TIE, LID, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------
941 ,500 1 ,706,500 6,032,000 8,820,000 17,500,000
4L x[t Ex fI ! lOOIM]i
n ! i
II�II, OOfM 3t
! 130 TM ST
3 IO3x0 !T 31X0
S 3 � SOIM Sr �
] IlVTN ST
E ^
� c nrx Sr
3:0 N3
a s
lV 3. Swn St
W
1 0 iM !T
3
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Metro Park & Ride Lot - Interchange with I-5 & SR-516
DESCRIPTION: Expansion of present Metro facility located at SR-516 and
Military Rd. to accomodate between 200 & 300 vehicles.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 400,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,000,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,400,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, City
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-------------------------------------------------------
---- -----
1 ,440,000 960,000 2,400,000
b'.tAMOY/FM
/NifK
a' I yq a NITH at
5
A"ENI-NIGH[ANDS
FC FNOF/C C
t �3 N/ONN I' !NrC,?CN1q1V6E
w
a faun et
Y f
: NlGNL/Nf
CONNUNlI/ I ar e
COC 16. aala
9
on
it/ON9Y a esaN
JxorJ
nu
a a aN € ON/VE-!N `I ° "0 I I V¢ JWaoa
1 e�aalN�L I ' ,AIR
4
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: S.E. 256th St. and 104th Avenue S.E.
DESCRIPTION: (Project length .09 Mi . ) Intersection improvements to
include: widening of 104th Ave. to provide a double,
exclusive southbound left-turn lane, install a right turn
only lane on the northeast corner of S.E. 256th St between
104th Ave. & Kent-Kangley Rd/S.E. 256th St. , & provide
signalization & channelization improvements at S.E. 256th St
& Kent-Kangley Rd. .
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 105,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 545,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 700,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, City
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
----------------------------------------------------------
---- -----
700,000 700,000
f� •• SL YI TN IT
IR T
R M ,b • �
{
GU L I(Ni1M,f
ITT
N RCI IT
y I SL L1
m CRR/US It
S T � /RRN
OCM IT A"ENJ i SS\iM {
R " IpER/0/AN i
IV Q/SCNOO( £NST HI [ <
L eL ie.Tx ,T 3[111 iN eT
NNIL$1
KENI MENJ f' CENTER eR — LL 211Ti
CENfJERJ JN/R aus °°L � e1,
•
SCEN/C N!L L {
eE le4ix Si SS
SL 31oTN R
S t1 MO JCNOJL < :t
� JfOUR/R °
YN/cN JCR
Q TO Lwi_x 1r �fy1
.-.... U .. I RR•1. __ __
5
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: S.E. 260th St and 104th Avenue S.E.
DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Intersection improvements to include: minor
widening of 104th Ave. S.E. for northbound left turn lane.
Install new signal & interconnect, curb & gutter, &
sidewalk.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 52,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 298,O00
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 350,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total f
------------------------------------ -
350,000
350,000
To, -
x aca[r ,., er I �
m J =1
r x cnnrvJ u
rnnr 6 n
x ecx 3
x Rfnr
fR101,9N
N GN SCHOOL FAST H/ 5 te[rx ie
t °ol"xr e[ teerx
or
f[if erx f[
xeplt]i
nEN! nEM! �'�
cfnerfnr JNln r(ve�'r ? CENTER in
JCFN/C Nn
rnie'r xeorx er fe t
f WHO SCNOO( X
M
•� JfOUOIF �
N/6N JCN `
SE }eerx
_ •fir
w`rtr
6
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: 76th Avnue S. and S. 212th St.
DESCRIPTION: (intersection) Rebuild existing traffic island at the
southeast and southwest corners of 76th Ave. S. at S. 212th
St. for an additional northbound 'left turn lane.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 8,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 42,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd-- Yr3rd-Yr---- --&-5th Yr-- ----Total ----�
- -----------------------
---- --
50,000 50,000 ��{{
rx It
] [°]!x• It d ]20l1[\101
00£1N6 A£R4FSP9C£ X
] etx It JO rx—s
a
B'BBIEN E J4B.] BNfEB
f[fN. lf4f B/ ,
Ix]I Saw& ]Iii t
J
JJ
i � J
{
Ilan]t f iPtX II
I '
xl eix II
yqz—
GBBBISBA
] u° t
7
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Military Road & Reith Road
DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Remodel existing intersection and provide new
detection and controller.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 10,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ a
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 40,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50,000 50,000
t nroNAr � enrx r I; �e '
LANOFI(C
a h j 8
trr,N
Se rN er
e 151 N
' xrlrN ee
(FAf
COr a 1eOrN IT ltNllcA
fr /AAd
e¢era a r�
e ie2x0 er
rn
e runo a 2
eexeeeer ix
o' xnnrmx
0 a{ pc der
a Enw o+' rorrw
Nf[SM'�
o �rw�nm6M
8
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Reith Road and Kent-Des Moines Road (SR-516)
DESCRIPTION: (Project length .05 Mi . ) Rechannelize Reith Rd. west of
Kent-Des Moines Rd. to add an eastbound right turn lane.
Provide left turn protected phasing & channelization for
utest leg of intersection.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 5,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 15,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAP, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------
15,000 15,000
h
Anet IT
[JIJ
HIONNY t tM JMOIJ 3"IT
G " elf
DA/Yf—/N a " nurreu
"`r nawa
i o /xnf € k.1JA
1MfF/.W ltlM
nM10 �� Y I1LlN( fi
rmf C"5e
eAr J1MI/bryI ?
nrra nn
nr p ri4rx IT �
9
zz zarrx pT i
/JIOJ/AY or
LANOfJCL @ p
� e
i=
'Sir,
SITx fr - —
9
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Central Avenue (SR-516) - Willis St. to Smith St.
DESCRIPTION: (Project length .38 Mi . ) Minor widening to include a
northbound right turn lane at Titus St. ,. two-way left turn
lane, storm drainage & channelization_
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 63,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 307,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 723,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1 ,093,00;
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, CITY, STATE
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------
370,000 723,000 1 ,093,000
yeses n s(aim IT
KCKr /AAACM3 ]\I]r IT
]PX IT CRTKOMJ r(AIf(fIo
JCL( I /MA ri
aA A.W _ a P]no
■ =Aloe
]xT rx AT n �❑V sx]rx n
:
XeePen IT a 4®lycJ❑ €
m (� ❑❑ '
i J7 • 19 2\tIX 11
0 qM ]1
IR 1X A A
fPgn
IT J
Qtui Kn]OX IT
PTr ♦Y
9
F . x CAW IT IT
K Is' F(AF
m
STA. s un ]1 � CAK/UJ� IAAK x X(nLOCA r :� KENl
enrol
10
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: S.E. 256th St. - Kent-Kangley Road to 116th Avenue S.E.
DESCRIPTION: (Project length .64 Mi .) Improvements to include: roadway
widening, drainage, curb & gutter, sidewalk, street
lighting, paving channelization, signing & `landscaping.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 157,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 336,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 557,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1 ,050,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, LID, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
493,000 557,000 1 ,050,000
+ 5[ urx n
ee sr
xa m ,b
1 wlet e5ex er
1 r
r °
x ctce It
tr
It]:
m CFrt/UJ — !l
/A1K X W
N 6N SCHOOL f931 N/
t meLMeT IT 5[ `rx 'T ` 51 ttt lM IT
FN Lt fT l
RCM/ .rFNr b ,' CENTER r slim
It :slT
CENf/fiTf JN/N C[ua °°[ �° ^r,♦ _
JffN/f N/L
/AM s[[leix IT a
It ieerx n
f as
Ma
Jf000/A
SC tlY rM 55 I 'ttYf
11
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: 72nd Avenue S. - S. 194th St. to S. 196th St.
DESCRIPTION: (Project 'length . 13 Mi . ) Construction of a new two lane
roadway with curb & gutter, sidewalk, grading, paving,
street lighting, channelization and landscaping.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 37,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 100,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 113,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 250,000
FUNDING SOURCE: CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
250,000 250,000
el Y +_
Y A
a Ie IN RY/f � y \NWV R IRII
O
� yyTi
law Are i
Z
A Rr[e
ie lx PVC
11IN Av[e
'1 ( IIII{/II/I
eO IN\Ve f
�~ 12
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Crow Road By-Pass (SR-516)
DESCRIPTION: (Project length .35 Mi . ) Minor widening to improve turning
radius at 97th Pl . S. & Canyon Drive, and S.E. 260th St. &
108th Ave. S.E. , with signalization at Kent-Kangley Rd &
108th Ave. S.E. also include curb & gutter, sidewalks,
lighting, grading, paving, channelization and signing.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 135,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 150,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 615,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 900,000
FUNDING SOURCE: DEVELOPER
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
900,000 900,000
cu lseneex fr ' JI
9T�
Fr
I(LER/0/FN Yi zevx
NIIGN SCNOO( EAST N/
xqt xUr e[ [eeix er
xq[l[xl
drew! .rfN! si, i
cenerenr JwlN aua CENIEN
A r`x E
JCen/C Nil
rde'x'r 1[[ION xl le
a
N/C NIL[ °C
ie xp JfN00[ .
♦ JEOUO/R
h NrfN JC
u xevx °
Nye
I
ee zu x er !
13
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Railroad Grade Crossing Replacement (City-Wide)
DESCRIPTION: City wide railroad crossing replacement program.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 10,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 110, 000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 120,000
FUNDING SOURCE: RRP, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 5th Yr Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------
120,000 120,000
NO MAP
14
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Canyon Drive - Hazel Avenue to Weiland St.
DESCRIPTION: (Project length .50 Mi . ) Addition of left turn lanes at
Hazel Ave. , Smith St. & Weiland St. to include: curb &
gutter, sidewalk, channelization & drainage, remodel
existing traffic signal at Smith St. & Jason St. , and add
advance warning flasher.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 111 ,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 300,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 329,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 740,000
FUNDING SOURCE: HES, FAUS, TIB, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st .Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element I 2nd Yr ( 3rd Yr I & 6th Yr I Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
740,000 740,000
I II i --
K � F
t
n TM T O� six , r
❑O
r
1[ rtx IT
T � e
1xM 1r
Gull WIN 1r
r4
K !J f!^f Ucl 1r c. 7152N 5r €
!!^.
un 1r x rarrut �
x n I<[ r ^
KENr
nr
H 6N sCN00L fHs7 NJ
vqL Mir R 15e tx 1T
MIL[ 1T
KEN/ KEN!
cfnfrfnr Jv1K el u^ E T CENrEH �4'L,
� T T if/^/C NlL a
15
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Canyon Drive Guardrail Repalcement
DESCRIPTION: (Project length .50 Mi . ) Replace existing cable wire
guardrail system on the southwesterly side of Canyon Drive
S.E. .
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 5,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 15,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 20,000
FUNDING SOURCE: HES, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20,000 20,000
Llun
� F
e W
7 5 xueG 5f
n STY SF n Se RN F rN r
i UcJ � 1
N F` 0❑
U qY 5i
SAM SF nNC fM „O O
WIOCn]OY Sr �
/J� ErJF 5 I Y CRGO SF Si I (_
un 5r x C.vnYus F
anJ e
eLecF sf � dENJ
ni sr �` IpEA/O/AN
H.{GN SCNOOL EAST N/
Y9L YVF ]C 359TH IT
MILE 5t
dENr ,fEN7 �s
Y [EnErfnr
— ^ mmmrrrr7rq X"T"r W,
16
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: East Valley Highway — S. 180th St. to S. 192nd St.
DESCRIPTION: (Project length .78 Mi .) Major widening to five lanes,
provide drainage, sidewalk, curb and gutter, street
lighting, landscaping, paving, underground utilities, bridge
improvements and signing.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 600,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 483,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,917 ,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 4,000,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, LID, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ,083,000 2,917,000 4,000,000
s IO rM er! f f
n
lilt All ! �
N11
VALLEY xxr.
r0
XO r
t 1 YNLCEP FNEENAP , �
t, I
i
lzxa r c
rrr ern rxcene
raielr no —
-tiM r� J
it— - 17
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: 64th Avenue S. - S. 212th St. to Meeker St.
DESCRIPTION: (Project length 1 .74 Mi . ) Construction of new roadway on
64th Ave. S. from S. 212th St. to James St. , widen roadway
from James St. to Smith St. & instal') new traffic signals at
S. 212th St. , S. 228th St. , James St. & Meeker St.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 283,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 405,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 5,312,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 6,000,000
FUNDING SOURCE: LID
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------
688,000 3, 187,000 2,125,000 6,000,000
lU�/J
� a
qV Y
1
�a
34
z �
YY
qY ]
P 4a^
] MO FYC ] 1
Imo[M Y 1 ICIIQ qY[
� � L XCOIM
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: 77th Avenue S. - S. 202nd St. to S. 212th St.
DESCRIPTION: (Project length .64 Mi . ) Widen roadway to three lanes with
curb & gutter, sidewalk, drainage, paving, channelization,
street lighting & landscaping. Install new traffic signal at
77th Ave. S. & S. 212th St. .
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 200,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 200,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 900,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1 ,300,000
FUNDING SOURCE: LID
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr &a6th Yr Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ,300,000 1 ,300,000
: a
zoo x 11 � JM/Ni
L
1, xxxx0 el
x fT
i V
I e zaerx n
e
BOE/NG HEROSPACE � axon
RF
e xo
rx�
w/ 4
o snitH �/
fz fH. JJJ �s
Tx T SCHOOx s�
xlx f
r
J
n
b
19
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: VMS Upgrade
DESCRIPTION: Replace existing Master Traffic Signal Computer with new
upgraded system.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 0
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ (i
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 150,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 150,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 5
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
150,000 150,000
NO MAP
20
x
LO
N
N
Q in
'3'S '3Ad H19L1 v
0 v
N
N /
a
I-
z
W CM
2 N
9 '3'S '3AV H1bOG <
W
0 }
cc : N 0
a cc
N
Owl
o �, �sG=a's r 06
F- H� HA3 N o� M N _ •3 d "id 1N33 Z
r INC.[ ► O
0 N N N W
G. lumn)
inN f�
►r►r►► r
z ' H'A M
Q M �
cc. th i
W
o
Z
X n
N
Ir r
N
5��
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: James St. and Central Avenue
DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Minor widening of intersection to accomodate
a westbound right turn lane at northwest corner.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 10,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 90,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 100,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, TIB, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
100,000 100,000
Q MC lM x MO
5
s s n
r
a n
ct, KENJ
W s ` REROR C
n Y § PARK V ISM rt
ci NRONS F c ox IrE
CN E/EL O:
s x mn sr
ezHr tunas
see sr cn...arr rurrcno � rr
.veto rxaxexn041
a xc
„.fiDe
n rx sr 3WH r
Q �a 0 I.F.�Y
�o o❑
0� 0
o,. ,r
21
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Kent-Kangley Rd. and 111th Avenue S.E.
DESCRIPTION: (Project length .49 Mi . ) Install traffic signal interconnect
cable for 104th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 256th St. to
Kent-Kangley Rd. and Ill th Avenue S.E. .
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 0
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr q 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10,000 10,000
8
ii CNN/4J — L:
/NNA' S
P oe W E t[
EN/O/NN SyI MTN
N.�(N SCHOOL EAST NI
]t [S[IM IT
[[iT
NENf s
JNIN rim
MEWC NIL : J
PAW IT[[olx$I � 9 N^ �
NIC MILL f[�
JCNML ; t
JEOMIN
N/CN JCN
![ ltt IN ff
It il[X IT
22
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: 72nd Avenue S. and S.212th St.
DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Install a westbound right turn lane at the
northeast corner of intersection.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 10,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 40,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr C 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 5th Yr Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
50,000 50,000
1x n
e ioe ix )1
8MIN6 AE60SP/7CE
� oe lx 1t
O'EF/fn i
I f[En.
11x Ct JCNOOL flt1
I("�I eeelx 31 f xtetx]t
yk ` t 1I01H et
23
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: 100th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 240th St.
DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Install pedestrian protection for eastbound
and westbound travel , and provide loop detection.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 0
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 30,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 30,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr j 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------
30,000 30,000
On
it xxxhx
IN
,renr
anon t � j
qqK � xanx rl
@ sx a
` x11ST IT
IR S d s
SKIT" ! x T
^ n
y J„ • S YI Tx ST
11/'�y1 0 KA StAl
1
24
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Lincoln Avenue and James St.
DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Install a traffic signal at the intersection
of Lincoln Avenue and James St. with vehicle detection and
opticom. Provide interconnect to existing pedestrian signal
and railroad signal approximately 100 feet to the east.
Installation requested by Metro to accomodate transit
vehicles.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 19,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 111 ,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 130,000
FUNDING SOURCE: METRO
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr A , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 5th Yr Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
130,000 130,000
5
Y ceu ,yfN7
V f ` NENOR L
((I IfM 1f
LA fIELO�
urr I `
JMnIJ ACMr /I rfl i
IMfi(I [R1gMS /(q!f/(1 0
q/K o•1 ' Y 1Y,( O E
An
'KnKM ® ❑❑ o-nY ��
Y nt([EI1 ( --�
f LOINS! 40vt fil 0M
25
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Smith St-/Lincoln Avenue/Meeker St. - West Valley Highway to 1st
Avenue
DESCRIPTION: (Project Length .76 Mi . ) Install a two-way left turn lane.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 5,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 15,000
FUNDING SOURCE: CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15,000 15,000
Y ME
' ` nfnaR t g V
� PF/7K ` orrx n
[ ]zvrx ]T z<
° [A 11 1&O�
I axe]]T ] rx
SMwJ ]RR]r [OMnCWJ r[.Irf/fC0 `
MOSER
nursFT[ rMu d !
�r ,RAM RW _ •`• ]SRPO
Alm
[Y[f[OGIlf x � O�
ur
x � s
RI T
1 RC TO b
]RRR ]T
it r I
Rrn r�;
r �
c N CRRG]T
f R J f/,1F m
JLI. : n
26
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Military Rd_ - S.228th St. to SR-516
DESCRIPTION: (Project Length .57 Mi . ) Widen existing roadway to five
lanes with curb and gutter, and sidewalk. Provide drainage,
paving, channelization, street lighting and landscaping.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 202,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1 , 148,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1 ,350,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, LID, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr I I 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr I b 6th Yr ITotalI
----------------------------------------------------------
---- -----
202,000 1 , 148,000 1 ,350,000
OES MO NES
loin of EL ff. JfM
L.iNNOYIEN
]1]IM Si
ti~ f Zi ly�M
J
a KEN7-NIGNCRNOS
\ F LR1VOf14L
V� I
O
] + �IONRY 11vIE8CHRN6f
]x]ax] E
Y � r
N/6N1 IN£ I '
60NNUNIrr '
�^ —
GOL L EGE + o
— fors
S&WS
N10N,9r xnxr
27
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: 4th Avenue - Willis St. to James St.
DESCRIPTION: (Project Length .62 Mi . ) lnstall a two-way left turn lane.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 2,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 8,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10,000
FUNDING SOURCE: CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
------------------------------------------------ ---------------------
.10,000 10,000
C ONS=
LA f/EL 97 _ c
JMe! Ir
1 oix n'
AfAI Met# 5 ]epi IT
]nn II y CMAOMJ A/fIng i
i Af/A eI� rl EET 3 � ]
JFL(
rm)r 7�
ro MY
AJOf _
It as r )n I IN ]! •—�—
n[N N r' ❑❑ C E
❑❑ 0
nerg IT
nr
o nx n
ec ri n
]RM EHI
O
4U lee n]ex 11
/\l\ nt] s
Y A JJs M n40 IT n IT
nd f/Af x
i r JJA. s M1 ]i CNA/US
i IRAK
� x nex ea t x9 KENJ
��rnt rsr IpER/O/NN
28
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: James St. - 94th Avenue S. to 100th Avenue S.
DESCRIPTION: (Project Length .38 Mi . ) Install traffic signal interconnect
between 100th Avenue S. and 94th Avenue S. , provide new
controller and -loop detection at the intersection of 94th
Avenue S. and James St. .
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 10,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ J
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 20,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 30,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr I Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30,000 30,000
, [ xa i Mil
P xOv qC lM INJA �_
5 x ,
' r If 233RO
zs Tx r[ Y
.ME /%Oi
NENf
e NENOR G —
PgRA' RSRH It
Ci elyINS ec 6 -
.q'FIR O: _—
e!orx er
Jnrr IO/10fr � xr l sr sr
rA
L'Q°YONJ fL�rFJfLO '
N
_ IDE _ r
� xITM s ^ i Ia � snr rx r SE r 1
00 �
n
29
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT- James St. - Alvord Avenue to Hazel Avenue
DESCRIPTION: (Project Length . 14 Mi .) Provide widening and channelization
improvements for left turning movements into the Church of
the Nazarene_
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 10,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 190,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 250,000
FUNDING SOURCE: HES, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 5th Yr Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
250,000 250,000
�6 txt� i
P 01AC tx a Nn xl([
-N.t - a
x�xt REND
' e ' REROR L
g j PRRM u WIN rt
' er
xr sa+otx
MIT ,r
OMS PLC/F/Li0
elex!!e T >
d
rN 11 z ,xtrN r
�GN
x, as o -
�--� o nx n
30
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: S. 212th St. - West Valley Highway to 84th Avenue S.
DESCRIPTION: (Project Length 1 .00 Mi .) Widen existing roadway to seven
lanes with drainage, paving, sidewalk, curb and gutter,
street lighting, landscaping, underground utilities,
channelization and signing.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 600,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 3,400,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 4,000,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, LID, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
600,000 3,400,000 4,000,000
—pa IN sl j
BOE/NG REROSPRCE € W s]°sl
OP
KF
a
E
4L zo.
KIWI(
JH/ai MffR ,
r,
J,
it lrH]i
GRRR/JOI
LA OON ] !]°iN r cRFeR
31
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: S. 228th St. - Military Rd. to 68th Avenue S. (SR-181)
DESCRIPTION: (Project Length 2.08 Mi . ) Construct new roadway for S. 228th
St. from 54th Avenue S. to Military Road and improve S.
228th St. from 54th Avenue S. to 68th Avenue S. .
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 748,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 610,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 5,642,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 7,000,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TI6, LID, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr l I I 4, 5,
Annual Element I 2nd Yr I 3rd Yr I & 5th Yr I Total
748,000 610,000 5,642,000 7,000,000
LID
�
fAM'OY
Arm. JL I $
� 6MNOY/fN
/NRX
L Rwrit I
i
N/ON,9Y /N7CRCN,9NCC
32
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: West Valley Highway - S. 180th St. to S. '189th st.
DESCRIPTION: (Project Length .56 Mi . ) Major widening of West Valley
Highway to include curb and gutter, sidewalk, street
lighting, grading paving, channelization, signalization,
signing and landscaping.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 55,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 505,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2, 130,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,700,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIE, LID, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
&
Annual Element � 2nd Yr � 3rd Yr � �6th Yr Total
65,000 505,000 2, 130,000 2,700,000
---------------------------------------
- _ __ __ - ---l
�pEr Tn ILRxn on
Ra IT
no
e /
h _
E Elxv I
2 a /reoo
TUifWI F � �"4
I IEIIR IT
2 / I MN IT
GLACIER it
EOT r ❑OTx IT
I IEOTx IT
I U1x0 It
L VVV — I nETB Ir
33
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: City-Wide Traffic Signal Installation and Improvement
DESCRIPTION: Add new traffic sianals and provide traffic signal
modifications adding protected/permissive phasing at various
intersection locations.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 0
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 273,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 273,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
273,000 273,000
NO MAP
34
fR
N
(n IC)
= N
F N
O
Q N
cc 3'S '3AV H194G vi
C) Al
O v
c 2
IL �Q
z U)�
w co
2 ce) w
w >-
O '3'S '3Ad H1b01 _
F-
m X
a.
R.N. IRn d1
o d �_
L91=b'S � �n
co Cl) LL
F- M
Q = 'H'A'3 ti
•3A 'iVlil 30
cc co F=-
O T c,, cc
IL ai D
U) — o
Z — LL
•H'n'nn
H
Q
cc
>- cn
.X o
z
N
n
N
U)
5��
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: Central Avenue and S. 259th St.
DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Install two phase traffic signal , street
lighting and channelization.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 10,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 120,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 130,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Tota-1
------------------------------------------------------------------
130,000 130,000
U rcu leeneex 1L
ry
911E � i
A /t' /Inf I x uw n er
T
/AAA
K 6 ecx t
L -AL"I
1
M.LC IT
AfNf WENT ��
cfncrfnr rvinc(ve�'q� � �
JCENlC N!(
/Ann
N!C N!((
e v xa JCNAOC e
e seex e
r ry I
E
e egrxn� e u IT I
35
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: N. Central Avenue and Smith St.
DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Add a new double left turn lane,
channelization, street lighting, signal upgrade and signing.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 75,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 100,000
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 325,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 500,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
500,000 500,000
•COL! KENT
igHK x!r
]r
Ci KNONS F L L
[A F/fL 0` d
AFN7 MMFN
!RR!r CWLnM'J ?tAff/rxG '*
nf/n r10RelR } u � !I
RI7X]! a 39ITX r
x KL-aoa _
RX !1
RC 19 6
IRRR ]f
LYIILR fOR]i
y �4
917 f
CRLp!1 9
F/K
1 JJn. a n<I et
36
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: 4th Avenue S. and Willis St.
DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Intersection improvements to include:
modifying westbound mast arm, installing
protected/permissive phasing and providing loop detection.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 0
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 25,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 25,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------
25,000 25,000
W Jf>rr ia+vfr � C
'AA'r rurna.5 n�rftn a V
nn rTere'x � �
an
e/x `
� e rn er �� enrtx
xx ei
WOO
e'M eT
GUMA3
A11L
CA CA
K fro.
i F r
f K
37
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: S.E. 240th St. and 104th Avenue
DESCRIPTION: (Project Length . 11 Mi . ) Construct additional eastbound
acceleration lane on James St. approximately 600 feet east
of the intersection and add protected/permissive phase.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 15,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 135,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 150,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
150,000 150,000
fL EA.
£NJ/ `0� � SCHOOL r
/ 1 x0 x M/ll j
?MN r
T 1t 1]Ino
8
f>m rty
0
r 237TH rt
E
y
:rr eT xr
1
e lueo r
r ix i
L
a �
e + SE Ih IT
38
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: 101st Avenue S.E. and S.E. 256th St.
DESCRIPTION: (Intersection) Install pedestrian protection for eastbound
and westbound travel , provide loop detection for eastbound
left turn and into Kent Meridian Hiah School .
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 0
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 30,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 30,000
FUNDING SOURCE: FAUS, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
30,000 30,000
IT
C
1 'Kew
f �
r w
I IT p Ir 8 €
/NNN n
xeNr x It,
�` EN101NN x>
M 0H SCN001 EAST HJ
YNNI H xlllx Ir
xxaix IT
NENr NENr ls� CENIE9 ,, �
rENerenr JNiN aue�� ,,, , � I
JCCNrc Nl[ Y II x
/NM1T IT xe orx II
N/C N!f
JCNM s
se"I'l
N/LN JCN
Ix 2I4IX Ir
s
39
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: 94th Avnue S. - Canyon Dr. to James St.
DESCRIPTION: (Project Length .06 Mi . ) Widen to three lanes with curb and
gutter, and sidewalk. Provide drainage, paving,
channelization, signing, street lighting and 'landscaping.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 120,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 680,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 800,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, LID, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4 , 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 5th Yr Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
800,000 800,000
ann n - I
]E\etx n
/ MUST ]T
s S x\3n0 Si I ( \
SNI IN t24IN ST
Y
D
J 'TI -/ 3 UTx ST
xx ST
OR TO b e
cmeen3eN a
9
i[\TT f
C n
x uLe]1 it
m _ Nv r
AVn ]T x CAh/US
IFMT
xucx r x I NENI it
n r �xE9/OIHN -- xsvn
,--i W H SCHOOL EH57 IV
40
SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT: S.E. 248th St. - 94th St. to '116th Avenue S.E.
DESCRIPTION: (Project Length 1 .40 Mi . ) Widen to three lanes with curb and
gutter, and sidewalk. Provide drainage, paving,
channelization, signing, street lighting and landscaping.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . .$ 266,000
Right Of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1 ,509,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1 ,775,000
FUNDING SOURCE: TIB, LID, CITY
PROJECT COST:
1st Yr 4, 5,
Annual Element 2nd Yr 3rd Yr & 6th Yr Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ,775 ,000 1 ,775,000
1
1 ntx Sr` If natx Sr
2•Sli SL s
x l C
1 SSSxO$f
v WIN r Ix Sr a
w,tnla Sr �
x ale,r Sr
rn MO I
x i � CFMVJ u —
/ARK _ v —
,cx ST x I KENJ _ It —
g❑ Wry SCI Satx
Wry SCHOOL EAST N/
41
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 17 1990
Category Public Hearings
1`
1. SUBJECT: 1991 CITY OF KENT BUDGET
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to receive public
input for items to be considered in developing the 1991 Budget.
The input will be included with department requests for Council
prioritization at an all day work session on August 9 at the
Kent Senior Center. The Finance Director will make a short
staff report prior to the opening of the public hearing.
3 . EXHIBITS: Council Budget Calendar
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO
YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF ,FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
moves Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2C
4/11/90
CITY OF RENT, WASHINGTON
COUNCIL BUDGET CALENDAR
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 3/20
4th Quarter Financial Report
Review 1991 Budget, Calendar/Process
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5/1
1st Quarter Financial Report
Preliminary Financial Forecast
Review of 1991 budget process
COUNCIL COMMITTEES 6/4 - 7/13
Review Departmental programs, goals and budget
New CIP priorities
Presentation to include 1991 Preliminary Budget Objectives
DEPARTMENTS MEET WITH ADMINISTRATION (Council invited) 7/16 - 7/27
Reviews 1991 budget requests
COUNCIL REGULAR 7/17
Proposed Use Public Hearing on 1991 Budget priorities
COUNCIL WORK SESSION (8:00 A.M. - 3 : 00 P.M. ) 8/9
2nd Quarter Financial Report
Updated Financial Forecast
Departmental presentations on 1991 Budget Objectives
Council to Prioritize 1991 Budget Objectives
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AND MEETING 8/21
Results of Council Prioritization of Budget Objectives
Proposed Use Public Hearing on Budget
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 9/18
Budget update of implementing 1991 Budget Objectives
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 10/16
Review 3rd Quarter Financial Report
Overview of Preliminary 1991 Budget
COUNCIL WORKSHOPS 10/16 - 11/13
Review Preliminary Budget
COUNCIL REGULAR 11/6
Public Hearing on 1991 budget
COUNCIL REGULAR 12/4
Adoption of Budget and Tax Levy Ordinance
COUNCIL REGULAR 12/18
Adoption of the Final Adjustments for 1990
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through P be approved.
Discussion
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
July 3 , 1990.
3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through July 20, 1990
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
2 :00 p.m. on July 24, 1990.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
A a Check Numbers Amount
r ,
c-!
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
7/ 5/ 90 137856 - 138638 $818 , 777 . 28
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
j
Kent, Washington
July 3 , 1990
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Dowell , Houser,
Johnson, Mann, Orr, White and Woods, City Administrator Chow, Interim
City Attorney Williamson, Planning Director Harris, Public Works
Director Wickstrom, Finance Director McCarthy, Fire Chief Angelo,
Assistant City Administrator Hansen, Personnel Director Olson,
Information Services Director Spang and City Clerk Jensen. Acting
Capt. David Everett attended in place of Chief Frederiksen who was on
vacation. Parks Director Wilson was absent. Approximately 40 people
were in attendance.
PUBLIC (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1A)
COMMUNICATIONS Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher noted that
Mary Simmons has been selected as Employee of the
Month for July. Mary works as a Word Processing
Specialist for the Information Services Department.
She has been especially commended for her ability to
meet deadlines without sacrificing quality and
efficiency. A plaque was presented by the Mayor and
all present joined in congratulations.
(ADDED TO THE AGENDA)
Kherson Visitors. Mayor Kelleher introduced Igor
Bedni who has been serving as interpreter. Mr. Ivan
Fiordivich Voronin, through Mr. Bedni, expressed his
appreciation for Kent 's hospitality and especially
to the Y.E.S. (Youth Exchange Society) . Mr. Voronin
noted that he hoped to establish a business link
with Kent. The Mayor noted that Mr. Voronin was
wearing a Soviet medal, the equivalent of the
Congressional Medal, earned during World War II as
an aviator.
Laurisa Tolkunova, wife of the artist of the new
mural, addressed the Council in English and told of
her impressions of her visit to several cities,
noting especially the warmth with which she was
received. Mayor Kelleher noted that Ms. Tulkunova
was a pen pal of Jeanne Humphrey for many years,
which led to the establishment of the sister city
affiliation with Kherson. Valentina Vypenko,
Director of School 55, visited by the Kent dele-
gation, noted that the students were glad to see
each other again. Sasha Zborschchik stated that he
hoped this visit would be the first of more visitor
exchanges.
1
July 3 , 1990
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through I
CALENDAR be approved. Mann seconded and the motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the
Council meeting of June 19 , 1990 .
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
Quit Claim Deed - Drainage Facility S.R. 516 -
160th Ave. SE - Water Main Easement. AUTHORIZATION
to quit claim deed to the State the City ' s drainage
easement rights obtained along S.R. 516 in the
vicinity of 160th Ave. S .E. as approved by the
Public Works Committee.
(BID - ITEM 5B)
Kent Springs Transmission Main. On April 3 , 1990,
this project was awarded to Volker-Stevin Pacific,
Inc. Because the Army Corps of Engineers has now
exercised jurisdiction over a portion of Phase II of
the project, we cannot guarantee the project could
be constructed as awarded. The Corps has, however,
given its authorization to proceed with Phase I of
the project.
Therefore, it is recommended the award to Volker-
Stevin be rescinded, their bid bond returned, and
the project plans and specifications revised to
reflect Phase I of the project, and the project
readvertised for bids. WHITE SO MOVED, Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
SEWERS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Contract Modification - Sanitary Sewer Service -
Midway Housing/Department of the Army. This item
was tabled at the last meeting and is being brought
back before the Council at this time for reconsid-
eration. As presented previously, the Department of
the Army has requested modification to their
contract to include sanitary sewer service to the
Midway Family Housing units. They have been
receiving and paying for sanitary sewer service, and
this action has been requested to bring their
records and paperwork up to date.
The City Attorney clarified that there was no reason
to withhold approval and that this had nothing to do
2
July 3 , 1990
SEWERS with the recent action in connection with the Nike
Manor housing.
MANN MOVED to approve the contract modification.
Woods seconded. The motion carried with White and
Dowell opposing.
TRAFFIC (BID - ITEM 5A)
CONTROL West Valley Highway Signal Improvements at
S. 212th St. and S. 190th Street. Bids were opened
June 29 , 1990. The Director of Public Works distri-
buted the bid summary for schedules II and III as
follows:
Signal Electric $308 , 389
Gary Merlin Construction 343 , 543
Totem Electric 349, 607
WHITE MOVED to approve the recommendation of the
Public Works Director and to award the bid to Signal
Electric. Woods seconded and the motion carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
Transpor- Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) .
tation AUTHORIZATION to set July 17 as date for the annual
Improvement public hearing on the update of the City ' s Six-Year
Plan Transportation Plan (TIP) .
(ADDED TO THE AGENDA)
Barricade on 35th Ave. S. Floyd Bacon asked who
would have the responsibility of the barricade. He
West Hill recommended that the barricade be retained to
control the speed in the area. Williamson reported
that he would research this question and the Mayor
asked that he report to Mr. Bacon and to the
Council .
Mr. Bacon also noted that about four months ago
residents had asked for "no parking" signs on the
Military Rd. He pointed out that gravel and tar had
been placed on the sides of the road but that the
trucks are back again causing a dangerous situation.
He asked about the ordinance to prohibit the parking
and Public Works Director Wickstrom was instructed
to research this issue and to report to Bacon.
3
July 3 , 1990
ZONING CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
. AMENDMENT Tree Preservation Regulations No. ZCA-90-1. On
April 30, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended
Tree modifications to the City ' s existing zoning regu-
Preservation lations relating to tree preservation. specific-
ally, the amendment strengthened the enforcement
procedures, clarified definitions and procedures,
and offered some flexibility in ordinance
administration.
Colleen Miller of the Planning Commission and Fred
Satterstrom of the Planning Department explained the
background, nothing that this matter was reviewed by
the Council almost four years ago and these recom-
mendations address the concerns expressed at that
time. The recommendation contains the original
provisions and allows for site plan flexibility so
that significant trees may be preserved. Enforce-
ment is strengthened by allowing the Planning
Department to issue "stop work" orders. It was
clarified that the proposed new ordinance would
apply to developers only and would pertain to trees
six inches or more in diameter and would not affect
owners who were cutting their own trees for fire-
wood. Dowell proposed a scenario whereby a devel-
oper could ask an owner to cut the trees before
selling the property to the developer. He also
commented on the material in Exhibit B of the
packet, noting that trees to be retained on a
construction site were to be protected, with drip
lines clearly marked. Upon the Mayor' s question, it
was determined that street trees were not included
in this proposed ordinance. "Undeveloped land" was
defined as: a parcel of land which does not have an
inhabitable building and/or the inhabited buildings
occupy only three percent of the total parcel.
JOHNSON MOVED to approve the recommendation of the
Planning Commission pertaining to modifications to
the tree preservation regulations No. ZCA-90-1 and
to direct the City Attorney to prepare the ordi-
nance. White seconded. Mann stated he would vote
for the motion and hoped it would be made stronger
in the future. He also noted that the topsoil issue
should also be addressed. Orr offered as a friendly
amendment, to use more than just tags when marking
trees to be saved. It was determined that
4
ZONING CODE non-toxic paint was available for this . The amend-
AMENDMENT ment was accepted. Dowell noted that this proposal
was now four years old, that it would be difficult
Tree to police and certainly would be difficult to
Preservation enforce with the overcrowded court calendars.
Reference was made to the developer who clear-cut
500 trees over a weekend and Orr noted that she saw
the results of that, firsthand. Houser noted that
the developer cut after he was advised not to and
she pointed out that now such trees would have to be
replaced two for one. Miller stated that she
thought this was a fair proposal which would not
impede development. The motion carried with Dowell
and Houser opposing.
ECONOMIC (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
DEVELOPMENT Heinz and Renate Streng. Heinz and Renate Streng
CORPORATION have applied for industrial development bond
financing through the City of Kent Economic
Development Corporation in the amount of $850, 000
for construction of a new office/warehouse facility
in Southcenter Corporate Park. Proper legal notice
has been given for this hearing.
The Streng application for industrial revenue bonds
was approved by the EDC at a special meeting held at
6 : 30 p.m. this date. David Thompson of Preston,
Thorgrimson, attorney for the Strengs, was in
attendance. The public hearing was opened by the
Mayor. There were no comments and the hearing was
closed. WHITE MOVED to adopt City of Kent
Resolution 1250 approving the issuance of industrial
bonds in the amount of $850, 000 and approving
Resolution 1990-49 of the EDC authorizing the sale
of the bonds to provide funds for the project.
Woods seconded and the motion carried.
BUDGET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
1991 Budget. AUTHORIZATION to set a public hearing
date for the 1991 Budget for July 17 , 1990.
APPOINTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
BOARD OF Appointment. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s appoint-
ADJUSTMENT ment of Raul Ramos to the Board of Adjustment to
replace Beth Carroll who recently resigned. This
appointment will continue through February 1991.
5
July 3 , 1990
PARKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
Youth Day Camp. AUTHORIZATION for additional part-
time staff and expenses to expand the Youth Day Camp
this summer by an additional 90 campers. The cost
of expansion is $4 , 476 and is covered by $5, 000 in
revenue. Currently, there are 966 registered
campers with 255 on the camp waiting list.
PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
Scott Wetzel Agreement. AUTHORIZATION to renew for
1990 the Worker's Compensation claims administration
service agreement with Scott Wetzel Services, Inc.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills
received through July 3 , 1990 after auditing by the
Operations Committee at its meeting at 4 : 30 p.m. on
July 10, 1990.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/15 - 6/26 93219 - 93246 $ 222 , 327 . 74
6/29/90 93247 - 93798 867 , 227 . 20
$1 , 089, 554 .94
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/20/90 137103 - 137855 $ 839 , 350. 76
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Banking Service Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance
2930 related to the City' s banking business. The
ordinance allows for a three year banking contract
as recently agreed to with U. S . Bank of Washington,
removes outdated language related to repurchase
agreements, interest-bearing warrants, and check
signatures by repealing Ordinance 2297 , as recom-
mended by the Operations Committee at their June 26
meeting.
REPORTS (REPORTS - ITEM 6A)
Council President. Woods requested that Council-
members make their wishes known regarding computers
6
July 3 , 1990
REPORTS for their homes prior to the Operations Committee
meeting next week.
(REPORTS - ITEM 6F)
Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the Kherson Park
dedication would be held at noon on Monday, July 9
and invited all to attend. The Parks Department
budget will be discussed at the Parks Committee
meeting to be held at 3 : 00 p.m. on Wednesday,
July 11.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 30 p.m.
J
Marie Jense , CMC
City Clerk
7
Kent City Council Meeting
C Date July 17 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acknowledgement of a contribution in the
amount of $200 from Kent Valley Youth Services for the 1990
Youth Conference.
3 . EXHIBITS• +None
4 . RECOMMENDED AY
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCI�L/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL', NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
ti
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 17 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: FRED MEYER
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by the Roundup Company for
continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 628 feet
of water main extension, 609 feet of street improvements and
1,719 feet of storm sewer improvements constructed in the
vicinity of S.E. 240th and 100th Ave. S.E. for the Fred Meyer
store, waiver of the one-year maintenance period and release of
the cash bond.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: xStaff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PE ONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISC W 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
r- ST' I t
SE 230
� (Pvt) (Pvt)
SE 231STSE
W
S 231ST Xom
") ST \ ; 2 TH �p�` sF 232ND ST oW
ST <
} ST �<
S 232ND 232ND SE' g 232ND' 1
ST SE. 232ND PL 232ND
ST �2
' 1WO
AtiSE 233RD< AC <0 ZSTH
W as 236TH ST AVE
S 236TH
W
r ST x SE 236TH PL
w o ~ SE 237TH ST <
< U d =
E 238TH
< CQ \
Jr m (Pvt) (Pvt) SE 23YTH ST
? Q Z S 238TM "� �..l r < 8 Z W ST
W F I W
< = os &Z� P 1 8 1 7 o f SE OTH
is 240 ST .
4 > a > Ped OK11-9 HILL
p S 241ST ST 1K re EL MENTARY
gig
sT FRED MEY--R
S 243RD
yST SE 244TH
N
it = S 44T » W COK „ F N
ST > c p�
< " < O
W
.Yr'I,y ST.JAMES <
SCHOOL
vi
I
WEILAND S S 246TH
W
PL
247TH a t
W
r
C• Vt G,4 ST > 8 248TH ST' SE 248TH ST
i V J' .► �I >
iT •.jjJ � v t
E SEATTLE V`. ►_-
ST 1Yr�!art•' 516 w
S 252NC T w SE ND ST
CH GO ST �,� ,�,1• ti\
,�- . . EAST HILL
1UREL ST oc > :• '%J} o CENTER F
< �.
p t ST
t ' F F ch SE 252ND $_
Field
_MLOCK ST 49
W x��`. .�cKin 515
--- - ��' t \a COu --
1 L� Kent City Council Meeting
r Date July 17 , 1990
N Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: HEMLOCK ACRES NO. 17
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by Sunset Property Enterprises,
Inc. for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately
522 feet of water main extension, 495 feet of sanitary sewer
extension, 534 feet of street improvements and 353 feet of storm
sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of 114th Place
S.E. and S.E. 240th Street for the Hemlock Acres No. 17 project
and release of the cash bond after expiration of the one-year
maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: '
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/MRSONNEL IMPACT: N0�_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED; $
SOURCE OF FUNDS*
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
.r 11�. fay .- p i n. .� ,
.. >
W ST 1^ <
(Pvo (WU �4+ g� SE 230 �
ST _z
SE 231ST r,� SE 231ST W [R NTARY
RC
S 2313T P� ST W 230TH� �� ST F=-� 1SC L
ST < L. ti dF 232ND ST ow ^t
{ 9 VD +. •• 232ND ST SE ^< E 232 W
ST �'��• SE 232ND PL 232ND = ST 3RD
PL
... � h 1 ♦ f., - t � ., F IA
Jam.. y ('11:h d� bE 233RD
IV;��, 'S '�po � � dt^ y yl�� + ^ � 2:14TH
\ e bW trrn Z ~ �S 1 d�tis� SE .. SE
STH 235 TH 234TH Ptr
ST M BE 236TH ST 4VE Barricade
236TH
.T _ - `�. W
a� Xw SE 236TH PL
o f-N SE 237TH ST > H1eseevo
< a <` _
ti E 238TH
q ( ) Im
(pvt) SE 239TH \ ST r
W I 4;
ST
8 e=v W N 17
1 8 1 o T SE TH ST
ed ORn",Z EAST HILL
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL HEMLOCK ACRES #17
0 Cm f
SE 244TH .. ST
HW
M Z
W f
'< 8 a
E
i
W
!48TH ST' SE a 248TH ST
I
W
v
S •
W
^ W <
W SE ND ST / SE 2
EAST HILL
CENTER F E
9 French SE 252ND _$ W1 L
in w
Field 117
ST 515 I W I iSE 254TH
x
Kent City Council Meeting
` Date July 17 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: HUNTERS RUN TOO
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by Schneider Homes, Inc. for
continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 851 feet
of sanitary sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of
S.E. 229th and 116th Ave. S.E. through the Hunters Run Too
project and release of the cash bond after expiration of the
one-year maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCALfPERSONNEL 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
ELLMIrN IAKY 4V
> A
SCHOOL < SE 210TH r `
�p I =
o O F-
SE 21 TH a S
BE ^, 2
SE 211TH ST PL y N 211TH
ST S
N �+ 2
a
dE` 212TH ST O�,�Sy(�rsE 5E 1
j H SE 212TH ST SE 212T11 PL SE 212��v'�Lq G4 }`'Jy21
SE< 213TH �$ �` vo F 'W (Pvt)
F ST Sf �y SE 21 TH^ a y gL 2, gt W q gT
ti N EE
2S3tN 7� ST < y > W SE 214 2 qi'
1p SE.�..� < al ST S.
y F N 214TH C 2 g T d W
ST N f- C rA
.. ST oo Z
.r N Pl W
ST W ,N. .N. .N. <
BE 217TH ST W�frr SE 216TV
�+ E a+ H y F H Reservoir
F uj
ST �� BE 218TH '" > W y
Y > �+ p ST t W
O < <
E 219T SE 2L8TH PL I
I !-
cBE N
,y 220TH ..
ST
y1 '�
222ND
le ST 515
W
_ \ °� BE 223RD ST
~ � Irn F<41 = W I W I W
.. ., .,
BE
•��� BE
w BE 5TH PLOT y . T t224TH BE L 225TH � 16
BE ST < E THW,j m
SE 221T H _ x o < W <
SE
226TH ST ►" '` ^< �� r a n 26 H df
wW _ 8E 227T1l PL d
2>2"H ST�V I y
225T!' ST< _ BE 225TH
E x
W 229t as9TH6 H. ST. !
1 <
BE 230
ST HUNTERS RUN T00
BE 231ST PAR RCHA
W 230TH'ti� ST I all i sC LEL TARY
232ND ST
232ND ST BE -< E 232 <
SE 232ND PL 232HO = ST a ��} 3RD
= PL4
_
F F 7r f 2:14TH ST MERIDIAN SE23T
I.'� S '�ga a�a11,��'� /s '� 8E ��SCHOOL ST
yfi
Kent City Council Meeting
fJ Date July 17 , 1990
w" Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WILDBERRY
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by Classic American Homes for
continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 1, 319 feet
of water main extension and 2 ,801 feet of sanitary sewer
improvements constructed in the vicinity of So. 233rd Place and
94th Ave. So. in the plat of Wildberry and release of the cash
bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
a�nw+e+yfr�+crt�.Mtvc�u'iacu•,-�.gRtd"N:e:Tf711+5!47W�9V'7r,t§➢IYi:F.•
1. 110D1,1L_ 16 11 3-TH rr .'~ r M n o
<zim IT
7
12 i > 1 Y1 T
6T < F O r
W SE 21 TH Sr ��
oA4rtros
cRraK
�J < 151 MT H ST ww W
....� N - . .A f�
• N H
..... �o aT SE nr+o sT ,� - t L.
< a
(qy ----
vT I L
a o x
-- -- 114TH sT — e �r
SE 7nTM 71f� n
TF',yl
Z�STH�ST
r
a f > SE 7�STH➢�
n I U T >< < it
I T SE 777TM �' z ■ '
SST ' I 72 $$
ST V, 9L j Zq TN S ��'' z2.111 _$ -ST ~ OOCHAPD
> o T ` TM ..
st
5x TM ST
r V e1� BE TM , r sE
Ilg �I S DIST ST ! r or11 sf nNc x sT sT
NOVAK [ '; 14Q s 232"L'J .' SZT3lo ST 'I SE232HO3T
H ti sT
M
� L
I
jr
sJ:./ARK: `�` �- r d T
>s �Q a > d uJ
LOUD !T `
4 �c
66
` � ' Mf a fs LRl ; .T ■ro
IT
iST a
PLOD JR MS .rt Q.T.
q�� I T i... �.
TlMP bb'}60�$T W MC ILL AN T ► T i S , xt_ Df ST Q t
MI 160 V Iitr
io
ARRISOIs ST z Z a M Si ,o„f 'i Z }YTH ST 1 < 5 $; w
. . s �.' b IPLL < r
v ;. ■EIIN D —1 ; t�aTM PL
=r s x
r �
";x
a _ L `.
20 A, -
VICINITY MAP WILDBERRY
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 17, 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SHANNON SHORT PLAT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by Terhune Homes, Inc. for
continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 607 feet
of water main extension, 246 feet of sanitary sewer extension,
---� and 398 feet of storm sewer
improvements constructed in the vicinity of So. 272nd St. and
46th Ave. So. of the Shannon Short Plat and release of the cash
bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity snap
t
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, E aminer, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSO L IMPACT: NO _ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Re ommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
4
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
I
Councilmember mov�s, Councilmember seconds
i
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
SHANNON SHORT PLAT
Ll
J� 3
1 �
t4
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 17 , 1990
V Category Consent Calendar
�r
P 1. SUBJECT: TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
2 . , S-UMMARY S wrmmNIT"- .__,,_As approved by the Council at the July 3
1 meeting, option of Ordinance Zr� 3.:-� modifying the tree
preservation ordinance, amending Ordinance 2452 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff, Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL $MPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to tree preservation
regulations of the zoning code, amending
Section 15.02 (Definitions) , Section 15.08.240
(Tree Preservation) and Section 15.09.100
(Enforcement) .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Kent City Zoning Code Chapter 15.02 is
amended as follows:
CHAPTER 15.02
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this code, certain terms or words used
herein shall be interpreted as follows:
The word person includes a firm, association,
organization, partnership, trust, company, or corporation as well )
as an individual.
The present tense includes the future tense, the singular
number includes the plural, and the plural number includes the
singular.
The word shall is mandatory, the word may is permissive.
The word used or occupied includes the words intended,
designed, or arranged to be used or occupied.
The word lot includes the words plot and parcel.
15.02.005. ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE. A use or
structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily
incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure.
15.02.006. ADULT BOOKSTORE. A commercial establishment
which has a minimum of 20 percent of its stock in trade, books,
magazines, or other periodicals distinguished or characterized by
an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to
"specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas" as
defined herein. Such an establishment is customarily not open to
the public generally but only to one or more classes of the
public, excluding minors by virtue of age. It shall be a
II
i
i
i
rebuttable presumption that 20 percent of a business' stock in
trade is considered substantial. (0.2687, §2) j
15,02,007. ADULT MOTION PICTURE THEATRE. An Adult
Motion Picture Theatre is an enclosed building used for presenting)
motion picture films, video cassettes, cable television, or any
other such visual media, distinguished or characterized by an
emphasis on matter depicting, describing, or relating to
"specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas" as
hereafter defined for observation by patrons therein. This term
includes outdoor drive-in theatres or structures which present
similar films, movies, or other visual media depicting,
describing, or relating to "specified sexual activities" or
"specified anatomical areas" as hereafter defined for observation
by patrons. (0.2687, §2)
15.02,008. ADULT USES. For the terms of this code,
adult uses shall include adult motion picture theatres, adult
drive-in theatres, adult bookstores, and adult entertainment
establishments. (0.2687, §2; 0.2785 91)
15,02.009. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT. An adult
entertainment establishment means any business or operation
regulated by KCC 5.32 including any business or operation that
involves an exhibition or dance by persons that is distinguished
or characterized by an emphasis on conduct that depicts, displays,)
or relates to "specified sexual activities" or "specified
anatomical areas", as defined in Section 15.02.502 and .503. Such
an establishment customarily excludes persons by virtue of age
from all or a portion of the premises. (0.2785, §1)
15.02,010. AGRICULTURE. The use of land for
agricultural purposes, including farming, dairying, pasturage,
horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, apiaries, and animal and
poultry husbandry, and the necessary accessory uses for storing
produce; provided, however, that the operation of any such
accessory use shall be incidental to that of normal agricultural
activities and provided further that the above uses shall not
include the commercial feeding of garbage or refuse to swine or
other animals.
15.02,015. ALLEY OR LANE. A public or private way not
more than thirty (30) feet wide affording only secondary means of
access to abutting property.
15.02.020. APARTMENT. A dwelling unit in a multifamily ]
building.
15.02.025. APARTMENT HOUSE (MULTIFAMILY DWELLING) . Any
building, or portion thereof, which is designed, built, rented,
leased, let, or hired out to be occupied, or which is occupied asl
the home or residence of three or more families living independ-
ently of each other and doing their own cooking in the said build,
ing, and shall include flats and apartments.
I
15.02.030. AUTOMOBILE REPAIR. Includes fixing,
incidental body or fender work, painting upholstering, engine
I
2 -
j
tune-up, adjusting lights, brakes, supply and installing
replacement parts to passenger vehicles and trucks.
15 02 035. AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION OR GASOLINE
FILLING STATION. A building or lot having pumps and storage tanks
where fuels, oils, or accessories for motor vehicles are
dispensed, sold or offered for sale at retail only; repair service,
is incidental and no storage or parking space is offered for rent.1
15.02,040. AUTOMOBILE WRECKING OR MOTOR VEHICLE
WRECKING. The dismantling or disassembling of motor vehicles or
the storage, sale or dumping of dismantled, partially dismantled,
obsolete or wrecked motor vehicles or their parts.
i
15 02 045. BASEMENT. That portion of a building between
floor and ceiling, which is partly below and partly above grade,
but so located that the vertical distance from grade to the floor
below is less than the vertical distance from grade to ceiling.
15.02.050. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. The Kent Board of
Adjustment created in accordance with RCW 35A.
15.02,055. BOARDING OR LODGING HOME. A dwelling or part)
thereof, other than a motel or hotel, where lodging with or with-
out meals, is provided, for compensation for not more than three
(3) persons.
15.02.060. BUILDING. Any structure having a roof sup-
ported by columns or walls used or intended to be used for the
shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property of any kind.
15.02.065. BUILDING HEIGHT. The vertical distance from
the "grade" to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or
to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the,
highest gable of a pitch or hip roof.
15.02.070. CANOPY. A roof-like projection.
15.02.075. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The plans, maps, reports,
which have been adopted by the City Council in accordance with RCW.
35.63 or RCW 35A.
�I
15.02.080. COMBINING DISTRICT. District regulations
superimposed on an underlying zoning district which impose addi-
tional regulations for specific uses, and which are valid for a
stipulated time period. Uses permitted by the underlying zone may,
, also be developed.
15.02.085. COMMON OPEN SPACE. A parcel or parcels of
land or an area of water or a combination of land and water within
the site designated for a planned unit development, and designed
and intended primarily for the use or enjoyment of the residents
of such development.
15.02.090. CONDITIONAL USE. A use permitted in a zoning
district only after review and approval by the Hearing Examiner.
3 -
i
I
Conditional uses are such that they may be compatible only on cer-
tain conditions in specific locations in a zoning district, or if
the site is regulated in a certain manner.
15,02.092. CREEKS MAJOR. The following are major
creeks identified by the City of Kent.
A. Mill Creek
B. Garrison Creek and its tributaries i
C. Springbrook Creek
D. Johnson Creek
E. Midway Creek
F. Star Lake Creek
G. Bingaman Creek
H. Mullen Slough
I. Mill Creek (Auburn)
J. West Branch Big Soos Creek and tributaries
The location of these creeks is identified on the map
entitled "Hazard Area Development Limitations," KCC 15.08.222.
15.02.093. CREEKS MINOR. All creeks other than major
creeks and generally including the following criteria; a course or,
route as formed by nature, or as altered by human activity and
generally consisting of a channel with a bed, banks, or sides sub-i
stantially throughout its length along with surface waters, with
some regularity, naturally and normally flow or drain from high to
lower lands. The location of these creeks is identified on the
I
map entitled "Hazard Area Development Limitations," KCC 15.08.222.;
15.02.095. CROP AND TREE FARMING. The use of land for
horticultural purposes.
15.02.097. DANGEROUS WASTES. Those wastes designated in
WAC 173-303-070 through 173-303-103 as dangerous wastes. This
may include any discarded, useless, unwanted, or abandoned
substances, including but not limited to certain pesticides, or
any residues or containers of such substances which are disposed
of in such quantity or concentration as to pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health, wildlife, or the
environment because such wastes or constituents or combinations ofl
such wastes:
A. have short-lived, toxic properties that may cause
death, injury, or illness or have mutagenic, teratogenic, or
carcinogenic properties or
B. are corrosive, explosive, flammable, or may generate:
pressure through decomposition or other means.
i
A moderate risk waste is not a dangerous waste. (0.2801, §1)
I
15.02.098. DESIGNATED ZONE FACILITY. Any hazardous
waste facility that requires an interim or final status permit
under rules adopted under Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303
WAC and that is not a "preempted facility" as defined in RCW
70.105.010 or in WAC 173-303; a hazardous waste treatment and/or
storage facility is a designated zone facility. (0.2801, §1)
4 -
i
ill 15.02,100. DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A plan drawn to scale,
indicating the proposed use, the actual dimensions and shape of
the lot to be built upon, the exact sizes and locations on the lot
of buildings already existing, if any, and the location on the lot
of the proposed building or alteration, yards, setbacks, land-
scaping, off-street parking, ingress and egress, and signs.
15,02,105. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Regulations including
but not limited to setbacks, landscaping, screening, height, site ',
coverage, signs, building layout, parking and site design and
related features of land use.
I
15.02.107. DISCONTINUANCE. The abandonment or nonuse of
a building, structure, sign and/or lot for a period of six (6)
months.
15.02.110. DISTRICT. An area designated by the Kent
Zoning Code with specific boundaries in which lie specific zones
which zones are described in the code.
15,02,111. DOCK HIGH LOADING AREAS. Truck maneuvering
areas and loading/unloading areas associated with loading doors
that are located above the finish grade. (0.2740, §1)
i
15,02.112. DRAINAGE DITCHES. A manmade channel with a
bed, bank or sides which discharges surface waters into a major or
minor creek, lake, pond or wetland.
15.02.113, DRIPLINE. A circle drawn at the soil line
j' directly under the outermost branches of a tree.
15.02.115. DWELLING, SINGLE FAMILY. A detached residen-
tial dwelling unit other than a mobile home, designed for and
occupied by one family only.
I
15.02.120. DWELLING. TWO FAMILY. A detached residential
building containing two dwelling units, designed for occupancy by
I not more than two families.
I i
15.02.125. DWELLING. MULTIPLE FAMILY. A residential
building designed for or occupied by three or more families, with
the number of families in residence not exceeding the number of
dwelling units provided.
15.02.130. DWELLING UNIT. One room, or rooms connected ,
together, constituting a separate, independent housekeeping estab
lishment for owner occupancy, or rental or lease on a weekly,
monthly, or longer basis, and physically separated from any other ,
rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure or on
the same property and containing independent cooking and sleeping
facilities.
15.02.132. EROSION HAZARD AREA.
A. Class 1 Erosion Hazard Areas. All areas of the
City, other than Class 2 or 3 erosion hazard areas. These areas
are areas where no development limitations are deemed necessary,
except where described under Chapter 15.04 - District Regulations.'
- 5 -
i
B. Class Erosion Hazard Areas. All soils mapped by the
Soil Conservation Service as having moderate to severe erosion
hazard potential. These soils in the City of Kent include Arents,l
Alderwood material (AmC) , Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC) , and
Everett gravelly sandy loam (EvD) .
C. Class 3 Erosion Hazard Areas. All soils mapped by
the Soil Conservation Service as having a severe to very severe
erosion hazard potential. These soils in the City of Kent include
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Agd) and Alderwood Kitsap soil
(AKF) .
D. Soil Conservation Service Maps referenced herein are
on file with the City Clerk.
15,02,132. EXTREMELY H_AZAgDOUS WASTE. Those wastes
designated in WAC 173-303-070 through 173-303-103 as extremely
hazardous wastes. This may include any dangerous waste which
A. will persist in a hazardous form for several years
or more at a disposal site and which in its persistent form
1. presents a significant environmental hazard I and may be concentrated by living organisms through a food chain or i
may affect the genetic make-up of man or wildlife and
2. is highly toxic to man or wildlife,
B. if disposed of at a hazardous waste disposal site in
such quantities as would present an extreme hazard to man or the
environment. (0.2801, §1)
15.02.135. FAMILY. A person living alone, or two or
more persons customarily living together as a single housekeeping
unit and using common cooking facilities, as distinguished from a
group occupying a hotel, club, boarding or lodging house.
15.02.140. FENCE - SIGHT OBSCURING. The minimum for a
sight-obscuring fence is a chain-link fence with woven slats in
every row or available space of the fence.
15.02.145. FENCE - 100% SIGHT OBSCURING. A fence con- j
structed of solid wood, metal or other appropriate material which
totally conceals subject use from adjoining uses at six (6) feet
above the base of the fence line, at twenty (20) feet from subject
property line.
15.02.150. FRONTAGE BUILDING OR OCCUPANCY. The length
of that portion of a building or ground floor occupancy which 1
abuts a street, publicly used parking area, or mall appurtenant to
said building or occupancy expressed in lineal feet and fractionsil
thereof.
15.02.155. GARAGE OR CARPORT, PRIVATE. A building, or a
portion of a building principally for vehicular equipment such as
automobiles, boats, etc. , not more than one thousand (1,000)
square feet in area, in which only motor vehicles used by the
6 -
i
�I
tenants of the building or buildings on the premises are stored on
kept.
15 02 160. GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES. Uses described in i
Section 15.08.030. Such uses shall be deemed conditional uses in
all districts.
15,02.165. GRADE. The lowest point of elevation of the
finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of a
building and a point five feet distant from said wall, or the
lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground
between the exterior wall of a building and the property line if
It is less than five feet distant from said wall. In case walls
are parallel to and within five feet of a public sidewalk, alley
or other public way, the grade shall be the elevation of the side-,
walk, alley or public way.
15.02.170. GROSS FLOOR AREA. The area included within
the surrounding exterior walls of a building expressed in square
feet and fractions thereof. The floor area of a building not
provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable area
under the horizontal projections of the roof or floor above.
15.02.172. GROUNDCOVER. Low growing vegetative
materials with a mound or spreading manner of growth that provides)
solid cover within two years after planting. (Examples: sod or
seed lawn, ivy, junipers, cotoneaster, etc.) (0.2801, §1)
15 02 174. GUEST COTTAGE. An accessary, detached
dwelling without any kitchen facilities designed for and used to
house transient visitors or non-paying guests of the occupants of
the main building. (0.2801, §1)
15, 2.175. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE. Any liquid, solid, gas,',
or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity,
or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the
characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as described in
rules adopted under Chapter 70.105 RCW or in WAC 173-303-090,
173-303-101, 173-303-102, or 173-303-103. (0.2801, 51)
15.02.176. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE FACILITY BUFFER ZONE. A
setback area between the hazardous substance land use facility
boundary and the nearest point of the hazardous substance land use
property line, necessary to provide added protection to adjacent
land uses or resources of beneficial use. All hazardous waste
treatment and/or storage facilities must maintain at least a 50
foot buffer zone. (0.2801, §1)
15.02.177. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LAND USE. Any use which
is permitted under the Kent Zoning Code and which includes a
designated zone facility, or the processing or handling of
hazardous substance as defined herein. (0.2801, §1)
15.02.178. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LAND USE FACILITY. The
projected line enclosing the area of all structures and lands on
which hazardous substance land use activities occur, have occurred
in the past or will occur in the future. This does not include
the application of products for agriculture purposes. (0.2801, §1)
- 7 -
I
I
l
I
15.02.179. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE PROCESSING OR HANDLING
of. The compounding, treatment, manufacture, synthesis, use or
storage of hazardous substances in excess of the following amounts)
in bulk quantities: 5,000 pounds of solid hazardous substances;
500 gallons of liquid hazardous substances; and 650 cubic feet of
gaseous hazardous substances. (0.2801, §1)
I
15,02,180. HAZARDOUS WASTE. Any dangerous and extremely
hazardous waste, including substances composed of radioactive and
hazardous components. A moderate risk waste is not a hazardous
waste. (0.2801, §1)
15,02,181. HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY. The contiguous
land and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the
land used for recycling, storing, treating, incinerating, or I
Ii disposing of hazardous waste. (0.2801, §1)
15.02.182. HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE FACILITY. Any
designated zone facility which holds hazardous waste for a
temporary period not to exceed five years; this does not include
accumulation of hazardous waste by the generator on the site of
generation, as long as the generator complies with the applicable ;
requirements of WAC 173-303-200 and 173-303-201. (0.2801, §1)
15,02.183. HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY. Any
designated zone facility which processes hazardous waste by
physical, chemical, or biological means to make such waste
nonhazardous or less hazardous, safer for transport, amenable for
energy or material resource recovery, amenable for storage, or
reduced in volume. (0.2801, §1)
15,02.184. HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT OR STORAGE
FACILITY. OFF-SITE. Any hazardous waste treatment or storage
facility which treats or stores wastes that are generated off site.
15.02.185. HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT OR STORAGE
FACILITY. ON-SITE. Any hazardous waste treatment or storage
facility which treats or stores only those wastes that are
generated on-site.
15.02.186. HEARING EXAMINER (LAND USE)-. A person
appointed by the City Administrator to conduct public hearings on
applications outlined in the City ordinance creating the Hearing
Examiner, and who prepares a record, findings of fact and conclu-
sions on such applications. (0.2808, §1)
I
15.02.187. HIGHEST SHADE PRODUCING POINT. The point of
a structure which casts the longest shadow at noon on January 21. !
15.02.190. HOME OCCUPATION. The carrying on of a lawful
business activity within the dwelling unit by the inhabitants of
the dwelling unit. (0.2424, §1)
15,02.195. HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION. An incorporated,
non-profit organization operating under recorded land agreements
through which (a) each lot owner is automatically a member and (b)
each lot is automatically subject to a charge for a proportionate ,
8 -
II
j I
share of the common property and (c) a charge if unpaid, becomes a
lien against the property.
15,02.200. HOTEL. Any building containing six or more
guest rooms intended or designed to be used, or which are used,
rented, or hired out to be occupied, or which are occupied for
sleeping purposes by guests.
15.02,202. IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. That hard surface area
which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil
mantle as it entered under natural conditions pre-existent to
development, and/or that hard surface area which causes water to
run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate
of flow from that present under natural conditions pre-existent to
development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not lim-!
I ited to, roof tops, concrete or asphalt paving, paved walkways,
patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, and oiled, maca-
dam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltra-i
tion of surface water.
i15.02.205. INTERIOR COURT. A space, open and
unobstructed to the sky, located at or above grade level on a lot
and bounded on three or more sides by walls of a building.
15.02.210. JUNK YARD. A place where waste, discarded on
salvaged materials are bought, sold, exchanged, stored, baled,
cleaned, packed, disassembled, or handled, including auto and
motor vehicle wrecking yards, house wrecking yards, used-lumber
yards and yards for use of salvaged house wrecking and structurali
steel materials and equipment.
15.02.215. K NN L. Any premises on which four (4) or
more dogs, which are five-months old or older are kept.
15.02.217. LAKES. Natural or artificial bodies of water
of two or more acres and/or where the deepest part of the basin at
low water exceeds two meters (6.6 feet) . Artificial bodies of
i water with a recirculation system approved by the Public works
Department are not included in this definition.
15.02.220. LANDSCAPING. Vegetative cover including
shrubs, trees, flowers, seeded lawn or sod, ivy and other similar
plant material.
15.02.222. LANDSLIDE AREAS.
A. Class 1 Landslide Areas. All areas of the City,
other than Class 2 or 3 landslide hazard areas. These areas are
areas where no development limitations are deemed necessary,
except where described under Chapter 15.04 - District Regulations.
I
B. Class 2 Landslide Areas. Slopes of 15 percent or
i
greater with permeable subsurface material (predominately sand and
gravel) to base level.
C. Class 3 Landslide Areas. Class 3 landslide hazard
areas means those areas subject to a severe risk of landslide, duel
li
9
I;
�I
it
i
I
i
to the combination of: (a) slopes greater than fifteen (15) per-
cent; and (b) impermeable subsurface material (typically silt and
clay) sometimes interbedded with permeable subsurface material
(predominantly wet sand and gravel) between the top and base
(foot) elevations; and (c) characterized by springs or seeping
These
groundwater during the wet season (November to February)
areas include both active and currently inactive slides.
15.02.225. LOT. For the purposes of this code a lot isl
a parcel of land of at least sufficient size to meet minimum
zoning requirements for use, coverage, and area, and to provide
such yards and other open spaces as are herein required. Such loll
shall have frontage on an improved public street, or on an
approved private street, and may consist of:
A. A single lot of record;
B. A portion of a lot of record;
I,
C. A combination of complete lots of record, and
portions of lots of record;
D. A parcel of land described by metes and bounds;
i
provided that in no case of division or combination shall any
residual lot or parcel be created which does not meet the require
ments of this code.
15.02.230. LOT CORNER. A lot abutting upon two (2) or
more streets at their intersection, or upon two (2) parts of the
same street, such streets or parts of the same street forming an
interior angle of less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees
within the lot lines.
15.02,235. LOT FRONTAGE. The front of a lot shall be
that portion nearest the street. On a corner lot the front yard
shall be considered the narrowest part of the lot that fronts on
street, except in industrial and commercial zones in which case
the user of a corner lot has the option of determining which part '
of the lot fronting on a street shall become the lot frontage.
15.02.240. LOT LINES. The property lines bounding the I,
lot.
15.02.245. LOT MEASUREMENTS.
A. Depth of a lot shall be considered to be the
distance between the foremost points of the side lot lines in
front and the rearmost points of the side lot lines in the rear.
B. Width of a lot shall be considered to be the
distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot
lines, provided, however, that width between side lot lines at
their foremost points (where they intersect with the street line) :
shall not be less than eighty (80) percent of the required lot
width except in the case of lots on the turning circle of
cul-de-sacs, where eighty (80) percent requirement shall not apply.
�I
10 -
15.02.250. LOT OF RECORD. A lot which is part of a sub-
division recorded in the office of the County Assessor, or a lot
or parcel described by metes and bounds, the description of which
has been so recorded.
15.02.252. LOT, RIVERFRONT. Any lot or land parcel
which is adjacent to the Green River, a scenic and recreational
road, a riverfront road or a riverfront park. (0.2544, §3)
15.02,255. LOT, THROUGH. A lot that has both ends
fronting on a street. Either end may be considered the front.
15.02,257. MAJOR NONCONFORMING BUILDING/STRUCTURE. Any
nonconforming building or structure located on a parcel which at
any point borders or is in a residential district and which is not
in compliance with the minimum development standards of the
district in which it is located.
15.02,258. MINOR NONCONFORMING BUILDING/STRUCTURE. Any
nonconforming building or structure which is not a major noncon-
forming structure and which is not in compliance with the minimum
development standards of the district in which it is located.
15,02.260. MOBILE HOME. A factory constructed
residential unit with its own independent sanitary facilities,
that is intended for year round occupancy, and is composed of one
for more major components which are mobile in that they can be
supported by wheels attached to their own integral frame or
structure and towed by an attachment to that frame or structure
over the public highway under trailer license or by special permit.
15.02.265. MOBILE HOME PARK. An area under one
ownership designed to accommodate ten (10) or more mobile homes.
15.02.267. MODERATE RISK WASTE. Those wastes defined in
WAC 173-303-040 as moderate risk wastes. This may include any
waste that exhibits any of the properties of hazardous waste but
is exempt from regulation under Chapter 70.105 RCW solely because
the waste is generated in quantities below the threshold for
regulation and any household waste which is generated from the
disposal of substances identified by the Department of Ecology as
hazardous household substances. (0.2808, §1)
15,02.270. MOTEL INCLUDING HOTEL AND MOTOR HOTEL. A
building or group of buildings comprising individual sleeping or
living units for the accommodation of transient guests for
compensation.
15.02.272. MULTIFAMILY TRANSITION AREA. A Multifamily
Transition Area is any portion of an MR-G, MR-M or MR-H Garden
Density, Medium Density or High Density Multifamily Residential
District situated within 100 feet of a Single-Family District,
and/or within 100 feet of a public street right-of-way.
Specifically excluded from this definition is property abutting a
right-of-way that will never be developed into a public street as
determined by the Kent Transportation Engineer, and which does not
otherwise qualify as a Multifamily Transition Area. (0.2772, §1)
I
i
� I
i
i
15,02,275. NATU AT OR NATIVE AREAS. All or portions of l
a parcel of land undisturbed by development, and maintained in a
manner which preserves the indigenous plant materials.
15,02,280. NET ACRE. The buildable area after the area
of street rights of way has been subtracted.
15.02,282. NONCONFORMING LOT OF RECORD. Any validly
recorded lot which at the time it was recorded fully complied with
the applicable laws and ordinances but which does not fully comply
with the lot requirements of this ordinance.
15.02.283. NONCONFORMING SIGN. Any sign legally estab-
lished prior to June 20, 1973 which is not in full compliance with
the regulations of this ordinance.
15,02.285. NONCONFORMING USE. The use of land, a
building or a structure lawfully existing as of June 20, 1973
which does not conform with the use regulations of the district in
which it is located on the effective date of such use regulations.!
15.02.286. NONCONFORMITY. Any land use, structure, lotl
of record or sign legally established prior to the effective date
of this code or subsequent amendment to it which would not be per-'
mitted by or is not in full compliance with the regulations of
this ordinance.
15.02.287. NORTHERN LOT LINE. A lot line or lines less
than 45 degrees southeast or southwest of a line drawn east-west
and intersecting the northernmost point of the lot. If the nor-
thern lot line adjoins any unbuildable area (e.g. , streets,
alleys, public rights of way, parking lots, common areas) other
than required yard area, the northern lot line shall be that por-
tion of the northerly edge of the unbuildable area which is due
north from the actual northern lot line of the applicant's
property.
15,02.288. NORTH-SOUTH LOT DIMENSION. The average dis-
tance between lines from the corners of the northern lot line
south to a line drawn east-west and intersecting the southernmost
point of the lot.
15.02.290. NURSERY SCHOOL OR DAY CARE CENTERS.
Nurseries or day care centers shall mean any type of group day
care programs, including nurseries for children of working
mothers, nursery schools for children under minimum age for
education in public schools, parent cooperative nursery schools,
playgroups for preschool children, programs covering after-school '
care for school children, provided such establishment is licensed
by the State and conducted in accordance with State requirements.
15.02.295. OCCUPANCY. The purpose for which a building '
is used or intended to be used. The term shall also include the
building or room housing such use. Change of occupancy is not
intended to include change of tenants or proprietors.
12 -
I
ilk
� I
15-02.300. OFFICIAL MAP. Maps showing the designation, ),
location and boundaries of the various districts which have been
�i adopted and made a part of this code.
15.02,305. OPEN GREEN AREA. Landscaped areas and areas )
of natural or native vegetation.
15.02.310. ORDINARY NIGH WATER MARx, Ordinary high j
water mark on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, streams, marshes, and
swamps is that mark that will be found by examining the bed and
banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are
so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years,
as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the
abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists
on the effective date of this Chapter, or as it may naturally
change thereafter: PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary,
high-water mark cannot be found the ordinary high-water mark shall
be the line of mean high water.
15.02,315. OUTSIDE STORAGE. All or part of a lot which
is used for the keeping of materials or products in an open, j
uncovered yard or in an unwalled building. Such materials shall
not be for general public consumption or viewing. Such materials )
shall include tractors, backhoes, heavy equipment, construction
materials and other similar items which detract from the appear-
ance of the zone in which they are located.
15.02.320. PARKING SPACE OR PARKING STALL. A parking
space is any off-street space intended for the use of vehicular
parking with ingress or egress to the space easily identifiable.
i
15.02.325. PARKING, TEMPORARY. Parking facilities
specifically designed to accommodate not less than 51 vehicles and
intended for public use for a period of not more than five (5)
years, subject to annual maintenance review by Engineering Depart-
II ment. Temporary parking shall not be in lieu of specified
off-street parking as required in Chapter 15.05, Off-Street
Parking and Loading Requirements.
15.02.330. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Regulations for the
control of "dangerous or objectionable elements" as defined in
Subsection 15.08.505 A.
15.02.334. PREEMPTED FACILITY. Any hazardous waste
facility defined as a preempted facility in RCW 70.105.010 or in
WAC 173-303. This may include any facility that includes as a
significant part of its activities any of the following hazardous
waste operations: a) landfill, b) incineration, c) land
treatment, d) surface impoundment to be closed as a landfill, or
e) waste pile to be closed as a landfill. (0.2806, §1)
I
15.02,335. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Planned Unit
Development is a residential development built under those provi-
sions of this code which permit departures from the conventional
siting, setback, and density requirements of other sections of
this code in the interest of achieving superior site development, )
creating open space, and encouraging imaginative design by permit-,
ting design flexibility.
i
- 13 -
�I
I
I
I
I
15.02,236. PARK RIVERFRONT. A publicly-owned open
space which lies along the Green River, along a scenic and
recreational road. (0.2544, §6)
15.02,317. RAVINE. An area constituting a "young
valley" which contains a major or minor creek. It includes the
bottom land of the ravine and the ravine sidewalls to a point
where the slopes are less than fifteen (15) percent. See
following illustration.
15,02,338. RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Motorized vehicles
that include a cabin for living accommodations and are commonly I
used for recreational travel and touring. Vehicles included in I
this category come in several forms; travel trailers, tent I
trailers and camping trailers, all of which must be towed by a
car; and truck campers, motor homes and camper vans, all of which
have the motor within the body of the vehicle.
Recreational vehicles may also include any motorized or
nonmotorized vehicle, boat, boat trailer, or other vehicle to be
used for recreational purposes.
15 02 339. ROAD SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL. Russell and
Frager Roads shall be designated as Scenic and Recreational Roads.!
(0.2544, §2)
I
15 02 340. ROADSIDE STAND. A temporary structure
, designed or used for the display or sale of agricultural products
primarily produced on the premises upon which such a stand is
located.
15.02,342. SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS.
A. Class 1 Seismic Hazard Areas. All areas of the
City, other than Class 2 or 3 seismic hazard areas. These areas
are areas where no development limitations are deemed necessary,
except where described under Chapter 15.04 - District Regulations.!
B. Class 2 Seismic Hazard Areas. class 2 seismic
hazard areas means those areas where soils are characterized by
moderately well-drained alluvium and glacial outwash of moderate
density.
C. Class 3 Seismic Hazard Areas. Class 3 seismic
hazard areas means those areas subject to severe risk of
earthquake damage due to soils of low density, due to poorly
drained or impervious alluvium, due to highly saturated organic
material or due to slopes greater than fifteen (15) percent,
excluding those Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD) soils located
on slopes less than twenty-five (25) percent overlying thick
sequences of Vashon till.
15.02.343. SERVICE USES OR ACTIVITIES. A business which
sells the knowledge or work of its people rather than a tangible
product.
i
15.02.344. SETBACK. AVERAGE. The average setback is the
mean or average depth of yard (setback) measured from the property
i
14 -
I�
i
( line to the building. The average setback is computed along the
full length of the property line, utilizing a designated property
depth. (0.2772, 51)
15 02.345. SHOPPING CENTER. A retail shopping area
designed as a unit, which utilizes a common parking area.
15 02.350. SIGN. Any structure, device, letter, figure,
character, poster, picture, trademark or reading matter which is
used or designed to announce, declare, demonstrate, display or
otherwise identify or advertise, or attract the attention of the
public. However, a sign shall not include the following:
A. Official notices authorized by a court, public body i
or public officer.
B. Direction, warning, or information sign authorized !i
by federal, state or municipal authority.
I
C. The official flag, emblem or insignia of a
government, school or religious group or agency.
D. Memorial plaque or tablet; "cornerstones" indicatingi
the name of a building and date of construction, when cut or
carved into any masonry surface or when made of bronze or other
incombustible material and made an integral part of the building
or structure.
15.02.355. SIGN AREA. The total area of all faces of a ,
sign expressed in square feet. Area is measured from the outside
perimeters (including backup, molding, framing, decorative scroll
work, etc.) . The area of a group of individual mounted letters or
( figures shall be the area of the geometric form necessary to
enclose same.
15.02.360. SIGN HEIGHT. The distance from ground level '
to the highest point on the sign structure.
15.02.365. SIGN ABANDONED. Any sign which has been
deserted and its effective use terminated, and which no longer
lfulfills the purpose for which it was constructed.
15.02.370. SIGNS. ADVERTISING. A sign which directs
lattention to a business, commodity or service or entertainment
sold or offered elsewhere than on the premises and only
incidentally on the premises.
15.02.375. SIGN BUSINESS. A sign which directs
j attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment
conducted, sold or offered on the premises.
15,02,380. SIGN. CANOPY. A sign attached to the
underside of a canopy.
15.02.385. SIGN, CONSTRUCTION. A temporary sign placed
in advance of occupancy of a building or structure indicating the
name of the building or structure, the architects, the
�I
15 -
i
I
contractors, and other information regarding the building or
structure.
15.02.390. T ^IRECIIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL. A sign
designated to guide or direct pedestrians or vehicles.
15 02.395. SIGN, FLASHING. An illuminated sign with
action or motion, light or color changes.
15.02.400. SIGN FREESTANDING. A sign standing directly
upon the ground or having one or more supports standing directly
upon the ground, and being detached from any building or structure.
15 02.405. SIGN GATE OR ENTRANCE. A sign attached or
adjacent to an entrance way of a residential site or subdivision
which identifies the site or subdivision.
15.02.410. SIGN IDExmIFICATION. A sign used only for
the purpose of identifying the occupancy of a building, structures
or property.
15 02.415. SIGN ILLUMINATED. A sign designed to give
forth any artificial light or reflect such light from an artifi-
cial source.
15.02.420. SIGN INDIRECTLY ILLUMINATED. Illuminated
non-flashing sign whose illumination is derived entirely from an
external artificial source and is so arranged that no direct rays !
of light are projected from such artificial source into residences,
or street.
i
15 02.425. SIGN INSTITUTIONAL. A sign used only for
the purpose of identifying an institution.
15.02.430. SIGN OFF-PREMISE. A sign not located on orl
supported by a structure not located on the same premises as the
business, product, service or activity being identified or adver-
tised by such sign or an advertising sign.
15 02 435. SIGN ON-PREMISE. A sign identifying a busi
ness, product, service or activity conducted or sold on the same
premises as that on which the sign is located.
15.02.440. SIGN. PAINTED. A sign which is painted on
any office, wall, window, fence or structure of any kind.
15 02.445. SIGN, POLITICAL. A sign advertising a candi-
date for political office, or a measure scheduled for election.
I
15.02.450. SIGN PORTABLE. A sign which is not perma-
nently affixed to the ground, or to a building or structure and
may be easily moved.
15.02.455. SIGN PROJECTING. A sign affixed to the
exterior wall of a building or structure with the exposed faces
perpendicular to the plane of said wall.
- 16 -
i
15.02,460. SIGN, ROOF. A sign attached to a building
which projects above the structure of the building. (This defini-
tion refers to the architectural unity of a building or structure.)
15.02.465. SIGN ROTATING. A sign containing moving
parts.
15.02,470. SIGN SUBDIVISION. A sign erected and main-
tained within the boundaries of a recorded subdivision and indi-
cating the name of the subdivision, the name of the contractor or
subdivider, the name of the owner, or agent, and giving informa-
tion regarding directions, price or terms.
15.02.475. SIGN TEMPORARY. A sign intended to
advertise community or civic projects, construction projects, real'
estate for sale or lease or other special events on a temporary
basis.
15.02.480. SIGN. WALL. A sign affixed to the exterior
wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign,
on a plane parallel to the plane of said wall.
15,02.485. SIGN, WINDOW. A sign painted on, affixed to :
or placed in an exterior window with the exposed face of the sign
on a plane parallel to the plane of said window.
15.02.487. SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT. A Single Family
Zoning District is a zoning district with any of the following
designations: R1-20, R1-12, R1-9.6, R1-7.2, Single Family
Residential, and RA, Residential Agricultural. (0.2772, 91)
15.02.490. SITE COVERAGE. That portion of a lot covered
by buildings or structures.
15.02.495. SLOPE LINE. Defined as perpendicular to the ,
contour lines crossing the property. The precise bearing or
heading of the slope line shall be determined by the Planning
Department.
15.02.496. SOLAR FACTOR. A number assigned to every lot
which is based on the lots north-south lot dimension and solar
slope as determined by Table 1, Section 15.08.234.
15.02.497. SOLAR SETBACK. A setback from the northern
lot line equal to the distance between the northern lot line and
that point on grade immediately beneath the highest shade
Producing point of a structure.
i
15, 2.498. SOLAR SLOPE. The average of slope lines from
the corners of the northern lot line south to a property line.
The slope of a single line is determined by dividing the verticals
distance between the two end points by the horizontal distance
between the same two points. North facing slopes will have a
negative (-) value. South facing slopes will have a positive
value.
15.02.499. SOLID WASTE INCINERATOR. The processing of
solid wastes by means of pyrolysis, refuse-derived fuel, or mass
- 17 -
Ili
�II
incineration within an enclosed structure. These processes may
include the recovery of energy resources from such waste or the
conversion of the energy in such wastes to more useful forms or
combinations thereof. This definition refers to City-wide or
regional 'scale operations and does not include solid waste
incineration which is accessory to an individual principal use.
(0.2786, §1)
15 02.500. SPECIAL PERMIT. A permit issued for uses
permitted in a district provided such use meets the standards as
required for such use.
35 02 501 SPECIAL TREES Trees significant due to
their size age species and variety or historical importance.
15.02.502. SPECIFIED ANATOMICAL AREAS.
I
1. Less than completely and opaquely covered human
genitals, pubic region, buttock, and female breast below a point
immediately above the top of the areola; and
2. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid
state, even if completely and opaquely covered. (0.2687, §2)
15 02.503. SPECIFIED SEXUAL ACTIVITIES.
1. Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation
or arousal;
2. Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse
or sodomy;
3. Fondling or other erotic touching of human
genitals, pubic region, buttock, or female breast. (0.2687. §2)
15.02.505. STACKING SPACE. The space specifically
designated as a waiting area for vehicles whose occupants will be
patronizing a drive-in business. Such space is considered to be
located directly alongside a drive-in window, facility, or
entrance used by patrons and in lanes leading up to and away from',
the business establishment.
15.02.510. STRUCTURE. That which is built or
constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of
work composed of parts jointed together in some definite manner
and includes posts for fences and signs, but does not include
mounds of earth or debris.
15.02.515. STORY. That portion of a building included
between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of
the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be thatli
portion of a building included between the upper surface of the
topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the
finished-floor level directly above a basement, cellar or unused
underfloor space is more than six feet above grade as defined
herein for more than fifty percent of the total perimeter or is
more than twelve feet above grade as defined herein at any point,
- 18 -
i
i
such basement cellar or unused underfloor space shall be con-
sidered as a story.
15.02.520. STREET. A public way thirty (30) feet or
more in right-of-way width which affords a primary means of access!
to property.
15.02.525. TOWNHOUSE. Attached one or two-family dwel-
lings, having no side yard and sharing a common wall with adjacent!
dwelling units,
15.02.527. TRADE RETAIL•. The sale or rental of goods
and merchandise for final use or consumption.
i
15.02.528. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. A facility operated
( publicly or privately to provide housing for individuals and/or
families who are otherwise homeless and have no other immediate
living options available to them. Transitional housing shall not
exceed an 18-month period per individual or family. (0.2832, §1)
15.02.529. TREE. Tree shall mean any living woody plant
characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches, and
having a diameter of six (6) inches or more measured at three (3)
feet above ground level.
15.02.529.5. UNDEVELOPED LAND A Parcel of land which
does not have an inhabitable building and/or the inhabited
buildings occupy no more than three Percent of the total Parcel
iarea.
I
15.02.530. UNIQUE AND FRAGILE AREA. An area of special
environmental significance for wildlife habitat, threatened plan
communities, and/or natural scenic quality. The geographic
boundaries of these areas are officially delineated on the "Hazard
Area Development Limitations" map, referred to above in Exhibit A.'
15.02.531. USE. An activity for which land or premises
or a building thereon is designed, arranged, intended, or for
which it is occupied or maintained, let or leased. (0.2832, §1)
I
15.02.532. USE, CHANGE OF. A change of use shall be
determined to have occurred when it is found that the general
character of the operation has been modified. This determination
shall include review of but not be limited to: 1) hours of opera-
tion, 2) materials processed or sold, 3) required parking, 4)
traffic generation, 5) impact on public utilities, 6) clientele,
and 7) general appearance and location.
15.02.534. USE. TEMPORARY. Any activity and/or
structure permitted under the provisions of Section 15.08.205 of
the Kent Zoning Code which is intended to exist or operate for a
limited period of time and which does not comply with zoning code
development standards and requirements as specified for the zoning'
district in which it is located.
i
,
15.02.535. USED. The word "used" in the definition of
"Adult Motion Picture Theatre" herein, describes a continuing
course of conduct exhibiting "specific sexual activities" and
i
- 19 -
� i
i
"specified anatomical areas" in a manner which appeals to a I
prurient interest. (0.2687, §2)
15,02,536. VARIANCE. A modification of regulations of
this code when authorized by the Board of Adjustment after finding
that the literal application of the provisions of the code would
cause undue and unnecessary hardship in view of certain facts and
conditions applying to a specific parcel of property.
15.02.540. yggBTATION SHADING. This is vegetation
planted on the south side of a major creek that generally provides,
shade from midmorning to midafternoon. Examples of shading vege
tation are specified in KCC 15.08.200, "Landscaping."
15 02.541. VEGETATIVE AID. Bark mulch, gravel and other)
nonvegetative materials which promote vegetative growth by
retaining moisture or preventing weeds. These materials are not a
substitute for vegetative cover. (0.2832, §1)
15,02.545. VETERINARY CLINIC. Any premises to which
animals are brought, or where they are temporarily kept, solely
for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of any illness or
injury, which does not have outdoor runs.
i
15.02.550. VETEgINARY HOSPITAL. Any premises to which
animals are brought, or where they are temporarily kept, solely
for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of any illness or I
injury, which may have outdoor runs.
15.02.555. VIEW. An unrestricted angle of vision eman-
ating from a location that qualifies as view property.
15 02 560. VIEW PROPERTY. Any property having a general
slope of 20 percent or more and that property located immediately )
upslope of such property for a distance of 100 feet in R1-7.2,
R1-9.6, and R1-12 zones and a distance of 200 feet in all other
zones, from the contour line where the slope becomes 20% or
greater.
15.02,565. YARDS. The land unoccupied or unobstructed,
from the ground upward, except for such encroachments as may be
permitted by this code, surrounding a building site.
15.02.570. YARD, FRONT. An open space, other than the
court, on the same lot with the building, between the front line
of the building (exclusive of steps) and the front property line
and including the full width of the lot to its side line.
15.02.575. YARD, REAR. An open space on the same line
with the building between the rear line of the building (exclusive
of steps, porches and accessory buildings) and the rear line of
the lot including the full width of the lot to its side lines.
15.02.580. YARD SIDE. An open space on the same lot
with the building between the side wall line of the building and
the side line of the lot and extending from front yard to rear
yard. No portion of a structure shall project into any side yard )
20 -
it
I
except cornices, canopies, eaves or other architectural features
which may project 2 feet, 0 inches.
15.02 585. ZONING. The regulation of the use of private)
lands or the manner of construction related thereto in the
interest of achieving a comprehensive plan of development. Such
regulation shall also govern those public and quasi-public land
use and buildings which provide for proprietary-type services for
the community's benefit as contrasted with governmental activi-
ties. Governmental activities are encouraged to cooperate under
these regulations to secure harmonious city development.
15.02.520. ZONING LOT. A tract of land occupied or to
be occupied by a principal building and its accessory facilities,
together with such open spaces and yards as are required under thei
provisions of this code, having not less than the minimum area
required by this code for a zoning purpose in the district in
which such land is situated, and having its principal frontage oni
a public street of standard width and improvement. A "zoning lot"
need not necessarily coincide with the "record lot" which refers
to land designated as a separate and distinct parcel on a legally
recorded subdivision plat or in a legally recorded deed filed in
the records of the County.
15.02.595. ZONING PERMIT. A certificate, issued prior
to a building permit, that the proposed use is in accordance with
the requirements and standards of this code.
Section 2. Kent City Zoning Code Chapter 15.08.240 is
amended as follows:
15.08.240. PRESERVATION OF TREES.
I
A----Pnrpese---the-pnrpese-ef-this-seetien-4s-to-regn}etc
the-}eeatien-end-density-ef-devn}epment-based-open-the-existence
e£-£crests;-weed}ends;-eepses-nnd-freestanding-trees-ef-signifi-
cant-rise-en-nndeve}aped-preperty---Preservntien-ef-trees-threngh
the-estab}ishment-e£-ferest-preteetien-senes-te-enhenee-the-physi-
ee}-environment-is-an-adapted-pe}iep-ef-the-Kent-Eemprehensive
P}en--
Purpose Retention of significant trees as required
by this section is necessary to maintain and protect property
values to enhance the visual appearance of the City to preserve '
the natural wooded character of the area to promote utilization_
of natural systems to reduce the impacts of development on the
storm drainage system and to provide a transition between various
land uses in the City.
I
B. Regulations. Application of regulations for the
prevention-ef-the-destrnetien-ef-trees.- preservation of significant
trees:
1. On all undeveloped property in the City of
Kent, all trees of a six-inch caliper or greater shall be retained)
on the property where they are growing.
21 -
I
I
i
i
2. Where it is not feasible to retain all trees on
site due to the proposed development, a site specific tree plan,
drawn to scale, shall be prepared. The tree plan shall indicate
the precise location of all trees of six-inch caliper or greater
on the site, in relation to proposed buildings, streets, parking
areas, storm drainage facilities and utilities. Trees to be
retained pursuant to this code shall be marked by encircling the j
tree with a stripe of non toxic paint of a color and tune suffi
cent to remain visible during on site construction activity.
Trees to be retained shall be protected during construction and
the drip line shall be delineated With boundary markers No grade'
hanges or storage of materials shall be allowed within the tree
drip ling. Drainage patterns shall not be significantly altered
that may be detrimental to the sub! ct trees.
li
3. The tree plan shall be submitted to the Kent Plan-
ning Department for their review prior to the issuance of a zoning
or building permit.
4. The Planning Department shall review the tree plan
in relation to the proposed development and make a determination
of which trees will be permitted to be removed.
5. The Planning Department may cause a modification of
the development plan to ensure the rebainage retention of the
maximum number of trees. Should the applicant elect to alter the
development plan in order to preserve special trees or wooded
areas in an natural state the Planning Director may waive
sperifig requirements to allow for flexibility and innovation of
design.
6. There shall be no clear cutting of trees of six (6)1
inch caliper diameter or greater on a-site undeveloped land for
the sake purpose of preparing that site for future development.
(0.2245, §1; 0.2452, §1)
Enforcement Illegal removal and restoration of trees
,. Trees removed illegally from undeveloped land or
trees esianated for retention which are damaged or destroved
shall be replaced as follows:
a One existing tree at six (6) inch diameter
shall be replaced by two (2) new trees.
D. For each additional three (3) inches of
diameter, one new replacement of tree shall be added up to a
maximum of six (6) trees.
c. Replacement deciduous trees shall be at least
three (3) inches in diameter at the time of planting an evergreen
shall be at least twelve (12) feet in height.
Section 3. Kent City Zoning Code Chapter 15.09.100 is
amended as follows:
- 22 -
i
i
i
i
15-09 100. VIOLATIONS.
A. Complaints Regarding Violations. Whenever a violation !
of this Code occurs, or is alleged to have occurred, any person !
may file a written complaint. Such complaint stating fully the I
causes and basis thereof shall be filed with the Planning
Department. The Planning Department shall record properly such
complaint, immediately investigate, and take action thereon as
provided by this Code.
i
B. Penalties for Violation. Violation of the provisions
of this Code or failure to comply with any of its requirements
(including violations of conditions and safeguards established in
connection with grants of variances or special exceptions) shall
constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this code or
fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction
thereof be fined not more than one hundred (100) dollars or
imprisoned for not more than thirty (30) days, or both, and in
addition, shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case.
Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate
offense.
The owner or tenant of any building, structure,
premises, or part thereof, and any architect, builder, contractor,!
agent or other person who commits, participates in, assists in, or,
maintains such violation may each be found guilty of a separate
offense and suffer the penalties herein provided.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City from
taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or
!! remedy any violation.
IIC. Continued Enforcement. Whenever a hazardous substance
land use is determined to be in violation of this Code, the City
Attorney may order the violator to remove the violation within a
specified period of time. In the event that the City Attorney,
Fire Department Chief, or their designee determines there is
imminent danger to public health, safety, or welfare or to
environment, the City may take immediate action to remove the
violation. In such event the violator shall be liable to the City
for all costs and penalties associated with the investigation,
detection, removal and cleanup of the violation. In the event of
collection action by the City to collect such costs, the violator
shall be required to pay all legal casts and fees, including
reasonable attorney fees. (0.2801, §19)
g top Work Notice Whenever any work is being done or
site is being occupied contrary to the provisions of the Kent
Zoning Code the Planning Director or Designated Representative
may order the work stopped or site be vacated by notice in writing
served on any person engaged in the doing or causing of such work
to be done or site to be occupied and any such person shall
forthwith stop such work or site occupation until authorized by
the Planning Director or Designated Representative to proceed.
I I
- 23 -
Section 4. 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.
j
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
I
I
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
i
i
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i
� I
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of 1990.
APPROVED the day of , 1990.
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.
I
(SEAL) I,
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
8650-300
24 -
0-
A1�
Kent City Council Meeting
rn� Date July 17, 1990
( Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CENTRAL TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE
2 . ICommittee,,, / al to transfer from 01991ayIPnacco' d '' unts
�ta�99II-- upgrade the Cit s central telephone system. Due to
new construction, growth and remodeling of existing fac lities,
the existing central telephone system is rapidly appro ching its
capacity levels. Funds to upgrade this system, previ usly
approved for 1991, need to be accelerated so that t4 needed
upgrade can occur in late 1990 versus early 1991.,7/
3 . EXHIBITS: Department memo and fiscal note
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Information Services Department, IBC,
Operations Committee on 7/10/90
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended .-ja Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $80, 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Capital Improvement Fund
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TO: Operations Committee
FROM: Ron Spang, Information Services Director
Prepared By: Dee Gergich, Telecommunications Analyst\ �► �
DATE: July 5, 1990
RE: Upgrading Central Telephone system
Background: In 1989 $90, 000 was set aside in the CIP Plan for acquisition
of equipment upgrading and expanding the telecommunications system to
accommodate new construction, growth, and remodeling of existing facilities.
At this time it was anticipated that City occupation of the Centennial Center
would not take place until early 1991. $70 , 000 is earmarked for telephone
switch hardware and software upgrade and $20, 000 for telephones.
We met with the IBC on July 3 and the IBC is recommending that the advance
funding come from its original source, Capital Improvement Fund. See
attached memo.
Budget Objective: To accommodate new construction and growth spurred on by
the 1990 occupation of the Centennial Center, $80, 000 needs to be moved up
to 1990 for the acquisition of equipment upgading and expanding the tele-
communications system. The remaining $10, 000 of the $90, 000 needs to remain
in 1991 CIP Plan for telephones needed to accommodate growth and remodeling
of the old library for Police.
1) Purchase equipment and hardware to upgrade current telephone switch and
also upgrade from 4100 software to 5200 software. ($70, 000)
2) Purchase 10 digital telephone sets and 2 digital cards to provide these
phones to existing staff, who are currently located elsewhere, do not
use digital telephone sets, and will be moving into the Centennial Center
in 1990. Currently digital telephone sets are used at Commons, City Hall
and Engineering. Centennial Center will be a fourth location using
digital telephones once City departments move in. ($10, 000)
See attached fiscal analysis sheet.
Options and Alternatives:
1) Delay installation of planned phone system upgrade, jeopardize a
successful opening of Centennial Center.
2) Planning, Engineering and Code Enforcement will not be able to use
their current telephones and thereby, their ability to communicate with,
and respond to, the public and City staff will be adversely affected.
3) Affects the ability of the Telecommunications Division to provide needed
services in a rapid growth phase of City operations and new construction
that would otherwise be covered with this upgraded, enlarged tele-
communications system.
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Message. Dated: 07/03/90 at 1748 .
Subject: CENTRAL TELEPHONE SYSTEM - FISCAL NOTE
Sender: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Contents: 3 .
Part 1.
TO: Ron SPANG / KENT70/IS
Part 2 .
Part 3 .
FROM: ED CHOW
THE INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING THE ADVANCE FUNDING OF A
TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE. $90, 000 IS INCLUDED IN THE 1991 CIP PLAN FOR
TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPGRADES TO ACCOMODATE NEW CONSTRUCTION, GROWTH AND
REMODELING OF EXISTING FACILITIES. AT THE TIME THE CIP WAS DEVELOPED IN THE
SPRING OF 1989, THE ANTICIPATED OPENING DATE OF THE CENTENNIAL BUILDING WAS
EARLY 1991. WITH COMPLETION SCHEDULED FOR LATE 1990, CERTAIN TELEPHONE
ENHANCEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. THESE ENHANCEMENTS WILL COVER
ANTICIPATED EXPANSION ASSOCIATED WITH SETTING UP THE OLD LIBRARY FOR POLICE.
TO MEET THIS SCHEDULE THE INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING AN
ADVANCE OF $80, 000 TO FUND THE SYSTEM UPGRADE PLUS ADDITIONAL TELEPHONE
UNITS FOR THE CENTENNIAL BUILDING. EXISTING TELEPHONES WILL BE BROUGHT
WITH EXISTING DEPARTMENTS, BUT THE ENGINEERING ANNEX IS CURRENTLY WITHOUT
THE EXISTING CITY SYSTEM. $10, 000 REMAINS IN THE 1991 CIP FOR ADDITIONAL
TELEPHONES FOR POLICE IN THE OLD LIBRARY.
THE IBC RECOMMENDS THAT THE ADVANCE FUNDING COME FROM ITS ORIGINAL SOURCE,
THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND. WITH SALES TAX AND REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX
BEING ABOVE PROJECTIONS IN BOTH 1989 AND 1990, SUFFICIENT FUNDS EXIST FOR
THIS ADVANCE. THE ADVANCE FREES UP $80, 000 IN 1991 CIP FUNDS.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 17. 1990
Category Consent Calendar
..f
1. SUBJECT: HEMLOCK ACRES NO. 17 FINAL PLAT NO. SV-88-3
t
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize August 7 , 1990 for a public
meeting to consider the Hemlock Acres No. 17 final plat map.
The property is approximately 4 . 15 acres in size and is located
on the north side of So. 240th St. , approximately 500 feet west
of 116th Ave. S.E.
a
3 . EXHIBITS• None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCALLPERSONNEL 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
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 17 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF ELECTRONIC HOME DETENTION
EQUIPMENT - RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Safety
Committee`,'approval of Resolution � � authorizing the Mayor to
-sign resolution relating to the sole source purchase of
Electronic Home Detention (Home Arrest) Equipment for the Kent
Police Department. ;
The Kent Police Department Corrections Division has been
authorized the purchase of certain in-house monitoring system
equipment. It has been concluded that there is only a single
regional source of supply and manufacture of this system, and
that such company is also the only source capable of providing
for maintenance, parts, service, training and warranty work on
such system.
i
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
r
i`
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:/ Staff, City Attorney, Public Safety Committee
on 7/2/90 i
(Committee, ttaff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED F SCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL PERS L NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
i
6. EXPENDITi REQUIRED: $ less than $25, 000
SOURCE OF DS: this is a budgeted 1990 expenditure
i
7 . CITY COUN IL ACTION:
i
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, relating to the sole
source purchase of Home Arrest Equipment for
the Kent Police Department.
WHEREAS, the Council has authorized the purchase of
certain in-house electronic monitoring system equipment in concert
with Corrections Facility programs administered by the Kent Police
Department; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to acquire the most ideally
suitable monitoring equipment for use at the Kent Corrections
Facility and operated with direct control by the City; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department and Information Services
Department have examined available manufacturers meeting desired,
efficiency, system design, costs, compatability with existing
automation equipment and operational standards for in-house
monitoring systems which are tamper resistant and reliable for
home detention of defendants subject to criminal proceedings,
including pre-trial and post-trial confinement; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the City's examination and study
of competing systems and manufacturers, the Kent Police and
Information Services Departments have determined that upon the
basis of personal computer design and integration with the City's
existing automation system, reliability on the basis of three-year
battery life for ankle transmitters, and the ability to provide
for hands on operation by Kent Corrections staff, that Trak-Tech,
Inc. "Trak-I" system is the only suitable system meeting the
City's multiple standards and objectives; and
WHEREAS, the departments have also concluded that there
is only a single regional source of supply and manufacturer of
this system, and that such company is also the only source capable
of providing for maintenance, parts, service, training, and
warranty work on such system; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Council finds that the purchase and/or
place of such equipment is clearly and legitimately limited to a
single source of supply and are subject to special market
conditions because of unique system design and operational
requirements of the Kent Police Department and Information
Services Department study.
Section 2. Bidding requirements for purchasing of
"Trak-I" by Trak-Tech, Inc. , as described in the Kent Police
Department study hereby waived for purposes of RCW 35.23.352 and
Kent City Code 4.02.010.
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
8630-300
2 -
1" t
Kent City Council Meeting
j Date July 17 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WINDOW WASHING CONTRACT
2 . SCARY As recommended by the Operations
,
•,,Committee/, uthorization to sign an agreement with Quality )
b-ui-ldxn4 Maintenance for e services.
Quotations were received for washing windows at City Hall,
Library, Shops and the Senior Center building.
3 . EXHIBITS• Memo
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: $1, 862 per year as budgeted
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3M
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Tony McCarthy
Finance Director
SUBJECT: Window Cleaning Contract
We presently have a contract for "window cleaning services" with
Totem Window Service Company, for the following buildings: Kent City
Hall, the Library and Engineering. Central Purchasing worked with other
City Building Managers to include additional buildings in the new contract.
This process was able to save over $ 1, 200 annually over the previous method
of contracting services. The new contract was awarded to Quality Building
Maintenance, beginning July 1990 through June 1993 for clean various City
building on a quarterly basis.
Services starting July 1990: ANNUAL COST
Kent City Hall Building $ 896
Kent City Library Building $ 226
Kent City Shops Buildings $ 328
Kent Senior Center Building $ 392
New Services to start January 1991
Kent Commons Building $ 308
Golf Course Buildings $ 384
Resource Center Building $ 328
References have been checked, therefore we request authorization be granted
for the Mayor to sign the contract.
Y
Kent City Council Meeting
1, Date July 17 , 1990
\p Category Consent Calendar
r
1. SUBJECT: ELEVATOR SERVICE CONTRACT
2 . SL%�Y STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations i
(Committee uthorization to have the Mayor sign a renewal
dznitract 'with A & M Elevators, Inc. for maintaining elevators at
a cost of $2 ,736 annually,
3 . EXHIBITS• Memo
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCALIPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL,/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE RE UIRED: $2 , 736
SOURCE OF FUNbS: budget
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3N
�N
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Tony McCarthy
Finanace Director
SUBJECT: Elevator Service Contract
We presently have a contract for "elevator service" with A & M Elevator
Service Company, to service the Cityhall building elevators. We recently
sent out proposals for new services, based on a two year contact and would
like to recommend A & M Services be awarded the new contract.
Services starting July 1990: ANNUAL COST
Kent City Hall Building $ 2 , 736
monthly services $ 228
References have been checked, therefore we request authorization be granted
for the Mayor to sign the contract.
ov
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 17 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SOLICITATION FOR PURCHASE OF NARCOTICS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance "� � -� making it a
crime to offer to sell or purchase narcotics.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee/Staff
(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. 30
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to solicitation of sale or
purchase of narcotics; amending Ordinance 1787
(Kent City Code Chapter 9.12) .
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council seeks to increase law
enforcement's arsenal in the war on drugs; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Kent City Code Chapter 9.12 is amended as
follows:
CHAPTER 9.12
NARCOTICS AND BARBITUATES
9.12.04. UNLAWFUL TO USE OR BE UNDER INFLUENCE OF
NARCOTICS - EXCEPTION. It shall be unlawful, except when lawfull),
administered in good faith by a physician or other person
authorized by law to do so, for any person to use or be under the
influence of opium, morphine, cocaine, hydrate of chloral,
isonipecaine, amidone, isosmidone, keto-bemidone, or any other
substance neither chemically nor physically distinguishable from
any one of them or any opiate or narcotic or derivative thereof.
An individual is "under the influence" of narcotics for the
purpose of this Section when any of his normal faculties are
substantially affected or impaired as a result of the use of such
opiate or narcotic or derivative thereof.
9.12.08. UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS NARCOTICS WITHOUT PROPER
I
LICENSE OR PRESCRIPTION. It shall be unlawful for any person notl
being registered or licensed as is required by the Federal Act of
December 17, 1914, commonly known as the Harrison Act, (Sec. 3221,1,
Title 26, Ch. 27, United States Code Annotated, and the Controlled
i
Substance Act of October 27, 1980 - Public Law 91-513) , to possess
any opium, morphine, cocaine, hydrate of chloral, isonipecaine,
amidone, isosmidone, keto-bemidone, or any other substance neither
chemically nor physically distinguishable from any one of them, or
any opiate or narcotics or derivative thereof unless purchased by
the possessor thereof upon prescription of a physician or other
person licensed by law to dispense such narcotic or narcotic drug.
9.12.12. UNLAWFUL TO SELL OR GIVE AWAY NARCOTICS WITHOUT
PRESCRIPTION - PRESCRIPTION RECORD. It shall be unlawful for any
apothecary, pharmacist, druggist or other person, to sell, give
away, exchange, barter or otherwise dispose of, any opium,
morphine, cocaine, hydrate of chloral, isonipecaine, amidone,
isosmidone, keto-bemidone, or any other substance neither
chemically nor physically distinguishable from any one of them, o
any narcotic, the principal ingredient of which is opium or any
narcotic substance or preparation derived in any part from and
containing as principal ingredient any opium, morphine, cocaine,
hydrate of chloral, isonipecaine, amidone, isosmidone,
keto-bemidone, or any other substance neither chemically nor
physically distinguishable from any one of them, or any narcotic,
to any person or persons, except to a physician, surgeon or
dentist, for use in his profession or calling, or upon the writte
iprescription of a physician, surgeon or other person licensed to
issue such prescription; and unless he shall keep in a suitable
land well-bound book, kept and used for that purpose only, a true
and consecutive memorandum record of every such sale, gift,
exchange, barter or disposition, showing the time when, the place
where, the name of the proprietor or other person by whom, and the
name of the person to whom, the same was made, and the quantity
and kind of narcotic, and the name of the physician or surgeon
upon whose prescription the same was made, if made upon a
prescription, and the number of the prescription; and unless he
shall place and keep on file all such prescriptions consecutively
numbered. Such book and prescription shall be a public record and.
shall be open at all reasonable times to the inspection of the
Mayor, the Director of Health and any accredited officer of the
Department of Health and Sanitation, the Chief of Police or any
officer, the City Attorney, and any persons specially authorized
- 2 -
by the Mayor; and it shall be unlawful for any such apothecary,
pharmacist, druggist or other person to fail or refuse to exhibit
such book and prescriptions to any of the above named officers
upon demand.
9.12.16. PRESCRIBING NARCOTICS - QUANTITY LIMITED. It
shall be unlawful to prescribe opium, morphine, cocaine, hydrate
of chloral, isonipecaine, amidone, isosmidone, keto-bemidone, or
any other substance neither chemically nor physically
distinguishable from any one of them, or any opiate or narcotic
drug or derivative thereof, in such a manner as to leave the
quantity of the dose or the frequency of the taking of any dose to
the discretion of the person to whom such prescription is issued;
and it shall be unlawful for any person dispensing any such
narcotic or narcotic drug to furnish the same upon any such
prescription.
9.12.20. SALE. POSSESSION OR USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS -
I
iDEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.
i
A. It is unlawful to sell, offer to sell, purchase.
offer to purchase, give away, barter, exchange, distribute,
possess or use any dangerous drug except as now or hereafter
authorized or permitted by the laws of the State of Washington, or'.
except upon the written or oral order or prescription of a
physician, surgeon, dentist, or veterinary surgeon, licensed to
practice in the state, which order or prescription shall not be
refilled without the written or oral order of the prescriber.
B. The term "dangerous drug" for the purpose of this
Chapter shall mean and include ( (any-ef-the-feilewing-drage-) )
marijuana (canibis sativa) and any controlled substance classified:
in Schedule I II III or IV of Title 69.50 RCw as it now exists
or shall hereafter be added to deleted from modified or amended.
i
( (f- Amyta�;-}xminai--verenai--barbital;-aeid it
diethy�barbitnrie;-er-any-sa}ts;-derivatives;-er-eempennds
thereof;-er-any-preparation-er-eempennd-eenta#Wing-any-e£-sxeh
snbstnnees;-er-their-salts;-derivatives,--er-eempednds;-er-any
registered,--trade;narked;-or-eepyrighted-preparation-er-eempeand
3 -
registered-in-the-Bnited-states-patent-office-eentn#Wing-mere-tken
one-groin-te-tke-nveirdnpeis-er-f}nid-canoe-ef-sneh-snbsteneest
S- Amphetamine;-dextreamphetamine;-dimethyitryptemine;
iysergie-acid;-psiieein;-mari�nena-{eanabis-sativn};-miseniine;
peyote;-er-nny-snits;-derivatives,--er-cempeands-thereof;-er-any
prepnrntien-er-eempeand-eenteining-any-ef-the-foregoing
sabstanees;-er-their-sets;-derivet#vas,--er-eempennds--er-any
registered;-tredemnrked;-er-copyrighted-preparetien-er-eempennd
registered-in-the-Hnited-6tates-patent-ef#ice-eentnining-sneh
substaneest
3- Any-drag-fennd-by-federe�-haw-er-rega�atien-er
Washington-6tnte-bnx-er-phermeey-beard-regnintien-er-hove-e
petentie�-for-ebnse-beeense-ef-its-depressnnt-er-stima�nnt-effect
en-the-eentre�-nerveas-system-er-beeense-ef-its-ha��neinegenie
e£feet--er-which-is-regnired-by-enp-epp�ieeb�e-federe�-}aw-er
regniatien-er-Washingten-6tete-bow-er-pharmacy-beard-regntetien-t
be-used-envy-en-prescription-ef-n-pkysieinn--sargeen;-dentist;-er
veterinary-sargeen-�ieensed-te-practice-in-the-state.-) )
9.12.24. UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION. It is
unlawful to possess any drug mentioned in Sections 9.12.08 and
9.12.20 hereof purchased or acquired pursuant to an order or
prescription except in the container in which so purchased or
( acquired.
9.12.28. UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
PRESCRIBED FOR PERSON IN POSSESSION. It is unlawful to possess
any drug mentioned in Sections 9.12.08 and 9.12.20 unless the
possessor of same be licensed to have the same in his possession,
or be the party for whom the drug in question has been
specifically prescribed by a physician or other person licensed byl
law to dispense the same, or be the duly authorized representative)
of the party for whom the drug has been prescribed.
9.12.32. UNLAWFUL TO ADMINISTER EXCEPT AS PRESCRIBED. It
is unlawful to use or administer any drug mentioned in Sections
9.12.08 and 9.12.20 hereof except in the amount, for the purposes,
I
I
I
i
- 4 -
I
and as prescribed by the order of prescription pursuant to which
the same was acquired.
9.12.36. UNLAWFUL TO BE UNDER INFLUENCE IN PUBLIC PLACE.
It is unlawful to be under the influence of any drug within the
purview of this Chapter in any private premises or house to the
annoyance of any individual or in a public place, in a vehicle in
or on a public place, or in a place open to the public view or to
which the public has access. An individual is "under the
influence" of a drug for the purpose of this section when any of
this normal faculties are substantially affected or impaired as aI
result of the use of such drug.
9.12.40. PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION - ALLEGING OFFENSE. In
any prosecution for violation of this Chapter it shall not be
necessary to negate any exception, proviso or exemption contained
in such Chapter and the burden of proof of such exception, provisoi
or exemption shall be upon the defendant.
9.12.44. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF INJECTION DEVICES. It
shall be unlawful for any person to possess any hypodermic needle,
syringe, or similar device which may be adapted or used for
injecting drugs or other substances by subcutaneous or
intracutaneous injection into the body, unless such possession be ',
authorized for medical or physical treatment by a licensed medical)
doctor or osteopathic physician; PROVIDED, however, that the
provisions contained in this Section shall not apply to
manufacturers, jobbers, licensed medical technicians, hospitals,
nursing homes, technologists, nurses, laboratories, research
teaching institutes, medical doctors, osteopathic physicians,
dentists, veterinarians, pharmacists, embalmers, drug stores and
drug distributors selling or using such devices in the ordinary
and legal course of their respective business, trades or
professions.
9.12.48. POSSESSION AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION.
In any prosecution under this Chapter it shall be competent to
prove that any person has in his possession any of the narcotics
or narcotic drugs named herein, or their derivatives, and/or any
drug mentioned in Sections 9.12.08 and 9.12.20, or possession and
- 5 -
the proof thereof shall be prima facie evidence that said narcotic
or dangerous drug was so held in violation of the terms of this
Chapter; except under circumstances where the substance in
question was prescribed by a physician or doctor or other licensed
person for the party who has the same in his or her possession an
such substance is in the container in which it was purchased or
acquired, or the party in possession is the duly authorized
representative of the person for whom the substance was prescribed.
9.12.52. UNLAWFUL TO AID OR ABET FURNISHING CERTAIN DRUGS
TO PERSONS IN JAIL OR CUSTODY OF POLICE. It is unlawful for any
person not acting under the direction of the Director of Public
Health to furnish, or aid or abet the furnishing or, any opium,
morphine, cocaine, hydrate of chloral, isonipecaine, amidone,
isosmidone, keto-bemidone, or any substance neither chemically nor
physically distinguishable from any one of them, or any opiate or
narcotic, or narcotic derivative thereof, or any of the "dangerous
drugs" mentioned in Section 9.12.20 to any person confined in the
City Jail or in the custody of the Police Department, unless the
substance in question be lawfully prescribed for said person by a
doctor or physician and is given to such person under the
direction of that person's physician or doctor. j
I
9.12.56. PLACES no RESORT FOR USERS OF NARCOTICS AND/OR
DANGEROUS DRUGS DECLARED NUISANCE. It shall be unlawful for any
person, firm, corporation or agent, holding, leasing, renting,
occupying or having charge and control of, any building, structure
or premises, or room or rooms therein, to permit the same to be
used as a place of resort for persons known to be users of
narcotics, narcotic drugs, or dangerous drugs (mentioned in
Sections 9.12.08 and 9.12.20) ; or to permit therein the unlawful
sale, gift or distribution of narcotics, narcotic drugs, or
dangerous drugs (mentioned in Sections 9.12.08 and 9.12.20) and
any such place, or any place which is a resort for users of
narcotics, narcotic drugs, or dangerous drugs (mentioned in
Sections 9.12.08 and 9.12.20) , is hereby declared to be a public
nuisance, and may be abated as such :in the manner provided by this!
Chapter.
6 -
i
9.12.60. ABATEMENT OF PLACES OF RESORT. Any building,
structure, premises, or room or rooms therein, constituting a
nuisance as defined in this Chapter, may be abated in a civil
action in the manner provided by law; or the court upon final
judgment of conviction for violation of this Chapter of any person
found therein at the time of his arrest may forthwith, and as a
part of the same proceeding, direct the Chief of Police to abate
any such place as a nuisance; or the Chief of Police, upon
ascertaining that any such place is a nuisance as defined by this
Chapter, may proceed to summarily abate the same. Such abatement
shall be effected by closing and securely locking the place abated,
and excluding all persons therefrom. It shall be unlawful for an
owner, agent, lessee, tenant, person in charge or occupant, to
enter, use or occupy any building, structure or premises, or room
or rooms therein, abated as a nuisance under the provisions of
this Chapter, from and for a period of one year after the date of
such abatement, unless he as principal shall therefor give and
file with the City Clerk a good and sufficient surety bond, to be
( approved by the court making the order of abatement, or in case of
summary abatement to be approved by the Chief of Police, in the
penal sum of one thousand (1000) dollars, payable to the city of
Kent, conditioned that such building, structure or premises, or
room or rooms therein, will not thereafter be used in violation of
this Chapter; and that he will pay all fines, cost and damages
assessed against him for any violation of this chapter; and in
case of the violation of any of the conditions of such bond the
lwhole amount may be recovered as a penalty for the use of the City!.
9.12.64. UNLAWFUL TO FREQUENT OR BE IN PLACE WHERE
NARCOTICS AND/OR DANGEROUS DRUGS ARE UNLAWFULLY KEPT, USED OR
DISPOSED OF. It is unlawful for anyone, not lawfully authorized
to frequent, enter, be in, or be found in, any place where
narcotics, narcotic drugs, their derivatives, or dangerous drugs
(mentioned in Sections 9.12.08 and 9.12.20) are unlawfully used,
kept or disposed of.
I
9.12.68. PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS. Any person, firm or
corporation who shall violate or fail to comply with any of the
provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a
7
i
i
fine of not less than two hundred fifty ($250) dollars for a firs
offense, and a mandatory, not suspendable, jail term of not less
than twenty-four consecutive hours. On a second or subsequent
conviction, the fine shall not be less than five hundred ($500)
dollars. These fines shall be in addition to any other fine or
penalty imposed. The fine and jail term shall not exceed ninety
(90) days or one thousand ($1,000) dollars.
Section 2. 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
8540-300
8 -
iyfv' l Kent City Council Meeting
(�� ( Date July 17, 1990
Y \� Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: STAFFING FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations
Committee at their July 10 meeting, Authorization to hire
outside legal assistance and secretarial support to provide
prosecutor's services on an interim basis pending the hiring of
a permanent City Attorney.
Based on expenditures to date the Finance Department believes
these expenditures totaling $19,457 for the interim period can
be covered within the existing budget. Full analysis upon the
hiring of a permanent City Attorney may require additional
budget authorization.
3 . EXHIBITS: Fisc2 � ;�`% ay budget analysis
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Finance 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:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3P
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Subject: ATTORNEY STAFFING 3 - FISCAL NOTE
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 07/12/90 at 1146.
ON APRIL 27TH, ATTORNEY STAFFING REQUEST - FISCAL NOTE WAS WRITTEN. THAT NOTE
DESCRIBED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REQUEST FOR A FULL TIME PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND
A HALF TIME SUPPORT POSITION AND SUGGESTED FUNDING THE POSITIONS FROM THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S SEIZED ASSET FUND. THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE PENDING FULL
DISPOSITION OF THE SEIZED ASSETS WITH APPROPRIATE PAYMENTS TO THE STATE. SINCE
FULL DISPOSITION HAS NOT OCCURRED AT THIS TIME AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL NEEDS TO
BE MADE.
AN OPTIONAL SOURCE OF FUNDING MAY BE THE RECENTLY AUTHORIZED CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM PACKAGE. THIS WAS PASSED AT THE RECENTLY COMPLETED SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE
SESSION BUT AT THIS TIME WE DON'T KNOW THE COMPLETE FISCAL RAMIFICATIONS.
A THIRD SOURCE OF FUNDING APPEARS TO BE WITHIN THE EXISTING CITY ATTORNEY
BUDGET. THE ATTACHED BUDGET ANALYSIS SHOWS AN ANTICIPATED UNDEREXPENDITURE OF
APPROXIMATELY $25, 000. THIS IS THE RESULT OF POSITION VACANCIES, STARTING NEW
POSITIONS AT THE MEDIAN STEPS, AND UNDERUTILIZATION OF CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED
OUTSIDE LEGAL SERVICES. THE COMPLETE BUDGET ANALYSIS IS ATTACHED AND ASSUMES
THE FOLLOWING:
PAYING SANDRA DRISCOLL'S ACCRUED LEAVE THROUGH JULY 31
PAYING KATHLEEN ROGER'S ACCRUED LEAVE THROUGH JULY 31
HAVING BILL WILLIAMSON PAID AS ACTING CITY ATTORNEY FROM 7/1 TO 8/31
AT THE MEDIAN PAY LEVEL
HAVING A NEW CITY ATTORNEY START AT THE MEDIAN PAY LEVEL ON 9/1
THE IBC RECOMMENDS THE USE OF OUTSIDE LEGAL AND SECRETARIAL SERVICES FOR
PROSECUTOR HELP UNTIL A NEW CITY ATTORNEY IS HIRED. AT THAT TIME THE CITY WILL
KNOW MORE ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE 1990 CITY ATTORNEY BUDGET, WILL KNOW THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PACKAGE, AND WILL KNOW THE FINAL
DISPOSITION OF THE SEIZED ASSET FUNDS.
CSty of Kurt
Analysis
City Attorney EdJdgt
EMPLOYEE ACCT ESTIMATED PROPOSED
Ma 4). BLNIGET WJUAL JIn1 JUL AI.Ii SEF CUT NOV DEC TOTAL SAVINGS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74410 11OI) CITY ATTORNEY 64,210 26,011 5,294 11),135 4,841 4,841 4,PA1 4,W 4,841 65,645 (1,435)
L t7270 ]IlU9 AI,E u , •.,, no ',c90 ci,906 ),4�
1 42,q✓-1 it1,141JLLO J,t'll J,LLS J,LLV J
292 a) 11W RILL'S POSITION 44,316 16,990 3,405 ,4Y) 3,40, 3,40 A,021) 10;m
51150 1100 VANNEMAN '2 "` 2 "° 2,054 2, 54 2,0c.14 .' C'S4 2,I�A 33,7C17 (11)
11 3,6ab 1J,7 ) L,1.� ,JA L,.J4 ,
615030 1100 BROWN 22,057 4,U05 1,8U) 1,8�) 1,"JO 1,03O 1,830 1,8)0 1,8 0 17,ki 4,562
WC 1100 ROIRS 26,240 10,890 2,w-1 2,1R0 1,971 1,973 1,973 21,169 5,071
72060 1100 RYAN 11,A7 1, -- 1 `" r" ° "L' pll" >Y .,,i b31 0:1 oJl 031 �.,1 7,025 4,v�
25870 12111 STUDER 3,411 ),411 (3,411)
A611 laFJ FlR ELl 1, r o LrtoJ 22rW 2,571 (o,J 71)
2W) (2113)
21450 iS11CMAM
72060 1:100 RYAN 2,FA4 2,644 (2,644)
DID OVERTIME 115 190 305 005)
S1.0-TOTAL 244,767 96,945 2FJ,109 21,221 13,L1i9 17,217 19,190 19,190 19,%30 227,W 17,581
ro 4 ,,9. 4�.1•, 4 : ic o c
2XXX BENEFITS 57,1'22 21),41'2 4,442 4,602 3,0:� 7;,, 2 �9 49,06J ,J,L
3XXX S-PPLIES 9,4 1 5,592 `49 549 `49 FAY `A9 %Y 549 9,435 3
4140 INDIG COUNCIL
CONTRACT 95,000 22,0011 5,5011 5,500 5,500 S,iIIU 6,5Eu) 5,500 ll,0110 66,000 29,000
OTHER INDIG SERVICES 10,500 6,145 C75 876 875 876 12,270 (1,770)
OTHER LEGAL
COURT STUDY 5,01-10 714 714 714 714 714 714 71FJ 5,000 0
MIFICATION 9,COO 1,'s'6 1,226 1,206 1,286 1,<,6 1,21'� 1,214 9,000 0
OUTSIDE LECAL A,000 8,4% 1,7CN 1,70i1 1,700 1,700 1,100 1,7UO 1,,A 20,:; 1"604
2 0 cc F o 75 :'3,675 "",574 31b,O: 1
4410 FILING FEE; 7t,550 l,'276 67J ,J7: ;;.,,67J 2,57 JJ,6 .. 0 (4:,450)
WITNESS FEES 001-1 6,6a11 2,FT `',623 2,6 1 fi2C :,ns+ 2,62'3 2 631 25,uOO 0
44XX OTHER SERUIi:E5/iNARGES 57,76 �;,070 4,6J, 4,6 2 4, 4, 4,JF 24,68 JJ,I,nn 1,9o�cJ
SUE'-TOTAL 5OS,819 146,Fa3 61,E-160 51,E-160 51,i160 51,060 51,ii611 51,11jO 56,562 5O9,510 (691)
9200 COST ALLOCATION (109,66d) (46,M) (9,06,0) f9,058) (9,06SQ (9,iJ6=,) (y,i.Itr3T ('9,1>Eej (9,069) (109,6613) 0
TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY UDGET AVAILABLE 710,478 21 ,W4 67,172 60,5106 59,=w; 63,c.A6 65,951 t5,g53 71,661 61;5,528 MIA. 1
4140 PRCISECUTOR SERVICES 4,0110 4,1100 4,uut) 12,OOO
4170 SECRETARIAL SLE'Fi1kT 1,150 2,C69 2,869 2,Er;9 3,fiC4 (7,457j
TOTAL L'ITY ATTORNEY O CET 711,620 2'i,349 67,172 75,375 66,257 7i1,415 65,953 65,953 71,661 706,135 5,493
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 17 , 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK REZONE NO. RZ-90-4
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Hearing
Examiner's conditional approval of an application by Trammell
Crow Company to rezone a portion of a 43 acre site from GWC,
gateway commercial, to M-2, limited industrial. The property is
located generally south of So. 212th St. , east of 84th Ave. So. ,
north of So. 218th St. , and abuts the west side of SR 167 .
3 . EXHIBITS: staff report, Hearing Examiner minutes, findings
and recommendation
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner June 20 1990
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
Approval with one condition.
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember / moves, Councilmember 1 seconds
to accept/rej-ect7mu� the findings of the Hearing Examiner to
adopt/reject/medi-fy the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of
approval of the Kent East Corporate Park rezone No. RZ-90-4 with
one condition and direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION: - 4,
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
Zl-
7/
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
rnrvtcrs
Theodore Paul Hunter
(206) 659.3390
FILE NO: KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK #RZ-90-4
APPLICANT: TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY
REOUEST: To rezone a portion of a 43-acre site from the current
zoning of GWC, Gateway Commercial, to M2 , Limited
Industrial .
LOCATION: The rezone area is located generally south of S. 212th
Street, east of 84th Avenue S. , north of S. 218th
Street and abuts the west side of SR 167 .
APPLICATION FILED: 4/12/90
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
ISSUED• 3/29/90
MEETING DATE: 6/6/90
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 6/20/90
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department
Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Carol Proud, Planning Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Kirk Johnson, Trammell Crow
Other
James H. Rust
Les Snodgrass
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public
hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied
1
Findings and Recommendation
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
-personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area
by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the
following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by
the Hearing Examiner on this application.
FINDINGS
1. The applicant requests a rezone of approximately 8.7 acres
from the current zoning of GWC, Gateway Commercial, to M21
Limited Industrial. The purpose the rezone request is to
facilitate the development of an industrial park and
commercial center on a 43 acre site.
2 . The property proposed for development is located generally
south of S. 212th Street, east of 84th Avenue S. , north of S.
218th Street and adjacent to the west side of the East Valley
Freeway (SR 167) . The majority of the site is currently used
as a plant nursery with greenhouses, maintenance buildings and
apartments for nursery staff. A large portion of the site is
undeveloped. The proposed rezone affects the western portion
of this site.
3 . The representative of the applicant, Mr. Kirk Johnson,
testified that he had oral or written authority from all
property owners affected by the rezone request to be their
agent and that all were in agreement with the request for a
rezone. The applicant is in the process of purchasing all
properties affected by the rezone request.
4 . Property uses surrounding the proposed development site
include the Bowen Business Center and a trucking distribution
center to the north, another trucking distribution center and
a mix of commercial activities to the south, the Valley
Freeway to the east and a mix of industrial land uses to the
west across 84th Avenue South. Property to the north, south
and west of the proposed rezone fronting 84th Avenue S. is
zoned GWC, Gateway Commercial , and property to the east of the
proposed rezone is M2 , Limited Industrial.
5. A final Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued
by the City for the rezone proposal on March 29, 1990 with
five conditions related to transportation improvements and
conditions related to the existing drainage channel and
existing water wells.
6. The rezone is proposed to facilitate development of a major
industrial park and commercial center. Information on number
2
Findings and Recommendation
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
of vehicle trips that might be generated by ' the new
development was not available at the time of the hearing.
However, approximately 600 parking spaces will be provided and
300 to 400 people will work at the site. The final Mitigated
Declaration of Nonsignificance is intended to mitigate
impacts from this type of development by requiring the
applicant to install a traffic signal at the main entrance to
the project site at approximately s. 216th Street; not using
S. 218th Street until the street is improved to City
standards; providing additional right-of-way along 84th Avenue
S. ; and providing a pedestrian circulation system for the
entire 43 acre site.
7 . The current zoning of GWC was established in June of 1989 .
Prior to the GWC designation, the subject property was zoned
M2 . Mr. Fred Satterstrom for the City testified that,
although the rezone request was to change back what had been
changed only one year ago, it was appropriate to do so because
more had been learned about the specific parcels involved in
the rezone and where the proper line for the GWC zone should
be. The Planning Department recommended approval of the
rezone request without conditions.
8 . Section 15. 04 . 195 of the Kent Zoning Code states that "it is
the purpose of the Gateway Commercial District to provide
retail commercial uses appropriate along major vehicular
corridors. . . " . Section 15. 04180 of the Kent Zoning Code
states that the purpose of the M2 , Limited Industrial,
designation is to "provide areas suitable for a broad range
of industrial activities whose characteristics are of a light
industrial nature. " The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map of
the City of Kent designates the portion of the site fronting
84th Avenue S . as C. Commercial, and the remainder as I ,
Industrial. The Valley Floor Plan Map has similar
designations with C, Commercial, fronting 84th Avenue S. and
I, Industrial Park, for the remainder of the site.
9 . No one testified in opposition to this proposed rezone. Two
members of the public did raise specific concerns regarding
traffic impacts and setbacks that were addressed at the time
of the public hearing.
3
Findings and Recommendation
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
Section 15. 09 of the Kent Zoning Code requires the Hearing Examiner
to use the following standards and criteria to evaluate a request
for a rezone. The Hearing Examiner can recommend approval of a
rezone request only if he determines that the request meets the
following standards and criteria:
a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site
would be compatible with development in the vicinity.
C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation
system in the vicinity of the property with significant
adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated.
d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the
proposed rezone.
e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of
Kent.
Upon review of all the evidence submitted with reference to this
request for a rezone, and upon review of the standards and criteria
for evaluating the request for a rezone, the Examiner concludes
that:
1. The proposed rezone from GWC to M2 is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. City policies as articulated in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code clearly favor the
application of the Gateway Commercial zone along major
vehicular corridors to prevent haphazard development of those
areas. The proposed rezone to M2 is intended to facilitate
similar goals that the Gateway Commercial zone was intended
to facilitate when applied to the property in 1989 : unified
development of property while ensuring land use compatibility
and the exclusion of inappropriate uses.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site
would appear to be compatible with development in the
vicinity. The current uses surrounding the proposed rezone
site include a mix of commercial and light industrial
4
Findings and Recommendation
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
activities. The proximity of major vehicular corridors to the
site makes it more desireable as a commercial and industrial
park compared to either more or less intensive uses. No
adjacent property owners would be adversely affected by the
proposed development that may occur as a consequence of the
rezone.
3 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development will have
significant adverse impacts on the transportation system in
the vicinity. However, these impacts can be mitigated by
conditions such as those applied as part of the SEPA review
process. Additional conditions may be necessary as the extent
of traffic impacts becomes more clearly known.
4 . The circumstances that have changed since the establishment
of the current GWC zone less than a year ago have more to do
with the zoning process than with changes in land use. The
GWC zone was applied to properties adjacent to major vehicular
corridors as well as properties setback from those corridors.
The proposed rezone addresses properties not on the major
vehicular corridors. It is apparent from testimony presented
at the public hearing that these properties never should have
received the GWC designation. The level of understanding of
the location and potential uses for those properties now
involved in the rezone request has increased over the past
year so that a "correction" to the GWC zoning applied a year
ago should now be made. This does not mean that it is
appropriate to re-examine other rezone actions over the past
year. Each request for rezone approval is unique and must be
evaluated independently.
5. If precautions are taken, the proposed rezone will not
adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Kent. The proposed rezone is designed
to facilitate development of a commercial and industrial park.
This development could have negative impacts on the citizens
of Kent if not tightly controlled during the development
review process. It is also important that the applicant be
able to demonstrate a clear agency relationship to the owners
of the property affected by the rezone. Section 15. 09 . 050
(1) (c) of the Kent Zoning Code requires the owner or an agent
of that owner to apply for a rezone. If the agency
relationship is not clear, the City could suffer harm if a
disgruntled owner was dissatisfied with the result obtained
by the one representing himself as the agent for that owner.
In this matter, the applicant could not show clear agency
relationships at the time of the public hearing. It is
5
Findings and Recommendation
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
appropriate that he do so to assure the City of appropriate
representation prior to final action in this matter.
DECISION
It is recommended that the request for a rezone be APPROVED on the
condition that a clear agency relationship can be shown to exist
between the applicant and the owners of the property affected by
the rezone.
Dated this 20th day of June, 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.
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 of Kent - Planning Department
S. 212th STREET
4
O }
N Q
1 lea• 200' 300' 3
— w
a w
a o
LL
• I }
7 J
0 i Q
O
,r 133.80 s.I.'M1 144,000 s.f. 214,000 S.I.
ao aoo'
S. 216th STREET
Uj
0
13
I
620'
} 0 132,000 s.f.
J_j
FUTURE
N DEVELOPMENT J/
DRAINAGE
rl DISTRICT+
S. 218th STREET I DITCHITCR
.�J L
__j
KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK
1' - 200' 9
Ti-ar=cll CrowCompany North
APPLICATION NAME: Kent East Corporate Park
NUMBER: RZ-90-4 DATE: June 6, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone a portion of a 44 acre site from GWC, Gateway Commercial to M-2,
Limited Industrial
LEGEND
Application site
SITE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
S. 212th STREET
—ter
L I 2e0'
I `
I o
O I I
N a
zoo' 000' 3
� w
w
a c
a tL
t }
m �
' e �
o o a
g >
133,800 s.t. 144,000 s.(. 214,000 s.t.
J 000 I 000'
S. 216th STREET a
0
13
= I ez0' of I
, I I
0 132,000 s.(.
Ul
J - /
J
Q
FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
I
W OFiAINAG'c
11 DISTRICT f 1 i
S. 218th STREET DITCH
i --------------L--
L__�
KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK
1" = 200' Z�22�'10 ®�
TrammeR Crow Company North
APPLICATION NAME: Kent East Corporate Park
NUMBER: RZ-90-4 DATE: June 6, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone a portion of a 44 acre site from GWC, Gateway Commercial to M-2,
Limited Industrial
LEGEND
Application site
SITE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits Ab-
City of Kent - Planning Department
_EJ
\� 1/ !` \1
1
l1
1k,0 i \-77
it
1111�I ryljt �T :o` il l$`�Il)J
( 1 I h♦♦
If
1 Lac)
! 1 ...iti:�5::i :=:�f:::;•:. . t. It l/
S T / 111 '
II ll
i:-ter':+:(�;:�;�� r n / r , .
O ••o.•. ...v::::: r:1w:.f�;�i�'YY YJ`\\1li:I C �/%l \,\ll
+ .Qii 'i•'"4: i! >Ai'I+�A 11♦I �i i l.� ` /l \\
•'• ',`.,�.,•`•.............:::if•=.., f. q III I'71r1 l \ U 11\\
/ '•'�'� •�. \ll\X..:' iv:�jl.'.•'---5�',.�::�� I �1 �j. 1V Ili Uq�1�� `•}I�ll1A
" : { '111� �J+\ r—♦ `4'ipc
X.
♦`---�—�Ili,��� `�— � Il G�- $' I \\��`�(], I. //�a�1w 'i% --' is\Ii\`\.I�
Il \Jl i j11 -� I �� - r t✓l l3 \II� \ � \1Ji �� �`r 1�\0\\/'`
t/El
/�
APPLICATION NAME: Kent East Corporate Park
NUMBER: RZ-90-4 DATE: June 6, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone a portion of a 44 acre site from GWC, Gateway Commercial to M-2,
Limited Industrial
LEGEND
Application site
ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP Zoning boundary
N. N.. City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
0
Q N
S 206TN 6T
2
r
S �
S 208TH ST
2pe TM 5
N
w
= ti
r
� SFRR �ONEER r'
CENE� RY `
6 212TH ST
i
N
d
S 216iH ST
n
w
0
c
S 222ND ST
APPLICATION NAME: Kent East Corporate Park
NUMBER: RZ-90-4 DATE: June 6, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone a portion of a 44 acre site from GWC, Gateway Commercial to M-2,
Limited Industrial
LEGEND
Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits "�"
Hearing Examiner Minutes
June 6, 1990
KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK J
REZONE
#RZ-90-4
A public hearing to consider the request by Trammell Crow Company,
PO Box 80326, Seattle, WA 98108, to rezone 42 . 85 acres from GWC,
Gateway Commercial, to M2 , Limited Industrial. The subject
property is located at the northeast corner of 84th Avenue S. and
S. 218th Street.
Carol Proud reiterated the request. Ms. Proud listed some of the
surrounding businesses in this area. Ms. Proud commented this is
a portion of a 42-acre site developed as an industrial building
with a commercial portion located on East Valley Highway. Ms.
Proud stated there were two separate buildings, with a commercial
building on East Valley Highway. A video of the site was shown.
Ms. Proud identified the surrounding uses. Ms. Proud discussed the
criteria that are reviewed when a rezone request is considered.
The staff is recommending approval.
Mr. Hunter commented the Gateway Commercial zoning was established
one year ago. He asked what circumstances have changed
substantially since the establishment of the Gateway Commercial
district?
Ms. Proud stated, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan analysis, that
the established boundaries were a compromise between what the
current property owners desired versus what was reasonable in
determining a zoning boundary. Ms. Proud stated that if a
site-specific analysis had been done, the current request would
have been incorporated into the changes initiated with the Gateway
Commercial zoning.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment.
Kirk Johnson, Trammell Crow, stated he had no formal presentation.
Mr. Johnson commented there were five property owners in the rezone
area. Mr. Johnson gave a brief history of the establishment of
the zoning boundary. Mr. Johnson stated the requested zoning would
be consistent with the type of users that would locate in the area.
Mr. Johnson stated the intent is to maintain a service type of use
along the East Valley Highway. Mr. Johnson gave a brief history
of the ownership of this property and other property in the area.
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
June 6, 1990
Mr. Hunter asked if there was any other testimony.
James H. Rust talked about the various zoning requests that have
been made.
Les Snodgrass, American Lenders Service Co. , had some concerns; he
talked about the traffic as well as the LID imposed on his
conditional use permit. He wanted to know why this request does
not have the same LID condition. Mr. Snodgrass wanted to know what
was the setback for the southernmost building on the site.
Ms. Proud commented the developer will be participating in the
224th/228th Corridor Project as well as 218th improvements.
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department, gave a brief explanation on
the process of defining the GWC zoning.
Kathy McClung, Planning Department, commented on the rezone request
and the amenities that would be provided. Furthermore, the goals
of the GWC zone would be accomplished.
There was no further testimony.
The hearing was closed at 4 : 00 pm.
4
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JUNE 61 1990
FILE NO: KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK #RZ-90-4
APPLICANT: Trammel Crow Company
REQUEST: A request to rezone a portion of a 43 acre site
from the current zoning of GWC, Gateway
Commercial, to M2 , Limited Industrial, to allow
the development of an industrial park and a
commercial center.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Carol Proud
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposal is a request to rezone approximately 8 . 7 acres
from an existing GWC, Gateway Commercial, zoning district
to an M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district.
Approximately 3 . 1 acres will remain GWC, Gateway
Commercial . The proposed rezone area is a portion of a
42 . 8 acre site that the proponent intends to develop as an
industrial park with commercial/service uses located
adjacent to 84th Avenue S. The proposed commercial/service
center includes two separate buildings with a total gross
leasable area of 26, 500 square feet. Access to the site
will be via 84th Avenue S . and an internal circulation
system. The proposed GWC, Gateway Commercial, zoning
boundary extends 170 feet east of and parallel to
84th Avenue S. The subject site for the entire proposal
includes seventeen separate parcels of record.
B. Location
The rezone area is located generally south of S. 212th
Street, east of 84th Avenue S. , north of S. 218th Street
and abuts the west side of SR 167 (East Valley Freeway) .
1
Staff Report
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
C. Size of Property
The subject area to be rezoned is approximately 8 .7 acres
of a 42 . 8 acre site.
D. Zoning
Currently about 11. 87 acres of the site is zoned GWC,
Gateway Commercial, and the remaining 30.98 acres is zoned
M2 , Limited Industrial. Property to the north fronting
84th Avenue S . is zoned GWC, Gateway Commercial, with the
property to the northeast zoned M2, Limited Industrial .
The City of Kent Zoning Code states that the purpose of
the GWC, Gateway Commercial , zoning district is to provide
retail commercial uses appropriate along major vehicular
corridors while encouraging appropriate and unified
development among the properties with its district. It is
designed to create unique, unified and recognizable
streetscapes while ensuring land use compatibility and the
exclusion of inappropriate uses . It is also intended to
promote flexibility in appropriate areas of site design
and to encourage mixed-use developments. (Section
15. 04 . 195)
Further, it is the purpose of the M2 , Limited Industrial,
zoning district to provide areas suitable for a broad range
of industrial activities whose characteristics are of a
light industrial nature. (Section 15. 04 . 180)
E. Land Use
Surrounding land uses include more intensive land uses
typical to the M3 , General Industrial, zoning district to
the west on the opposite side of 84th Avenue S. and less
intensive manufacturing and retail uses, typical to the CM,
Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district, to the south.
The Bowen Business Center is located north of the site and
two separate trucking/distribution facilities abut the site
to the north and south.
F. History
1. Area History
The subject property was annexed in the City of Kent
in 1958 as part of the 320 acre Cloverdale Addition
2
Staff Report
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
annexation. The property was zoned to the current
M2 , Industrial Park, zoning district in 1973 with the
adoption of the present Zoning Code. The GWC, Gateway
Commercial, zoning district was established in
June 1989 , as a result of recommendations enumerated
in the East Valley Land Use Study and adopted by the
City Council . Several rezone applications have been
considered for properties south of S. 218th Street to
extend the M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district.
At the time of this writing all have been denied, and
in effect, maintaining S. 218th Street as the southern
most boundary of the M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning
district.
2 . Site History
As previously mentioned, the entire 43-acre proposal
site consists of seventeen separate parcels of record.
Four smaller parcels adjacent to 84th Avenue S. , the
ABF Freight site to the north and the DiPietro
Trucking site to the south are not included in the
proposal. A majority of the eastern portion of the
property to be developed as the industrial park is the
former Kent Nursery site.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)
(#ENV-90-27) for the rezone proposal was issued on
March 29, 1990 subject to the following conditions and
mitigating measures:
1. Execute a no protest LID covenant for the future
widening and improvement of S. 218th Street to
Industrial Access Road standards (36 feet from curb
to curb, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting,
storm drainage facilities, underground utilities and
related appurtenances) .
2 . Deed the necessary property to the City to provide a
half street right of way width of 50 feet for the
entire property frontage of 84th Avenue S. (This shall
provide adequate ROW for the extension of the
northbound acceleration/deceleration/right turn lane
at 84th Avenue S . and S . 218th Street. )
3
Staff Report
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
3 . Deed the northerly 13 . 5 feet of all property
paralleling and abutting S. 218th Street to provide
for the widening of the street to City standards as
noted in condition 1 above.
4 . Deed the necessary property to provide a right-of-
way radius of 55 feet at the intersection of S. 218th
Street and 84th Avenue S.
5. Deed the property necessary to provide a 50 foot right
of way radius for a cul-de-sac turnaround at the
easterly terminus of S. 218th Street (adjacent to SR
167) .
6 . The owner/developer shall provide an as-built by a
Washington licensed land surveyor locating the King
County Drainage District #1 drainage channel
(Springbrook Creek) as it crosses the subject
property. Grant necessary easement to the City for
conveyance and maintenance of the creek. The width
of the easement shall extend landward from the top of
the channel bank 15 feet perpendicular and parallel
to the top of the channel bank on each side of the
creek.
7 . Abandon and cap, in accordance with Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE) requirements, the existing
water wells serving the property including releasing
the water rights thereto back to the D.O.E.
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Vegetation
The rezone site fronting 84th Avenue S. is undeveloped
with a ground cover of grasses and shrubs. The
topography of the site is relatively level.
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property has access to S. 218th Street
which is classified as a local collector. The street
has a public right of way width of 60 feet while the
actual width of paving is less than 20 feet. The
street is not improved with curbs or sidewalks.
4
Staff Report
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
2 . Water System
The site is served by a 16-inch and 12-inch water main
located along 84th Avenue S. adjacent to the site.
A 12-inch water main located along S. 218th Street is
also available to serve the site.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
A 24-inch Metro sewer main located along S. 218th
Street is available to serve the site.
4 . Storm Water System
A storm water system constructed in accordance with
the Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code will be
required at the time of development.
5 . LID ' s
The property is subject to a future LID for the
widening and improvement of S . 218th Street extending
from S. 84th Street to SR. 167 .
III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Works Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building Official City Clerk
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies
within 200 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.
5
Staff Report
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW .
A. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive
Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of
community intentions and aspirations concerning the future
of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The
Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City
Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and
City departments to guide growth, development, and spending
decisions. Residents, land developers, business
representatives and others may refer to the plan as a
statement of the City' s intentions concerning future
development.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans
that address specific concerns of certain areas of the
City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as
policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. The
proposed rezone area is served by the Valley Floor sub-
area plan. The following is a review of both plans as they
relate to the subject property.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City-wide Comprehensive Plan is comprised of two parts,
the Comprehensive Plan Map and the written goals,
objectives and policies. The Comprehensive Plan Map
designates that portion of the site fronting 84th Avenue S.
as C, Commercial and the remainder as I, Industrial .
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
GOAL 1: Promote diverse industrial development in
industrially developed areas.
Policy 1: Locate industrial land uses contiguous
to the West and East Valley Highways
to minimize sprawl.
6
Staff Report
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
Policy 4 : Promote the location of heavy industry
between the two major rail lines on the
Valley floor.
Goal 2 : Assure retail and commercial developments are in
suitable locations.
Objective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of
strip commercial development.
Policy 1 : Encourage planned retail-commercial
business development.
Policy 4 : Adopt and enforce regulations which
will minimize the adverse impacts and
unsafe conditions caused by strip
development.
Planning Department Comment
As a guide to industrial development, the Comprehensive
Plan states that as a goal, diversity of development should
be encouraged and the physical pattern of development
should occur in an orderly manner. Further, the plan
addresses that commercial development should also occur in
an orderly fashion to minimize any adverse impacts of strip
commercial development.
It was the intent of the City Council when the GWC, Gateway
Commercial , zoning district was established to create a
zoning district that would relieve the perceived pressures
for commercial development along 84th Avenue S. and to
establish a district that would avoid typical negative
impacts associated with strip commercial development. This
will be accomplished by the development standards for the
district and the types of permitted commercial uses.
In the East Valley Study a generalized commercial area was
designated which bordered both sides of 84th Avenue S. The
exact boundaries for the commercial district was
established after a lengthy analysis of the properties
fronting 84th Avenue S . and considerable input from the
property owners. The resultant zoning boundary was a
compromise between property dimensions and individual
owners intentions.
7
Staff Report
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
The rezone request is consistent with these goals and
policies. The proposed width of the zoning boundary more
accurately reflects the needed dimensions for the type of
commercial development that would locate at this site.
Typically, because of signage requirements and the need for
visibility from passing traffic a wider zoning boundary
would create some portions of the site undesirable for
commercial users. Any development on the site will be
subject to the use regulations and development standards
of the GWC, Gateway Commercial, zoning district which are
more exacting than the other commercial zoning districts.
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
The Valley Floor Plan Map designates that portion of the
site fronting 84th Avenue S . as C, Commercial and the
remainder as I , Industrial Park.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISHED A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL.
GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient routes
and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within
and through Kent.
Objective 1: Provide adequate traffic ways for both
local and through traffic, separating
the systems when possible.
Planning Department Comment
The proponent, as a result of a SEPA requirement, will
install a traffic signal at the main entrance to the site
at approximately S . 216th Street. South 218th Street will
not be used by any development on the site until the street
is fully improved to City standards. Additional right of
way will be required to provide an
acceleration/deceleration lane along 84th Avenue S. to
facilitate vehicle traffic entering/exiting the site.
In order to provide for the needs of pedestrian users of
the retail portion of the proposal, the applicant must
provide a pedestrian circulation system for the entire 43
acre site to accommodate foot traffic from the industrial
park to the commercial/service center. This will be
8
Staff Report
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
required in conjunction with the development plan review
process.
B. Standards and Criteria for a Rezone Request
The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoning Code,
Section 15. 09 . 050) are used by the Hearing Examiner and
City Council to evaluate a request for a rezone. Such an
amendment shall only be granted if the City Council
determines that the request is consistent with these
standards and criteria.
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Department Comment
The proposed rezone is consistent with the map designations
for both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the Valley
Floor Comprehensive Plan. As previously discussed, the
proposed rezone is consistent with the relevant goals and
policies of both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the
Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the
site would be compatible with development in the
vicinity.
Planning Department Comment
It is the applicant ' s intent to establish a zoning boundary
that would be more suitable for commercial development on
the site and would allow the maximum development of
industrial type uses. The current GWC, Gateway Commercial,
zoning boundary would result in commercial development
occurring behind properties that are in separate ownership
fronting 84th Avenue S . The proposed 170 foot zoning
boundary would more closely align the zoning boundary with
these smaller parcels. The subsequent development would
be compatible with the business center to the north that
is developed in a similar manner to that of the subject
proposal .
3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the property
with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated.
9
Staff Report
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
Planning Department Comment
Typically, industrial users provide less vehicle trips per
day than commercial users. By reducing the total square
footage of commercially zoned land, the proposed rezone
will not unduly burden the surrounding street system.
Anticipated impacts to the transportation system have been
addressed by the mitigating measures and conditions
required as a result of SEPA.
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to
warrant the proposed rezone.
Planning Department Comment
It is the intent of the GWC, Gateway Commercial, zoning
district to " . . .promote flexibility in appropriate areas
of site design and to encourage mixed-use developments. "
The proposed rezone boundaries more accurately reflect the
needs of future users of the commercial/service center.
This includes high visibility from passing traffic. The
additional industrial zoned land would provide optimum site
design for an industrial park and in effect provide a
commercial/service component for future users of the site.
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Kent.
Planning Department Comment
The proposed rezone is consistent with the intent of the
City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the Valley Floor Plan and
meets the standards of other City Codes and Ordinances.
As a result the proposal will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the
City of Kent.
C. Planning Department Findings
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:
10
Staff Report
Kent East Corporate Park
#RZ-90-4
1 . The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates that
portion of the site fronting 84th Avenue S. as C,
Commercial and the remainder as I, Industrial .
2 . The Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan Map designates
that portion of the site fronting 84th Avenue S. as
C, Commercial and the remainder as I, Industrial Park.
3 . The site is presently zoned GWC, Gateway Commercial .
4 . The property within the rezone site is undeveloped
ground, covered with native grasses and shrubs.
5. Land use in the area is mixture of commercial and
industrial uses to the north, vacant ground and a
former nursery site to the east, commercial and
industrial uses to the south, and heavier industrial
uses to the east.
6. The proposal includes the rezone of 8 . 7 acres to M2 ,
Limited Industrial, to allow a larger area of
industrial zoned land for the future development of
an industrial park.
7 . The property to remain GWC, Gateway Commercial, meets
the minimum lot size for future development and will
be the site of a commercial/service center.
8 . The site has access to 84th Avenue S . which is
classified as a principal arterial.
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria
for granting a rezone, the City staff recommends APPROVAL of the
Kent East Corporate Park Rezone request.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
May 30, 1990
11
City of Kent - Planning Department
S. 212th STREET
-
2 0'
e
O
{ f b -
N }
� tao'
_ goo' soo'
o W
o W
o c ILL
LLJ
m }
e J
O c o J
O p � Q
O_
733,800 s.f.* N 744,000 s.f.
214,000 s.f.
000 300'
S. 216th STREET f
0
_ o
r{ ,
132,000 s.f.
W
J
J
Q
> FUTURE
~ DEVELOPMENT
LU� DRAINAGE
111
DISTRICT
S. 218th STREET DITCH
L__J
KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK
V = 200' 1,/2V-10
Trammell Crow Company North
APPLICATION NAME: Kent East Corporate Park
NUMBER: RZ-90-4 DATE: .tune 6, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone a portion of a 44 acre site from GWC, Gateway Commercial to M-2,
Limited Industrial
LEGEND
Application site
SITE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
it r *I ii,�l(}1 \
r
c_
_
.
Ji
I 4l I �
p
ht/
- t 1 -
^t
I
I /I
I ?ti} ���Gi:•j:.:�avii 11° '!1\ Il�'' r \11^,1\1
... ... ::::::...
� _ � ty o:•:r:<•: I r'hirtly,i�.,�l�� �,�`..-.�)�Iv
MRM
APPLICATION NAME: Kent East Corporate Park
NUMBER: RZ-90-4 DATE: June 6, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone a portion of a 44 acre site from GWC, Gateway Commercial to M-2,
Limited Industrial
LEGEND
Application site
ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
� v N
S 206TH ST Q m
x
r
rn
S 206TH ST
2pe TM 5
ry
W
Q �
ti
S _
S9HR ONEER
fEiYE RY `�
S 212TH ST
N
d
5 216TH Si
I
w =
r
2
� I
/ N
w
0
m
m
S 222N0 ST
-L/
APPLICATION NAME: Kent East Corporate Park
NUMBER: RZ-90-4 DATE: ,tune 6, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone a portion of a 44 acre site from GWC, Gateway Commercial to M-2,
Limited Industrial
LEGEND
Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
Kent City Council Meeting
C
v Date July 17 , 1990
Vim\ Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: CLID 328/334 BOND ORDINANCE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As discussed with the Operations Committee
at their July 10, 1990 meeting, the staff is requesting the
adoption of Bond Ordinance 31 and the authorization for the
Mayor to sign a purchase contract in the amount of $1, 697, 303 . 49
for CLID 328/334 bonds. These bond proceeds will be used for
the construction of improvements on West Valley Highway between
So. 189th and 212th St. and for a sanitary sewer line
improvement in the neighborhood of 121st Ave. S.E. and
S.E. 276th St. The final assessment rolls for these LIDS have
been adopted and the 30-day prepayment period has elapsed.
The purchase contract with Lehman Brothers is at a net interest
cost of 7 . 64 percent and has a gross underwriting spread of
$20.45 per thousand dollar bonds. This purchase contract is
recommended by the Finance Department staff. The precise net
interest cost and gross underwriting spread was not available at
the time of the Operations Committee meeting. The Finance
Director is available to make a brief presentation.
3 . EXHIBITS: Bond Ordinance and purchase contract
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember L`t%'( � seconds
the adoption of Bond Ordinance �, and the authorization for
the Mayor to sign a purchase contract for LID 328/334 with
Lehman Brothers.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
DRAFT
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington,
relating to local improvement districts; establishing
Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 328/334
and Consolidated Local Improvement Fund, District No.
328/334; fixing the amount, form, date, interest
rates, maturities and denominations of the
Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 328/334
bonds; providing for the sale and delivery thereof to
Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. in Seattle, Washington;
and fixing the interest rate on local improvement
district assessment installments.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington
(the "City") , heretofore has created Local Improvement Districts
Nos. 328 and 334 for various purposes; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.45. 160 authorizes the establishment of
consolidated local improvement districts for the purpose of
issuing bonds only and provides that if the governing body of
any municipality orders the creation of such consolidated local
improvement district, the money received from the installment
payment of the principal of and interest on assessments levied
within the original local improvement districts shall be
deposited in a consolidated local improvement district bond
redemption fund to be used to redeem outstanding consolidated
local improvement district bonds; and
WHEREAS, the assessment payments in Local Improvement
District No. 328 are payable in twenty equal annual installments
and the assessment payments in Local Improvement District No.
334 are payable in ten equal annual payments; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Consolidation of Local Improvement Districts .
For the purpose of issuing bonds only, those local improvement
districts of the City established by the following ordinances,
respectively, the 30-day period for making cash payment of
assessments without interest in each local improvement district
having expired in the case of the assessments for each local
improvement district, are consolidated into a consolidated local
improvement district to be known and designated as Consolidated
Local Improvement District No. 328/334:
Assessment Balance
Local Improvement Created by After 30-Day
District No. Ordinance No. Prepayment Period
328 2735 $1,574,708.69
334 2781 122,594.80
Section 2. Creation of Bond Fund and Deposit of
Assessments. There is created and established in the office of
the City Finance Director for Consolidated Local Improvement
District No. 328/334 a special consolidated local improvement
district fund to be known and designated as Consolidated Local
Improvement Fund, District No. 328/334 (the "Bond Fund") . All
money presently on hand representing collections pertaining to
installments of assessments and interest thereon in each of the
local improvement districts listed in Section 1 shall be
transferred to and deposited in the Bond Fund, and all
collections pertaining to assessments on the assessment rolls of
those local improvement districts when hereafter received shall
be deposited in the Bond Fund to redeem outstanding Consolidated
Local Improvement District No. 328/334 bonds.
Section 3. Description of Bonds. Consolidated Local
Improvement District No. 328/334 bonds (the "Bonds") shall be
issued in the total principal amount of $1,697,303.49, being the
total amount on the assessment rolls of Local Improvement
Districts Nos. 328 and 334 remaining uncollected after the
expiration of the 30-day interest-free prepayment period. The
Bonds shall be dated August 1, 1990, and shall be numbered from
- 2 -
1 to 339, inclusive, in the manner and with any additional
designation as the Bond Registrar (collectively, the fiscal
agencies of the State of Washington located in Seattle,
Washington, and New York, New York) deems necessary for the
purpose of identification. Bond No. 1 shall be in the
denomination of $7,303.49 and Bonds Nos. 2 to 339, inclusive,
shall be in the denomination of $5,000.00 each. Interest shall
be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day
months. The Bonds shall mature on August 1 in the years and
amounts and shall bear interest at the rates set forth below,
payable annually beginning August 1, 1991 .
Bond Numbers Maturity Interest
(Inclusive) Years Amounts Rates
1-3 2002 $17,303.49 %
4-17 2012 70,000.00
18-20 2002 15,000.00
21-35 2012 75,000.00
36-38 2002 15,000.00
39-53 2012 75,000.00
54-56 2002 15,000 .00
57-72 2012 80,000.00
73-75 2002 15,000 .00
76-91 2012 80,000.00
92-93 2002 10,000.00
94-110 2012 85,000.00
111-112 2002 10,000.00
113-129 2012 85,000.00
130-131 2002 10,000.00
132-148 2012 85,000.00
149-150 2002 10,000.00
151-167 2012 85,000.00
168-169 2002 10,000.00
170-186 2012 85,000.00
187-202 2012 80,000.00
203-218 2012 80,000.00
219-234 2012 80,000.00
235-250 2012 80,000.00
251-266 2012 80,000.00
267-281 2012 75,000.00
282-296 2012 75,000.00
297-311 2012 75,000.00
312-32.5 2012 70,000 .00
326-339 2012 70,000 .00
For the purpose of RCW 35.49.020 only, the Bonds maturing in
2002, except $4,708.69 of Bond No. 1, shall be allocated to LID
No. 334 .
3 -
Section 4. Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds
shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and
interest and recorded on books or records maintained by the Bond
Registrar (the "Bond Register") . The Bond Register shall
contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond
and the principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by
each owner.
Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner
provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. The
transfer of a Bond shall be by the Bond Registrar's receiving
the Bond to be transferred, cancelling it and issuing a new
certificate in the form of the Bonds to the transferee after
registering the name and address of the transferee on the Bond
Register. The new certificate shall bear the same Bond number
as the transferred Bond but may have a different inventory
reference number or control number. Any transfer shall be
without cost to the owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar
shall not be obligated to transfer any Bond during the fifteen
days preceding any principal payment or redemption date.
Section 5. Payment of Bonds. Both principal of and
interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely out of the Bond
'Fund and from the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City,
and shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of
America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by checks or
drafts mailed by the Bond Registrar on the interest payment date
to the registered owners at the addresses appearing on the Bond
Register on the fifteenth day of the month preceding the
interest payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable
on presentation and surrender of the Bonds by the registered
owners at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar
at the option of the owners.
_ 4 _
Section 6. Optional Redemption of Bonds. The City
reserves the right and option to redeem the Bonds prior to their
stated maturity dates on any interest payment date, in numerical
order, lowest numbers first, at par plus accrued interest to the
date fixed for redemption, whenever there is sufficient money in
the Bond Fund to pay the Bonds so called and all earlier
numbered Bonds over the above the amount required for the
payment of the interest on all unpaid Bonds.
All Bonds redeemed under this section shall be cancelled.
Section 7. Notice of Redemption. The City shall cause
notice of any intended redemption of Bonds to be given not less
than fifteen nor more than thirty days prior to the date fixed
for redemption by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the
registered owner of any Bond to be redeemed at the address
appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond Registrar
prepares the notice, and the requirements of this sentence shall
be deemed to have been fulfilled when notice has been mailed as
so provided, whether or not it is actually received by the owner
of any Bond. Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall
cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption unless the Bond
or Bonds so called are not redeemed when presented pursuant to
•the call . In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed
-within the same period, postage prepaid, to Shearson Lehman
Hutton Inc. at its principal office in Seattle, Washington, or
its successors, and to such other persons and with such
additional information as the City Finance Director shall
determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a
condition precedent to the redemption of Bonds.
Section 8. Failure to Redeem Bonds . If any Bond is not
redeemed when properly presented at its maturity or call date,
the City shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond at the
- 5 -
same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or
call date until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid
in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on
deposit in the Bond Fund and the Bond has been called for
payment by giving notice of that call to the registered owner of
that Bond.
Section 9. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall
be printed, lithographed or typed on good bond paper in a form
consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and State law,
shall be signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both
of whose signatures shall be manual or in facsimile, and the
seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be
impressed or printed thereon.
Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the
following form, manually executed by the Bond Registrar, shall
be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the
benefits of this ordinance:
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This bond is one of the fully registered City of
Kent, Washington, Consolidated Local Improvement
District No. 328/334 Bonds described in the Bond
Ordinance.
WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENCY
Bond Registrar
By
Authorized Officer
The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall
be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been
duly executed, authenticated and delivered and are entitled to
the benefits of this ordinance.
If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the
Bonds ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign
bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature
- 6 -
are authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued
by the City, those Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated,
delivered and issued and, when authenticated, delivered and
issued, shall be as binding on the City as though that person
had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign
bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any
person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an
officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she
did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the
Bonds.
Section 10. Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall
keep, or cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust
office sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the
Bonds which shall at all times be open to inspection by the
City. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City,
to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred in accordance with
the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the
City's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the
Bond Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and
Ordinance No. 2418 establishing a system of registration of the
City' s bonds and obligations.
The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its
representations contained in the Bond Registrar's Certificate of
Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the
owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not
the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act
as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to
act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any
committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners.
Section 11. Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on
Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions
- 7 -
necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included
in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will
neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds
of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of
the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will
cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income of
registered owners for federal income tax purposes. The City
also covenants that, if all gross proceeds of the Bonds have not
been spent within certain periods prescribed by the United
States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") ,
it will calculate, or cause to be calculated, and rebate to the
United States all earnings from the investment of gross proceeds
of the Bonds that are in excess of the amount that would have
been earned had the yield on those investments been equal to the
yield on the Bonds, plus all income derived from those excess
earnings, to the extent and in the manner required by Section
148 of the Code and applicable regulations. If the City fails
to meet rebate requirements applicable to the Bonds under
Section 148 of the Code, the City covenants that, to the extent
permitted by that Section, it will pay the penalty provided in
Subsection 148(f)(7)(C) if required to prevent interest on the
,Bonds from being included in gross income of registered owners
'for federal income tax purposes. The City certifies that it has
not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the
Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer
whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon.
Section 12. Bonds Negotiable, The Bonds shall be
negotiable instruments to the extent provided by RCW 62A.8-102
and 62A.8-105.
Section 13. Approval of Bond Purchase Contract. Shearson
Lehman Hutton Inc. of Seattle, Washington, has presented a
8 -
purchase contract (the "Bond Purchase Contract") to the City
offering to purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions
provided in the Bond Purchase Contract, which written Bond
Purchase Contract is on file with the City Clerk and is
incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds
that entering into the Bond Purchase Contract is in the City's
best interest and therefore accepts the offer contained therein
and authorizes its execution by City officials.
The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be
delivered to the purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase
Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper &
Shefelman, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington,
regarding the Bonds printed on each Bond. Bond counsel shall
not be required to review and shall express no opinion
concerning the completeness or accuracy of any official
statement, offering circular or other sales material issued or
used in connection with the Bonds, and bond counsel ' s opinion
shall so state.
The City Council has been provided with copies of a
preliminary official statement dated July 5, 1990 (the
"Preliminary official Statement") , prepared in connection with
'the sale of the Bonds. For the sole purpose of the purchaser's
compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
15c2-12(b) (1) , the City "deems final" that Preliminary official
Statement as of its date, except for the omission of information
as to offering prices, interest rates, selling compensation,
delivery date, rating and other terms of the Bonds dependent on
such matters.
The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do
everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the
purchaser, including without limitation the execution of the
- 9 -
Official Statement on behalf of the City, and for the proper
application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof.
Section 14. Interest Rate on Assessments. The interest
rate on the installments and delinquent payments of the special
assessments in Local Improvement Districts Nos. 328 and 334 is
revised and fixed at the rate of % per annum.
Section 15. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication, as provided by b `EH ,FT
DAN KKELLHER, Mayor
ATTEST: DRAFT
MARIE JENSEN, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Special Counsel and Bond
Counsel for the City
Passed the day of 1990.
Approved the day of 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 Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, City Clerk
SLH-458`
- 10 -
DRAT
$1,697,303.49
City of Kent, Washington
Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 328/334 Bonds
BOND P R HA E CONTRACT
July 17, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032-5895
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. (the "Purchaser"), is pleased to offer to purchase from the
City of Kent (the "Seller") all of its $1,697,303.49 principal amount of Consolidated Local
Improvement District No. 328/334 Bonds, (the 'Bonds"). This offer is based upon the terms
and conditions set forth below and in Exhibit A attached, which when accepted by the
Seller shall constitute the terms and conditions of our Purchase Contract for the Bonds.
Those terms and conditions are as follows:
1. Prior to the date of delivery and payment for the Bonds identified in paragraph i of
Exhibit A ("Closing"), the Seller shall pass an ordinance authorizing the issuance of
the Bonds (the 'Bond Ordinance") in form and substance acceptable to the
Purchaser.
2. The Seller shall sell and deliver to the Purchaser, and the Purchaser shall purchase,
accept delivery of and pay for the entire $1,697,303.49 principal amount of the
Bonds, and only that amount.
3. The Seller consents to and ratifies the use by the Purchaser of the information
contained in the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, a copy of
which is attached to this Purchase Contract as Exhibit B (the "Preliminary Official
Statement"), in marketing the Bonds, authorizes the preparation of a Final Official
Statement (the "Final Official Statement") for the Bonds containing such revisions
and additions to the Preliminary Official Statement as the Finance director and the
City Attorney of the Seller deem necessary, and further authorizes the use of the
Final Official Statement in connection with the public offering and sale of the
Bonds.
4. The Seller represents, warrants to, and agrees with the Purchaser, as of the date
hereof and as of the date and time of Closing, that:
a. The Seller has and will have at Closing full legal right, power and authority
to enter into and perform its obligations under this Purchase Contract and
under the Bond Ordinance, to adopt the Bond Ordinance and to sell and
deliver the Bonds to the Purchaser;
b. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds do not and will
not conflict with or create a breach of or default under any existing law,
regulation, judgment, order or decree or any agreement, lease or instrument
to which the Seller is subject or by which it is bound;
c. No governmental consent, approval or authorization other than the Bond
Ordinance is required in connection with the sale of the Bonds to the
Purchaser;
d. This Purchase Contract, the Bond Ordinance and the Bonds (when paid for by
the Purchaser) are, and shall be at the time of Closing, legal, valid and
binding obligations of the Seller enforceable in accordance with their
respective terms, subject only to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or other
similar laws generally affecting creditors' rights;
e. The Bond Ordinance shall have been duly authorized by the Seller, shall be in
full force and effect and shall not have been amended except with the
written consent of the purchaser at the time of Closing;;
f. The Preliminary Official Statement, except as to matters corrected in the
Final Official Statement which shall be available within seven days of the
date of this Purchase Contract is approved so that the Final Official
Statement is available to accompany confirmations that the Purchaser sends
to its customers in compliance with the requirements of Rule 15C2-12(b)(4)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and with the
requirements of Rule G-32 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board,
shall be accurate and complete in all material aspects as of its date with
respect to information obtained from or utilized by officers and employees
of the Seller in the normal course of their duties, and the Final Official
Statement, which will be available to Purchaser seven days after this
Purchase Contract is approved, shall be accurate and complete in all
material respects as of its date and as of the date of Closing to the
knowledge and belief of such officers and employees; and
g. Any certificate or copy of any certificate signed by any official of the Seller
and delivered to the Purchaser pursuant to or in connection with this
Purchase Contract shall be deemed a representation by the Seller to the
Purchaser as to the truth of the statements therein made and is delivered to
the Purchaser for such purpose only.
—2—
5. As conditions to the Purchaser's obligations hereunder:
a. From the date of the Seller's acceptance of this Purchase Contract to the
date of Closing, there shall not have been any:
(1) Material adverse change in the financial condition or general affairs of
the Seller;
(2) Event, court decision or proposed law, rule or regulation which may
have the effect of changing the federal income tax exemption of the
interest on the Bonds or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase
Contract or the Preliminary and Final Official Statements;
(3) International and national crisis, suspension of stock exchange trading or
banking moratorium materially affecting the marketability of the
Bonds; or
(4) Material adverse event with respect to the Seller which in the
reasonable judgment of the Purchaser requires or has required an
amendment, modification or supplement to the Final Official Statement
and such amendment, modification or supplement is not made.
b. At or prior to Closing, the Purchaser shall have received the following:
(1) The Bonds, in definitive form and duly executed and authenticated;
(2) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller, in form and substance
acceptance to the Seller and Purchaser, to the effect: (i) that the
Seller's execution of the Final Official Statement is authorized, (ii)
that, to the knowledge and belief of such officers, the Preliminary
Official Statement did not as of its date and Final Official Statement
(collectively the "Official Statements") (including the financial and
statistical data contained therein) did not as of its date or as of the date
of Closing contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make such statements, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (iii)
that the representations of the Seller contained in this Purchase
Contract are true and correct when made and as of Closing;
—3—
(3) An approving opinion or opinions of the law firm identified in paragraph
I of Exhibit A as bond counsel or from another nationally recognized
firm of municipal bond lawyers (either or both of which shall be referred
to as "Bond Counsel") satisfactory to the Purchaser and dated as of
Closing, to the effect: (i) that the Seller is duly organized and legally
existing as a City under the laws of the State of Washington with full
power and authority to adopt the Bond Ordinance and to issue and sell
the Bonds to the Purchaser; (ii) that the Bonds are valid, legal and
binding obligations of the Seller, except to the extent that such
enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws
affecting creditors' rights; (iii) the sections of the Official Statement
entitled "AUTHORIZATION," "THE BONDS," "TAX EXEMPTION" and
"CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES", as well as the
first, second, fourth and sixth paragraphs under the heading
"SECURITY" conform to the Bonds and applicable laws; (iv) that
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), including
arbitrage and arbitrage rebate requirements, interest on the Bonds is
excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under
existing federal law, including the Code, except that interest on the
Bonds received by corporations in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 1986, may be subject to an alternative minimum tax and,
in the case of certain corporations, an environmental and/or foreign
branch profits tax, and interest on the Bonds received by certain S
corporations may be subject to tax; and (v) that the Bonds are not
"arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code;
(4) A letter of Bond Counsel, dated the date of Closing and addressed to the
Purchaser, to the effect that it may rely upon the opinion or opinions in
subparagraph (3) above as if it or they were addressed to the Purchaser.
(5) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that no
litigation is pending, or to the knowledge of the Seller threatened,
against the Seller in any court: (i) to restrain or enjoin the sale or
delivery by the Seller of the Bonds; (ii) in any manner questioning the
authority of the Seller to issue, or the issuance or validity of, the Bonds;
(iii) questioning the constitutionality of any statute, ordinance or
resolution, or the validity of any proceedings, authorizing the issuance
of the Bonds; (iv) questioning the validity or enforceability of the Bond
Ordinance; (v) contesting in any way the completeness, accuracy or
fairness of the Official Statements; (vi) questioning the titles of any
officers of the Seller to their respective offices or the legal existence
of the Seller under the laws of the State of Washington; or (vii) which
might in any material respect adversely affect the transactions
contemplated herein and in the Official Statements to be undertaken by
the Seller;
—4—
(6) A certificate signed by authorized officers of the Seller to the effect
that the officers of the Seller who signed or whose facsimile signatures
appear on the Bonds were on the date of execution of the Bonds the duly
elected or appointed, qualified and acting officers of the Seller and that
their signatures are genuine or accurate facsimiles;
(7) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that the
Seller has not been and is not in default as to principal or interest
payments on any of its bonds or other obligations, and has not failed to
honor the provisions of any law providing for the restoring of a debt
service reserve fund to required levels;
(8) A certificate of authorized officers of the Seller to the effect that,
from the respective dates of the Official Statements and up to and
including the date of Closing, the Seller has not incurred any material
liabilities direct or contingent, nor has there been any material adverse
change in the financial position, results of operations or condition,
financial or otherwise, of the Seller, except as described in the Official
Statements;
(9) A certified copy of the Bond Ordinance;
(10) A definitive copy of the Final Official Statement, signed on behalf of
the Seller by the City Finance Director;
(11) A non—arbitrage certificate signed by an authorized officer of the Seller;
(12) A certified copy of this Purchase Contract; and
(13) Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and documents
as the Purchaser may reasonably request to evidence the truth,
accuracy and completeness, as of the date hereof and as of the date of
Closing, of the representations and warranties contained herein and of
the statements and information contained in the Official Statements
and the due performance by the Seller at or prior to Closing of all
agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied
by the Seller.
6. The Seller shall pay the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel, and the Seller's
other consultants and advisors, and the costs of preparing, printing and executing
and registering the Bonds. The Purchaser shall pay the costs of preparing,
printing and distributing the Final and Preliminary Official Statements (except in
the circumstances and to the extent set forth in paragraph 7 hereof), the fees and
disbursements of the Purchaser's counsel, if any, the printing and filing of blue
sky and legal investment surveys, where necessary, the Purchaser's expenses
relative to Closing, including the cost of federal funds and the Purchaser's travel
expenses.
—5—
7. If, during the period ending on the earlier of August 15, 1990, or the date on
which the Purchaser shall have completed the distribution and delivery to the
public of all of the Bonds, any material adverse event affecting the Seller or the
Bonds shall occur which results in the Final Official Statement containing any
untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state any material fact
necessary to make the Final Official Statement, or the statements or information
therein contained, in light of the circumstances tinder which they were made, not
misleading, the Seller shall notify the Purchaser and, if in the opinion of the
Seller and the Purchaser such event requires a supplement or amendment to the
Final Official Statement, the party whose omission, misstatement or changed
circumstance has resulted in the supplement or amendment will at its expense
supplement or amend the Final Official Statement in a form and in a manner
approved by the Seller and the Purchaser.
8. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Seller under this Purchase
Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to its respective address
set forth above. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Purchaser
under this Purchase Contract shall be given by delivering the same in writing to
Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, Washington
98104-4075 (Attention: Richard B. King, Vice President, Public Finance).
9. Upon acceptance of this Purchase Contract, this Purchase Contract shall be
binding upon the Seller and the Purchaser. This Purchase Contract is intended to
benefit only the parties hereto. The Seller's representations and warranties shall
survive any investigation made by or for the Purchaser, delivery and payment for
the Bonds, and the termination of this Purchase Contract, except that such
representations and warranties contained in the Official Statement shall not
survive if Purchaser becomes aware that the facts contained in the Official
Statement are incorrect or misleading and Purchaser fails to advise Seller of such
incorrect or misleading statements. Should the Purchaser fail (other than for
reasons permitted in this Purchase Contract) to pay for the Bonds at Closing, the
amount set forth in paragraph i of Exhibit A shall be paid by the Purchaser as
liquidated damages in full, and costs shall be borne in accordance with Section 6.
Should the Seller fail to satisfy any of the foregoing conditions or covenants, or if
Purchaser's obligations are terminated for any reason permitted under this
Purchase Contract, then neither the Purchaser not the Seller shall have any
further obligations under this Purchase Contract, except that any expenses
incurred shall be borne in accordance with Section 6.
—6—
10. This offer expires on the date set forth in paragraph h of Exhibit A.
Respectfully submitted,
SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON INC.
Richard B. King
Vice President
Public Finance — Seattle
ACCEPTED by the City of Kent, Washington, this 17th day of July, 1990.
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
By
Dan Kelleher, Mayor
ATTEST:
By
Marie Jensen
RBK:nim/0061 C
Enclosures
—7—
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF BONDS
a. Purchase Price: $ per $100.00 par value, or $ which reflects an
underwriting discount of $ (—%), plus accrued interest from
August 1, 1990, to the date of Closing.
b. Denominations: $5,000 or integral multiples thereof within a single maturity,
except for Bond No. 1, which shall be in the denomination of $7,303.49.
c. Dated Date: August 1, 1990.
d. Form: Fully registered with privileges of exchange at the expense of the Seller.
e. Interest Payable: Annually on August 1 commencing August 1, 1991.
f. Maturity Schedule: Bonds shall mature on August 1, 2002 and on August 1,
2012 and shall bear interest at the rates set forth below:
Bond Interest Bond Interest
Nos. Amount_ Rate Maturity Nos. Amount Rate Matyrity
1-3 $17,303.49 % 2002 132-148 $85,000 % 2012
4-17 70,000 2012 149-150 10,000 2002
18-20 15,000 2002 151-167 85,000 2012
21-35 75,000 2012 168-169 10,000 2002
36-38 15,000 2002 170-186 85,000 2012
39-53 75,000 2012 187-202 80,000 2012
54-56 15,000 2002 203-218 80,000 2012
57-72 80,000 2012 219-234 80,000 2012
73-75 15,000 2002 235-250 80,000 2012
76-91 80,000 2012 251-266 80,000 2012
92-93 10,000 2002 267-281 75,000 2012
94-110 85,000 2012 282-296 75,000 2012
111-112 10,000 2002 297-311 75,000 2012
113-129 85,000 2012 312-325 70,000 2012
130-131 10,000 2002 326-339 70,000 2012
g. Net Interest Cost:
Average Interest Rate:
h. Redemption: The Seller reserves the right to redeem the Bonds on any annual
interest payment date at 100% of par plus accrued interest to the date of
redemption.
i. Location and Estimated Closing Date: Seattle, Washington, August 1, 1990.
j. Required Ratings of Bonds: None.
k. Bond Counsel: Foster Pepper & Shefelman.
1. Method of Payment: Federal Funds draft or wire.
M. Offer Expires: July 17, 1990, 12:00 midnight.
RBK:m n10061 C
—8—
JUL C9 "DO 14:fir, SHEGRSOf I LEHNR I F.31"4
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
CLID NO. 329/334
Proposed Pricing Information
July 9, 1990
A. Comparison of Initial Re-Offering Yields
Issue $1,697,303 $568,189 $252,656
City of Kent City of Auburn City of Kennewick
CLID No. 328/334 CLID No. 338/339 LID No. 203
Sale Date July 17 July 2 May 15
Underwriting Spread $20.45 $19.00 $31.92
Net Interest Cost 7.64% 7.3811/6 7.69%
NIC/RBI (1) 102.83% 98.66%
100.39%
AV;Assessments (2) 47.2;1 10.5:1 11.8;1
y (3) Proposed Initial Initial Initial
8e..=.Qff c.1-.t22Z.Y1jLd.5 Re-Offering Yields Re-Offering Yields
1991 6.40% 6.40% 6.60%
1.992 6.55 6.55
75
1993 6.
6.70 6.70 6.90
19Q4 6.80 6.80 7.00
1995 6.90 6.90
. 7,10
1996 7.00 7.00 7.20
1997 7.05 7.05
7.30
1998 7.10 7.10 7.40
1999 7.20 7.20 7.50
2000 7.25 7.30 7.60
2001 7.30 --
2002 7.40
2003 7.50T-
2004 7.60 _ --
200S 7.65
2006 7.65 --
2007 7.70 -T
2008 7.70 --
2009 7.70 _ --
2010 7.70 __ W
7 5 LZA 6/21 6/14 10
Revenue Bond Index (4) 7.43% 7.48% 7.53% 7.46% 7.49% 7.66%
(1) Net interest cost divided by the Revenue Bond Index at the time of sale.
(2) Ratio of assessed valuation to assessments.
(3) Estimated maturities.
(4) Calculated weekly by The B M(LBuyef, this index provides a general indication of initial
re-offering yields for 25-year revenue bonds,
JUL 09 '90 14:56 SHEARSOH LEHNAfl P.4i4
B, Proposed Underwriting Discount
p.�r.. .9QSLFGius1 Total
Average Takedown $12.95 $21,980
Net to Underwriting 2.00 3,395
Expenses (1) 1.50 2,546
Manage al lluaa 3
Management Fee 4M 6J89
(1) Breakdown as follows:
Fed Funds and Day loan $ 462
Official Statement Preparation 849
Mailing and Overnight Delivery (a) 224
Clearance 849
Other t62
$2,546
(a) 75 x $ 2.25
4 x 12.50
20 x 0.25
1417k
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 17, 1990
� ; Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: SOUTH 218 ST. REZONE NO. RZ-90-2
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public meeting will consider the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial of an application by
Lawrence M. Campbell to rezone 7 .76 acres from CM-1, commercial
manufacturing, to M-2 , limited industrial. The property abuts
the south side of So. 218th St. from approximately 820 feet east
of 84th Ave. So. to the Drainage District No. 1 drainage ditch.
Mr. Campbell has filed an appeal , which is shown as Public
Hearing Item No. 2A.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, Hearing Examiner Minutes, Findings
and Recommendation
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner, May 30, 1990 _
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
Denial
5. UNBUDGETED I CAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL PERS L NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REdUIRED: $
SOURCE OF ,(
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember tr '� seconds
to accept/reject odi- y the findings of the Hearing Examiner,
and to adopt/rej-ect/modify the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
of denial of So. 218th St. rezone No. RZ-90-2 .
DISCUSSION: } `- �•'
ACTION: ..'
r
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF
MAY 16, 1990
FILE NO: SOUTH 218TH STREET REZONE #RZ-90-2
APPLICANT: Lawrence M. Campbell and Associates
REQUEST: A request to rezone 7 . 76 acres from an existing
CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district
to an M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Carol Proud
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
I . GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The applicant proposes to rezone 7 . 76 acres that is
currently within a CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning
district to an M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district.
No specific development proposal is submitted with the
rezone request. The proposal includes nine separate
parcels of record (see attached map) .
B. Location
The proposed rezone area abuts the south side of S . 218th
Street from approximately 820 feet east of 84th Avenue S .
(East Valley Road) to the Drainage District #1 drainage
ditch.
C. Size of Property
The subject area is approximately 7 . 76 acres in size.
D. Zoning
The property is currently zoned CM-1, Commercial
Manufacturing. South 218th Street is the southern boundary
of an M2 , Limited Industrial , zoning district that extends
1
Staff Report
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
north to S . 180th Street. The newly implemented GWC,
Gateway Commercial, zoning district abuts the east side of
84th Avenue S . , west of the subject site. The CM-1,
Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district extends south to
approximately S . 222nd Street and the SR 167 overpass.
The City of Kent Zoning Code states that the purpose of the
CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district is to
provide locations for those types of developments which
combine some characteristics of both retail establishments
and industrial operation, heavy commercial and wholesale
uses. (Section 15 . 04 . 120) Further, it is the purpose of
the M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district to provide
areas suitable for a broad range of industrial activities
whose characteristics are of a light industrial nature.
(Section 15 . 04 . 180)
E. Land Use
Surrounding land uses include more intensive industrial
development north of the proposed rezone site and less
intensive manufacturing and retail uses, typical to the CM,
Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district, to the south and
west. A mobile home park and an apartment complex are
located southwest of the proposed rezone area. Property
to the north and directly northwest on the north side of
S. 218th Street (including the former Kent Nursery site)
is currently in the initial stages of development review
for the construction of a 43 acre warehouse distribution
and retail/service facility.
F. History
1. Area History
The subject property was annexed in the City of Kent
in 1958 as part of the 320 acre Cloverdale Addition
annexation. The property was initially zoned C3 ,
General Commercial , in 1960 and rezoned to the current
CM, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district in 1973
with the adoption of the present Zoning Code.
On February 28 , 1978 , the Planning Commission denied
a similar M2 , Limited Industrial, zone change request
of ten acres that included portions of the subject
rezone site. The denial was based on an inadequate
circulation system to accommodate increased potential
2
Staff Report
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
heavy truck traffic and that an M2 , Limited -
Industrial , zoning designation would be detrimental
to the mixed uses located in the surrounding
neighborhood.
In March 1988 , the Planning Department completed the
East Valley Study which analyzed development and land
use policy in the eastern portion of Kent' s industrial
valley. The proposed rezone site was included the
study area. In June 1988 , the Kent City Council
adopted several recommendations of the Study which
included changes to the Valley Floor Comprehensive
Plan Map. The subject site retained the designation
of IP, Industrial Park.
2 . Site History
The applicant for the proposed rezone request
represents a trucking firm that is located on
approximately two acres within the proposed rezone
area and has been in operation at this location for
over five years. In April 1984 , the Planning
Department received a letter from the president of the
trucking firm, requesting the approval of a
transportation terminal facility at their present
site. Based on the description and the extent of the
intended use, the request was denied. The Planning
Department ' s interpretation was that the described use
was a transportation terminal" and, as such, was a
principally permitted use in an M3 , General
Industrial , zoning district. The use was also
permitted in an M2 , Limited Industrial, zone as a
conditional use and not allowed at all in the existing
cm, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district.
The firm appealed the Planning Department ' s
administrative interpretation to the Board of
Adjustment. The Department' s interpretation was
upheld in June 1984 . The Board agreed to hear the
appeal again in August 1984 after the Board' s bylaws
had been rewritten to more clearly define action if
only three Board members are present at a meeting.
At the requested 1984 meeting, the Board overturned
the Planning Department ' s interpretation after
considerable debate. At issue was the size of the
operation. The applicant and supporters contended
that the operation was small and the amount of
3
Staff Report
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
activity was minimal. It more closely resembled a -
commercial activity rather than a heavy trucking
industrial activity. A majority of the Board members
agreed that a smaller operation would not be
detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and
overturned the Planning Department ' s interpretation.
The trucking firm purchased an adjacent site in 1987
(that is included in the subject rezone request) and
applied for a site specific rezone in 1987 from CM1
to M2 to allow the expansion of the facility (with a
conditional use permit) . The City Council denied the
request in April, 1988 . The request did not meet the
criteria established in the Kent Zoning Code for
granting a rezone (see March 2 , 1990, Hearing Examiner
Findings and Conclusions included in file of record) .
The adjacent parcel , which fronts S . 218th Street, is
currently in use by the firm as an accessory parking
lot. Continued use of the lot is subject to zoning
violation proceedings as an expansion of the
principally permitted use with out first obtaining
necessary construction and use permits .
II . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)
(#ENV-90-118) for the rezone proposal was initially issued
on January 11, 1990 . One of the mitigating measures for
the proposal included the expansion of the rezone area to
mitigate adverse impacts to surrounding properties and uses
remaining in the CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning
district. After a good faith attempt to expand the
proposed rezone boundary and ultimately unable to do so,
the applicant requested a reconsideration of the MDNS to
exclude this condition. A revised Mitigated Determination
of Nonsignificance was subsequently issued subject to the
following conditions and mitigating measures:
1 . Traffic mitigation to be assessed at the time of
Building Permit submittal . Shou'd the number of trips
generated by the proposed developments exceed those
allowed under the current zoning, those trips will be
assessed at the 100% fee or $2 , 152/trip.
4
Staff Report
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Prior to the approval of the Rezone:
2 . Execute a no protest LID Agreements for the future
widening and improvements of S. 218th Street to
Industrial Access Road standards (36 feet from curb
to curb, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting,
storm drainage facilities, underground utilities and
related appurtenances) .
3 . Deed the northerly 13 . 5 feet of all property
paralleling and abutting S . 218th Street to provide _
for the widening of the street to City standards as
noted in condition 2 above.
4 . The owner/developer shall provide an as-built by a
Washington licensed land surveyor locating the
Drainage channel which exists along the westerly _
property boundary with respect to the property lines
of this rezone. For the portion of the Drainage
channel that lies within this property, grant to the
City easements for Drainage and maintenance purposes
said width of the easement shall extend landward from
the top of the channel bank 15 feet in order to
accommodate a maintenance road for said channel .
5. Development and/or use of the property in accordance
with respective permitted uses allowed under this
Rezone shall be prohibited until S . 218th Street is
improved to a condition which adequately addresses,
as determined by the Public Works Department, the
traffic loadings and safety concerns associated
therewith.
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Vegetation
Those portions of the rezone site that are undeveloped
are either in use as unimproved parking area or vacant
ground covered with grasses and shrubs. The
topography of the site is relatively level .
5
Staff Report
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
C. significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property has access to S. 218th Street
which is classified as a local collector. The street
has a public right of way width of 60 feet while the
actual width of paving is less than 20 feet. The
street is not improved with curbs or sidewalks.
2 . Water System
The site is served by an eight inch water main located
on the site.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
An eight inch sanitary sewer is available to serve the
subject property.
4 . Storm Water System
A storm water system constructed in accordance with
the Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code will be
required at the time of development.
5 . LID' s
The property is subject to a future LID for the
widening and improvement of S. 218th Street.
III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Works Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building Official City Clerk
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies
within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and
of the public hearing.
6
Staff Report
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where
applicable.
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
A. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive
Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of
community intentions and aspirations concerning the future =
of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The
Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City
Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and
City departments to guide growth, development, and spending
decisions. Residents, land developers, business
representatives and others may refer to the plan as a
statement of the City' s intentions concerning future
development.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans
that address specific concerns of certain areas of the
City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as
policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. The
proposed rezone area is served by the Valley Floor sub-
area plan. The following is a review of both plans as they
relate to the subject property.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City-wide Comprehensive Plan is made up of two
entities, the Comprehensive Plan Map and the written goals,
objectives and policies. The Comprehensive Plan Map
designates the site as I , Industrial .
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
GOAL 1: Promote diverse industrial development in
industrially developed areas.
7
Staff Report
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Policy 1 : Locate industrial land uses contiguous
to the West and East Valley Highways
to minimize sprawl.
Policy 4 : Promote the location of heavy industry
between the two major rail lines on the
Valley floor.
Planning Department Comment
As a guide to industrial development, the Comprehensive
Plan states that as a goal, diversity of development should
be encouraged and yet the physical pattern of development
should occur in an orderly manner. The policies state that
different kinds of industrial uses which are not compatible
with each other should be separated. Generally, the Plan
suggests locating more intensive, "heavier" , industrial
uses on the valley floor between the existing railroad
tracks and moderate industrial uses adjacent to East Valley
Road and West Valley Highway. The least intensive uses are
left to those areas closer to the Green River and the East
Valley Freeway (SR 167) .
The different degree of permitted uses in the industrial
zoning districts and their subsequent location reflect
these goals and policies. The purpose of the rezone
proposal is the eventual expansion of at least one use that
is considered a "heavier" industrial use. The previously
proposed truck transfer terminal (and presumably impetus
for the current rezone proposal) is only allowed outright
in an M3 , General Industrial , zoning district and with
conditional use approval in an M2 , Limited Industrial ,
zoning district. South 218th Street has been established
as a physical boundary between the more intensive uses
allowed in an M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district north
of S . 218th Street and the lighter, mixed uses allowed in
the CM, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district.
Approving the proposed rezone would encourage the
encroachment of M2 , Limited Industrial, uses into an area
of residential and lighter uses .
HOUSING ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT.
GOAL 4 : Assure environmental quality in residential areas.
8
Staff Report
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Policy 4 : Where necessary, establish buffers
(e.g. , open space, fencing, extensive
landscaping, etc. ) between existing
residential areas and adjacent non-
residential areas and/or uses.
Planning Department Comment
Residential Development is still located in the area west
of the proposed rezone site. The amount of increase traffic
and additional noise associated with more intensive uses
permitted in the M2 , Limited Industrial , zoning district _
would have a detrimental impact to those still living in
the area. The increase in noise would be a result of more
truck deliveries and loading activities at the truck
terminal facility and the potential future development on
the vacant property abutting the eastern boundary of the
mobile home park.
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the site as IP,
Industrial Park.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISHED A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL.
GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient routes
and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within
and through Kent.
Objective l : Provide adequate traffic ways for both
local and through traffic, separating
the systems when possible.
Policy 1 : Provide better and easier east-west
traffic flow.
Planning Department Comment
The subject area is bordered on the north and serviced by
S . 218th St. which is a narrow substandard roadway that is
inadequate to serve the area in a developed condition. The
roadway pavement section is neither structurally adequate
9
Staff Report
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
to support or wide enough to safely permit heavy traffic -
use. There are two dangerous curves on the roadway on
which truck traffic can not maneuver safely with opposing
car traffic. As a result of SEPA conditions any
development occurring within the rezone area will be
required to improve S. 218th Street fronting that portion
of the rezone site. These improv st ements will still leave
west
portions of the roadway to the ea ties ddevelop uortandard LID
until such time as adjacent prop
is executed for improvements to the entire street.
B. Standards and Criteria for a Rezone Reauest
The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoningeroand
Section 15 . 09 . 050) are used by the Hearing
ExaminCity Council to evaluate e grone. Such n
anted quest fir the zCity Council
amendment shall only request is consistent with these
determines that the
standards and criteria.
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Plann ng De artment Comment
The proposed rezone is consistent with the map
designations, on both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and
he Howeve
proposal
the Valley Floor comprehensive Plan• olic es� of the plans .
is not consistent with the goals and p
Both plans address the location of lnusertol surrounding
and the impact of any proposed roval
residential and business development. Rezone
Indunprial ,
would encourage the encroachment of M2 ,
uses into an area of residential and less intensive
is o developed
ommercial/manufacturing uses. The area
c des safeaccess
with an adequate street system that p
for additional pedestrian and increase vehicular intraffic activity wouldmore
intensive uses and resulting in the area.
detrimental to residents still living
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the
site would be compatible with development in the
vicinity.
10
Staff Report
South 218th Street
4RZ-90-2
Planning Department Comment -
A land use pattern of mixed development is established in
the existing CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning
district. These uses are of a lighter, less intensive
character and are consistent with the purpose of the CM1
zone. Rezone approval would allow uses that are
incompatible with this development south of S . 218th
Street. North of S . 218th Street, development has occurred
that is consistent with the purpose of the M2 , Limited
Industrial, zoning district.
3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the property
with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated.
Planning Department Comment =
S . 218th Street is substandard at this location to support
the increased truck and vehicle traffic more intensive
industrial uses would generate. The physical condition
of the street may change with the development of the former
Kent Nursery site as an industrial distribution center and
the resultant required street improvements on the north
half of S . 218th Street. Access to the properties in the
rezone area that do not front S . 218th Street is provided
by a private access easement that also is grossly
inadequate to support the change in type of permitted use.
Rezone approval could unduly burden this internal
circulation system to the detriment of existing users of
the private road.
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to
warrant the proposed rezone.
Planning Department Comment
The present CM, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district
was established in 1973 . A similar M2 , Limited Industrial
zoning proposal that included portions of the subject
property was denied in 1978 because of an inadequate
circulation system and the incompatibility of more
intensive uses with existing development. Considerable
amounts of vacant M2 zoned land is still available on the
11
Staff Report
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Kent valley floor. Circumstances that warrant a zoning -
change have not occurred since the establishment of the
present zoning boundaries. More intensive industrial uses
are located north of S . 218th Street while the area to the
south continues to be primarily heavier commercial and
light manufacturing uses .
The applicant was given the opportunity during the SEPA
review process to adjust the boundaries of the rezone area
to include a larger area that would establish boundaries
consistent with zoning principles and not adversely affect
remaining commercial/manufacturing uses. The applicant was
unable to acquire agreements from the remaining property
owners, who are satisfied with and prefer the existing CM1,
Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district.
5 . The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Kent.
Planning Department Comment
Since the proposed rezone is not consistent with previously
discussed standards for a zone change amendment, changing
the present CM1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning
designation to M2 , Limited Industrial would adversely
effect the health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of Kent.
VII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria
for granting a rezone, the City staff recommends DENIAL of the
S . 218th Street rezone request based on the following findings :
A. A development pattern has been established south of S .
218th Street that is consistent with the purposes of the
present CM1 , Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district.
B. South 218th Street at the location of the rezone site is
substandard and unsafe and therefore unable to support
additional truck and vehicular traffic without
improvements .
C. Residential development is still located in the area.
Rezone approval would encourage more intensive development
12
Staff Report
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
that would adversely affect the residents due to increased
vehicular traffic and noise levels.
D. The proposal is in conflict with the goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal will not enhance the
quality of the neighborhood for the remaining residents
living in the area nor is it compatible with surrounding
commercial/manufacturing development.
E. The expansion of the existing truck terminal facility
located within the proposed rezone area will not be
permitted outright in the proposed M2 , Limited Industrial,
zoning district ; a conditional use permit will still be
required.
F. The Planning Department has recently conducted the East
Valley Study which evaluated industrial trends in the area,
including the proposed rezone site. No changes were made
to the Comprehensive Plan Map as a result of the study nor
were any changes recommended to the existing CM1,
Commercial Manufacturing, zoning designation.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
May 4 , 1990
13
City of Kent - Planning Department
IS
/ i iyloll�i �� I1)fCl
l 11
( 11 �I1 l\1 J K1 1J ilrl
S
JI
a -
::.::.;:::::. 1 \\\ .
0NUPIDpp
Q
rE77) r
rt,
� f , �. uvi u\ 11111\\1\tX -
MW
❑ i
Z
APPLICATION NAME: South 218th Street
NUMBER: RZ-90-2 DATE: May 16, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone from CM-1 , Commercial Manufacturing to M-2, Limited Industrial
LEGEND
Application site
ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP Zoning boundary
® � City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
C S 216TH ST
S
218TH ST
� I 9
h
�' 2zzuo �ST
s
�i - �
f
Lj
TH ST
228TH q
APPLICATION NAME: South 218th Street
NUMBER: RZ-90-2 DATE: May 16, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone from CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing to M-2, Limited Industrial
LEGEND
Application site
VICINTIY MAP Zoning boundary
.. City limits
«rY oferrn�
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
e
FILE NO: SOUTH 218TH STREET #RZ-90-2
APPLICANT: Lawrence M. Campbell & Associates
REOUEST: A request to rezone 7 .76 acres from an existing
CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district to
an M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district.
LOCATION: The proposed rezone area abuts the south side of
S . 218th Street from approximately 820 feet east of
84th Avenue S. (East Valley Road) to the Drainage
District #1 drainage ditch.
APPLICATION FILED: 12/1/89
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
ISSUED: 1/11/90
MEETING DATE: 5/16/90
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 5/30/90
RECOMMENDATION: DENIED
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Carol Proud, Planning Department
Gary Gill, Planning Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Lawrence Campbell, applicant
Other
James Rust
Elsie Rust
Thomas R. Williams
Vern Nelson
Earl Anderson
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
1
Findings and Recommendation
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings,
conclusions and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on
this application.
FINDINGS
1. The applicant requests a rezone of 7 . 76 acres of existing CM-1,
Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district to an M2 , Limited
Industrial, zoning district. The proposed rezone area is
adjacent to the south side of South 218th Street from
approximately 820 feet east of 84th Avenue South to the Drainage
District #1 ditch.
2 . The proposal includes nine separate parcels of record. Five
separate property owners filed requests for the proposed rezone.
Two of the applicants live in the area. The business that
expects to most immediately benefit from the rezone is United
Truck Lines. The business hopes to expand operations at its
present site but is precluded from doing so under the CM-1
designation.
3 . Land use surrounding the area proposed for rezone includes
industrial development to the north, industrial and retail uses
to the south, a mobile home park and apartment complex to the
southwest, and a drainage ditch and highway to the east.
Surrounding existing zoning classifications include a large M2
area to the north across S. 218th Street, MHP, Mobile Home Park,
zoning to the southwest and a small MRM, Medium Density
Multifamily, zoning designation to the west.
4 . The City-wide Comprehensive Plan map designates the area
proposed for rezone as I, Industrial . The Valley Floor Plan
map both designates the area proposed for rezone as IP,
Industrial Park. Several written policies in these plans are
relevant to the proposed rezone. These relate to the desire to
establish buffers between residential and non-residential zones,
location of industrial uses adjacent to West and East Valley
Highways, safe and efficient traffic routes, and promotion of
industrial uses in industrial areas.
5 . A Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued for
this proposal on January 26, 1990 which was modified by the
Planning Department on March 13 , 1990. The conditions placed
on the DNS relate to mitigation of traffic impacts through road
improvements and improvement of drainage through maintenance
easements to the City. These conditions placed on the DNS were
primarily designed to mitigate any adverse impacts due to
increased traffic that might occur if the request for a rezone
is granted.
2
Findings and Recommendation
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
6. The present CM-1 zoning district was established in 1973 . The
area directly north of the proposed rezone area is currently
undergoing significant changes as the former Kent Nursery Site
is scheduled for development as an industrial distribution
center. No other evidence was presented on the change of
circumstances in the area.
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
Section 15. 09 of the Kent Zoning Code requires the Hearing Examiner to
use the following standards and criteria to evaluate a request for a
rezone. The Hearing Examiner can recommend approval of a rezone
request only if he determines that the request meets the following
standards and criteria:
a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would
be compatible with development in the vicinity.
C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation
system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse
impacts which cannot be mitigated.
d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment
of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone.
e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent.
Upon review of all the evidence submitted with reference to this
request for a rezone, and upon review of the standards and criteria
for evaluating the request for a rezone, the Examiner concludes that:
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the map designations
found in both the City-wide and the Valley Floor Comprehensive
Plans. The Valley Floor plan designates the site as IP,
Industrial Park. The Valley Floor Plan map identifies three
industrial classifications. The IP designation corresponds to
the M2 zoning designation. The City-wide map designates the
site as I, Industrial. The most relevant written goal in the
plans in found in Goal 1, Policy 1 of the Valley Floor plan:
3
Findings and Recommendation
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Locate industrial land uses contiguous to the
West and East Valley Highways to minimize
sprawl .
The M2 zone would match this policy goal as well as the map
designations. Other written goals relate to adequate traffic
ways and buffer zones between residential uses and non-
residential uses. The buffer zones can be provided by
vegetation requirements in the zoning code. Adverse traffic
impacts that may be caused by future developments can be
mitigated. The Comprehensive Plan maps and goals clearly signal
that an M2 zoning designation is consistent with the Plan.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development would be
compatible with development in the vicinity. The area is in a
transition state from some single-family homes to light
commercial to heavier commercial . With the M2 zoning
immediately to the north, and the high traffic corridors to the
east and west of the proposed rezone, the type of industrial
development allowed in an M2 zone is certain to follow. There
is a possible conflict with the small MRM and MHP zones that
exist to the southwest of the proposed rezone area. These
zones, however, appear to exist to accommodate individual
developments and not as area-wide transition zones. The
pressure to change those areas to commercial or industrial zones
will increase, not decrease, even without the proposed rezone
now before us. In addition, there is very little difference in
impact between the types of uses allowed in a CM-1 zone and in
an M2 zone. A CM-1 zone is intended to provide locations for
"heavy commercial" activity as well as retail uses. An M2 zone
is intended to provide locations for "light industrial uses" as
well as specified retail uses. The difference between "heavy
commercial" and "light industrial" could be very slight,
especially here where the property is largely already developed
with commercial uses.
3 . The adverse impacts on the transportation system in the vicinity
of the property can be mitigated so that the system will not be
unduly burdened. The proposed rezone will result in more
intensive development in the area. The increased truck traffic
that will likely occur as a consequence of a rezone cannot be
handled appropriately on the existing streets in the area,
especially S . 218th Street. The Mitigated Declaration of
Nonsignificance, however, addressed this potential problem by
attaching conditions designed to mitigate any adverse impacts
that might occur. Under Condition 5, no uses permitted under
the rezone shall occur "until S . 218th Street is improved to a
condition which adequately addresses, as determined by the
Public Works Department, the traffic loadings and safety
4
Findings and Recommendation
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
concerns associated therewith" . The applicants have also agreed
to make all necessary improvements as a matter of hearing
record. This will provide sufficient assurance that the
transportation system will not be unduly burdened.
4 . No evidence was presented to show that circumstances have
changed substantially since the CM zone was first established
for the area of the proposed rezone in 1973 . A similar request
for a rezone of the same property involved in this rezone
request was denied by the City Council in 1987 . The denial was
based, in part, on the failure of the applicant to provide
information on the change of circumstances regarding the site
to be rezoned. See, File No. RZ-87-4 . The Hearing Examiner in
that matter noted that the applicant provided information on the
change of circumstances surrounding the trucking industry, but
not on the site itself. It was noted then, as will be noted
now, that the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove a
change in circumstances. In spite of that notice of burden of
proof, applicant has again failed to provide information on the
change of circumstances on the site proposed for rezoning. The
mere passage of time is not sufficient to lead to a conclusion
that there has been a change of circumstances to warrant a
rezone of several parcels of land. No information whatsoever
was provided on the type of developments that have taken place
since 1973 , the level of traffic increases since 1973 , the
change in use of any residences to commercial since 1973 ,
changes of ownership since 1973 or other similar relevant
information. On the other hand, the City has provided testimony
that there has been no change of circumstances. The Hearing
Examiner cannot introduce information but must rely on the
parties before him to provide it. The applicant, again, has not
provided the information needed for a favorable recommendation
on this request for a rezone. Without that information, the
Examiner must recommend denial of the request. The criteria
for a rezone are clearly set forth in Section 15 . 09 of the Kent
Zoning Code. The applicant is particularly familiar with these
criteria because of the past involvement in a similar request
for a rezone. The criteria cannot be ignored but must be
specifically addressed. The City Planning Department addressed
each criteria and, as to this one, found that there had been no
change in circumstances. For a request for a rezone to be
granted, there must be evidence in support of all criteria
provided by either the applicant or the City.
5 . The proposed rezone will adversely affect the health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent.
Because it cannot be shown that all criteria for a rezone have
been met, the Hearing Examiner must conclude that the general
welfare of the citizens of the City will be adversely affected
in this request for a rezone were granted.
5
Findings and Recommendation
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
DECISION
The Hearing Examiner recommends DENIAL of this request for a rezone
based on lack of evidence as to the change of circumstances that may
have occurred since the last zoning of the site in 1973 .
Dated this 31st day of May, 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.
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 of Kent - Planning Department
Ej
till -NN
EB f Ill }l1 \)\S
Q
8T�H IJ �1
- r fli
Q444 I
C f 11 _
r�
o � Q � o ,, % / 9 Q H�-� �✓
Ilk
� 0 o � r
JmIRN
�
71
l�wi� i�
I I I/!)1H I
APPLICATION NAME: South 218th Street
NUMBER: RZ-90-2 DATE: May 16, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone from CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing to M-2, Limited Industrial
LEGEND
Application site
ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
S 216TH ST
S
218TH ST
................
w
0
M
m
m
S 222NDJ ST
i
i
I �
w
r-
a
rn
TH ST a � S 228TH ST S 228
i
APPLICATION NAME: South 218th Street
NUMBER: RZ-90-2 DATE: May 16, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone from CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing to M-2, Limited Industrial
LEGEND
Application site
VICINTIY MAP Zoning boundary
�• City limits
Hearing Examiner Minutes
May 16, 1990
SOUTH 218TH STREET
Rezone
#RZ-90-2
A public hearing to consider the request by Lawrence M. Campbell
and Associates, 1609 S. Central Avenue #A-11 Kent, WA 98032 , to
rezone 7 .76 acres from an existing CM-1, Commercial Manufacturing,
zoning district to an M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district. The
property abuts the south side of S. 218th Street from approximately
820 feet east of 84th Avenue S. to the Drainage District #1
drainage ditch.
Carol Proud, Planning Department, presented the staff report.
Ms. Proud showed some view foils depicting, 1) the location of the
site and 2) zoning in the area. A view foil was shown.
Ms. Proud stated a mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was
issued in January 1980. Ms. Proud reviewed the goals and policies
of the City-Wide Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Proud discussed the
criteria required to be reviewed when considering a rezone request.
The City staff is recommending denial .
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment.
Lawrence Campbell, 1609 S. Central Avenue #A-11 Kent, WA 98032 ,
stated there were two items on page 5 that need to be clarified:
1) "Deed the northerly 13 . 5 feet of all property paralleling and
abutting S. 208th Street to provide for the widening of the street
to City standards as noted in Condition 2 above" . The 13 . 5 feet
will require some variation at the s-curve and it will affect the
Evergreen Hill Partnership Property. Mr. Campbell suggested the
following statement: "Deed the northerly 13 . 5 feet or as otherwise
required. . . " to provide flexibility. 2) Paragraph 2A. 4 should
read "easterly" .
Mr. Campbell presented refuting testimony regarding the comments
made in the staff report, starting at page 12 , City Staff
Recommendation. Mr. Campbell mentioned the development standards
relating to this request. Mr. Campbell stated that the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan designates the site as I, Industrial and the
Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan designates the site as IP,
Industrial Park.
Mr. Campbell talked about the other uses in the area; Pete' s
Equipment Company, repair shop and outdoor storage yard for
equipment and trucks; Northwest Truck Repair; lift truck service,
a custom woodwork cabinet shop; and Nelson Construction. Further,
north of 208th Street, across from the proposed rezone site, is
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes
May 16, 1990
DiPietro Trucking, same business as United Truck Lines; further
north is American Lenders Service Company, a charter bus service.
There are other mixed uses in the area. Mr. Campbell talked about
the road and the traffic problem in the area. Mr. Campbell
submitted to the record photos (Exhibit 2) showing the mixed uses
in the area.
Mr. Hunter asked if anyone else wished to testify.
James Rust, 8619 S. 218th, Kent, WA 98031, stated his was the only
residence on the street. He felt this use would be good for the
area.
Thomas R. Williams, PO Box 3845, Spokane, WA 99220, President of
United Truck Lines, talked about the facility. Mr. Williams
commented his company would be providing enhancements to the area
as well as street improvements. Mr. Williams stated his company
has grown phenomenally during the past years and now is in need of
more room in order to function effectively. Mr. Williams remarked
the products are moved into and out of the site each day and there
is no overnight storage on the site.
Elsie Rust, 8619 S . 218th, Kent, WA 98031, stated United Truck
Lines has been a good neighbor.
Vern Nelson commented this zoning change is very necessary.
Mr. Nelson stated the widening of the road is needed because it is
very narrow and there is a lot of truck traffic on the road.
Earl Anderson, 2304 Killarney Way, Bellevue, WA 98004 , stated he
was a neighbor to the south. Mr. Anderson had no objection to the
rezone request if the M2 designation is complied with and needed
improvements are done. Mr. Anderson felt that CM zoning was a good
zone and was needed by small businesses. Mr. Anderson would like
to have the access limited to 218th. Mr. Anderson stated that
often the truck-trailers park in the easement road and reduce the
easement road to one lane.
Mr. Hunter asked if there were any rebuttal statements.
Ms. Proud stated that the property was zoned CM in 1973 . Ms. Proud
gave a brief history of the CM zone. Ms . Proud commented that in
the M2 zone, a conditional use permit could be granted for the
heavier M3 uses which could conflict with the CM uses that are now
in the area. Ms. Proud stated the current parking lot is a zoning
violation. However, the City has not pursued the violation trying
to give United Truck Lines time to decide whether to apply for a
rezone or to move.
5
Hearing Examiner Minutes
May 16, 1990
Mr. Williams stated there was a parking problem. Mr. Williams felt
the parking problem would be alleviated once the rezone was
approved and they could enlarge the site. Mr. Williams stated
United Truck Lines granted the easement referred to by Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Williams remarked if the rezone was not granted, the Company
would need to move.
Mr. Campbell stated M2 zoning allows up to 25 percent retail uses;
more can be allowed with a conditional use permit. Mr. Campbell
felt there wouldn't be any displacement of current businesses.
There was no further testimony.
The public hearing was closed at 5: 25 p.m.
6
y �
CffYCFWtMft
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
(206) 859-3390
SOUTH 218TH STREET #RZ-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner: The final item on our 3 : 00 agenda
is a request for a rezone referred to as S. 218th Street rezone
request, number RZ-90-2 . A request by Lawrence M. Campbell &
Associates to rezone an existing CM11 Commercial Manufacturing, to
M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district. Can I see by a show of
hands how many would want to testify on this request for rezone.
Approximately six or seven so to testify. We should have ample
time to take all your testimony. What we will do we will hear
first from the city, then from the applicant and then any others
that want to testify regarding this application. We have Carol
Proud, City Planning Department. And, do you swear, affirm to tell
the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you're about to
give.
Carol Proud: My name is Carol Proud and I represent the City of
Kent Planning Department. As mentioned, the applicant proposes to
rezone a 7 . 78 acre site from the existing CM-1, Commercial
Manufacturing, zoning district to an M2 , Limited Industrial, zoning
district. The property is located generally on the south side of
218th Street, east of 84th Avenue S. and west of SR 167, the Valley
Freeway. As the video shows. . .excuse me, as this view foil shows
the property is within a CM zoning district directly north of the
proposal area is an M2 zoning district, abutting the rezone area
to the west is a mobile home park. There is a little sliver of
multifamily zoning adjacent to the western portion of the property
and further to the west along 84th Avenue is the newly implemented
gateway commercial zoning district. Surrounding land uses to the
south of 218th within the CM zoning district are typical small
commercial manufacturing type concerns that you typically see in
that zoning district. There' s a. . .the proponent for this project
is a trucking firm and other uses include less intensive type
manufacturing uses that combines some retail, there' s a truck
repair facility in there. There ' s a contractor services and
smaller manufacturing companies.
Now property to the north in the M2 zoning district is. . . .directly
north across the street is a. . .the Kent Nursery which is the
Planning Department's understanding has been sold and there is a
proposal before the City right now to develop an industrial park
to the north of 218th in this area right through here. Right here
where this little S-curve is there is a trucking operation that is
1
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
similar to the proponents. And then in. . .the mobile home park
zoning designation that area is fully developed with a mobile home
park and there is a small apartment complex associated with that
in that mobile home park zoning area. I have a video I would like
to show that will give some indication of some of the concerns and
whatnot that the City has and I would just like to show that right
now.
(video shown)
The rezone area has a long history of various land use actions over
the years including similar rezone requests and this
information. . .a detailed history, historical report is included in
the staff report. A final. . .excuse me. . . .a final mitigated
determination of nonsignificance for the proposal was initially
issued in January of 1990. One of the mitigating measures for the
proposal including the expansion or requiring the applicant to try
to obtain an expanded rezone area to mitigate some of the adverse
impacts to the surrounding property uses remaining in the CM-1
zoning district and after a good faith attempt to expand the rezone
boundary and the applicant was unable to do so the Planning
Department or the SEPA Official revised the mitigated determination
of nonsignificance after the applicant requested a reconsideration
and essentially what was tried at that time was to try to expand
the proposal area to include this remaining CM zoning that would
be here interspersed between the proposal site and the Gateway
Commercial and to also include some of this remaining CM zoned
property to the Valley Freeway so we could come up with some kind
of zoning boundary that would be more consistent with zoning
principles and not impact adversely the surrounding remaining CM
uses.
The conditions that were issued are listed in the staff report as
well. When the staff reviewed the goals and policies of both the
City-Wide Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Plan as they
relate to the proposed subdivision and found that the proposed
request is not consistent with the guidelines set forth. The City-
wide Comprehensive Plan Map does designate the site as I,
Industrial. And, I would like to go over just one of these
conditions or one of these goals and policies. In the Economic
Element of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan there' s an overall goal
to promote controlled economic growth with orderly physical
development, resource conservation and preservation with a subgoal
to promote diverse industrial development in industrial developed
areas. With a couple of policies that state, locate industrial
land uses contiguous to the West and East Valley Highways to
minimize sprawl and to promote the location of heavy industrial
2
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
between the two major rail lines on the valley floor. As a guide
to industrial development, the Comprehensive Plan states that as
a goal diversity of development should be encouraged and yet the
physical pattern of development should occur in an orderly manner.
The policies state that different kinds of industrial uses which
are not compatible with each other should be separated. Generally,
the Plan suggests locating more intensive, heavier type of
industrial uses on the valley floor between existing railroad
tracks and moderate industrial uses adjacent to the East Valley
Highway and West Valley Highway and then the less intensive uses
are left to those areas closer to the Green River on the west side
of the valley and the Valley Freeway. Now, the different degree
of permitted uses in the industrial zoning district and their
subsequent location seems to reflect these goals and policies. The
purpose of this rezone proposal is the eventual expansion of at
least one use that is considered a heavier industrial use. The
previously. . . .the proposed truck transfer terminal is only allowed
outright in an M3 , General Industrial, zoning district. And, with
the conditional use approval it can go into the proposed M2,
Limited Industrial, zoning district.
South 218th Street has been established for quite some time and as
you go through the history, you' ll see that has been established
for several, several years. As a physical boundary between the
more intensive uses allowed in the M2 zoning district to the north
and then the lighter mixed uses that have grown up the or developed
in the CM, Commercial Manufacturing, district. Approving the
proposed rezone would encourage the encroachment of these M2 type
uses into an area that is still residential and has lighter uses.
In order to obtain a rezone there are several standards and
criteria that the Kent Zoning Code specifies that the Hearing
Examiner and City Council use to evaluate the request and the
amendment can only be granted if the Council determines that the
request is consistent with these standards and criteria. And there
are several of them and I would like to go through just one or two
of them for the record.
The first criteria states that the proposed rezone is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan and as I 've just said, the proposed rezone
is consistent with the map designations on both the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Comp Plan. However, the
proposal is not consistent with the location of industrial
development and the impact of any proposed use to surrounding
residential and business development. Rezone approval would
encourage the encroachment of M2 uses into an area of residential
unless intensive commercial type manufacturing uses in the area is
not developed with an adequate street systems that provides safe
3
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
access for additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The more
intensive uses and resulting increase in activity would be
detrimental to the residents still in the area.
There is. . .the third criteria talks about that the proposed rezone
would not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity
and staff report talks about 218th Street being a
substantial. . .substandard street at this location. And the
applicant has noted that where their property abuts 218th Street
that they are willing to make road improvements and that, you know,
of course by, enter into LID agreements for the future widening of
the whole, entire street And, as I 've talked in the staff report,
earlier that given the development across the street there's the
possibility that 218th Street may, in fact, be improved. However,
recent discussions with the folks in the 44-acre industrial park
to the north are talking about developing an internal road system
coming off of East Valley Highway and they are talking about not
providing or not having any of their users use 218th Street at all
and they are willing, of course, by. . .enter into the LID agreement
but as the video showed there is a considerable portion of 218th
Street that is just kind of beyond anybody' s improvement at this
time and mainly that it could be that this trucking firm could
expand this portion here to some degree that could handle
increase. . .the increased traffic. There's no control over any
other circulation in the area and there' s no guarantee of what's
going to happen to the north. So, it's. . . it's just to premature
at this time to say that that's road going to be improved in any
reasonable time that could warrant heavy trucking and other kind
of vehicle travel on that roadway.
Hunter: Well, are there any other constraints. . .your testimony is
it's unlikely to be changed is that a matter of funding for it, is
that the constraint?
Proud: I. . .the
Hunter: Topographical constraints, for example.
Proud: I. . .oh, no, un-uh, it' s, as you can see, it's pretty flat
and narrow. The. . .the major issue with this is that. . . is that this
use would leave a considerable amount of area on both sides of it
still within the CM zoning and allowing the potential for that
intense of a development with the lighter kind of uses that are in
that particular pocket especially would be really, really
conflicting. So, therefore, based upon the merits of this request
and the Code criteria for granting a rezone the City staff
recommends denial of the S. 218th Street rezone request based on
4
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
the findings included in the staff report. And that concludes my
presentation. I will be glad to answer any questions.
Hunter: One other clarification. On the boundary. . .the
boundary. .just wondering about the boundary. . .what is the boundary
provided between the uses. Is that. . .that. . .as a consequence kind
of a de facto boundary. Has it grown out to be one or is there
some official recognition of that?
Proud: As you go through the. . .reading through the history, I
believe it was back in 1978 where the first real similar rezone
request came in and it was denied for pretty much the same reasons
that we have. That. . .that the kind of uses that are there are
just incompatible with. . . .with the more intensive heavy typical
uses permitted in M2 and one of the unique things about the CM
zoning its kind of a. . .oh. . .enterprise zone so to speak where there
isn't very much of it left in the City and it' s one of the few
places where a small firm has the opportunity to make what they do
and sell it in the same place. There' s absolutely no place else
in the City where that kind of zoning exists and there' s lots and
lots and lots and lots of M2 zoned land in the valley that' s
available for the kind of facility that t onand wouldthat' like
to eventually develop. So, over time, you know,
all
that we look at, you know, circumstances haven't changed from when
the zoning boundary was initially established in 173 and so, over
time, this boundary has kind of evolved and that CM zoning then
extends all the way south for about a mile I would say or not quite
that far but beyond where the freeway certainly crosses back over
Central.
Hunter: Thank you.
Proud: O.k.
Hunter: The applicant or representative of the applicant. Would
you like to come forward and present testimony.
Lawrence Campbell : My name is Lawrence Campbell, 1609 S. Central
Avenue, Suite Al, Kent, WA 98032 and I 'm an architect. . .
Hunter: Let me swear you in before you begin testimony.
Campbell: Oh, certainly.
Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth
in the testimony you are about to give.
5
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Campbell: I do. And I represent the five individual applicants
on rezone proposal. Before I start my presentation, I would like
to get two things entered as clarification into the staff report
because they do have some long range implications and they both
appear on page 5, paragraph 2 A-3 and the first one. . .that
particular one says deed the northerly 13 . 5 feet of all property
paralleling and abutting S. 208th Street to provide for the
widening of the street to City standards as noted in Condition 2
above. I think, for the record, that the 13 .5 feet will require
some variation at the s-curve condition which will and that' s in
the independent of this rezone application, of the s-curve and it
will affect the Evergreen Hill Partnership property and perhaps
the first sentence should read simply, "Deed the northerly 13 . 5
feet or as otherwise required so it isn't something that isn't
inflexible at a later date.
The second one is simply paragraph 2 8 . 4 where it says westerly,
that' s at the very end of the third sentence down, it says exists
along the westerly. . .I think that' s intended to read
easterly. . .that's just a typo.
Now, I will present my material to coincide with the six findings
contained in the City staff recommendation so there's some
consistency between our testimony and what is contained in the
staff report. And the first one then is on page 12 of the staff
report under City staff recommendation. These will be the
following a, b, c, d, a and f and we will discuss those in
that. . . in that same sequence. The first one is A which is a
development pattern has been established south of S. 218th Street
that is consistent with the purposes of the present CM-1,
Commercial Manufacturing, zoning district. Our response to that
is that some of the existing uses along the south side of S. 218th
Street are as follows: 1) United Truck Lines which is a
participate in this rezone proposal. Now, it is an existing cross-
dock loading facility which would be a conditional use in the
requested M2 district and the second one is Petzolts Brothers truck
repair which is a principally permitted use under M2 zoning and
number 3 is Valley Recycling this is a storage yard containing in
it dumpsters, forklifts, recycling storage areas, etc. These are
not intended to demean any of the uses. These are to establish the
fact that there is a mixed pattern which contained both heavy and
lighter. . . .heavy industrial and both lighter commercial uses.
Pete' s Equipment Company which is a repair shop and outdoor storage
yard for equipment and trucks, that I have a question mark on that
but as I view it I perceive it to be an outright use in the M3 zone
and the same with Northwest Truck Repair. That is also an outright
use in the M3 zone. There is lift truck service, custom woodwork
6
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
cabinet shop and Nelson Construction which is. very. . . it's very
heavily and intensive in terms of use of trucking. Now north of
208th Street and this is across from the proposed rezone site is
a DiPietro Trucking. Now, that's the same exact business as United
Truck Line. It is a cross-dock loading, receiving, consolidating,
truck facility. And also to the north and just west of DiPietro's
Trucking is American Lenders Service Company, that' s the former
Voyager Charter Bus Service. And before that it was an abandoned
Homer's Towing site. There was some, has been quite a substantial
amount of improvement on that piece of property in the recent years
and I was involved in that. Now, further south between S. 218th
Street and S. 222nd Street and I think we have to view this as
somewhat an area situation, there' s a kind of a mish-mash of mixed
uses including Novak's, miscellaneous equipment storage yards and
mini-storage warehouses and construction supplies storage yards,
multi-tenant manufacturing and supply, there's automobile repair,
there are existing apartments, there' s a mobile home park and there
are office buildings which are generally oriented more toward 84th
Avenue S. in what is now considered to be. . . .which is now has been
reclassified as a gateway commercial zone. Now, the best of what
exists in this area has, in my opinion, and will continue to be in
developed in the M2 zoning classification which the exception of
any office or classifications along the gateway commercial. What
I am talking about is as opposed to the existing CM-1 zoning. Now,
if the City is satisfied with the quality of development that
exists east of the gateway commercial strip, south of 218th Street
and north of 222nd and west of the Valley Freeway then I suspect
we should leave it as it is. But it visually. . . is. . .right now, in
most cases, it's a very unattractive area, it' s not a condemnation
of the people or the businesses in it but it a very
visual. . .visually it's a very unattractive area and it has grown
so under the existing CM-1 zoning classification.
Now, on December 1, 1987, we filed our original rezone request on
behalf of one of the proponent rather than the five that are in
here now and that was United Truck Lines and this was. . .we filed
this as a result of a telephone call that we received from two
members of the Planning Department stating that they had determined
that a request for a zone classification for M2 was appropriate for
this area. It's not important whose these people are but the point
of the matter is the message was dated on November 10, 1987 and
demonstrates in my belief that there' s an honest difference of
opinion within the Planning Department staff on the merits of this
rezone.
The second one is Item B under that City staff recommendation and
that reads, "South 208th Street at the location of the rezone site
7
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
is substandard and unsafe and, therefore, unable to support
additional truck and vehicular traffic without improvements" . In
my S. 218th Street rezone application letter dated November 16,
1989, I stated the following and this was sent to the City Planning
Department and in particular to Jim Harris, and it states: In my
S. 218th Street rezone application letter dated November 16, 1989,
I stated the following: An additional benefit to the City of Kent
and to the balance of the property owners in the area is that the
proponents of the proposal will, at no expense to the City, make
improvements to certain portions of S. 218th Street. Particularly
the owners plan improvements in the area of the sharp s-curve and
to some of the existing shoulders of the street. In the Planning
Department Decision document dated January 10, 1990, the following
statement appears: The applicant represents a trucking firm that
would be the primary beneficiary of the proposed rezone. Rezone
approval would allow the trucking firm to expand their operation
without making any improvements to the surrounding public
infrastructure. This statement gives the appearance that the five
applicants in particular the trucking company are asking for
something without giving anything in return to the City and that
is simply not correct. We have put it more than once in writing
to the City that there is a willingness on the part of these
participants to improve that street at their costs. The surface
condition of S. 218th Street is perfectly acceptable and is
currently supporting trucking traffic from DiPietro' s, United,
Valley Recycling and others. Visual examination of the street will
show that it was improved. . .that it needs improvement, excuse me,
in the area of the s-curves and improvements to the shoulders.
There are some very deep existing open drainage ditches along the
side which are part of the improvements that the proponents which
to make and cure that situation.
United Truck Lines has offered to improve or eliminate these
conditions. Again, at no cost to the City. Certainly United Truck
Lines benefits and so does everyone else using the street including
emergency vehicles and the City' s own firefighting equipment.
Now, several times the staff report addresses the inadequacies,
excuse me, of S. 218th Street. If there' s a solution to improving
the conditions on S. 218th Street other than United's offer to make
improvements at it' s cost. Then these are not ready to be
implemented and that street needs attention. Not in terms of
structural ability to support the traffic because it is doing that
just fine but it needs widening, it' s needs correction to the
curbs, it needs wider shoulders and also that South 218th Street
is currently serving some existing M2 zoning along it' s northern
boundary. And that's DiPietro and the other American lenders and
it is the flanking boundary. . . . . . . southern street. . . . .to the
8
Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
existing M2 zoning which is going to be developed into a major
industrial park.
Now Item #C, it says residential development is still located in
the area. Rezone approval would encourage more intensive
development that would adversely affect the residents due to
increased vehicular traffic and noise levels. Well, I made a
little graph here and it. . . its right out of the Zoning Code and it
reflects the setbacks from residential. . .the required
setback. . .both setbacks and landscaping between the CM-1 zones and
residential and between the M2 zone and residential. And, for
instance, on the front yards, the yards in a CM-1 zone are required
to be 15 feet, landscaping five feet of right of way and ten feet
where CM-1 abuts residential. M2 , on the other hand, requires 15
percent of the lot depth but it need not exceed 45 feet. And the
landscaping is 15 feet at rights of way and all sideyards are ten
feet. . . 15 feet minimum. . .excuse me on the landscaping. In a rear
yard, the yards are 20 feet on CM-1 where it abuts residential .
Where M2 abuts residential it is 50 feet, so the M2 zone has
greater setback restrictions than does the existing zone. That is
from existing residential areas and as I mentioned earlier the
landscaping is greater. Greater requirements as a buffer zone from
the M2 than. . .and a residential than it is from the CM-1. Now, the
maximum site coverage in CM-1 is 50 percent. The maximum site
coverage in M2 is 65 percent. The height restriction in CM-1 is
two stories or 35 feet it can be more if approved by the Planning
Director or Planning Commission. The same requirement exists under
the M2, its two stories or 35 feet, more if approved by the
Planning Director or Planning Commission. There are some
similarities but there are some offsetting advantages to the M2 but
there is some mitigating measures to that fact in that they are
required to have greater buffering zones than is the CM-1. Now as
the property. . .property is currently zoned CM-1 a used car lot,
contractor's supplies, storage yards, body and auto repair shops,
car washes, welding shops, heat metal manufacturing, mini-
warehouses can be built as close as 20 feet to an existing
residential use and have, in fact, been built closer than that.
There are some cases out there where there are uses that are
substantially closer than 20 feet. Those are existing, we are not
trying to do away with them we are just stating as a matter of
fact. Now under the M2 zoning they can only be built as close as
50 feet. Also, under the existing CM-1 zoning you can build an
outdoor storage yard for trucking and transfer but you cannot build
a terminal building which actually contains and conceals the
trucking activity from view. Now, this may be a unique condition
but in order to have an outdoor storage yard you would have to
utilize forklift type equipment or heavy duty type equipment of
9
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
some sort out in the open and this can be done as close as 20 feet
to a residential piece of property and it would still require the
presence of trucks or heavy loading equipment to maneuver,
transfer, remove, resupply or otherwise the product or material in
a storage yard. Now, the requested M2 zoning provides development
standards that are more protective of residential areas than are
the development. . .I know that I am repeating this but I think its
very important. I would like to point out that Mr. and Mrs. Rust
who are here and are one of the proponents of this and who
currently live in the single-family home directly to the west of
the United Truck Line site are one of the five property
owners. . .they are one of the five property owners in this rezone
application and they are residential owners. So there are not all
residential owners in this area that concur that this is to remain
as a residential nature or characteristic. Now, the excess amount
of traffic is not supported by the portion of the Code dealing with
off-street parking and loading requirements. This is Chapter 15. 05
and that is open to some degree of interpretation but an increase
of noise level is not supportable claim as long as commercial
activities are such predominant use in the CM-1 zones. A detailed
reading of principally permitted uses in the Kent Zoning Code is,
I think, enough to dispute that statement and I have that. I 'm not
going to read that in. . .but I do have that. . . it is available.
Now, number D is the proposal is in conflict with the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal will not enhance
the quality of the neighborhood and, again, I am reading from the
staff report, for the remaining residents living in the area nor
is it compatible with surrounding commercial manufacturing
development. But the City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates
the site as I which is Industrial. Our site is designated as I,
Industrial, consistent with all the property north of it all the
way up to. . .with exception of the Gateway Commercial which borders
84th all the way up to 212th Street. The Valley Floor Plan
designates the site as IP which is Industrial Park. Now, on page
28 of the East Valley Study document issued by the Kent Planning
Department in March 1988 the following is stated: Issue A:
Expansion of Area designated for heavy industry. The current
Valley Floor Plan Map distinguishes between three industrial
classifications; light industrial/business park which is IBP;
industrial park which is IP and industrial which is I . These
classifications roughly correspond to zoning districts M1. M2 and
M3 . On those plans, on the City-wide Comprehensive Plan we
are. . . in the Comprehensive Plan we are I, Industrial . On the
Valley Floor Plan Map we are classified as IP which corresponds to
M2 zoning. Now, we view that as the City's plan for this area and
that is exactly, that M2 , is exactly what we are requesting. Now
10
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
the approval of this rezone request will require all future
development within it to be preformed to more ridged standards than
now exists under CM-1 with respect to buffering of existing
residential areas. In particular it will allow United Truck Line
to upgrade that portion of its site that is presently being used
as a parking lot for employees cars. On April 19, 1988, United
Truck Lines was denied permission to complete and upgrade this
portion of their site. We take no issue with the Planning
Department at that time, we don't take any issue with that ruling
because that was a correct ruling under CM-1 zoning. However, we
take issue with the Planning Department's interpretation of their
written goals, objectives and policies as they relate to the rezone
area and they are as follows:
The Overall Goal Promote controlled economic growth with orderly
Physical development resource conservation and preservation.
Goal 1: Promote diverse industrial development in industrial
developed areas. Now this area has industrial development both
north and south of 218th Street. It is clear that testimony given
by those attending the public hearings on the East Valley Study
that more industrial zoning is needed and the Valley Floor Plan
responds to this by designating this site, again, this is a repeat,
IP, Industrial Park, corresponding to M2 . This rezone application,
in my perception, agrees with Goal 1. Policy 1: It says:
Located industrial land uses contiguous to the West and East Valley
Highways to minimize sprawl. Now industrial land uses are separate
from the East Valley Highway by the establishment of the Gateway
Commercial zone which extends from just north of 212th straight on
to the north to the intersection of SR 167 and East Valley Highway
on the south. The City' s initiated of the Gateway Commercial zone
is in conflict with Policy 1. However, we supported the
establishment of the Gateway zone for the same reasons that we
would hope the City would support our rezone request. Those
reasons are: uniformity of uses in adjacent areas, quality control
of future expansion and a definite improvement of quality over what
now exists in the area south of 218th Street. Both United Trucking
Lines and DiPietro' s Trucking exist across the street from one
another. DiPietro' s developed under M2 zoning and United under
CM-1 zoning. The visual quality of DiPietro' s is far superior to
that of United. United cannot improve its site visually or
operationally and yet they have the same Comprehensive Plan
designation. That designation responds to the future needs of the
City of Kent. It should be the goal of the Planning Department,
in my perception, to do everything in its power to implement that
plan. Support of this rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and not in conflict with it at all. The staff report on
page 7 states the following in paragraph 4 A: This is under
11
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Comprehensive Plan and I 'm going to read this to you, I think its
very important of this because it does define the purpose of what
a Comprehensive Plan is: The City of Kent first adopted a City-
wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan ins 1969. The goals, obiectives
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of
community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent
and the area within its 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 intention concerning future development.
Now 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. The proposed rezone area is
served by the Valley Floor subarea plan. The applicants of this
rezone have been guided by the Comprehensive Plan and are in total
agreement with the Planning Department' s statement that I just
read.
Item E, it reads: The expansion of the existing truck terminal
facility located within the proposed rezone area will not be
permitted outright in the proposed M2 Limited Industrial, zoning
district A conditional use permit will still be required. This
is totally correct. However, truck terminal facilities currently
exist in the following zones in Kent. CM-11 M1, M2 , and M3 , just
as there are current uses in the CM-1 zone south of S. 218th Street
that belong in M2 and M3 zones. The needs of private enterprise
don't always fall into a need and clearly defined category. For
practical purposes the establishment of this area as an M2 zone
would be an extension of the existing M2 zone north of 218th
Street. The focus of this rezone is on United Truck Lines because
they are a nonallowable use in a CM-1 zone. They became that
nonallowable use because of their success as a business and
subsequently outgrew the 1984 Board of Adjustment ruling that
allowed them to conduct business as a limited size operation and
the owners of that trucking line are going to address that issue
after I finish here. There are now, however, four other applicants
to this rezone and they all have varying reasons to want to become
M2 zoned property. Not the least of which is that an exchange for
more restrictive development standards that are more potential uses
for their property as an M2 zone. The demand for orderly expansion
of M2 zoning is going to continue to exist in the City of Kent.
It's my belief that the Planning Department and others should put
aside the animosity that exists between the Planning Department
and United Truck Lines and there is some and vice versus. The
12
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
alternative for United without this rezone is to leave and
relocated at great cost and disruption to the company which an
identical trucking operation continues to operate across the street
in an area that the Comprehensive Plan designates as identical
uses. Now the Planning Department has recently conducted the East
Valley Study, this is again, reading from the staff report, F, the
Planning Department has recently conducted the East Valley Study
which evaluated industrial trends in the area including the
proposed site. No changes were made to the Comprehensive Plan Map
as a result of the study nor were any changes recommended to the
existing CM-11 Commercial Manufacturing, zoning designation. This
statement, I believe, is in conflict with itself. I went to
several of the East Valley Study meetings and as a result of public
input the Gateway Commercial area was established and the City
initiated the rezone in support of that part of the Comprehensive
Plan. That rezone is now complete and the Gateway Commercial zone
is established. I find it difficult to understand why the Planning
Department does not support this proposed rezone or, in fact, does
not initiate a proposal of rezoning the entire area to correspond
to the Comprehensive Plan as was the case with Gateway. There are
clearly uses currently operating in the CM-1 zone south of 218th
Street that belong in M2 or M3 zones. Conversion of this area from
CM-1 to M2 will have little effect on existing properties and
development except that it will give them more diversification.
Conversion of this area from CM-1 to M2 will go a long way to
encouraging visual improvement and toward improvement of the
existing road system.
On January 10, 1990, a decision document was issued by the Planning
Department that stated the following: The applicant shall expand
the proposed rezone area to include the remaining CM-1. Commercial
Manufacturing zoned properties to the east and west. More
specifically, the boundaries of the rezone area shall include to
the north the center line of S. 218th Street; to the east, the
western boundary of the East Valley Freeway; to the west, the
eastern boundary of the Gateway Commercial zoning district adjacent
to 84th Avenue S. and the eastern boundary of the adjacent MRM,
Multiple Multifamily Residential Medium Density, zoning district
and the MHP Mobile Home Park zoning district to the south. The
southern boundary of the proposed rezone area extended. Now, the
applicants made a good faith effort to do this but were faced with
the following and so stated to Jim Harris in a letter dated
March 5, 1990. The applicants are not at odds with the City in
their mutual desire to include the additional area in the rezone
request. However, their attempts to do so have met with
indifference, indecision where multiple ownerships are involved
and, in one case, where the owners will participate if the City and
13
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
the original five applicants will agree to waive any requirements
that they participate in any street improvements. That's a
condition that is not tantamount to good business practices. We
had to keep it at the size that we originally proposed. Now the
staff report. . .excuse me, before I do that I would like to enter
in one thing. This is a. . .two things I have to enter in and this
is a plan, I don't know how best to show this, I don't have
anything to. . .maybe just lay it on the table in front of you. But
this is a plan that was submitted. . . .
Hunter: When was it prepared?
Campbell: Well, the . . . .occurred just about two years ago.
Hunter: In conjunction with another rezone application.
Campbell: With the initial rezone request by United Truck Lines.
When United Truck Lines were sole proponent for the rezone. My
reason for entering in this is right now there's. . .there' s a vacant
property that exists right in front of United Truck Lines that' s
undeveloped and what we wanted to do at that point was to
incorporate it the parking lot. An existing residence was removed
from there. In doing so we saved all the trees, its got nice
landscaping, buffer zones, we wanted to make a nice enclosed
parking lot. We could not do that and, again, we don't take issue
to that I addressed that earlier. But the fact is there. . .under
M2 zone this area that exists between 218th and the United Truck
Lines terminal could be improved with a landscape buffer and that' s
their opinion right there, that' s 30 feet in depth from the. . .off
the street. Right now, they can't and it ' s not a very practical
situation.
Hunter: O.k. I want. . . I 'm not sure how this. . .do we need to have
that site plan to make sense out of that. Your testimony is that,
and I 've heard this in different ways from you, that there's things
you could no under M2 that you can't do under CM.
Campbell: That's right.
Hunter: And this is one other example of that.
Campbell: Yes, yes.
Hunter: O.k. why don't we take your testimonies as example. I
don't think the site plan helps that. I understand your testimony
in that regard.
14
Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Campbell: O.k. Now, I have something that I would. rather than go
on and on, I have a series of about 30 photos here.
Hunter: What do the photos. . .what do they show. What point do
they make?
Campbell: The photos show the different conditions that exist in
the area right now. The different types of uses, good and bad.
There may be no need for me to go through it. They are keyed on
this aerial photo. . .
Hunter: Well, here' s my concern. There are a number of people
that do want to testify. I 've understood your point.
Campbell: I understand.
Hunter: There' s a mix of uses in the area.
Campbell: Yes.
Hunter: I viewed the area on video, some of it. Although that
didn't show near the extent. We 've received your testimony about
the mix of uses; quite a range of uses has been your testimony.
I 've viewed the area and there is quite a range of uses. I think
that that points been made. If you think the photos will assist
in making that point we' ll receive them in.
Campbell: I would like to receive them but. . .
Hunter: I believe they don't. . .they will not add a whole lot.
Campbell: O.k. O.k. I would like to have you receive them in but
I 'm not going to go through 30 photos. I think that would. . . .
Hunter: No, I think you made your point about the mix of uses in
the area. I think that has been fairly clearly made. We' ll
receive the photos in as Exhibit 2 to this hearing.
Campbell: O.k. I ' ll conclude then very quickly. The staff report
has referred to goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and
I think the best goal of a Comprehensive Plan is to improve the
environment of an area through good planning and if the area south
of 218th Street were to be zoned M2 which I perceive to be
supportable by the existing Comprehensive Plans, I think the
following would happen. I think the several existing nonconforming
uses will be automatically closer in conformity and any future
expansion of these properties will have guidelines of higher
15
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
standards than that now exists under CM-1. This site plan is
somewhat of an example and that's the sample that I would cite for
that. Now, all future development between 218th Street and 222nd
Street outside of the existing apartment, mobile home and gateway
commercial will be more consistent with what is going to develop
under M2 to the north of 218th Street. Now, if M2 is granted,
United Truck Lines in particular, will be allowed to visually
improve their site. Again, that ties in with that. And, also,
S. 218th Street will receive some improvements as a result of this.
Now the perception of M2 is that it is an intense industrial use
where in fact it more closely approximate the characteristics of
an industrial business park. The perception of a truck/transfer
facility is one of heavy industrial classification when, in fact,
I think if one looks objectively at these facilities you will see
that they can't be in most cases and are compatible, perfectly
acceptable within the areas that they exist and as stated earlier
they currently do exist in CM-1, M1, M2 and M3 zones throughout the
City. Now, when the East Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan was being
formulated and discussed in open meetings several of which were
breakfast meetings at local restaurants, I along with some of the
other people in attendance here and many others such as interested
property owners, builders, developers, realtors, so on, we
participated in discussions that lead to the final form that this
plan has taken. At one of those meetings, I asked the Planning
Department to clarify the relationship between the proposed
Comprehensive Plan designations and actual zone classifications
that lead to the clarification that designates IP as roughly
corresponding to M2 . I don't believe for one minute that our goal
for this area differs from those of the City. I think we have a
different perception of those goals and to achieve them, I think
we have to bury the hatchet on the issue of United Truck Lines
versus the City of Kent. The problem of nonconforming uses
existing in this area can best be solved by recognizing that they
do exist and looking toward the Comprehensive Plan as a solution
rather than as a barrier. Problems that exist in the area south
of 208th Street go beyond the five properties in this rezone
application. I think that whatever decision is made on this
application is going to go a long way toward the improvement of
this area with respect to future development or acceptance of the
conditions that now exist.
Hunter: Thank you, sir.
Campbell : O.k.
Hunter: Do you want to bring those photos up here and we' ll make
sure we look at them. The ones that you wanted submitted. Well,
16
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Campbell: O.k. Now, I have something that I would, rather than go
on and on, I have a series of about 30 photos here.
Hunter: What do the photos. . .what do they show. What point do
they make?
Campbell: The photos show the different conditions that exist in
the area right now. The different types of uses, good and bad.
There may be no need for me to go through it. They are keyed on
this aerial photo. . .
Hunter: Well, here' s my concern. There are a number of people
that do want to testify. I 've understood your point.
Campbell: I understand.
Hunter: There's a mix of uses in the area.
Campbell: Yes.
Hunter: I viewed the area on video, some of it. Although that
didn't show near the extent. We've received your testimony about
the mix of uses; quite a range of uses has been your testimony.
I 've viewed the area and there is quite a range of uses. I think
that that points been made. If you think the photos will assist
in making that point we' ll receive them in.
Campbell : I would like to receive them but. . .
Hunter: I believe they don't. . .they will not add a whole lot.
Campbell: O.k. O.k. I would like to have you receive them in but
I 'm not going to go through 30 photos. I think that would. . . .
Hunter: No, I think you made your point about the mix of uses in
the area. I think that has been fairly clearly made. We' ll
receive the photos in as Exhibit 2 to this hearing.
Campbell: O.k. I ' ll conclude then very quickly. The staff report
has referred to goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and
I think the best goal of a Comprehensive Plan is to improve the
environment of an area through good planning and if the area south
of 218th Street were to be zoned M2 which I perceive to be
supportable by the existing Comprehensive Plans, I think the
following would happen. I think the several existing nonconforming
uses will be automatically closer in conformity and any future
expansion of these properties will have guidelines of higher
15
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
standards than that now exists under CM-1. This site plan is
somewhat of an example and that's the sample that I would cite for
that. Now, all future development between 218th Street and 222nd
Street outside of the existing apartment, mobile home and gateway
commercial will be more consistent with what is going to develop
under M2 to the north of 218th Street. Now, if M2 is granted,
United Truck Lines in particular, will be allowed to visually
improve their site. Again, that ties in with that. And, also,
S. 218th Street will receive some improvements as a result of this.
Now the perception of M2 is that it is an intense industrial use
where in fact it more closely approximate the characteristics of
an industrial business park. The perception of a truck/transfer
facility is one of heavy industrial classification when, in fact,
I think if one looks objectively at these facilities you will see
that they can't be in most cases and are compatible, perfectly
acceptable within the areas that they exist and as stated earlier
they currently do exist in CM-1, M1, M2 and M3 zones throughout the
City. Now, when the East Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan was being
formulated and discussed in open meetings several of which were
breakfast meetings at local restaurants, I along with some of the
other people in attendance here and many others such as interested
property owners, builders, developers, realtors, so on, we
participated in discussions that lead to the final form that this
plan has taken. At one of those meetings, I asked the Planning
Department to clarify the relationship between the proposed
Comprehensive Plan designations and actual zone classifications
that lead to the clarification that designates IP as roughly
corresponding to M2 . I don't believe for one minute that our goal
for this area differs from those of the City. I think we have a
different perception of those goals and to achieve them, I think
we have to bury the hatchet on the issue of United Truck Lines
versus the City of Kent. The problem of nonconforming uses
existing in this area can best be solved by recognizing that they
do exist and looking toward the Comprehensive Plan as a solution
rather than as a barrier. Problems that exist in the area south
of 208th Street go beyond the five properties in this rezone
application. I think that whatever decision is made on this
application is going to go a long way toward the improvement of
this area with respect to future development or acceptance of the
conditions that now exist.
Hunter: Thank you, sir.
Campbell: O.k.
Hunter: Do you want to bring those photos up here and we' ll make
sure we look at them. The ones that you wanted submitted. Well,
16
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
that aerial site. . .what is that? Is that an aerial photo taken
when? What is the date of that?
Campbell: It was taken about the time we developed all the
submittals for the proposal, probably. . .
Hunter: How do you think that helps me? Rather than. . .you see
them on the ground, you see them from the air.
Campbell: Well, (unclear) visually toured it, it may not be. . . I ' ll
leave that to your discretion.
Hunter: What you have is a series of photos, we've had a lot of
testimony about the use in the area, the aerial photo, I think,
shows the extent of the development but it 's difficult to determine
precisely what kind of use is being made from an aerial photos.
To me it doesn't add that much.
Campbell: Well, to me it shows is the diversification of use.
Hunter: O.k. , that's noted.
Campbell: (Unclear) I know that it exists. . .
Hunter: I think that you have made that point and those photos
will assist in that.
Campbell : O.k. , you want the photos but not the aerial.
Hunter: Well, that' s what I would suggest. O.k. , fine. Thank
you. And I ' ll bring them up front and I ' ll make sure that I look
at them and have them marked as an exhibit.
Campbell: Now they are keyed to this. . . if this is a benefit.
Hunter: I see. I think we' ll take. . .take note that these are all
within the CM zone as it now exists. That 's what we ' ll take note
because you showed the aerial photo and they' re keyed to that. All
of these are within the CM zone. O.k. , thank you for your
testimony. We all that to come in at some length, you are the
applicant. So we allowed some leeway there. I 'm want to urge
others to keep you testimony to keep your testimony fairly brief,
make your point, you don't need to repeat the point. Once we hear
the point we will note it and what we are hear to do is to take
testimony on the criteria for rezone. They are stated, most of you
have seen the criteria and standards that we must considered
whether the rezone is appropriate. The applicant has testified to
17
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
4RZ-90-2
those as has the City. So let me ask those that are in support of
the application. How many do we have that would like to testify
in support of the rezone. I see three individuals. . . four. O.k. ,
why don't we take you right down the row. So, Mam'm if you would
like. . .
Voice: I would prefer that my husband go first.
Hunter: O.k. , that's fine you can defer to the husband. That
makes sense, he had his hand raised first. O.k. , we' ll take your
testimony first, sir? And, do you swear, affirm to tell the truth,
and the whole truth in testimony you're about to give.
James Rust: I do. And, since it was so thoroughly gone over, I
will be brief. I happen to be the only
Hunter: Please state your name, first, for the record.
Rust: Oh, my name is James Rust at 8619 S. 218th, Kent,
Washington.
Hunter: Mr. Rust? . . . .R.U.S.T?
Rust• Um Hum.
Hunter• O.k.
Rust: I live adjacent. . .I 'm the. . . it says that it was in
compliance with the residence as an area. As far as I know, at
this present time, we are the resident. I mean I don't know of
anybody else on that street and I 'm adjacent to their property and
I 've listened to this now for, what, three--four years, this fight,
so it sounds to me. And, I, for the life of me, cannot understand
why the City of Kent keeps knocking these people down. If their
business is growing, let them grow and I guess as long as I 'm here,
I might as well say it seems to me that the City is not in
cooperation with what is being done and what needs to be done in
the city of Kent.
Hunter: How long have you lived on the property?
Rust: Since 1954 . I 've seen it all grow up.
Hunter: O.k. Have you seen quite a bit of changes around there,
I imagine.
18
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Rust: I hope to shout. I mean, I might say that across the street
is DiPietro Trucking and that is not in accordance with the plan
to start with and it used to be a chicken farm. So you see, it has
been a long time. And all of the existing. . .there's. . .these people
don't have any traffic on our street compared to what was let in
that small street that goes down. Now, these are the people that
are really occupying the street, Nelson Construction, now they've
got some big trucks that go up and down the street. So, I just. . .
Hunter: Is if this United Trucking expanded and occupied a greater
area, you wouldn't see that as incompatible with what's happened
elsewhere.
Rust: No, not with what's already happened down there.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you for your testimony.
Rust: Thank you.
Hunter: Next gentleman. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth,
and the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give.
Thomas R. Williams: Yes, sir.
Hunter: And please begin by stating your name for the record.
Williams: My name is Thomas R. Williams. I 'm President of United
Truck Lines. I live at 5406 S. Morrell, Spokane, WA 99223 .
Basically, I 'm here in support of this rezoning primarily for the
reason that we've just thoroughly outgrown the facility that we are
in presently and we had purchased property in front of our facility
that would allow us, if this zoning went through, to improve the
environment as well as we have agreed that we would improve that
street to make it more compatible for everybody that's in that area
as we are. . .we knew right now that the conditional
usage. . .conditional use permit that we have, we've outgrew that.
And, when we bought that property in 1984 and agreed to that, we
had no idea of the growth that would be. . .come to us over the last
five to six years. And we really do not feel that we should be
penalized for that growth. Many factors have caused that growth.
Deregulation took place shortly right after that and there has been
many trucking companies that went out of the business that we are
in. Many of those names that you are probably quite familiar to
you are Delta System 99 , Joy Motor Freight, Bestway, Garrett
Freight Line, A&R, which is one and the same, and many others.
But, that' s the ones that have directly affected us. We have a
very substantial investment in this piece of property and if we are
19
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
forced to move we feel that its not only going to disrupt our
ability within our company to operate efficiently but it is also
going to be very expensive to us. The property is there to improve
the facility and to also grow and develop the area environmentally
and within a six to ten block area of us, including right across
the street, there are four other trucking companies larger than
what we are. We are not a big company and would like to stay here
but we are being forced to leave by the Planning Board's actions
not willing to work with us. There has been problems in the past.
We have tried to be and we are willing to work with. . .whatever it
takes to comply with whatever the City of Kent requires. We know
that. . .we are not trying to dwell and state there. . .we know that
there are other companies that are in violation and not conforming
to the zoning and usage that are in the same areas that we are and
most of those. . .there' s one company in particular that has more
trucks going in and out per day than we do and that happens to be
a repair facility. We are parking in a lot that we own for our
employees that we cannot. . .that has holes and everything else and
otherwise we would be blocking the streets and everything else all
the way up the line and we have 70 employees in this facility we
just cannot house their cars. So, and the last point is that the
definition of a truck/transfer terminal has not been completely
defined and our attorneys that we've talked to feel that if this
was in court and it was. . .there was a decision was made that our
facility complies as a truck/transfer facility. The only thing
that the Planning Board said here today or the Commission said that
a truck/transfer terminal is an open facility where you can see the
forklifts and the only thing that we have that' s not open, the
doors are all open except we have a roof over it so it doesn't rain
on us but we have no freight that stays in the facility overnight.
That freight comes in and it' s transferred each day and moves in
and out to a point of the ten western states. And, we would like
very much to see this rezone approved so we can improve our imagine
in that area and make it more environmentally sound for the
residents. . .our fellow residents that we work with to be a better
citizen in that area. Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. Anyone else who wants to testify in favor
of this request for rezone. Yes, mam'm. Do you swear, affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you are about to
give.
Elsie Rust• I do.
Hunter: Proceed.
20
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Rust: I 'm Elsie Rust. I haven't planned anything in particular
except that they have been good neighbors. But, are you aware that
this is a deadend street. Because that makes a difference. I mean
there isn't through traffic going up the hill or anything. There' s
just the people that live. . .not the people but the businesses that
are on this street and one of the points that Carol brought up was
that United Trucking lied to you, right? Oh, yes, oh, yes.
Hunter: Now, we don't have any accusations that have gone back and
forth at all. What we are looking for. . .
Rust: O.k. Well, there's some fear in what they are trying to do.
We have no ax to grind. We have four acres there which we want to
maintain as a little green belt as long as the tax system will
allow us. And we have a horse back there and also. We have
nothing to gain although the rumor has gone around that we. . .that
they have first option to buy our place which is not true. So,
there' s nothing for us to gain. They have been neighbors.
Everybody is considerate, they wait for each other on the road just
like when you go in and out of Boeing, you know, the traffic
condition. Its a narrow road. The City of Kent shouldn't have
allowed them there in the first place, right. But they have and
so now they are going to penalize them for expanding. Well, look
at the City of Kent what are they doing. They are taking in more
area all the time. You're having problems over at the
Bridgewater. . .there's not place to park. Who' s fault is that, the
Planning Commissions.
Hunter: Well, Mam'm we have to focus our testimony on the criteria
here for rezone, so. . .
Rust: Yeah, I know, I know. But, I mean, so this is what I 'm
trying to say. The city of Kent is expanding, they are having
problems but they are trying to penalize these people. Well, its
only natural if you have a chance to grow, you are going to grow,
right.
Hunter: So, you have no problems then with the. . .
Rust: No, no problems at all.
Hunter: O.k. Thank you for your testimony.
Rust: Thank you.
Hunter: Anyone else who wants to speak in favor. Yes, sir. Are
there others who want to testify following this gentleman. O.k. ,
21
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
we do have another. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, the
whole truth in the testimony you're about to give.
Vern Nelson: I do.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Nelson: I 'm Vern Nelson, neighbors to the United Trucking and I
would like to recommend to the City that you really listen to their
side of it because something has to be done. Even with a flatbed
truck and car coming from the other direction you can't pass, you
just can't. We pull into Rust' s driveway all the time to let
trucks by and United has trailer and truck and when then happens
and one of our tandem-axial trucks come out you have to back up,
somebody does. So, United needs this zoning change or if they stay
there something still has to be done with the road. That' s about
all I got to say.
Hunter: Since you are familiar with the road, do you see that it
could be improved. Is it your feeling that there could be
improvements that will allow you to pass safely or are there
constraints on it.
Nelson: Simply widen it, the road. You got open ditches, of
course, on each side. . .culverts. . . I 'm not an engineer or anything
but I would think culverts and piping, you could do that not too
much expense because it is really a narrow road especially when you
meet one of my trucks or United Is on the road. You can't move, you
got to back up. The smallest. . . .that' s kind of the rule, the
smallest vehicle backs up. That' s all I have.
Hunter: What company were you with?
Nelson: Nelson Construction.
Hunter: Nelson Construction.
Nelson• Um hum.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
Nelson: You' re welcome.
Hunter: O.k. , yes, sir? Step forward. Do you swear, affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're about to
give.
22
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
Earl Anderson: Yes, I do.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Anderson: My name is Earl Anderson. My address is 2304 Kalarney
Way, Bellevue, 98004 . I 'm the neighbor to the immediate south at
the end of the easement road that access in along the United Truck
Line. I 've been owner of that property since about the time United
Truck Line bought their property. I really don't have an objection
at all to the rezone. In fact, in all probability if the rezone
was granted and United Truck Lines complied with the requirement
for M2 zoning, they, in fact, would upgrade the area quite a bit
and they would do a lot of improvements to S. 218th. I take an
objection to the testimony that M2 zoning is a better zoning than
CM. My building is in CM. I have multiple tenants. I have
another property in CM zoning with multiple tenants. All of our
tenants meet and comply with CM zoning. Its a good zoning for
small users. Some of our tenants could be in an M2 or M3 but
certainly for our use CM zoning is a good zoning. There is a very
limited amount of it. In some respects I would hate to see it go
away but I really don't object to a rezone. One thing that I would
like to request if the rezone was granted would be that maybe their
access be limited to S . 218th. Being a user at the end of the
easement road, many time when I come in, I find two or three of
their large trailers parked in the easement road which causes our
access to be limited to one lane in and out of our property. So
that would be my only comment.
Hunter: I understand that point. Easement road access, is that?
Nelson: South 88th Place is a private easement, 25-feet wide that
goes into the properties in that particular short plat. It was
called the Demita Short Plat, there are four lots. . .
Hunter: And that' s what being blocked, is access to that?
Nelson: Well, we are not being blocked, just reduced to one lane
because they park their truck/trailers along side. Not only the
easement, their side of the easement on their property but they
park them all the way back against the other properties and they
use the end of the property. . .the easement road where my building
is as a turnaround to get in.
Hunter: So there's some negative impacts from the. . .just the
movement of trucks you feel could be eliminated?
Nelson: Well, I think, if they were going. . .you know. . . if the
rezone is approved and they are able to expand their operation that
23
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
means more traffic and currently one of their
dripulveways
in accesses
off of the easement road, Y
d out Of
the easement road and then they park along the side on the easement
road which is, you know, using other people's property for parking
their trucks and stuff like that and they ve never. . .e mad in e never
block access but many times its reduced to a one lane rthe length
out and I 've seen as many as four trailers parked along g
of the road. Not very many re es but most of the time there are
one or two trailers along
Hunter: Thank you for bringing that forward.
Nelson: Thank you.
Hunter: Anyone else who would like to testify. to make sure
Either for
or. . . .yeah, we' ll give you a chance here, I j
that everyone here has had a change to testify either in favor and
Opposition to or otherwise. O.k. then the procedure
t yttweio will
typically follow is we' ll allow eCity a Does that sound fair.
ebut
and then allow you a final opportunity.
Does the City have anything to add and then we' ll allow United
Truck to respond.
ing to your
Proud: I have a few comments. I would also like to Gill, rif you have
attention that the City Engineer is here, Gary
any question about the capacity of 218th. In the staff report on
that Page 2 in the information provided on the history,
p P
and it
was originally zoned in 1960 as a C3 , General Commercial zone in
was rezoned to the current CM, Commercial Manufacturing,
1973 with the adoption of the present Zoning Code and this was
after the General Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in 169 was
implemented with all the industrial designations on the map and
what my understanding is or s grezones from
and talking lto various
various
records and looking at previou
people that were around at that time, that the intent of that
commercial manufacturing was kind of a. . .there was a conflict
in an
between pure manufacturing which is kind of what is p
ermi
M2 zoning district or, if you read through the permitted uses in
an M2 zoning district, you will see manufacturing with typical lot
sizes of a minimum of one acre, as much larger operations. There
was a need to develop some sort of catch-all zoning district that
would allow smaller users or the incubator or what they call it now
are these "enterprise zones" whatever to be able to have
the are
opportunity to begin their cottage industry so to speak, Y
smaller manufacturing and be able to do some kind of commercial
endeavor with that. And that' s characteristically what we see in
the commercial or the CM zoning is that. . .that there is a retail
24
Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
component to this that you just don't see. . .that you don't see in
the manufacturing districts and so that the was purpose of that
zoning and, of course, in the staff report the purpose taken
straight from the Zoning Code is listed there and kind of clarifies
the distinguish between the two zoning districts.
Hunter: So, would those uses be precluded in the M2 zone, they can
still. . .
Proud: If there was that retail component to it. Now, there is
that option in the M2 zoning of providing some retail but that
retail component, 25 percent, usually applies to the spec. . .the
speculative facilities where they have 75 percent
manufacturing. . .there's a tavern, a pub or grocery store associated
with it but when you have a pure. . . a mixed use like you typical
designations are. . . some of their functions would not be permitted
in the M2 zoning district so their. . . . Also, the thing to remember
about the M2 zoning as a conditional use permit, especially in
keeping with what ' s remaining out there in the way of smaller uses
that will be both on the north. . . excuse me. . . on the east and west
sides of this property, kind of interspersed there, there will
still be some CM type uses is that there is the option of any use
which is our most heaviest industrial zoning district be permitted
in that area with a conditional use permit which isn't to say that
it would be approved through that process but the option is always
there and that 's the option that United Trucking. . . . Also, in the
staff report in the history there is some detailing of the history
involved in this project and I think in the record in your file
there are minutes and whatnot from previous hearings to fill you
in on the various historical events that have occurred on that
property and I chose not to go into it in my presentation. I want
to talk a little bit about the parking lot. As it is now that
parking lot is a zoning violation and the City has chosen not to
pursue that in light of what. . .king of waiting for the folks at
United Trucking to decide what they were going to do with their
property--where they either going to move or were they going to
come in for, you know, obtain an area-wide rezone and we tried to
give them the option through SEPA to expand the area a little bit
so that there wouldn't be the conflict with the remaining users,
so as it stands now that parking lot is. . . .they were told not to
use that as a parking lot, its not developed, it does not meet City
standards and like they said they do park all their employee
vehicles in that without approval from the City to do so. Also,
just in listening to the testimony and kind of kind of being
somewhat familiar with the proposed expansion that I question
whether or not that given the addition of providing that parking
that the amount of usage that they have at that facility whether
25
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
it would alleviate any of the problems they have with their site
being somewhat overused as it is now and alleviating the problem
of trailers being stored in easements and, I mean, that. . . its a
small site. Its unfortunate that. . . its. . . its kind of a mixed
blessing, six of one, half a dozen of another, they are not alone.
There are a lot of businesses within the City of Kent and I deal
with zoning questions everyday, that' s my job, and there are a lot
of people or firms that just flat out outgrow their site and. . .and
it is unfortunate but its kind of the fact of success sometimes and
I seriously question whether or not this particular site would meet
their needs in any event. Certainly they have the option of
acquiring the property, that large vacant piece of property to the
east of them. . .I mean to the west of them, but. . . Do you have any
questions?
Hunter: Thank you. Yes, sir, you have clarifying points.
Williams: Thank you very much. I agree with you. . .
Hunter: I 'm sorry, I misplaced your name.
Williams: My name is Tom Williams. I agree with her that without
additional property probably or access to a parking lot we have
looked into the fact of. . . . We don't necessarily have to park our
trailers within even a mile radius as far as trailer parking is
concerned. But, to handle our operation on a basis that would be
successful to us it can be done very easily with the granting of
this. I might want to mention to that the real purpose that we
want to do or be is completely self-contained. We own the easement
road, we were the ones that granted that property there, so what
the gentleman was speaking about as far as our trucks parking on
the side of that that was our property that we granted when we
moved in there.
Hunter: You granted an easement over your property.
Williams: That' s right.
Hunter: The right to use the easement. . .
Williams: That's right.
Hunter: The right to use the easement belongs to others.
Williams: Right, that's exactly right. The other thing is that
we also at the time we moved in as far as the capacity of the road,
of 218th, we added additional asphalt to handle the size and weight
26
Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes
South 218th Street
#RZ-90-2
of our equipment. And inspecting that roadway it looks very, very
adequate except on the curb where it doesn't apply, in otherwords
where there' s no asphalt. The other thing that I might mention in
all the years that we have been there, we have not had one accident
on that road. Thank you.
Hunter: One question for you. Your testimony indicates that
certainly your company would benefit from the rezone. Are you
aware of any others that might benefit in the area from the rezone.
Have you talked to others that would benefit.
Williams: Well, I 'm sure there's other people that would benefit.
I 'm not. . .the only people that we've talked to is all of them that
we tried to get them to go along with this to put this rezone
together. But, we have, you know, a substantial investment and we
feel that if this isn't approved, we are moving. . . .we will have to
move, there just no other way. Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you. Is there anyone else present that would like
to say anything about the rezone application. Yes sir, you have
additional comment.
Campbell: Just, excuse me, Lawrence Campbell again, just one quick
one this time, promise. The M2 allows 25 percent retail in excess
of that and this is what Carol has already said that and in excess
of that by conditional use permit and the M2 zone is quite
extensive. It allows for a lot of services, some retail trades,
headquarters of office buildings, industrial operations and
processing plants and things of this nature. I don't think anybody
in this area, I sincerely believe this, that is currently operating
in a CM-1 capacity is going to be adversely affected by this.
Nobody is going to be misplaced. And I do think, very quickly that
if they are allowed that one plan that I submitted with the
improved parking lot. Well, that particular improved parking lot
which would be allowed under M2 is going to go a long way to cure
the problem that exists on that easement because they are utilizing
what should be truck maneuver and parking space on their space and
parking or employees and if that situation were alleviated I think
it would be a more moveable and operable site.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Campbell . I think we've heard from
everyone that wanted to make comments on this rezone request. So
we will considered it for the next 14 days or so and then issue a
recommendation to the City Council . Thank you all for coming. The
record is closed.
c:hemin516.vb
27
Kent City Council Meeting
11 Date July 17 , 1990
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL CHAMBER SOUND SYSTEM BIDS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bids received for the Council Chamber
sound system are as follows:
Muzak $9, 866. 00
Dimensional Communications 9, 867 .00
London Controls 10,776.96
Atronics 11, 101. 00
Electrocom 14 ,962 .00
Muzak bid the system as specified by the consultant without
changes and it is recommended that this bid) be accepted.
/1
3 . EXHIBITS• None
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 REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
that the bid be awarded to Muzak.
DISCUSSION:_
ACTION.
1 r Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
b "
6
t
Si "d
..--__._. E EI
i
!! 9 �
l i,l
fy€fill
i
df� f
p is
af,
h Y
I�a 4 G
,,clf
H 19�I
€Jilll
€f.
X l,{
I . �
0
ii sE,
EtIE E 8
1 � li3�I
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS