HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 08/06/1991City of Kent
City Council Meeting
Agenda
CITY OF I jjB4T
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Steve Dowell Paul Mann
Christi Houser Leona Orr
Jon Johnson Jim White
August 6, 1991
Office of the City Clerk
MAYOR: Dan Kelleher
Steve Dowell
Paul Mann
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 6, 1991
Summary Agenda
COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President
Christi Houser Jon Johnson
Leona Orr Jim White
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
J1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
✓A. Employee of the Month
JB. Proclamation - Nation4l Night Out
L a
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Mobile Home Park Code Amendment
✓B. Senior Housing Alley Vacation
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
✓A. Minutes
B. Bills
C. Planning Commission Appointment
D. Board of Adjustment Appointment
✓E. Walnut Grove Final Plat
F. IAC Grant Agreement - Lake Fenwick Phase III
G. IAC Grant Agreement - East Hill Neighborhood Park
✓ H. Condemnation - 108th SE & 260th - Ordinance 9 4'
✓I. Bill of Sale - Smith and Mills Short Plat
✓J. Bill of Sale - Royal Firs
✓K. Bill of Sale - Kent East Corporate Park
✓L. Bill of Sale - Brentwood Townhouses
✓ 196th Corridor Grantl Agreement
4. OTHER BUSINESS
✓A. Bishop Rezone
✓B. Soos Creek Plan - Resolution
q
5. BIDS
✓A. 1991 Asphalt Overlay
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7. REPORTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A) Employee of the Month
B) Proclamation - National Night Out
CC
to 41
at -
Tj":) 1Ai e I-
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6. 1991
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CODE AMENDMENT
2. WgfOMY STATEMENT: As rreGoaaaaded by —the -Planning Gommittae.,
_0091his public hearing will consider three revisions to the Kent
obile Home Park Code summarized as follows: 1) Codification
revisions throughout documents; 2) Minor text revisions that
revise consistency with adopted city codes and policies; and
3) New non -confirming mobile home park section. The revisions
are being brought directly to the City Council for deliberation
as a result of Section 2 of the adopting Ordinance No. 2077
which states that "the code may be amended by the City Council
at any regular City Council meeting upon motion duly made,
seconded and passed."
3. EXHIBITS: Staff report, draft of mobile home park code and
Planning Committee minutes
4.
RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO�_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
[0
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember_
moves, Councilmember
econds
to accept err reject/modify the revisions to the mobile home park
code and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
ordinance, 4 1
1
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A A
CITY OF )L�
�s�nc�uea
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 6, 1991
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Mobile Home Park Code Amendments
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The proposal is to amend the Kent Mobile Home Park Code. Revisions
include:
1. Numerical codification revisions throughout the document.
2. Minor text revisions that provide consistency with adopted
city codes and policies.
3. New nonconforming mobile home park standards.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Planning Department received a regulatory review request from
a mobile home park owner asking to amend the placement criteria for
moving mobile homes onto individual lots in an existing park.
Specifically the applicant is asking to revise Section 1.3 para. 3
which states:
"Any units brought into an existing mobile home park:
any mobile home relocated on its own lot or onto any
other lot: any additions to the structure or structures
present on any lot (e.g storage buildings, canopies,
decks, patios, fences, etc.) must comply with this code
as well as all other applicable City codes and
regulations."
Beginning approximately a year ago, King County no longer issues
relocation permits for individual mobile home units in existing
parks. The duty has been turned over to the City's Building
Official as specified in the Kent Mobile Home Park Code. (see
Section 1.4 Enforcement.) The Building Official has denied
relocation permits because the code does not permit relocating
individual mobile home units that can not meet requirements and
standards for new parks. The size of newer units are typically
1
City of Kent
Proposed Mobile Home
Park Code Amendments
wider and longer then what parks were originally designed to
accommodate.
All of the existing mobile home parks within the City were built
prior to the 1978 adoption of the Mobile Home Park Code. In effect
all of the existing mobile home parks are non -conforming with
respect to individual unit placement criteria which includes lot
size, coverage, setbacks and separation requirements between units
and accessory structures. Other non -conformities exist with
regards to sewer and electrical hook-ups and the location of travel
trailers on -site etc.
The matter is being brought directly to the City Council for
deliberation as a result of Section 2 of the adopting ordinance
(#2077) which states that: "The code may be amended by the City
Council at any regular City Council meeting upon motion duly made,
seconded and passed." Since the mobile home regulations are not
part of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is not involved in
the revision process. Planning Department staff discussed the
regulatory review request with members of the Council's Planning
Committee. The committee agreed with staff's timeline for
incorporating public input and review of the matter.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental review of the proposed amendments to the Mobile
Home Park Code has been conducted pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The Fire Department recommended
that combustible accessory structures be limited to one per mobile
home park lot, in order to avoid proliferation of such structures
that could otherwise present an unacceptably high fire risk.
Therefore, a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was
issued on July 11, 1991 subject to the following condition:
1. Section 12.08.380(3) shall be amended to add the following
sentence: "Not more than one accessory structure will be
allowed on each mobile home park lot."
The attached draft Mobile Home Park Code includes this language on
page 19.
6
City of Kent
Proposed Mobile Home
Park Code Amendments
CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
request:
City Administrator Building Official
City Attorney Public Works Director
Fire Chief King County Housing xxx
Several meetings were conducted with interested parties that
included park owners, tenants, real estate agents and King County
Housing staff. Staff requested comments from interested persons
regarding the proposed amendments in conjunction with the SEPA
review process. No additional comments were received from the
public. Staff comments are incorporated into the attached revised
document.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
Staff has expanded the scope of the original regulatory review
request to include minor administrative and procedural revisions.
The administrative amendments include changes to application
procedures for new mobile home park construction, public hearing
procedures with the City's Hearing Examiner and revisions to the
enforcement section. The amendments provide consistency with other
land use related application and public hearing procedures. The
changes to the enforcement section are at the request of the
Building Official. All proposed amendments are noted through the
attached Code document in "bill form" with strike outs of the
existing language and the new language underlined. Please refer to
pages 1, 2, 7 and 9.
Many issues were discussed at the public meetings with regard to
mobile home parks and the placement of individual units within a
park. Of concern to most people is the dwindling number of mobile
home parks within the County and the resultant lack of individual
mobile home lots or sites. Apparently new mobile home parks are
not being constructed. Also discussed at length, is the removal of
a needed source of affordable housing and the impact to low income
individuals and families.
Some of the reasons offered for this predicament included: cost of
available land, underlying commercial or multifamily zoning, parks
not permitted in single-family zoning districts and banks not
lending money for new construction.
3
City of Kent
Proposed Mobile Home
Park Code Amendments
staff's proposal, as outlined below, responds to the submitted
regulatory review request and provides immediate relief from the
strict application of the Code to nonconforming Mobile Home Parks.
The proposed nonconforming mobile home park standards (please refer
to pages 19- 21) would allow the placement of an individual mobile
home on a lot or site without meeting the current standards for
side yard and front yard setbacks, lot coverage and parking (please
refer to page 15 of attached the attached Code for current
placement standards). The separation requirements for individual
units and new accessory structures are already adopted by reference
in the Code Enforcement Department's fire protection standards
(Chapter 13.08.080 Kent City Code). Also, some relief would be
afforded to existing recreational vehicles currently being used as
a permanent dwelling unit. The Code only allows recreational
vehicles in fenced storage areas.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council APPROVE the amendments to the
Kent Mobile Home Park Code as proposed, including the minor
language and procedural changes noted in the attached code as well
as the nonconforming mobile home standards which follow:
12.08.380 NONCONFORMING MOBILE HOME PARK STANDARDS
To assure reasonable opportunity for the continued use of
existing mobile home parks created prior to the adoption of the
home parks and to the construction of accessory structures.
1 A site plan drawn to scale that shows the perimeter park
boundaries, the dimensions of all existing mobile home
lots, the location of all existing mobile homes,
accessory buildings, utility hookups and internal
roadways shall be submitted in conjunction with permit
application for placement or relocation of individual
mobile homes or construction of accessory buildings.
2) The placement or relocation of individual mobile homes in
nonconforming mobile home parks shall be subiect to the
4
City of Kent
Proposed Mobile Home
Park Code Amendments
apply. See diagram 12 08 380-2 for required placement
standards.
3 All new construction of accessory structures in a
nonconforming park or the remodeling of existing
structures shall be subject to the separation standards
of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 501A,
Section 4-4.1) as adopted by reference in the Kent
Municipal Code Chapter 13.08.080. Not more than one
accessory structure shall be allowed on each mobile home
lot. Lot coverage requirements need not apply. See
diagram 12.08.380-3 for required placement standards.
4)
approval by the Building Official.
5) Any mobile home lot within a nonconforming mobile home
park that does not meet the lot size requirements shall
be considered a legal nonconforming mobile home lot for
purposes of relocating mobile homes or constructing
accessory buildings.
6 No nonconforming mobile home park boundaries shall be
expanded nor shall any additional mobile home lots be
created as a result of these provisions. Any new
expansion shall be subject to the provisions of the
Mobile Home Park Code.
DEFINITIONS
12.08.094 NONCONFORMING USE OR STRUCTURE - Any mobile home
park, individual mobile home, recreational vehicle,
accessory structure, mobile home lot or site
dimension established prior to the effective date
of this code or subsequent amendment to it which
would not be permitted by or is not in full
compliance with the regulations of this ordinance.
City of Kent
Proposed Mobile Home
Park Code Amendments
12.08.071 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - Any structure on an interior
recreational vehicle.
CP/ch:a:mhpcode.rpt
THIS MOBILE HOME PARK CODE WAS APPROVED BY THE KENT CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 21, 1978, BY ORDINANCE 2077 AND BECAME
EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 1, 1978
Printed: 2/91
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I
Page
12.08.010
Adopted 1
12.08.030
Amendments 1
12.08.030
Title 1
12.08.040
Purpose 1
12.08.050
Scope 1
12.08.060
Enforcement 1
12.08.070
through 12.08.100 Definitions 2
SECTION Il PROCEDURES
12.08.200 Outline of Procedures 6
12.08.230 Detailed Procedures 6
SECTION III REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS
12.08.300
Requirements and Standards
13
12.08.310
Environmental Considerations
13
12.08.320
Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plans
14
12.08.330
Grade and Fill Permit
14
12.08.340
Minimum Requirements and Standards
14
12.08.360
Mobile Home Park Alternate Development Plan
17
12.08.380
Nonconforming Mobile Home Park Standards
19
SECTION IV EXCEPTIONS, PENALTIES, ETC.
12.08.400
Exceptions, Penalties, Liability and Severability
22
12.08.410
Exceptions
22
12.08.420
Penalties
22
12.08.430
Liability
22
12.08.400
Severability
23
ii
CITY OF KENT
CHAPTER 12.08
MOBILE HOME PARK CODE
A code of the City of Kent, Washington, providing for the municipal adoption of
rules, regulations, requirements, standards, and procedures for the approval or
disapproval of development of mobile home parks; providing for the exception and
variation thereto in hardship cases; providing penalties for the violation of such
adopted rules, requirements, regulations, and standards; providing for the
effectuation of the expressed and implied authority of the City of Kent in accordance
with the intent of the state statutes.
iii
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
SECTION I
12.08.010. ADOPTED. There is adopted upon the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this Chapter and upon the filing of three copies with the Kent City Clerk, that
certain code known as the "Kent Mobile Home Park Code," together with all amendments
and additions thereto. (0.2077, § 1)
12.08.020. AMENDMENTS. The Kent Mobile Home Park Code may be amended by
the City Council at any regular City Council meeting upon motion duly made, seconded and
passed. (0.2077, § 2)
12.08.030. TITLE. This code shall hereinafter be known as the "City of Kent Mobile
Home Park Code."
12.08.040. PURPOSE. The purpose of this code is to provide rules, regulations,
requirements, and standards for the development of mobile home parks in the City of Kent,
insuring that the public health, safety, general welfare and aesthetics of the City of Kent
shall be promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development, and the conservation,
protection, and proper use of land shall be insured; that proper provisions for all public
facilities (including circulation, utilities, and services) shall be made; that maximum advantage
of site characteristics shall be taken into consideration; and that conformance with provisions
set forth in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and Subdivision Code shall
be insured.
12.08.050. SCOPE. This code applies to any acquisition of land, improvement of
land, or the development of land for mobile home park use. This code shall apply to all lands
within the corporate boundaries of the City of Kent.
Where this code imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the
development of land than other laws, ordinances, codes or restrictive covenants, the
provisions of this code shall prevail. Any expansion, reconstruction, or modification of an
existing mobile home park shall comply with the standards, specifications, and procedures
of this code.
Any units brought into an existing mobile home park; any mobile home relocated on
its own lot or onto any other lot; and any additions to the structure or structures present on
any lot (e.g. storage buildings, canopies, decks, patios, fences, etc.)must comply with this
code as well as all other applicable City codes and regulations.
12.08.060. ENFORCEMENT. It shall be the duty of the Building piree" Official to
fenforce all provisions of this code after a Final Site Plan has been approved. The Building
D eetOF Official sh" may inspect eaeh any mobile home park epee-pef -yeaf in order to
i,,SUFe ygdfy compliance with this code. Also, each mobile home shall be inspected when
it is placed on a mobile home lot to insure that all setback, separation requirements, etc., are
1
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
met. Such inspection shall be performed at the time said mobile home is placed on the lot
or as soon thereafter as is reasonably practicable. Failure to make such inspection shall not
constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Code. For inspection purposes, the
Building Direetef Official or his duly authorized representative shall have the right and is
hereby empowered to enter any mobile home park.
The Building DepaFtment Code Enforcement Division of the Fire Degartment may
require a permit for the placement of a mobile home on a lot and may charge for said permit.
If, after due investigation, the Building Direeter Official determines that any provisions
of this code have been violated, the mobile home park owner shall have 14 days to remedy
the violations. If the violations are not corrected within 14 days, the violations shall be
forwarded to the City Attorney for action under 1 2.08.420 Penalties.
12.08.070. DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this code certain terms, phrases,
words, and their derivatives shall be construed as specified in this Section. Words used in
the singular include the plural, and the plural the singular. The words "shall" and "will" are
mandatory; the word "may" is permissive.
12.08.071. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - Any structure on an interior mobile home
lot or site that is armurtenant to the orincigally permitted mobile home or nonconforming
recreational vehicle.
- .^,� °�� 12.08.072. CITY COUNCIL. The City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington.
12.08.073 COMBINING DISTRICT. District regulations superimposed
on an underlying zone district which impose additional regulations for specific uses, and
which are valid for a stipulated time period. Uses permitted by the underlying zone may also
be developed.
44)i :. . 12.08.074. 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 mobile
home park which are designed and intended for the use or enjoyment of residents of the
park. Common open space may contain such complimentary structures and improvements
as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of residents of the mobile
home park. Common open space may also include all landscaped buffer areas.
4 95-9�4. 12.08.075. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The plans, maps and reports
which comprise the official City development plan as adopted by the City Council in
accordance with RCW 35.63 or RCW 35A.
-2.^z. o7Q. 12.08.076. COUNTY AUDITOR. As defined in Chapter 36.22 RCW or
the office of the person assigned such duties under the King County Charter.
2
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
4A8$�6. 12.08.077. CONDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. A
use permitted in a zoning district only after review and approval by the
Hearing Examiner. Conditional uses are such that they may be compatible only on certain
conditions in specific locations in a zoning district, or if the site is regulated in a certain
manner.
".^, �... 12.08.078. CUL-DE-SAC. A short street having one end open to traffic
and being terminated at the other end by a vehicular turn -around.
49$ ALB. 12.08.079. DEDICATION. A deliberate appropriation of land by its
owner for any general and public uses, reserving to himself no other rights than such as are
compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the property has
been devoted. The intention to dedicate shall be evidenced by the owner by the presentment
for filing of a final site plan showing the dedication thereon; and, the acceptance by the
public shall be evidenced by the approval of such site plan for filing by the City of Kent.
12.08.080. DEPENDENT UNIT. A mobile home that does not have toilet
and bathtub or shower facilities.
989. 12.08.081. DEVELOPER. The person, firm or corporation developing
a mobile home park.
�2 98�51. 12.08.082. 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
conclusions on such applications.
4-2-984)5-2. 12.08.083. INDEPENDENT UNIT. A mobile home that has a toilet and
bathtub or shower facilities.
44,98-49a. 12.08.084. LOT. A fractional part of subdivided lands having fixed
boundaries, being of sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum zoning requirements for
width and area. The term shall include tracts or parcels.
4 2 AS 984. 12.08.085. 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.
a98 88§. 12.08.086. LOT FRONTAGE. The front of a lot shall be that portion
nearest the street.
44-08-.G". 12.08.087. LOT LINES. The lines bounding the lot.
K
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
42��. 12.08.088. 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 rear -most 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.
9S A88. 12.08.089. LOT, THROUGH. A lot that has both ends fronting on a
street. Either end may be considered front.
-,?85:984. 12.08.090. MEANDER LINE. A line along a body of water intended to
be used solely as a reference for surveying.
4-2-.A8-.Q-9G. 12.08.091. 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 or 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.
. 12.08.092. MOBILE HOME LOT OR SITE. A lot or site designed to
accommodate a mobile home in a mobile home park.
-2 ^ L 12.08.093. MOBILE HOME PARK. An area under one ownership
designed to accommodate five (5) or more mobile homes according to the provisions of this
code.
12 08 094 NONCONFORMING USE OR STRUCTURE - Any mobile home nark,
individual mobile home recreational vehicle accessory structure mobile home lot or site
dimension established prior to the effective date of this code or subsequent amendment to
it which would not be permitted by or is not in full compliance with the regulations of this
ordinance.
,.^�= 08-.G9a. 12.08.095. OFFICIAL PLANS. Those maps, development plans, or
portions thereof, adopted by the City Council of the City of Kent as provided in RCW
35A.63.100, as amended. Such plans or maps shall be deemed to be conclusive with
respect to the location and width of streets, public parks, and playgrounds and drainage
rights -of -way as may be shown thereon.
2.^�T. 12.08.096. PERFORMANCE BOND OR GUARANTEE. That security
which may be accepted in lieu of a requirement that certain improvements be made before
9
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
the City Council approves the Final Site Plan including performance bonds, escrow
agreements, and other similar collateral or surety agreements.
99b. 12.08.097. PLANNING COMMISSION. That body as defined in
Ordinance 1674, City of Kent.
".^moo. 12.08.098. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE. Any vehicle or structure so
designed and constructed to permit occupancy thereof, with sleeping quarters for one (1)
or more persons, and constructed in such manner as to permit its being used as a
conveyance upon the public streets or highways and duly licensable as such, propelled,
drawn or transported by its own or other power.
".^zT. 12.08.099. SERVICE BUILDING. A building housing separate toilet,
lavatory, and bath or shower accommodations for men and women, with separate service
sink and laundry facilities.
42 A8�9$. 12.08.100. SETBACKS. The minimum allowable horizontal distance
from a given point or line of reference, such as a street right-of-way, to the nearest vertical
wall or other element of a mobile home or appurtenant structure. All setbacks from a line
of reference shall be measured on a line perpendicular to said line of reference.
42-.0&. -98. 12.08.101 ZONING FOR MOBILE HOME VEHICLE PARKS. Mobile home
parks shall be developed in existing mobile home park zones or in mobile home park
combining districts as they may be designated by the City Council. All land zoned for
residential uses, except R-1, Single -Family Residential District, may be considered for a
mobile home park combining district.
5
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
SECTION II
12.08.200. OUTLINE OF PROCEDURES.
12.08.210. PRELIMINARY MEETING. Any person who desires to develop a mobile
home park in the City of Kent shall consult the Planning Department at an early date on an
informal basis in order to become familiar with the requirements of this code. The Planning
Department will arrange an informal meeting between the developer and all pertinent City
Departments so that the developer may obtain details of all City requirements and thus
determine the feasibility of the project proposal prior to actual preparation and submission
of development plans.
12.08.220. APPLICATION FOR MOBILE HOME PARK - GENERAL OVERVIEW OF
PROCEDURES. The general procedure for submitting and processing applications for a
mobile home park are as follows: preparation and submission to the Planning Department
of a tentative site plan of the proposed mobile home park; submission of a preliminary site
plan to the Planning Department, Hearing Examiner and City Council for public hearing;
installation or bonding of improvements according to the approved site plan; and recordation
of the approved final site plan with the Planning Department and City Clerk.
12.08.230. DETAILED PROCEDURES.
12.08.240. TENTATIVE SITE PLAN PROCEDURES.
12.08.241. Aoolication. Applications for a tentative site plan meeting and review
shall be filed with the Planning Department. Twelve (12) copies of the tentative site plan
shall be filed.
12.08.242. Mao Scale and Documentation. The scale and information required for
a tentative site plan shall be in accordance with Section 12.08.253 (Preliminary Site Plan
Map), except that the scale and information do not need to be precise.
12.08.243. Referral to Other Departments. The Planning Department shall transmit
copies of the tentative site plan to the following departments: the Public Works Department;
the Building Department; and the Fire Department; the Health Agency; and each of the Public
Utility Agencies serving the area.
12.08.244. Tentative Site Plan Meeting. A meeting attended by the applicant and
those departments and agencies receiving copies of the tentative site plan will be held no
earlier than six (6) days and no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the application.
Any recommendations of the various departments for revision of the tentative site plan
should be discussed at such meeting as well as recorded in writing
0
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
12.08.245. General Requirements or Findings for the Tentative Site Plan. Following
the aforesaid tentative site plan meeting, and receipt of the recommendations of the other
City departments and interested agencies, the Planning Department shall find if the tentative
site plan:
A. Is in general conformance with the regulations of this code;
B. Is in general conformance with the circulation pattern established or proposed for
the area in which the mobile home park will be developed;
C. Is in conformance with sewer, water, and other utility plans for the area;
D. Is not detrimental to its natural and man-made surroundings. Copies of these
findings will be transmitted to the applicant and all agencies attending the tentative site plan
meeting.
12.08.246. Further Action. If the tentative site plan is found to meet the above
guidelines, or is modified as per the suggestions presented at the tentative site plan meeting,
the applicant should proceed to the preliminary site plan stage. If the tentative site plan is
not found to be consistent with the guidelines, a preliminary site plan may still be submitted
to the Planning Department together with a written request for an exception to the
requirements of this Code (See Section 12.08.410 Exceptions)
12.08.250. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PROCEDURES.
12.08.251. Zoning. If the proposed mobile home park lies within an existing Mobile
Home Park Combining District (MHP), the procedure for processing the mobile home site plan
shall be as outlined in Section 12 08 220 Application for Mobile Home Park - General
Overview of Procedures. If the proposed mobile home park does not lie within an existing
MHP zone, an application for the Mobile Home Combining District shall be applied for and
considered concurrently with the preliminary site plan.
12.08.252. Application.
A. Application for a preliminary site plan approval (and for the Mobile Home
Combining District, if necessary) shall be filed with the Planning Department on forms
prescribed by the Planning Department, at least twenty five (26) days pfief te the HeaFiAg
ExamineF ",,,.....a a.:•:hieh it is to be eensid'_r_`:'. Said application shall be submitted at least
forty-five (45) days prior to the next regularly scheduled public hearing date, and shall be
heard by the Hearing_ Examiner within one hundred 0 00) days of the date of said application-
-provided however, that this period may be extended in any case for which an
environmental impact statement is required. If a full Environmental Impact Statement is
required under the State Environmental Policy Act the applicant shall not file the preliminary
site plan application until such time as the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is ready
for circulation.
7
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
B. Twelve (12) copies of the preliminary Site plan shall be submitted.
12.08.253. Preliminary Site Plan Requirement. The following shall be part of the
preliminary site plan:
A. Vicinity Mao. A vicinity map of the area, adequate to show the location of the
proposed mobile home park.
B. Preliminary Site Plan. The preliminary site plan shall include the entire parcel
zoned MHP or is to be zoned MHP and shall conform to the following:
1. The mobile home park name, the name and address of the developer, and the
name and address of owner or owners.
2. The date of preparation, the true north point, a graphic scale and legal
description of the MHP district.
3. Preliminary site plans shall be drawn to an appropriate engineering (decimal)
scale, preferably not less than one hundred feet to the inch.
4. Show the location of existing and proposed platted property lines, and
existing section lines, streets, buildings, water courses, railroads, bridges, and any recorded
public or private utility or roadway easements, both on the land to be subdivided and on the
adjoining lands (land that abuts the proposed subdivision), to a distance of one -hundred
(100) feet from the edge of the subject property.
5. Contours and/or elevations (at five foot intervals minimum) shall be shown
to that extent necessary to accurately predict drainage characteristics of the property.
Contour lines shall be extended at least one -hundred (100) feet beyond the boundaries of the
proposed mobile home park.
6. Give the names, locations, widths, and other dimensions of proposed streets,
alleys, easements, parks and other open spaces, reservations, and utilities.
7. Indicate the total acreage of the mobile home park; the number of lots; the
area of the smallest lot and the approximate square footage and approximate percent of total
acreage in open space.
8. Indicate the dimensions of each lot.
9. Indicate the location, dimensions and design of off-street parking facilities
within the site.
10. Indicate the proposed location and horizontal and vertical dimensions of all
buildings and structures to be located on the site.
E:3
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
11. Indicate proposed grading, drainage and landscaping plans.
12.08.254. Referral to Other City Departments and Agencies. The Planning
Department shall distribute copies of the preliminary map to the Public Works Department,
the Building Department, the Health Agency, the Fire Department, the school district, and
each of the Public Utility Agencies serving the area in which the Mobile Home Park is to be
developed. Each department or agency may file recommendations with the Planning
Department within ten 00) days of receipt of the preliminary site plan; or in the event that
a preliminary site plan meeting should be called by the Planning Department, may present
their recommendation at that time.
12.08.255. Preliminary Site Plan Meeting. The Planning Department shall compare
the applicant's tentative and preliminary site plan and shall reach a decision within three (3)
working days after the applicant's submission, as to whether a preliminary site plan meeting
is necessary. A preliminary site plan meeting may be deemed necessary when there are
significant differences between the tentative and preliminary site plans. The determination
of the necessity of a preliminary site plan meeting shall be based on the following
considerations:
A. The degree of commonality between the two plans (i.e. is the preliminary site
plan a refinement of the tentative site plan, or is it a completely new site plan for the same
property?).
B. The presence or absence of revisions present in the preliminary site plan resulting
from objections raised at the tentative site plan meeting.
12.08.256. Hearing Examiner Public Hearing.
A. The Hearing Examiner shall hold public hearings first on the proposed MHP district
(if not already zoned MHP), and then if the MHP district is approved, on a preliminary site
plan. The Hearing Examiner shall hold the public hearings on a rezone to MHP Mobile Home
Park and the preliminary site plan (Special Use - Combining District). Said applications)
shall be submitted at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next regularly scheduled public
hearing date and shall be heard by the Hearing Examiner within one hundred 0 00) days of
the date of said application --provided however, that this period may be extended in any case
for which an environmental impact statement is required. The Hearing Examiner shall forward
its recommendations to the Kent City Council. The Examiner shall file a decision with the
City Council at the expiration of the period provided for a re -hearing or within fourteen (14)
day of the conclusion of a re -hearing, if one is conducted.
. Within 30
(30) days of receipt of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation the City Council shall, at
a regular public hearing consider said recommendation.
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
B. The Planning Department shall give notice in the following manner:
1. Th'^^ "' ^^+'^^^ One notice of the public hearing shall be posted on or
adjacent to the subject property at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing.
2. One (1) notice of the public hearing shall be given in a newspaper of general
circulation at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing.
3. Net ees Notice shall be given to all property owners within at least 200 feet
and when determined by the Planning Director a greater distance of the exterior boundaries
of the property subject of the application. Such notice to be sent ten (10) days prior to the
public hearing. The failure of any property owner to receive said notice of hearing will not
invalidate the proceedings.
4. All hearing notices shall include a legal description of the location of the
proposed mobile home park and either a vicinity location sketch or a location description in
nonlegal language.
12.08.257. Health Agency Recommendation. The health agencies responsible for
approval of the proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply shall file with the
Planning Department, prior to the Hearing Examiner's public hearing on the preliminary site
plan, written statements as to the general adequacy of the proposed means of sewage
disposal and water supply.
12.08.258. City Council Action. The City Council shall hold a public hearing within
30 days of the date of receipt of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation.
12.08.259. Approval Period. Preliminary site plans of any proposed mobile home
park shall be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant for modification or
correction within ninety (90) days from the date of submission, unless the applicant consents
to an extension of such time period.
12.08.260. Expiration Date. If the use for which the MHP district site plan was
approved is not begun within one year, approval of the MHP district and preliminary site plan
shall lapse one (1) year from the date of said approval unless the City Council grants an
extension of time for a period of not greater than one (1) year.
12.08.270. INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS OR BONDING IN LIEU OF
IMPROVEMENTS.
12.08.271. Required Improvements. The following tangible improvements may be
required before a final site plan is submitted; every developer may be required to grade and
pave streets and alleys, install curbs and gutters, sidewalks, monuments, sanitary and storm
sewers, street lights, water mains and street name signs, together with all appurtenances
Ere]
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
thereto in accordance with specifications and standards of this code, approved by the Public
Works Department and in accordance with other standards of the City.
12.08.272. Inspection Approval and Fees. The Public Works Department shall be
responsible for the supervision, inspection and acceptance of all required mobile home park
improvements and shall make a charge therefore to the developer in the amount of the hourly
cost to the City of Kent. The hourly cost shall include the wages of the inspector and the
City's cost for fringe benefits calculated on an hourly basis.
12.08.273. Permits. Prior to proceeding with the mobile home park improvements,
the developer shall make application for such permits from the City as are necessary. The
developer is also responsible for complying with all permit requirements of other federal,
state and local agencies.
12.08.274. Deferred Improvements. No final site plan shall be submitted to the City
Council until all improvements are constructed in a satisfactory manner and approved by the
responsible departments or a bond has been satisfactorily posted for deferred improvements.
A. Bonds. If a developer wishes to defer certain on -site improvements until
construction, written application shall be made to the Public Works and Planning
Departments stating the reasons why such delay is necessary. If the deferment is approved,
the developer shall furnish a performance bond to the City in the amount equal to a minimum
of one hundred fifty 0 50) percent of the estimated cost of the required improvements. The
decision of the City Engineer and Planning Director as to amount of such bond shall be
conclusive.
B. Time Limit. Such bond shall list the exact work that shall be performed by the
applicant and shall specify that all of the deferred improvements be completed within the
time established by the Department of Public Works; and if no time is established, then not
later than one (1) year after approval of the final map by the City Council. The bond shall
be held by the City Clerk.
C. Check in Lieu of Bond. The developer may substitute an assignment of funds in
lieu of a performance bond. Such assignment shall be made payable to the City Treasurer
and shall be in the same amount as the bond it is substituting.
D. Proceed Against Bond or Other Security. The City reserves the right, in addition
to all other remedies available to it by law, to proceed against such bond or other payment
in lieu thereof. In case of any suit or action to enforce any provisions of this code, the
developer shall pay unto the City all costs incidental to such litigation including reasonable
attorney's fees. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City requiring payment
of such attorney's fees.
E. Binding Upon Applicant. The requirement of the posting of any performance
bond or other security shall be binding on the applicant, his heirs, successors and assigns.
11
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
F. Notification to Planning Department. The Public Works Department shall notify
the Planning Department in writing of the following: the improvements deferred, amount of
bond or check deposited, time limit of bond or check, name of bonding company, and any
other pertinent information.
12.08.275. Certificates of Completion. The Public Works Department shall submit
a certificate in duplicate to the Planning Department verifying that the developer has
completed the required installations and/or bonding in accordance with the provisions of this
code and the specifications and standards of the departments. One (1) copy of the
completed certificate shall be furnished to the developer by the Planning Department together
with a notice advising him to proceed with preparation of a final site plan for that portion of
the area in which minimum improvements have been installed and approved or adequate
security has been posted. Certificate originals shall be retained by the Planning Department.
12.08.280. FINAL SITE PLAN PROCEDURES.
A. Application.
1. Application for the final site plan approval shall be filed with the Planning
Department on forms prescribed by the Planning Department.
2. Eleven (1 1) copies of the final site plan plus the original shall be submitted.
B. Final Site Plan Requirements.
1. The final site plan shall be drawn to a scale of not less than one (1) inch
representing one hundred (100) feet unless otherwise approved by the Planning Department
on sheets eighteen (18) by twenty-two (22) inches. Five copies of the final site plan shall
be submitted.
2. Approval of the final site plan shall be evidenced by the signatures of the
Public Works Director and Planning Director on said site plan. The approved site plan shall
then be filed with the City Clerk and Planning Department.
C. Occupancy. A permit to occupy a mobile home park shall be issued by the
Building Department.
12
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
SECTION III
12.08.300. REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS.
12.08.310. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.
A. All mobile home parks shall provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable
environmental amenities and make the mobile home park development as compatible as
possible with the ecological balance of the area. The goals are to preserve drainage patterns,
prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the City
in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the developer in
creating an attractive and quality environment. Land which is found to be unsuitable for
development includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health
of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, bad drainage, steep
slopes, rock formations). Land which the City Council considers inappropriate for mobile
home park development shall not be so developed unless adequate methods are provided as
safeguards against these adverse conditions.
B. Flood Control Zone. If any portion of the land within the mobile home park is
subject to flood, or inundation, or is in a flood control zone according to RCW 86.16, that
portion of the mobile home park shall have written approval of the Department of Ecology
prior to the City Council hearing on the preliminary site plan.
C. Trees. Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees.
D. Streams.
1. Every effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
marshes and bogs.
2. If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be
presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved; methodology should include an
overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream
bed.
3. The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when
going under streets.
4. Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of
debris and pollutants.
E. National Flood Insurance Regulations. Any mobile home park lying within an area
subject to National Flood Insurance Regulations must comply with those regulations when
such regulations are more restrictive than this Code.
13
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
12.08.320. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING LAND USE AND PLANS.
A. Buffer Between Uses. Mobile home parks shall provide buffer strips along all
boundary property lines. All buffer strips shall be at least 10' in width.
B. Continuity with Improved Additions. No plan for a mobile home park shall be
approved by the City Council unless the streets shown therein are connected. by surfaced
road or street (according to City of Kent specifications) to an existing street or highway.
C. Conformity with Existing Plans. The location of all streets shall conform to any
adopted plans for streets in the City of Kent.
D. Trails Plan. If a mobile home park is located in the area of an officially designated
trail, provisions may be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City
for trail purposes.
12.08.330. GRADE AND FILL PERMIT. A grading permit shall be required as per
Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code as adopted by City of Kent, prior to any grading
or filling.
12.08.340. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS. Mobile Home Parks shall
comply with the following minimum requirements and standards:
12.08.341. Number of Units. A minimum of five (5) mobile home spaces shall be
required in a mobile home park.
12.08.342. Access. A mobile home park containing more than twenty (20) spaces
shall have at least two (2) places of access, at least one (1) of which shall be on a major or
secondary street as defined by the City of Kent Street Plan.
A fixed lighted map indicating unit numbers, and street names shall be placed at all
entrances of the mobile home park.
No entrance or exit from a mobile home park shall be closer than fifty (50) feet to a
street intersection measured from the nearest right-of-way line of the intersecting street.
One access may be for emergency use only.
12.08.343. Buffer Strip. A ten (10) foot minimum width buffer strip will be required
on all boundaries of the mobile home park. A wall, 100% sight -obscuring fence or landscape
screen shall be established along all boundaries of the park. The ten foot buffer strip inside
this sight -obscuring screen may be part of mobile home lots or may be an area maintained
by the mobile home park management.
T
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
12.08.344. Permanent Structures.
A. Permanent Dwelling. The only permanent dwelling allowed in the mobile home
park may be a single-family dwelling for the owner or manager.
B. Service Building. Service buildings are optional for mobile home parks serving
only independent mobile homes. All service buildings shall be designed to comply with
Washington State Health Department requirements.
C. Storage Buildings. A permanent storage facility may be provided for each lot.
One central storage building for the park as a whole is also permitted.
D. Mobile Home Pads Foundations. and Tiedowns. Pads for individual mobile
homes are optional on a complete development basis. No mobile home placed on such a site
shall overhang the edges of the pad. All plans and construction of pads, foundations, and
tiedowns for mobile homes are subject to approval of the City of Kent
Code Enforcement Department.
Separate permits will be required for all permanent structures.
12.08.345. Lot Size. Each mobile home lot shall contain a minimum of 3,000 square
feet. Lot widths shall be as follows:
Type of Unit
Minimum Lot Width
Single
40 feet
Double
50 feet
Actual lot dimensions shall be determined by the dimensions of the particular mobile home
which the particular lot is designed to accommodate together with the setback and
separation requirements.
12.08.346. Setbacks. A standard setback of five (5) feet is required from side and
rear lot lines. A ten (10) foot setback is required from the front lot line defined as that lot
line facing the access street or the shorter lot line of a corner lot. All setbacks are subject
to a minimum separation requirement of fifteen (15) feet between mobile homes and
appurtenant structures and other mobile homes or permanent structures. On a corner lot,
the side street side yard setback shall be ten (10) feet. For lots abutting the perimeter of the
mobile home park, the five foot rear yard setback shall be measured from the inside of the
ten (10) foot buffer strip. Each site shall be clearly defined by a permanent marker. This
marker must be clearly visible from a vehicle located on the road providing direct access to
the lot.
12.08.347. Lot Coverage. No more than forty (40) per cent of any lot shall be
covered by a mobile home and enclosed accessory structures (excludes open carports).
15
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
12.08.348. Density. The density of the mobile home park shall not exceed the
density of the underlying zone and in any case shall not exceed nine (9) units per gross acre.
12.08.349. Common open Soace. A ratio of at least five hundred (500) square feet
of common open space area exclusive of area contained in individual lots shall be provided
for each mobile home lot. Paved and floor areas of enclosed structures devoted exclusively
to recreation may be counted as common open space area.
12.08.350. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided within the ten (10) foot
buffer strip according to a detailed landscape plan approved by the Planning Department.
Completion of said detailed landscape plan and the actual installation of such landscaping or
the alternative bonding of same shall be a condition of the preliminary site plan approval for
any mobile home park.
If the installation of the approved landscaping is to be delayed by bonding a surety
bond of not less than one thousand (1000) dollars per gross acre of the Mobile Home Park
Subdivision shall be prepared guaranteeing to the City of Kent the landscaping of the mobile
home park in accordance with the approved plan. The amount of the landscape bond will
be determined by the Planning Department.
12.08.351. Streets, Curbs and Sidewalks.
A. Public Streets. In certain areas due to existing or planned circulation systems it
may be necessary for the City of Kent to require public rights -of -way to be provided within
the mobile home park development. When the provision of such rights -of -way is necessary
the right-of-way width, paving width, and other standards shall be the same as would be
required had the mobile home park development not taken place. The mobile home park
perimeter buffering requirement shall be applied along these rights -of -way.
Public streets will be required, however, only when absolutely necessary.
B. Non -Public Streets. Ownership of park streets not open to public circulation shall
remain with the park ownership and shall be their responsibility to maintain. These streets
shall have asphaltic or concrete surface and concrete or asphalt curbing shall be provided
along both sides of all streets except where curb cuts are necessary for driveways. The
minimum paving width for all streets within the mobile home park shall be thirty (30) feet.
12.08.352. Parking. Each mobile home lot shall have a minimum of two on -site
automobile parking spaces. If parking for recreational vehicles will be permitted, the mobile
home park shall provide screened secure parking and storage areas for boats, campers, travel
trailers, and related devices on a ratio of one space per ten mobile homes in secluded
portions of the park. One additional parking space for every ten mobile home spaces shall
be provided for guest parking. No parking for any reasons other than emergencies shall be
allowed on any street within the mobile home park.
16
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
12.08.353. Illumination. Sufficient illumination shall be provided between sunset and
sunrise to illuminate adequately the roadways and walkways within the mobile home park.
Plans for illumination must be approved by the Engineering Department.
12.08.354. Installation of Utilities. All utilities designed to serve the mobile home
park shall be placed underground. Any utilities located in a planting strip shall be placed in
such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees.
Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Public Works Department; such installation shall be
completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be
required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Engineering
Department.
A. Sanitary Sewers. Sanitary sewers shall be provided at no cost to the City and
designed in accordance with City standards.
B. Storm Drainage. An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper
drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural
water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full width roadway and required slopes.
The size openings to be provided shall be determined by Talbot's formula, but in no case
shall be less than twelve (12) inches. All mobile home parks must comply with City drainage
ordinances.
C. Water System. The water distribution system including the location of fire
hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by
Engineering and Fire Department ordinances and requirements.
D. Electrical Hook-uos. All electrical hook-ups shall comply with the National
Electrical Code. Permits shall be obtained from the Washington State Electrical Inspection
Division.
12.08.360. MOBILE HOME PARK ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. May be
substituted in its entirety only fee Seetiens 10, 13 of Seetien*' -+
Design. at Sections 12.08.346 12.08.347 12.08.348 12.08 350 and 12.08 353
As an alternative to use of the established pattern of mobile home park development,
the developer may adopt a plan which divides the mobile home park into specific areas for
mobile homes, for recreation, and for service uses.
A. Mobile Home Areas. Mobile homes may be located within this area with no
regular lot divisions. A plan of site locations clearly showing the maximum dimensions of
any mobile home and related structures to be placed at each site shall be substituted for
appropriate portions of the preliminary and final site plan requirements.
17
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
Limitations to be observed. The required fifteen (15) foot separation between mobile
homes must be observed as well as setbacks of twenty (20) feet from the perimeter, ten
(10) feet from the limits of any recreation and open space area, ten (10) feet from any
interior park street and five (5) feet from any walkway. A passage clear of any permanent
obstruction must be available to each mobile home site of sufficient clearance to enable the
movement of the mobile home to that site. No part of any mobile home shall be located
more than one hundred fifty (150) feet from an access road. All sites shall be identified by
site numbers in four (4) inch minimum height numerals placed so as to be clearly visible from
a vehicle located on the access road. A minimum of two (2) parking places shall be provided
for each mobile home site at a distance of no more than one hundred fifty (150) feet from
said site. One additional parking space shall be provided every ten (10) mobile home sites
for guest parking. One screened secure parking space for every ten (10) mobile home sites
shall be provided for recreational vehicle parking in a secluded portion of the park. All areas
between mobile home sites shall be seeded or sodded with grass or lawn and shall be
maintained by the mobile home park management.
B. Common Ogen Sgace. A ratio of at least five hundred (500) square feet of
common open space shall be provided for each mobile home. Paved and floor areas of
enclosed structures devoted exclusively to recreation may be counted as common open
space.
C. Service Area. Service buildings may be placed within or adjacent to a mobile
home area. In such case a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet shall be maintained between
the service building and adjacent mobile homes.
EN
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
12 08 380 NONCONFORMING MOBILE HOME PARK STANDARDS
To assure reasonable opportunity for the continued use of existing mobile home parks
Jcreated prior to the adoption of the Mobile Home Park Code and therefore not in compliance
with all or some of the development standards reauired herein said parks shall be considered
legal nonconforming uses The following minimum standards shall apply to the placement
or relocation of individual mobile homes and recreational vehicles within nonconforming
mobile home parks and to the construction of accessory structures.
A site plan drawn to scale that shows the perimeter park boundaries; the dimensions
of all existing mobile home lots the location of all existing mobile homes accessory
buildings utility hookups and internal roadways shall be submitted in conjunction with
permit application for placement or relocation of individual mobile homes or
construction of accessory buildings.
The placement or relocation of individual mobile homes in nonconforming mobile
home parks shall be subiect to the minimum separation standards of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA 501 A Section 4-2 1.1) as adopted by reference in the
Kent Municipal Code Chapter 13 02 080 Lot coverage or parking reauirements need
not apply. See diagram 12 08 380-2 for required placement standards.
3) All new construction of accessory structures in a nonconforming park or the
remodeling of existing structures shall be subject to the separation standards of the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 501A Section 4-4.1) as adopted by
reference in the Kent Municipal Code Chapter 13.08.080. Not more than one
accessory structure shall be allowed on each mobile home lot. Lot coverage
reauirements need not apply. See diagram 1 2 08 380-3 for reauired placement
standards.
4) Any recreational vehicle that is not in storage as specified in this code and is currently
in use as a permanent dwelling unit at the time of adoption of these nonconforming
provisions shall be considered a legal nonconforming use Such a vehicle may be
replaced by a similar vehicle at the exact mobile home lot upon approval by the
Building Official.
Any mobile home lot within a nonconforming mobile home park that does not meet
the lot size reauirements shall be considered a legal nonconforming mobile home lot
for purposes of relocating mobile homes or constructing accessory buildings.
6) No nonconforming mobile home park boundaries shall be expanded nor shall any
additional mobile home lots be created as a result of these provisions. Any new
expansion shall be subiect to the provisions of the Mobile Home Park Code.
19
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
J
Diagram 12.08.380 - 2
Minimum NONCONFORMING Mobile Home Park Separations
Reference: NFPA 4-2.1.1 /Kent Municipal Code Chapter 13 02 080
The following example illustrates the minimum separation standards for the placement of
mobile homes/manufactured homes in nonconforming mobile home parks
MINIMUMS
10' SIDE TO SIDE
8' END TO SIDE
6' END TO END
6' DIAGONALLY
Side A
(Interior Park Driveway)
Any portion of a mobile home/manufactured home shall not be located closer than 10 feet
side to side. 8 feet end to side. 6 feet end to end horizontally or 6 feet diagonally from any
other mobile home/manufactured home or community building_
No portion of a mobile home/manufactured home can encroach on an internal driveway,
Standard zoning setbacks shall be maintained on all park boundaries and nonconforming
setbacks must be verified by the Kent Planning Department.
The site plan must reflect adiacent Dark spaces and separations between units and accessory
structures and roads.
Additional permits and review may be reg ired by other agencies or City departments as a
result of the placement of a mobile home/manufactured home
If you have further ouestions please contact the Kent Code Enforcement Division of the Fire
Department at 859-3360.
NOTE: Constrvction of a fire resistive wall may decrease reouired separation distances
20
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
Diagram 12.08.380 - 3
When constructing
new structures
in a nonconforming
mobile home park or when
remodeling existing
structures the
following
minimum setbacks/separations between
structures and mobile
homes/manufactured
homes
shall be required..
MINIMUMS
5' to site line (combustible
construction)
3' to adjacent structure (non-
combustible construction)
Proposed combustible:
Proposed noncombustible: _ Q
Existing (combustible)
noncombustible):
NOTE: Construction of a fire -
resistive well may decrease
required setback distances.
r
(Interior Imrk drlvevuy) Side a
Propose structures to be constructed of combustible materials shall not be locatedoser
than five feet from any park space line Structures of noncombustible material shall be
nermitted to be located immediately adiacent to a park space provided that they are not less
than three feet from any building or structure on an adjacent site.
No portion of a mobile home/manufactured home or accessory structure can encroach on an
internal driveway.
Standard zoning setbacks shall be maintained on all park boundaries and nonconforming
setbacks must be verified.
The site plan must reflect adiacent park spaces setbacks and separations between units and
accessory structures and roads.
Additional permits and review may be required by other agencies and City departments as
a result of the placement of a mobile home/manufactured home or accessory structure.
21
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
SECTION III
12.08.400. EXCEPTIONS PENALTIES LIABILITY, SEVERABILITY.
12.08.410. EXCEPTIONS.
A. Exceotion Reauirements. The Hearing Examiner may recommend to the City
Council an exception from the requirements of this code when, in its opinion, undue hardship
may be created as a result of strict compliance with the provisions of this code. In
recommending any exception, the Hearing Examiner may prescribe conditions that it deems
necessary to or desirable for the public interest. No exceptions shall be recommended unless
the Hearing Examiner finds:
1. That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said
property such that the strict application of the provisions of this code would deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use or development of his land;
2. That the exception is necessary to insure such property the rights and
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances.
3. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property in the vicinity.
B. Aoalications Required. Application for any exception shall be submitted in
writing by the applicant at the time the preliminary site plan is submitted to the Planning
Department. The application shall state fully all substantiating facts and evidence pertinent
to the request.
12.08.420. PENALTIES.
A. Any person, firm, corporation or association, or any agent of any person, firm,
corporation or association who violates the provisions of this code shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction be subject to a fine not to exceed five hundred (500)
dollars for each such violation, or imprisonment for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days,
or both such fine and imprisonment.
12.08.430. LIABILITY. City Not Liable. This code shall not be construed to relieve
from or lessen the responsibility of any person owning any land or building, constructing or
modifying any mobile home park in the City for damages to anyone injured or damaged either
in person or property by any defect therein; nor shall the City or any agent thereof be held
as assuming such liability by reason of any preliminary or final approval or by issuance of any
permits or certificates authorized herein.
22
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
12.08.440. SEVERABILITY. If any part or portion of this code is determined to be
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such determination shall not affect the
remainder of this code.
City of Kent
Revised Printing 6191
forms1:a:mhpcode.91
23
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITEE MINUTES
APRIL 16, 1991
be a discussion of the advantages of annexing to the City of Kent and the
timelines as to when this would occur. The Annexation Committee is asking
for the Planning Committee to agree with this proposal.
Mr. Harris passed out a Fiscal Impact Summary Sheet giving the fiscal
impact of annexing the West Hill Area. The estimated revenues coming in
would be $42,366. The expenditures would be $38,017. A Comparison of
taxes was also presented. Compared with the County, there is a much
narrower advantage of only $53.00 based on property taxes for a $100,000
home in the City of Kent.
At the same time, Don Wickstrom is continuing to work on Area #3, which Don
has broken down into six subareas. Mr. Harris pointed out on a map in more
detail the area that Don Wickstrom is working on. Leona Orr reported that
this was discussed at the Public Works Committee on April 16. Since there
seems to be more of a negative financial impact, the Committee did not feel
comfortable making a recommendation but ask that this proposed annexation
be brought to the City Council on May 7 to let the City Council decide
whether or not to proceed with Area #3.
Councilmember Leona Orr MOVED and Councilmember Christi Houses SECONDED the
motion to send this issue to the City Council on the consent calendar with
the Planning Committee's recommendation for the administrators on the
Annexation Committee to move forward on Area #1. Motion carried.
MOBILE HOME PARK CODE AMENDMENT (C. Proud)
Senior Planner Carol Proud passed out a memorandum to the Committee
members. She stated that the Planning Department received a regulatory
review request from a mobile home park owner asking to amend the siting
criteria for moving mobile homes onto individual lots in an existing park.
The section that is being asked to be revised is Section 1.3 para. 3 which
states:
"Any units brought into an existing mobile home park; any mobile home
relocated on its own lot or onto any other lot; any additions to the
structure or structures present on any lot (e.g storage buildings,
canopies, decks, patios, fences, etc.) must comply with this code as
well as all other applicable City codes and regulations. .
Ms. Proud mentioned that King County is no longer issuing siting or
relocation permits for individual mobile home units in existing parks. As
specified in the City's Mobile Home Park Code (Section 1.4), the duty has
been turned over to the Building Official. The Building Official has
denied relocation permits because the code does not permit relocating
individual mobile home units that cannot meet requirements and standards
for new parks. The size of newer units are typically wider and longer than
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
APRIL 16, 1991
what parks were originally designed to accommodate. Carol summed this up
by stating we have a nonconforming situation with no relief for mobile park
owners.
Ms. Proud said that this matter is being brought directly to the Planning
Committee's attention (rather than first to the Planning Commission) as a
result of Section 2 of the adopting ordinance No. 2077, which calls for the
City Council to hear amendments to the Mobile Home Park ordinance.
There has been inquiries from park managers, realtors, and tenants
regarding the proposed amendment(s). Since all of these people have
definite views and opinions, these all will be included in the process.
Carol said that staff will prepare a written report and recommendation to
the Council that will include responses from the public and other city
departments. The Planning staff proposes to bring the matter to the City
Council for a public hearing subject to a time schedule of events as
follows:
Week of April 15
Meeting with King County Housing Authority. Bring
matter to City Council Planning Committee. Route
proposal to other City Departments for comment.
Week of April 29
Conduct meeting with Mobile Home Park Owners and
Managers Association.
Week of May 6
Conduct meeting with Mobile Home Owners and Tenants
Association.
Week of May 20
Public Notice of request soliciting comments and date
of public hearing. Council set hearing date at May 21,
1991 meeting.
Week
of
May 27
Prepare staff
recommendation
to City Council.
Week
of
June 3
City Council
public hearing
at June 4, 1991 meeting.
Planning Manager Satterstrom expressed that King County is in the same boat
as the City in terms of when a mobile home moves out of a mobile home park,
then in relocating the new mobile home in that park it is very difficult.
They have minimum standards for distance between mobile homes in the
County.
Councilmember Leona Orr MOVED and Councilmember Christi Houser SECONDED it
to concur with the described process and direct the Planning Department to
proceed with the regulatory review. Motion carried.
3
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6, 1991
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: SENIOR HOUSING ALLEY VACATION NO. STV-91-01
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: An application has been made by Morgan
Llewellyn to vacate a portion of the alley lying between Smith
Street and Harrison Street and Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue.
3. EXHIBITS: Staff report, map and application
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
M.
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS-
f.
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTI N:
Councilmember �'moves, Councilmember� seconds
approve/rhisapprovg/xfibdif-y the Planning Department's recommenda-
tion of approval of an application to vacate a portion of the
alley lying between Smith Street and Harrison Street and Fourth
Avenue and Fifth Avenue and direct the City Attorney to prepare
the necessary ordinance without requiring compensation.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B`(
ITCITY OF AI
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
derll ��e MEMORANDUM
August 6, 1991
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PORTION OF SMITH & HARRISON #STV-91-1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION TO
VACATE A PORTION OF THE ALLEY LYING BETWEEN SMITH
STREET AND HARRISON STREET AND FOURTH AVENUE AND
FIFTH AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
I. Name of Applicant
Morgan Llewellyn
P. O. Box 902
Kent, WA 98035
II. Reason for Requesting Vacation
The applicant states, "Vacation is being sought to allow
construction of the Kent Senior Housing Project."
III. Staff Recommendation
After reviewing comments from the following departments and
agencies:
. Public Works
- Comment
The Public Works Department states, "This is
unopened City right of way dedicated to the City
as part of the plat. The City has had no main-
tenance expenses involved with this portion of the
alley. Under Ordinance 2333, this alley right of
way would be classified a Class "C" right of way
which could be vacated without requiring compen-
sation therefor.
As such, the Public Works Department recommends
approval of the vacation with no conditions or
compensation required."
Memo To: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
August 6, 1991
Page 2
. Fire
and conducting our own review, the Planning Department
recommends that the request to vacate a -portion of the Alley
as mentioned in Resolution 1285 and shown on the accompanying
map, be APPROVED.
JPH/mp:STV91.1
m
N
a
FOUR T H
0
m
Qj
o
a--
v-
c�
o
�
n
m
AVE t--40E-
MAIL TO:
Gerald B. McCaughan t
CITY OF KENT
220 So. 4th Ave.
Kent, WA 98032
,
APPLICANT;
'Hanle: Morgan Llewellyn
Address: P. 0. Box 902
0;1P Kent, WA 98035-0902
Phone; — (206) 852-1898
STREET AND/OR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PETITION
Dear Mayor and Kent City Council:
We, the undersigned abutting property owners, hereby respectfully request that
certain hereby be vacated. (General Location)
Legal Description
That part of the'dedicated alley lying between lots 1& 18,
Block 16, Yeslers 1st Addition to Kent., Vol. 5, Page 64 in
King Count.v Washington
BRIEF STATEMENT WIIY VACATION IS BEING SOUGHT
Vacation is being sought to allow construction of the
Kent Senior Housing Project
Sufficient proof; copy of deed contract etc. supported by King County
Tax Rolls shall be submitted for verification of signatures. Without
these a "CURRENT" title report shall be required. When Corporations,
Partnerships•etc. are being signed for, then proof of individual's
authority to sign for same shall also be submitted.
Attach a color coded map of a scale of not less than 1" = 200' of the area
sought for vacation. (NOTE) Map must correspond with legal description.
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT N
SIGNATURES AND ADDRESSES LOT, BLOCK & PLAT/SEC. TWN. RG
Tax Acct # 982570-1045-04
Lot Blk Yeslers 1st Add t
IL--, �. _ Vol 5, Pq 64, King County WA
1d Byers
Kent
Tax ACCt # 982570-1130-00
Lot 18, Blk 16, Yeslerslst Add to Kent
Vol 5, Pd 64 in KindCounty, WA
$150.00 Fee Paid K�' I� Treasurer's Receipt No. -I of\Y—
Appraisal Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No.
Land Value Paid Treasurer's Receipt No.
Deed Accepted Date__
Trade Accepted Date_ _
6224-33A
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. City Council Action: �/ 1 Y1
Councilmember moves, Councilmembq, U"iI
seconds that Consent C endar Items A through be approved.
Discuss
Acti
�3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council
July 16, 1991, with the following correction to
page 2:
"...231 lineal feet of 8" sanitary sewer and 2
in the vicinity of Bridges Avenue..."
should read
meeting of
Item 3L on
catch basins
"...231 lineal feet of 8" storm sewer in the vicinity of
Bridges Avenue..."
B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through July 31, 1991
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
4:45 p.m. on August 13, 1991.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date
Check Numbers
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date
Check Numbers
Amount
Amount
Council Agerva,�
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
July 16, 1991
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7:00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Dowell,
Mann, Orr, White and Woods, City Administrator Chow, City
Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works
Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford,
Finance Director McCarthy, Assistant City Administrator Hansen,
Information Services Director Spang and Personnel Director Olson.
Councilmembers Johnson and Houser each arrived at approximately
7:30 p.m. Parks Director Wilson was not in attendance. Approxi-
mately 60 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC oath of Office. Police Chief Crawford introduced
COMMUNICATIONS four new Police Officers: Patrick Ellis, Thomas
Reiner, Mica Smith and Christopher Sprague. He
stated that he is very pleased to have these new
officers, and the Oath of Office was administered
by the Deputy City Clerk.
Murals. At the Mayor's request, Liz Carpenter of
the Parks Department displayed designs for murals
to be placed in three parks within the next six
months. The Mayor noted that Japanese artists
submitted artwork depicting Kent's Sister City,
Kaibara, and that the artwork selected is of a
bridge which is over 1000 years old. This mural
will be located in Kaibara Park. The artist will
be brought to Kent for the opening. Ms. Carpenter
noted that there will be two murals at First
Avenue Plaza, one on each side of the narrow park.
The murals will be of a garden with a view of Mt.
Rainier. The third mural will be placed on the
Rasmussen Building. This mural by Danny Pierce
deals with the history of the building, which has
been a blacksmith shop and an auto dealership.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar items B through
CALENDAR L be approved. Mann seconded and the motion car-
ried. Item 3A, Approval of Minutes, was removed
at the request of Bill Doolittle.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF BILL DOOLITTLE
Approval of Minutes. Bill Doolittle, 412 N.
Washington, stated that the minutes of the last
Council meeting did not accurately reflect his
position regarding the municipal court. He
clarified that his suggestion to study Auburn was
1
July 16, 1991
MINUTES a side issue, and that his point was that there
was no demonstrated need to break away and form a
municipal court; also, that there were so many
open-ended cost figures that the issue should be
looked at closer before voting to break away and
form a municipal court.
Doolittle pointed out that at the same meeting
where the Council voted to establish a court with
the idea of locating it in the Council Chambers,
they approved a piece of artwork to go on one of
the walls of the Chambers. He requested that the
cost of the artwork for the Council Chambers,
which will be remodeled into a municipal court, be
a part of the minutes.
WHITE MOVED that the minutes be adopted with Mr.
Doolittle's suggested changes. Dowell seconded.
Liz Carpenter of the Parks Department noted for
Woods that the cost of the artwork for the
Chambers is $10,000. The motion carried.
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
SANITATION Foremost Tools. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale
and warranty agreement submitted by Don Johnson/
Foremost Tools for continuous operation and main-
tenance of approximately 231 lineal feet of 8"
sanitary sewer and 2 catch basins in the vicinity
of Bridges Avenue and Russell Avenue and release
of cash bond after expiration of the one-year
maintenance period.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Water Comprehensive Plan - Conservation Element.
APPROVAL to develop and include as an Addendum to
the City's Water Comprehensive Plan, a Water Con-
servation Plan and Program meeting the elements of
King County Ordinance #9461, as recommended by the
Public Works Committee.
STREETS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A-2)
Street Closures - Canterbury Faire. City Attorney
Lubovich noted that Canterbury Faire will be held
on August 17 and 18, 1991, and that some streets
will have to be closed for the event. He sug-
gested that an ordinance authorizing such street
closures be adopted, and added that passage of the
2
July 16, 1991
STREETS ordinance would provide for public notice of the
closures. WHITE MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2987
relating to the closure of certain public streets.
Dowell seconded and the motion carried.
TRANSPORTATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
IMPROVEMENT Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. This
PLAN date has been set for a public hearing on the
City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan.
Ed White, Transportation Engineer, noted that this
year's TIP consists of 44 projects, 5 of which are
corridor projects, 16 are street/roadway improve-
ment projects, 8 are intersection improvements, 9
are signalization improvements and 6 are other
transportation system needs. He said that the
total capital construction cost is $94 million,
and that $51 million is for first -year projects.
He noted that 16 of the TIP projects are earmarked
for funding in full or in part through this year's
Capital Improvement Program. He noted that the
2nd and 3rd year projects were considered highly
but did not make the annual element list because
of revenues. He added that the 4th, 5th and 6th
year projects are long-term projects, or funding
for them is obscure. White noted for Mann that
the signal improvement on Military and Reith Road
is part of the 1990 plan and will be modified
within the next several months.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open.
Suzette Cooke of the Chamber of Commerce requested
that they be involved in updating the Transporta-
tion Comprehensive Plan and asked that bicycle
routes be considered, possibly using sidewalks.
She also asked that the signalization improvements
on 4th Avenue and Smith Street take place before
the Senior Housing opens. Mann noted that a
hearing will be held in the near future regarding
the possibility of developing a City-wide compre-
hensive biking policy.
Charles Kieffer noted that because of traffic,
pedestrians have trouble crossing streets, and
asked whether pedestrian by-passes are included in
the plan. White explained that they do not appear
in the plan -because an inventory of pedestrian -
oriented systems has not been done. He noted for
John Kieffer that the City has been working with
3
July 16, 1991
TRANSPORTATION Metro on light rail alternatives but that they
IMPROVEMENT have not come up with any concrete alignments
PLAN through the City. He noted that when such devel-
opments occur, they will appear in the TIP.
Chris Grant, 26302 Woodland Way South, suggested
synchronization of signal lights on Central
Avenue, Smith Street, Willis Street, Washington
Avenue and possibly S. 212th, as a way of moving
traffic without building new streets. He also
mentioned building an underpass at S.E. 256th and
104th Avenue S.E.
There were no further comments and WHITE MOVED to
close the public hearing. Mann seconded and the
motion carried. WHITE MOVED that Resolution 1288
be adopted. Dowell seconded and the motion
carried.
GREEN RIVER (BIDS - ITEM 5A)
LEVEE Green River Levee Improvement. The bid opening
for the Green River Levee Improvement Project was
held on July 16, 1991. Public Works Director
Wickstrom noted that two bids were received and
that the low bid was submitted by JLR, Inc. in the
amount of $263,397.21. He recommended that the
project be awarded to the low bidder. He noted
for White that funds are available for the
project. WHITE THEN MOVED that the project be
awarded to JLR, Inc. in the amount of $263,397.21.
Woods seconded and the motion carried.
MOBILE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
HOME CODE Mobile Home Code Amendment. AUTHORIZATION to set
AMENDMENT August 6, 1991, for a public hearing to consider
an amendment to the Mobile Home Code.
PLANNED (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
UNIT Planned Unit Development (PUD). AUTHORIZATION for
DEVELOPMENT the Planning Commission to review the section of
the PUD ordinance which permits multi -family type
development in single-family zones, as recommended
by the Council Planning Committee.
HAZARDOUS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
WASTE Metro YMCA Proposal - Hazard Free Community.
AUTHORIZATION for the Public Works Director to
advise Metro YMCA that, due to staff limitations
4
July 16, 1991
HAZARDOUS attributed to the present budgetary constraints,
WASTE the City declines involvement in the Metro YMCA
Hazard Free Community Program, as recommended by
the Public Works Committee.
BUDGET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B)
1992 Budget Priorities. Tonight's meeting has
been set to receive public input on the 1992
budget priorities. This meeting is held prior to
Council prioritization of departmental proposals
in August so that input received can be used in
that prioritization process. The process has been
established over a number of years but this year
the budget scenario is different. Over the last
number of years the City has had additional funds
to allocate but this year departments have been
asked to propose 10 percent cuts in their depart-
mental budget as a possible budget balancing
alternative.
Finance Director McCarthy noted that the budget is
projected to be out of balance by nearly $4
million by the end of 1992. He stated that
although revenues for next year are projected to
be 5.7% above this year's, costs related to labor
contracts, health coverage, etc., are also
increasing. McCarthy noted that some options are
to use some of the General Fund contingency, to
make one-time transfers from other funds, and to
increase the utility tax.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Peter
Maurer, representing the Human Services Commis-
sion, noted that because of the economic downturn,
agencies are seeing many more people in need of
food, emergency shelter and other vital programs.
He stated that it is more important than ever to
maintain the 1% funding for the Human Services
Commission for 1992.
There were no further comments and WOODS MOVED
that the public hearing be closed. Mann seconded
and the motion carried. The Mayor pointed out
that no action is required at this time.
CAPITAL (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2C)
IMPROVEMENT 1992-1997 Capital Improvement Program_ This date
PROGRAM has been set to receive public input on the 1992-
5
July 16, 1991
CAPITAL 1997 Capital Improvement Program. The program is
IMPROVEMENT balanced over a six -year period based on Mayor/
PROGRAM Council target issues, community input, and de-
partmental priorities. Based on projected
available revenue, approximately $30,000,000 in
projects are proposed for funding out of
$120,000,000 in net project requests.
Finance Director McCarthy explained the sources of
revenue and the type of projects they could be
used for. He noted that a questionnaire was
mailed out with utility bills and that the results
indicated interest in preservation of streams and
wetlands, preservation of farmlands and open
space, expanded recycling, commuter rail,
East/West arterials, improved storm drainage, and
preservation of critical wildlife. He noted that
the Parks Department Comprehensive Plan could be
added to the list of projects, as well as matching
funds for a Cultural Arts Center. McCarthy
explained that alternatives include deferring
action until budget decisions have been made, re -
prioritizing the projects, issuance of council -
manic debt, having a voted bond issue, and in-
creasing taxes. He noted for White that $5,000
will be funded in 1992 to upgrade the signal com-
puter and that the rest will be funded in 1993.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Bill
Doolittle, 412 N. Washington, noted that at the
last Council meeting, action was taken to withdraw
from Aukeen Court and establish a municipal court.
He indicated that the operating cost would be
about $280,000 a year, based on locating the Court
in the Council Chambers. He noted that the
proposed remodeling of the Chambers to accommodate
the Court is estimated to cost $50,000-100,000,
and that the remodel could not take place until
the Police Department has moved into the remodeled
library, which would be in late 1992 or early
1993. He questioned what makes up the $1,015,000
CIP request for 1992 and 1993 since the Court has
been presented as not being viable before 1993.
McCarthy responded that the CIP list of projects
was developed several months ago, at which time
the proposal was to have the municipal court in
the downtown area. He noted that the figure has
not been changed so that as analysis continues and
.,,
July 16, 1991
CAPITAL decisions are made, the funds will still be avail -
IMPROVEMENT able. Doolittle voiced concern about the survey
PROGRAM which was sent out with utility bills, noting that
people who live in apartments did not receive the
survey. He pointed out that apartment dwellers
comprise two-thirds of the population of the City,
and, therefore, two-thirds of the population was
automatically eliminated from participation. He
added that the CIP projects were weighted because
of the survey results and that if feedback from
the survey was taken out, the positions would
change. He stated that prioritization of these
projects should either be done without the results
of the survey or with input from 100% of the citi-
zens of Kent. McCarthy explained that a bulk
mailing to all addresses would cost about $4,000
and that this mailing was free since it went with
utility bills. He noted for White that 508 people
responded to the questionnaire. White pointed out
that that means less than 1% of the population is
determining the CIP priorities. McCarthy noted
for Woods that the responses received were not
from City of Kent residents only. Woods pointed
out that much of Kent's utility service area is
outside the city limits and the survey results do
not reflect that. McCarthy noted that the
projects could be repricritized deleting the
survey results, and the Mayor agreed that such a
list should be prepared.
Charles Kieffer noted that the City has applied
for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers re-
garding the Kent Springs Transmission Main
project. He distributed copies of various letters
requesting that the permit be denied, and asked
that the Council consider these letters when dis-
cussing the CIP. WOODS MOVED to make the letters
a part of the record. White seconded and the
motion carried. John Kieffer requested a copy of
the CIP and the priority list which excludes the
survey results.
Hugh Leiper spoke regarding the proposal for a
Cultural Arts Center. He pointed out that
Bellevue is currently building a 4-level conven-
tion center and 400-seat theater at a cost of
$99.66 sq. ft. He urged the Council to develop a
complete plan before considering funding.
7
July 16, 1991
CAPITAL Chris Grant, 26302 Woodland Way South, urged con -
IMPROVEMENT tinued support for the Police and Fire depart -
PROGRAM ments. He voiced concern about the amount of
water available in the future and suggested doing
a study of water usage and possibly starting the
budget process to acquire a new reservoir or
holding tanks. He also suggested allocating funds
to study improving water transmission. Grant
urged the Council to consider purchasing land for
a park and ride lot to use in conjunction with
commuter rail.
There were no further comments and WOODS MOVED to
close the public hearing. Houser seconded and the
motion carried. McCarthy noted that the prioriti-
zation list without the survey results would be
ready for discussion at the work session on the
budget. No further action was required.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the
bills received through July 15, 1991 after audit-
ing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
4:45 p.m. on July 23, 1991.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/29-7/15/91 107030-107115 $2,238,683.77
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
7/19/91 01157862-01158655 $ 654,634.69
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
RECREATION East Hill Neighborhood Park - Landscape Architect
Contract. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to enter
into a contract with Colie Hough of Hough Beck &
Baird to do the design, bid documents and con-
struction administration of East Hill Park.
N.
July 16, 1991
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
RECREATION Rasmussen Building Mural. APPROVAL of the
selection of Kent artist Danny Pierce to create an
oil painting dealing with Kent history which will
then be painted as a mural on the south wall of
the Rasmussen Building (facing Meeker Street) in
downtown Kent. The painting and mural will be the
property of the City of Kent. The wall owners
will sign a lease agreement not to remove or
destroy the mural. The painting will be displayed
as part of the City's portable art collection.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Old Fishing Hole Park. AUTHORIZATION to purchase
a totem pole by David Boxley to be installed at
the Old Fishing Hole Park. The totem pole was
created by Tsimshain Master Carver David Boxley
for the Museum of History and Industry.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
First Avenue Plaza Mural. APPROVAL of the
selection of Don Barrie to paint a mural at First
Avenue Plaza Park. The mural will be painted on
sections of the north and south walls. The theme
of the mural is a tromp 1'oeil ("food the eye"
realism) garden that will also include landscaping
(done separately) to give the park a feeling of
more space.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
Kaibara Park Mural. APPROVAL of the selection of
artwork by a Kaibara artist to be made into an
enamel panel mural for Kaibara Park in downtown
Kent. A professional enamel artist and sign com-
pany will transform the original art into durable
enameled panels which will be mounted on a sign
framework that resembles a torii, the traditional
Japanese gate/archway. The winning Kaibara artist
will come to Kent for the mural dedication and
will receive round trip airfare in lieu of payment
for their design, as was done in the case of the
Kherson mural.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A-1)
Golf Course Study. The Parks Committee met
earlier this date to discuss the Golf Course
Study. Council President Woods noted that the
Parks Committee did not take action on this item
9
July 16, 1991
PARKS & and asked that the item be removed from tonight's
RECREATION agenda. Upon Houser's question, Dowell explained
(Golf Course that the Committee wishes to discuss this issue
Study) with the Parks Director, who has been unavailable.
He noted that a meeting with him is not scheduled
at this time.
FIRE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
DEPARTMENT Fire Station Construction. Martin Kist, President
of Mar Jon Contractors, builders of the North End
Fire Station and the Headquarters Training Sta-
tion, noted that he and approximately 20 subcon-
tractors in attendance tonight are concerned about
the length of time it has taken for the two
projects to be accepted. He noted that it took
eighteen months to accept the North End Fire Sta-
tion and start the one-year warranty period, and
that the Headquarters Training Center has been in
use for one year and has not yet been accepted.
Kist explained that they have received approxi-
mately 25 punch lists for each project, and that
the contractors are being used as maintenance men.
He noted that this is very costly to the contrac-
tors, who did not allow for maintenance in their
bids. Linda Bowman of Tacoma Door and Frame noted
that most of the punch list items were adjustments
of doors, which is a maintenance item.
Mayor Kelleher suggested that the issue be looked
at by the Public Safety Committee. Dowell pointed
out that it would be difficult for the contractors
to attend a committee meeting during business
hours and suggested discussing this issue after
tonight's Council meeting. Public Safety Commit-
tee members Mann and Orr noted for the Mayor that
a special meeting could be scheduled. City Attor-
ney Lubovich stated that representatives from the
Law Department and Administration would be avail-
able to meet with the contractors on Friday
morning. The Mayor agreed, noting that if that
time is not convenient for all concerned, a
special committee meeting should be scheduled.
We
July 16, 1991
REPORTS Operations Committee. Mayor Kelleher noted that
the recommendations of the Management Study had
been approved at the last Council meeting. He
stated that the first recommendation involves the
creation of the Office of the City Clerk. He
noted that this item will be discussed at the next
Operations Committee meeting.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
r
Brenda Jacober, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
11
IN V
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6, 1991
Category Consent Calendar
f 1. SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
�.�
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment
of Kent Morrill to the Kent Planning Commission replacing Willie
Gregory who resigned.
3. EXHIBITS: Memo from Mayor
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor Kelleher
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
econds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C �(
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCI RESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
DATE: JULY 22, 1991
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF KENT MORRILL TO KENT PLANNING COMMISSION.
I have recently appointed Kent Morrill to serve as a member of the Kent Planning Commission.
Mr. Morrill will replace Willie Gregory, who resigned.
Mr. Morrill is a lifetime Kent resident and has owned a business in Kent for many years. He
graduated from Western Washington University and is currently employed with the King County
Parks and Recreation Department. He has had a longstanding interest in Kent's future.
Mr. Mon -ill's term will begin immediately and continue through 12/31/92.
I submit this for your confirmation.
DK:jb
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6, 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPOINTMENT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's reappointment
of Raul Ramos to the Kent Board of Adjustment.
3. EXHIBITS: Memo from Mayor
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor Kelleher
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. E_XPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
moves, Councilmember seconds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR wv,-�
DATE: JULY 12, 1991
SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT OF RAUL RAMOS TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
I have recently reappointed Raul Ramos to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Ramos' reappointment
will be effective until 2/96.
I submit this for your confirmation.
DK:jb
�f Kent City Council Meeting
�-' Date August 6, 1991
1 Category Consent Calendar
{
1. SUBJECT: WALNUT GROVE FINAL PLAT SU-90-2
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set August 20, 1991 as
the date for a public meeting to consider Walnut Grove Final
Plat map. The property is approximately 6.1 acres in size and
is located east of 94th Avenue So., west of 96th Avenue So.,
south of So. 241st Street, and north of So. 243rd Street.
3. EXHIBITS:
4. RECOMMENDED BY: _Hearing Examiner
(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. 3EV
k�
l�a
Kent City Council Meeting
C Date Auaust 6, 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: IAC GRANT AGREEMENT/LAKE FENWICK PHASE III
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) grant
agreement to receive $466,784 in matching funds for Lake Fenwick
Phase III project as recommended by the Parks Committee; and
further to authorize Barney Wilson, Director of Parks and
Recreation, or his designee, to negotiate for the purchase of
real property and to purchase real property upon terms and
conditions substantially consistent with the agreements
submitted for approval herein.
3. EXHIBITS: Grant Agreement
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $1,013,250
SOURCE OF FUNDS: $ 546,466 King County Open Space Bond
Monies
$ 466,784 IAC Match
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
moves, Councilmember seconds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F J(
AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT GRANT FROM OUTDOOR RECREATION ACCOUNT
Project Title Lake Fenwick Phase III
Project Number
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the WASHINGTON STATE INTERAGENCY
COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION (IAC), acting through its Director and
the City of Kent , a governmental entity eligible to receive funding as
described below (Public Agency). The Director of the IAC shall be known
hereinafter as the "Director".
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Purpose of Agreement
The purpose of this Agreement is to set out the terms and conditions under
which the monetary grant set out below is made from the Outdoor Recreation
Account of the General Fund of the State of Washington under the provisions
and requirements of RCW 43.99.080 by the IAC to the Public Agency, in aid of
an outdoor recreation project (the "project") of the Public Agency.
2. Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall be effective upon July 22, 1991 and shall terminate
only upon mutual agreement of the parties, except as may be otherwise provided
elsewhere in this Agreement.
3. Performance by Public Agency
(A) The Public Agency shall develop and complete the project as it is
described in section 4 below, in the Public Agency's application, and in
accordance with the Public Agency's proposed goals and objectives described in
the application or documents submitted with the application, all as finally
approved by the IAC. That application is incorporated herein by this
reference as if fully set forth for the purposes of determining the project
description and project goals and objectives.
(B) No expenditure made, or obligation incurred, by the Public Agency prior
to the effective date of this Agreement shall be eligible for gant funds, in
whole or in part, unless specifically approved by the IAC or the Director.
The amounts set out in section 5 below shall be reduced as necessary to
exclude any such expenditure from participation.
The project shall be completed no later than December 31, 1991 No
expenditure made, or obligation incurred, following this completion date shall
be eligible, in whole or in part, for grant funds hereunder. In addition to
any remedy the IAC may have under this Agreement, the amounts set out in
section 5 below shall be reduced to exclude any such expenditure from
participation.
IAC Form 022 (1/91)
(C) Time of project performance by the Public Agency is of the essence of
this Agreement. Failure to timely complete the project as set out in
subsection B above is a material breach of the Agreement.
4. Description of Project
The Project of the Public Agency which is the subject of this Agreement is
described in summary as follows:
Acquisition of approximately 12 acres surrounding Lake Fenwick and adjacent to
existing City Park on Kent's West Hill.
Specific items include:
Land acquisition
Appraisals
Appraisal reviews
Closing costs
Recording fees
Relocation expenses
Hazardous substances
Title insurance
Prorated real estate
report
taxes
Legal descriptions of parcels to be acquired are included as "Attachment A"
and are, by this reference, made a part of this Agreement.
The project is described more fully in the application by the Public Agency to
the IAC for grant-in-aid assistance. That application was initially submitted
to the IAC by the Public Agency on June 29, 1990 and was approved by the
IAC on September 28, 1990 .
5. Project Funding
(A) The total cost of the project for the purposes of this Agreement
is 1,013,250 Dollars; PROVIDED that, if the total cost of the project when
completed,or when this Agreement is terminated, is actually less, that actual
cost shall be substituted herein.
(B) The value of the contributions by the Public Agency to the Project shall
be 546,466 Dollars, or 54 percent of the total project cost, whichever
amount is less, at minimum.
(C) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the IAC agrees to provide
466,784 Dollars, or 46 percent of the total project cost, whichever
amount is less, from monies available in the Outdoor Recreation Account of the
State's General Fund.
(D) If the IAC has entered into an agreement with the National Park Service,
United States Department of the Interior, to contribute Federal Land and Water
Conservation Funds to this project, that federal contribution will be
-0- Dollars, or -0- percent of the total project cost, whichever is
less.
2
(E) The IAC shall not be obligated to pay any amount beyond the amounts set
out in subsection (C) and, if applicable, (D) above unless that additional
amount has been approved in advance by the IAC, or by the Director, and
incorporated by written amendment into this Agreement.
(F) Disbursement of grant monies by the IAC to the Public Agency under this
Agreement shall be made in accordance with chapter 286-24 WAC, all conditioned
upon proof of compliance with the terms of this Agreement by the Public
Agency. The IAC reserves the right to withhold disbursement of the final ten
percent (10%) of the total amount of the grant to the Public Agency until the
project has been timely completed and approved by the Director.
(G) The obligation of the IAC to pay any amount(s) under this Agreement is
expressly conditioned upon strict compliance with the terms of this Agreement
by the Public Agency.
6. Requirements of the National Park Service
If the project has been approved by the National Park Service, United States
Department of the Interior, for assistance from the Federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund (see section 5 (D)), the Project Agreement General
Provisions as contained in Section 660.3 Attachment B of the Land and Water
Conservation Grant Manual as now existing or hereafter amended are made part
of this Agreement, and the Public Agency shall abide by these Project
Agreement General Provisions. Further, the Public Agency agrees to provide
the IAC with reports or documents needed by the IAC to meet the requirements
of the Project Agreement or Section 660.3 Attachment B of the Land and Water
Conservation Grant Manual.
7. Non -availability of Funds
If amounts sufficient to fund the grant made under this Agreement are not
available in the State Outdoor Recreation Account or such funds are not
appropriated by the Washington State Legislature, or such funds are not
allocated by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) to the
IAC for expenditure for this Agreement in any biennial fiscal period, the IAC
shall not be obligated to pay any remaining unpaid portion of this grant
unless and until sufficient funds are so deposited and/or any necessary action
by the legislature or OFM occurs. If the IAC participation is suspended under
this section for a continuous period of one year, the IAC's obligation to
provide any future funding under this Agreement shall terminate.
The Public Agency shall use any grant funds already received to complete the
project to the extent possible and shall devote the project to the uses
required under this Agreement unless an alternate use is approved by the IAC
or the Director.
8. Termination and Other Remedies
(A) The IAC may require strict compliance by the Public Agency with the
terms of this Agreement including, but not limited to, the requirements of the
applicable statutes, rules and IAC policies incorporated in this Agreement,
and with the representations of the Public Agency in its application for a
grant as finally approved.by the IAC.
J
(B) The IAC, or the Director, may suspend, or may terminate, the IAC's
obligation to provide funding to the Public Agency under this Agreement:
(i) In the event of any breach by the Public Agency of any of the
Public Agency's obligations under this Agreement; or
(ii) If the Public Agency fails to make progress satisfactory to the
IAC or the Director toward completion of the project by the
completion date set out in section 3(B) above; or
If, in the opinion of the IAC or the Director, the Public Agency
fails to make progress necessary to complete any other project
assisted with grant funds from the IAC within the completion date
set out by agreement with the IAC for that project.
(C) In the event this Agreement is terminated by the IAC, or the Director,
under this section or any other section after any portion of the grant amount
has been paid to the Public Agency under this Agreement, the IAC may require
that any amount paid be repaid to the IAC for redeposit into the Outdoor
Recreation Account.
(D) The Public Agency understands and agrees that the IAC may enforce this
Agreement by the remedy of specific performance, which usually will mean
completion of the project as described in section 4 above. However, the
remedy of specific performance shall not be the sole or exclusive remedy
available to the IAC. No remedy available to the IAC shall be deemed
exclusive. The IAC may elect to exercise any, any combination, or all of the
remedies available to it under this Agreement, or under any provision of law,
common law, or equity.
9. No Waiver by IAC/Remedies
Waiver by the IAC of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver
of any other or subsequent default or breach and should not be construed to be
a modification of the terms of the Agreement unless stated to be such in
writing Dy the Director, or his or her designee. The IAC does not waive any
of its rights or remedies under this Agreement should it: (a) fail to insist
on strict performance of any of the terms of this Agreement, or (b) fail to
exercise any right based upon a breach of this Agreement.
10. Application Representations -- Misrepresentation or Inaccuracy a
Breach
The IAC relies upon the Public Agency's application in making its
determinations as to eligibility for, selection for, and scope of, funding
grants. Any misrepresentation, error oP inaccuracy in any part of the
application shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement.
11. Comoliance with AQplicable Statutes. Rules and IAC Policies
The subject grant shall be governed by, and the Public Agency shall comply
with, all applicable provisions of chapter 43.99 RCW, chapter 286 WAC and
published IAC policies and guidelines, which are incorporated herein by this
reference as if fully set forth.
4
12. Restriction on Conversion of Facility to Other Uses
The Public Agency shall not at any time convert any property or facility
acquired or developed pursuant to this Agreement to uses other than those for
which assistance was originally approved, without the prior approval of the
IAC, in the manner provided by RCW 43.99.100 for marine recreation land,
whether or not the property was acquired with Initiative 215 funds.
13. Use and Maintenance of Assisted Projects
The Public Agency shall operate and maintain, or cause to be operated and
maintained, the property or facilities which are the subject matter of this
Agreement as follows:
(A) The property or facilities shall be maintained so as to appear attractive
and inviting to the public.
(B) All facilities shall be built and maintained in accordance with
applicable state and local public health standards and building codes.
(C) The property or facilities shall be kept reasonably safe for public use.
(D) Buildings, roads, trails, and other structures and improvements shall be
kept in reasonable repair throughout their estimated lifetime, so as to
prevent undue deterioration that would discourage or prevent public use.
(E) The facility shall be kept open for public use at reasonable hours and
times of the year, according to the type of area or facility.
(F) The property or facility shall be open to everyone without restriction
because of race; creed, color, sex, religion, national origin, handicap or
residence of the user.
(G) The Public Agency agrees to operate and maintain the facility in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
14. User Fees and Charoes
User, or other types of fees may be charged at the project described by this
Agreement, provided that the fees and charges are commensurate with the
prevailing range of public fees and charges within the state for the
particular activity involved.
Unless precluded by state law, all revenues from fees and charges which exceed
the costs for operation and maintenance of the area from which they were
collected must be deposited in a capital —reserve fund identifiable within the
sponsor's(s') official annual budget(s), for acquisition and/or development of
outdoor recreation lands or facilities consistent with the agency's park and
recreation plan. Such funds may not be used for operation and maintenance of
other facilities.
5
15. Provisions Applying Only to Acquisition Pro.iects
The following provisions shall be in force only if the project described in
this Agreement is for the acquisition of outdoor recreation land or
facilities:
(A) When Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds are part of this Agreement
per section 5(D) of his Agreement, the Public Agency agrees to comply with the
terms and conditions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1894 (1970)--Public Law 91-646, as
amended by the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act,
PL 100-17-1987, and the applicable regulations and procedures of the
Department of the Interior implementing that act.
(8) When state funds are included in this project per section 5(C) of this
Agreement, the Public Agency agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy of the
State of Washington (Chapter 240, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., RCW 8.26.010),
and chapter 468-100 WAC after it becomes effective on April 2, 1989.
(C) In the event that housing and relocation costs, as required by federal
law set out in subsection (A) above and state law set out in subsection (B)
above, are involved in the execution of this project, the Public Agency agrees
to provide any housing and relocation assistance that may be necessary and
will assume all administrative costs, with the understanding that eligible
relocation costs may be part of the total project cost.
(D) Evidence of Land Value Prior to disbursement of funds by the IAC as
provided under this Agreement, the Public Agency agrees to supply evidence to
the IAC that the land acquisition cost has been established as per IAC
procedural guidelines, which are incorporated by this reference.
(E) Evidence of Title The Public Agency agrees to show the type of ownership
interest for the property that has been obtained. This shall be done before
payment of financial assistance by the IAC.
(F) Deed of Right to Use Land for Public Recreation Purposes The Public
Agency agrees to execute an instrument or instruments which contain (1) a
legal description of the property acquired under this Project Agreement, (2) a
conveyance to the State of Washington of the right to use the described real
property forever for outdoor recreation purposes, and (3) a restriction on
conversion of use of the land in the manner provided in RCW 43.99.100, whether
or not the real property covered by the deed is marine recreation land. RCW
43.99.100 reads as follows:
"Marine recreation land with respeet to which money has been
expended under RCW 43.99.080 shall not, without the approval of the
committee, be converted to uses other than those for which such
expenditures were originally approved. The committee shall only
approve any such conversion upon conditions which will assure the
substitution of other marine recreation land of at least equal fair
market value at the time of conversion and of as nearly as feasible
equivalent usefulness and location''
M.
16. Provisions Applying Only to Development Projects
The following provisions shall be in force only if the project described in
this Agreement is for development of outdoor recreation land or facilities.
(A) Construction Document Approval The Public Agency agrees to submit one
copy of all construction plans and specifications to the IAC for review and
approval prior to seeking bids on those plans. Review by the IAC will be for
compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
(B) Contracts for Construction Contracts for construction shall be awarded
through a process of competitive bidding if required by state law. Copies of
all bids and contracts awarded shall be submitted to the IAC. Where all bids
are substantially in excess of project estimates, the IAC may, by notice in
writing, suspend the project for determination of appropriate action, which
may include termination of the Agreement.
(C) Construction Contract Change Order Any change orders must be in writing
and shall be submitted to the IAC. Any increase in the cost of the project as
the result of a change order shall be the sole obligation of the Public
Agency. No change order shall be issued by the Public Agency which changes
the plans or proposals submitted in, or in connection with, the Public
Agency's application for assistance for this project, unless that change has
been agreed to by the IAC by written amendment to this Agreement.
(D) Installation Payments financial assistance provided by this Agreement
for development may be remitted to the Public Agency in installments, after
receipt of billings, and upon satisfactory evidence of completion of each
stage of construction or development. Installment payments shall in no event
be made more frequently than monthly.
(E) Nondiscrimination Clause Except where a nondiscrimination clause
requirec by the United States Department of the Interior is used, the Public
Agency shall insert the following nondiscrimination clause in each contract
for construction of this project:
"During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as
follows:
(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, sex, or
national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to
ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated
fairly during employment, without regard to their race, creed,
color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be
limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or
transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or
termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and
selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor
agrees to put in a conspicuous place, available to employees and
applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting
officer, setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination
clause.
7
(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for
employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all
qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment
without regard to race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
(3) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative or
workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other
contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the agency
contracting officer, advising the said labor union or workers'
representative of the contractor's commitments under this section
and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available
to employees and applicants for employment.
(4) The contractor will include the provisions of the foregoing
paragraphs in every subcontract exceeding SIO,000, so that such
provisions will be binding upon each such subcontractor or vendor.
The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract
or purchase order as the IAC or the Director may direct as a means
of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance;
PROVIDED, however, that in the event the contractor becomes involved
in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor
as a result of such direction by the contracting agency, the
contractor may request the State of Washington to enter into such
litigation to protect its interests.
17. Responsibility for Proiect
While the IAC undertakes to assist the Public Agency with the project by
providing a grant pursuant to this Agreement, the project itself remains the
sole responsibility of the Public Agency. The IAC undertakes no
responsibilities to the Public Agency, or to any third party, other than as is
expressly set out in this Agreement. The responsibility for the design,
development, construction, implementation, operation and maintenance of the
project, as those phases are applicable to this project, is solely that of the
Public Agency, as is responsibility for any claim or suit of any nature by any
third party related in any way to the project.
The Public Agency shall defend at its own cost any and all claims or suits at
law or in equity which may be brought against the Public Agency in connection
with the project. The Public Agency shall not look to the IAC, or to any of
the IAC's employees or agents, for any performance, assistance, or any payment
or indemnity, including but not limited to cost of defense and/or attorneys'
fees, in connection with any claim or lawsuit brought by any third party
related in any way to the project, including by t not limited to, its design,
development, construction, implementation, operation and/or maintenance.
18. Hazardous Substances
(A) The Public Agency shall inspect and —investigate the proposed acquisition
or development site for the presence of hazardous substances in accordance
with RCW 70.105D.040(b).
(8) The Public Agency represents that it has fully disclosed to the IAC the
results of its inspection and investigation and all other knowledge the Public
Agency has as to the presence of any hazardous substances at the proposed
acquisition or development site.
(C) Nothing in this provision alters the project sponsor's duties and
liabilities regarding hazardous substances as set forth in chapter 70.105D
RCW.
(D) "Hazardous substance" means "hazardous substance" as defined in RCW
70.105D.020(5).
19. Indemnity
The Public Agency agrees to, and shall, defend, protect and hold harmless the
IAC and any and all of its employees and/or agents, from and against any and
all liability, cost (including but not limited to all cost of defense and
attorneys' fees) and any and all loss of any nature from any and all claims or
demands or suits at law or eauity, arising from the project, including but not
limited to, those arising from the Public Agency's acts, or failures to act,
which result in any loss of any kind'to any third party. Such claims or suits
include, but are not limited to:
(A) claims or suits by any person or firm furnishing services in connection
with the Public Agency's performance under this Agreement; or
(B) claims or suits by any person or firm who or which may allege injury by
the Public Agency or its agents arising from the Public Agency's performance
of this Agreement or arising from or related to the project to which a grant
is furnished hereunder; or
(C) any claim or suit resulting from the use of any facilities and/or
programs assisted by a grant under this Agreement; or
(D) any claim or suit resulting from the presence of.,or the release or
threatened release of hazardous substances brought by any federal, state or
local agency or any individual.
20. Records and Reports
(A) The Public Agency agrees to maintain all books, records, documents,
receipts, invoices and all other electronic or written records necessary to
sufficiently and property reflect the Public Agency's contracts, contract
administration, and payments, including all direct and indirect charges, and
expenditures in the development and implementation of the project.
(B) The Public Agency's records related to this Agreement and the project
receiving grant funds hereunder may be inspected by the IAC or the Director,
or their designees, or by designees of the State Auditor or by federal
officials authorized by law, for the purposes of determining compliance by the
Public Agency with the terms of this Agreement, and to determine the
appropriate level of funding to be paid under the subject grant.
(C) The records shall be made availabl-s by the Public Agency together with
suitable space for such inspection at any and all times during the Public
Agency's normal working day.
(0) The Public Agency shall retain all records related to this Agreement and
the project funded hereunder for a period of at least six (6) years following
completion of payment of the grant-in-aid under this Agreement.
(D) The Public Agency shall promptly submit to the Director any report or
reports required by the Director.
9
(F) The Public Agency shall submit a final report when the project is
completed, prematurely terminated, or project assistance is terminated. The
report shall include a final accounting of all expenditures and a description
of the work accomplished. If the project is not completed, the report shall
contain an estimate of the percentage of completion, and
shall indicate the
degree of usefulness of the completed project. report
for
all expenditures not previously reported and shall include a summary for the
entire project.
21. Acknowledgements
The Public Agency shall include language which acknowledges the funding
contribution of the IAC to this project in any release or other publication
developed or modified for, or referring to, the project. The Public Agency
also shall post signs or other appropriate media at project entrances and
other locations on the project which acknowledge the IAC's funding
contribution.
22. Independent Contractor Status of Public Agency
The Public Agency and the Public Agency's officers, employees and agents shall
perform all obligations under this Agreement as an independent contractor and
not in any manner as officers or employees or agents of the IAC. Herein all
references to the Public Agency shall include
its
oofficers,
eemploof yees
anons of
agents. The IAC shall not withhold or pay
taxes any kind.
23. Restriction on Assignment
The Public Agency shall not assign this Agreement, or the performance of any
Obligations to the IAC under this Agreement, cr any claim against the IAC it
may have under this Agreement, without the express written consent of the
Director.
24. Nondiscrimination
The Public Agency shall comply with all applicable federal and state
nondiscrimination laws, regulations, and policies. No person shall, on the
grounds of age, race, creed, color, sex, religion, national origin, residence,
marital status, or handicap (physical, mental, or sensory) be denied the
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under, this Agreement
or under any project, program, or activity, funded, in whole or in part, under
this Agreement. A violation of this provision is a material breach and cause
for termination under section 8 above.
25. Conflict of Interest
The Public Agency shall not participate in the performance of any duty in
whole or in part pursuant to this Agreement to the extent participation is
prohibited by chapter 42.18 RCW, the Executive Conflict of Interest Act, or
any other federal, state or local similar conflict act which may apply
the
Public Agency. The IAC may, by written notice to the Public Agency,
this Agreement if it is found after due notice and examination by the IAC or
the Director that there is a violation of the Executive Conflict o Interest
Act, chapter 42.18 RCW; Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees,
statute r ordinance
Agencyrin2the procurement of, orrperformance under, thisnAgreement.volving Public
10
The existence of facts upon which the IAC or the Director makes any
determination under this section may be an issue under, and may be reviewed as
is provided in, the disputes section of this Agreement, section 25, upon
agreement of the parties.
25. Disputes
When a bona fide dispute arises between the IAC or its Director and the Public
Agency which cannot be resolved between those parties, the parties may agree
that the disputes process set out in this section shall be used prior to any
action being brought in court. Either party may request a disputes hearing
hereunder. The request for a disputes hearing must be in writing and clearly
state: (a) the disputed issues; (b) the relative positions of the parties
regarding those issues as then understood by the requesting party; (c) the
Public Agency's name, address, project title, and the IAC's project number.
In order for this section to apply to the resolution of any specific dispute
or disputes the other party must agree in writing that the procedure under
this section shall be used to resolve those specific issues.
The dispute shall be heard by a panel of three persons consisting of one
person chosen by the Public Agency, one person chosen by the Director and a
third person chosen by the two persons initially appointed. If a third person
cannot be agreed upon, the third person shall be chosen by the chairperson of
the IAC.
Any hearing under this section shall be informal, with the specific processes
to be determined by the disputes panel according to the nature and complexity
of the issues involved. The process may be solely based upon written material
if the parties so agree. The disputes panel shall be governed by the
provisions of this Agreement in deciding the disputes.
The parties shall be bound by the decision of the disputes panel, unless the
remedy directed by that party shall be without the authority of either or both
oarties to perform, as necessary, or is otherwise unlawful.
Request for a disputes hearing under this section by either party shall be
delivereo or mailed to the other party at the address set out in section 31
below. The request shall be delivered or mailed within thirty (30) days of
the date the requesting party has received notice of the action or position of
the other party which it wishes to dispute. The written agreement to use the
process under this section for resolution of those issues shall be delivered
or mailed by the receiving party to the requesting party within thirty (30)
days of receipt by the receiving party of the request.
All costs associated with the implementation of this process shall be shared
equally by the parties. —
2f. Governino Law/Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Washington. In
the event of a lawsuit involving this Agreement, venue shall be proper only in
the Superior Court in and for Thurston County.
11
28. SeverabilitY
If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any law, rule or
document incorporated by reference into this Agreement, shall be held invalid,
such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which
legally can be given effect without the invalid provision. To this end the
provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable.
29. OSHA/WISHA
The Public Agency represents and warrants that its work place does now or will
meet all applicable federal and state safety and health regulations that are
in effect during the Public Agency's performance under this Agreement. The
Public Agency further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the IAC and its
employees and agents from all liability, damages and costs of any nature,
including but not limited to costs of suits and attorneys' fees assessed
against the IAC, as a result of the failure of the Public Agency to so comply.
30. Headings Not Controlling
Headings used in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not
be considered a substantive part of this Agreement.
31. Notices
(A) All written communications which are to be given to the Public Agency
under this Agreement will be addressed and delivered to:
Name:
Title:
Mail in
(B) All written communications which are to be given to the IAC under this
Agreement will be address and delivered to the IAC, 4800 Capitol Boulevard,
KP-11, Tumwater,Washington 98504-5611.
(C) The above shall be effective until receipt by one party from the other
of a written notice of any change.
32. Additional Provisions or Modifications of Standard Provisions
12
PARCEL #1
Commencing at the Southwest corner of the East half of the Northeast
f th Southeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22 North,
quarter o e
Range 4 East, W.M., and running
thence along the West line of said East half
of the Southeast quarter, North 0°06148" East
true point of beginning of this description;
thence North 0°06148" East 40.00 feet;
thence North 89°41100" East 193.39 feet;
057'00" Ea t 40 13 feet,
of the Northeast quarter
1,183.89 feet to the
thence South 4 s
thence South 89°41100" West 196.93 feet to the true point of
beginning;
(Being known as Tract 26, LAKE FENWICK TRACTS, according to the
unrecorded plat thereof).
ALSO
Commencing at the Southwest corner of the East half of the Northeast
quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22 North,
Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, and running
thence along the West line of said East half of the Northeast quarter
of the Southeast quarter North 0°06'48" East 1,143.89 feet to the true
point of beginning;
thence North 0°06'48" East 40 feet;
thence North 89°41100" East 196.93 feet;
thence South.4°S7'00" East 40.13 feet;
thence South 89°41'00" West 247 feet to the true point of beginning
(Being known as Tract 27, LAKE FENWICK TRACTS, according to unrecorded
plat thereof)
EXCEPT that portion, of the above described parcels, conveyed to King
County for road purposes by deed recorded under Recording No. 2614S8S.
City of Kent Lake enMck Phase III
IAC #91-171A ATTACHMErTr A Page I
PARCEL #2
Commencing at the Southwest corner of the East one-half of the
Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22
North, Range 4 East, W.M. and running —
thence along the West line of said East one-half of the Northeast
quarter of the Southeast quarter North 0006148" East 1,223.89 feet to
the true point of beginning of this description;
thence North 0'06148" East 50.00 feet;
thence North 89041100" East, 188.75 feet to the Westerly margin of the
0. P. Benson Road;
thence along said margin on a curve to the right with a radius of
447.68 feet (the tangent to the curve at this point bearing South
6°42'05" East) a distance of 13.68 feet;
thence South 4°57100" East 36.50 feet;
thence South 89°41'00" West 193.38 feet to the true point of
beginning. EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to King County for
road by deed recorded under Recording No. 2E>14585.
(Being Tract #25, LAKE FENWICK TRACTS, unrecorded)
AND commencing at the Southwest corner of the East one-half of the
Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22
North, Range 4 East, W.M. and running
thence along the West line of said East one-half of the Northeast
quarter of the Southeast quarter North 0°06148" East 1,273.89 feet to
the true point of beginning of this description;
thence North 0'06'48" East 30.00 feet to the Northwest corner of said
East one-half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter;
thence North 89'41'00" East 184.13 feet to the West margin of the 0.
P. Benson Road,
thence along said margin on a curve to the right with radius of 447.68
feet (the tangent to the curve at this point bearing South 10°34'56"
East) a distance of 30.32 feet;
thence South 89041'00" West, 188.75 feet to the true point of
beginning. EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to King County for
road by deed recorded under Recording No. 2614585.
(Being Tract #2SA, LAKE FENWICK TRACTS, unrecorded).
ity of -Kent ke encnck Phase III
LAC #91-171A AZTACHMErTr A Page 2
PARCEL #3
The South half of the South half of the Southeast quarter of the
Northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22 North, Range 4 East,
W.M., in King County, Washington;
EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the State of Washington Department of
Game under King County Auditor's File No. 4439122;
AND EXCEPT that portion deeded to county road under King County
Auditor's File No. 2S43331;
ALL SITUATE in the County of King,State of Washington.
PARCEL 14
That portion of the South 40 feet of the North 1,520 feet of the
Northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22 North, Range 4 East,
W.M., lying between the East boundary line of said Section and a line
40 feet West of and parallel to the East shore of Lake Fenwick.
PARCEL #5
f the
That portion of the South 40 feet of the North 1560 Ranfeeteo4 East,
Northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22 North, g
W.M., lying between the East boundary line of said Section and a line
40 feet West of and parallel to the East shore of Lake Fenwick.
PARCEL #6
That portion of the South 40 feet of the North 1,480 feet of the
Northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22 North, Range 4 East,
W.M., in King County, Washington, lying bewween a line 40 feet West of
and parallel with the East shore of Lake Fen,dick and the East line of
said Section 27;
EXCEPT portion, if any, lying West of the East 220 feet of said
subdivision;
PARCEL B:
PARCEL #7
The South 40 feet of the North 1,440 feet of the Northeast quarter of
Section 27, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County,
Washington, lying between a line 40 feet West of and parallel to the
East shore of Lake Fenwick, and the East line of the Southeast quarter
of the Northeast quarter of said Section.
Lake Fenwick Phase III
City of Kent
LAC #91-171A ATrACHMEM A Page 3
PARCEL #8
That portion of the South 80 feet of the North 1,360 feet of the
Northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22 North, Range 4 East,
W.M., in King County, Washington, lying between a line 40 feet West of
and parallel with the East shore of Lake Fenwick and the East boundary
line of said Section 27.
PARCEL B : PARCEL #9
That portion of the South 40 feet —of the North 1,400 feet of the —
Northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22 North, Range 4 East,
W.M., in King County, Washington, lying between a line 40 feet West of
and parallel with the East shore of Lake Fenwick and the East boundary
line of said Section 27.
PARCEL #10
That portion of the South 40 feet of the North 1280 feet of the
Northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22 North, Range 4 East,
W.M., in King County, Washington, lying between a line 40 feet West of
and parallel with the East shore of Lake Fenwick and the East boundary
of said Section 27.
PARCEL ##11
That portion of the South 80 feet of the North 1,080.00 feet of the
Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 22
North, Range 4 East, W.M., lying between a line 40 feet West of and
parallel to the East shore of Lake Fenwick and the East line of said
Section 27.
PARCEL B: PARCEL #12
That portion of the South 40 feet
Northeast quarter of the Northeast
North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King
Lake Fenwick and the East boundary
of the North 1,000 feet of the
quarter of Section 27, Township 2Z
County, Washington, lying between
line of said Section 27.
Lake Fenwick Phase III
av of Kent
LAC #91-171A ATTACHMENT A Page 4
33. Entire Agreement
This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties with
respect to the subject matter hereof. Commitments, warranties,
representations and understandings or agreements not contained, or referred
to, in this Agreement or written amendment hereto shall not be binding on
either party. Except as may be expressly provided herein, no alteration of
any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement will be effective without the
written consent of both parties.
STATE OF WASHINGTON INTERAGENCY
COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
BY: \fo.z.� L J
\ Director
Date: July 22, 1991
PUBLIC AGENCY
BY:
Title:
Date:
Approved as to form this 5th day
of January , 1991.
By: /s/
SHANNON E. SMITH
Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for IAC
Approved as to form this day
of , 19_.
By:
Attorney for Public Agency
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6. 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: IAC GRANT AGREEMENT/EAST HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) grant
agreement to receive $401,500 in matching funds for East Hill
Neighborhood Park as recommended by the Parks Committee.
3. EXHIBITS: Grant Agreement
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $803,000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: $401 500 Budgeted East Hill Park Account
$401 500 IAC Match
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
moves, Councilmember
econds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G X
AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT GRANT FROM OUTDOOR RECREATION ACCOUNT
Project Title East Hill Neighborhood Park
Project Number 91-170A/D
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the WASHINGTON STATE INTERAGENCY
COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION (IAC), acting through its Director and
the City of Kent , a governmental entity eligible to receive funding as
described below (Public Agency). The Director of the IAC shall be known
hereinafter as the "Director".
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Purpose of Agreement
The purpose of this Agreement is to set out the terms and conditions under
which the monetary grant set out below is made from the Outdoor Recreation
Account of the General Fund of the State of Washington under the provisions
and requirements of RCW 43.99.080 by the IAC to the Public Agency, in aid of
an outdoor recreation project (the "project") of the Public Agency.
2. Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall be effective upon July 22, 1991 and shall terminate
only upon mutual agreement of the parties, except as may be otherwise provided
elsewhere in this Agreement.
3. Performance by Public Agency
(A) The Public Agency shall develop and complete the project as it is
described in section 4 below, in the Public Agency's application, and in
accordance with the Public Agency's proposed goals and objectives described in
the application or documents submitted with the application, all as finally
approved by the IAC. That application is incorporated herein by this
reference as if fully set forth for the purposes of determining the project
description and project goals and objectives.
(B) No expenditure made, or obligation incurred, by the Public Agency prior
to the effective date of this Agreement shall be eligible for gant funds, in
whole or in part, unless specifically approved by the IAC or the Director.
The amounts set out in section 5 below shall be reduced as necessary to
exclude any such expenditure from participation.
The project shall be completed no later than June 30, 1992 No
expenditure made, or obligation incurred, following this completion date shall
be eligible, in whole or in part, for grant funds hereunder. In addition to
any remedy the IAC may have under this Agreement, the amounts set out in
section 5 below shall be reduced to exclude any such expenditure from
participation.
IAC Form 022 (1/91)
(C) Time of project performance by the Public Agency is of the essence of
this Agreement. Failure to timely complete the project as set out in
subsection B above is a material breach of the Agreement.
4. Description of Project
The Project of the Public Agency which is the subject of this Agreement is
described in summary as follows:
Acquisition and development of 4.62 acres on East Hill for neighborhood park
purposes. Legal description is attached as "Attachment A" and is, by this
reference, made a part of this Agreement.
Specific costs include:
Acquisition
Land acquisition
Appraisals
Appraisal reviews
Closing costs
Hazardous substance report
Title insurance
Prorated real estate taxes
Recording fees
Development
Site preparation
Utilities
Utilities
Landscaping
Irrigation
Roads/paths/parking
Restroom
Shelter
Basketball court
Picnic area
Signs
Play equipment
Fence
Park furniture
A & E
Tennis court
Sales tax
The project is described more fully in the application by the Public Agency to
the IAC for grant-in-aid assistance. That application was initially submitted
to the IAC by the Public Agency on June 29, 1990 and was approved by the
IAC on September 28, 1990
5. Project Funding
(A) The total cost of the project for the purposes of this Agreement
is 803,000 Dollars; PROVIDED that, if the total cost of the project when
completed,or when this Agreement is terminated, is actually less, that actual
cost shall be substituted herein.
(B) The value of the contributions by the Public Agency to the Project shall
be 401,500 Dollars, or 50 percent of the total project cost, whichever
amount is less, at minimum.
(C) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the IAC agrees to provide
401,500 Dollars, or 50 percent of —the total project cost, whichever
amount is less, from monies available in the Outdoor Recreation Account of the
State's General Fund.
(D) If the IAC has entered into an agreement with the National Park Service,
United States Department of the Interior, to contribute Federal Land and Water
Conservation Funds to this project, that federal contribution will be
-0- Dollars, or -0- percent of the total project cost, whichever is
less.
2
(E) The IAC shall not be obligated to pay any amount beyond the amounts set
out in subsection (C) and, if applicable, (D) above unless that additional
amount has been approved in advance by the IAC, or by the Director, and
incorporated by written amendment into this Agreement.
(F) Disbursement of grant monies by the IAC to the Public Agency under this
Agreement shall be made in accordance with chapter 286-24 WAC, all conditioned
upon proof of compliance with the terms of this Agreement by the Public
Agency. The IAC reserves the right to withhold disbursement of the final ten
percent (10%) of the total amount of the grant to the Public Agency until the
project has been timely completed and approved by the Director.
(G) The obligation of the IAC to pay any amount(s) under this Agreement is
expressly conditioned upon strict compliance with the terms of this Agreement
by the Public Agency.
6. Reouirements of the National Park Service
If the project has been approved by the National Park Service, United States
Department of the Interior, for assistance from the Federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund (see section 5 (D)), the Project Agreement General
Provisions as contained in Section 660.3 Attachment B of the Land and Water
Conservation Grant Manual as now existing or hereafter amended are made part
of this Agreement, and the Public Agency shall abide by these Project
Agreement General Provisions. Further, the Public Agency agrees to provide
the IAC with reports or documents needed by the IAC to meet the requirements
of the Project Agreement or Section 660.3 Attachment B of the Land and Water
Conservation Grant Manual.
7. Non -availability of Funds
If amounts sufficient to fund the grant made under this Agreement are not
available in the State Outdoor Recreation Account or such funds are not
appropriated by the Washington State Legislature, or such funds are not
allocated by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) to the
IAC for expenditure for this Agreement in any biennial fiscal period, the IAC
shall not be obligated to pay any remaining unpaid portion of this grant
unless and until sufficient funds are so deposited and/or any necessary action
by the legislature or OFM occurs. If the IAC participation is suspended under
this section for a continuous period of one year, the IAC's obligation to
provide any future funding under this Agreement shall terminate.
The Public Agency shall use any grant funds already received to complete the
project to the extent possible and shall devote the project to the uses
required under this Agreement unless an alternate use is approved by the IAC
or the Director.
8. Termination and Other Remedies
(A) The IAC may require strict compliance by the Public Agency with the
terms of this Agreement including, but not limited to, the requirements of the
applicable statutes, rules and IAC policies incorporated in this Agreement,
and with the representations of the Public Agency in its application for a
grant as finally approved by the IAC.
3
(B) The IAC, or the Director, may suspend, or may terminate, the IAC's
obligation to provide funding to the Public Agency under this Agreement:
(i) In the event of any breach by the Public Agency of any of the
Public Agency's obligations under this Agreement; or
If the Public Agency fails to make progress satisfactory to the
IAC or the Director toward completion of the project by the
completion date set out in section 3(B) above; or
(iii) If, in the opinion of the IAC or the Director, the Public Agency
fails to make progress necessary to complete any other project
assisted with grant funds from the IAC within the completion date
set out by agreement with the IAC for that project.
(C) In the event this Agreement is terminated by the IAC, or the Director,
under this section or any other section after any portion of the grant amount
has been paid to the Public Agency under this Agreement, the IAC may require
that any amount paid be repaid to the IAC for redeposit into the Outdoor
Recreation Account.
(D) The Public Agency understands and agrees that the IAC may enforce this
Agreement by the remedy of specific performance, which usually will mean
completion of the project as described in section 4 above. However, the
remedy of specific performance shall not be the sole or exclusive remedy
available to the IAC. No remedy available to the IAC shall be deemed
exclusive. The IAC may elect to exercise any, any combination, or all of the
remedies available to it under this Agreement, or under any provision of law,
common law, or equity.
9. No Waiver by IAC/Remedies
Waiver by the IAC of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver
of any other or subsequent default or breach and should not be construed to be
a modification of the terms of the Agreement unless stated to be such in
writing by the Director, or his or her designee. The IAC does not waive any
of its rights or remedies under this Agreement should it: (a) fail to insist
on strict performance of any of the terms of this Agreement, or (b) fail to
exercise any right based upon a breach of this Agreement.
10. Application Representations -- Misrepresentation or Inaccuracy a
Breach
The IAC relies upon the Public Agency's application in making its
determinations as to eligibility for, selection for, and scope of, funding
grants. Any misrepresentation, error or —inaccuracy in any part of the
application shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement.
11. Compliance with Applicable Statutes, Rules and IAC Policies
The subject grant shall be governed by, and the Public Agency shall comply
with, all applicable provisions of chapter 43.99 RCW, chapter 286 WAC and
published IAC policies and guidelines, which are incorporated herein by this
reference as if fully set forth.
4
12. Restriction on Conversion of Facility to Other Uses
The Public Aaency shall not at any time convert any property or facility
acquired or developed pursuant to this Agreement to uses other than those for
which assistance was originally approved, without the prior approval of the
IAC, in the manner provided by RCW 43.99.100 for marine recreation land,
whether or not the property was acquired with Initiative 215 funds.
13. Use and Maintenance of Assisted Projects
The Public Agency shall operate and maintain, or cause to be operated and
maintained, the property or facilities which are the subject matter of this
Agreement as follows:
(A) The property or facilities shall be maintained so as to appear attractive
and inviting to the public.
(B) All facilities shall be built and maintained in accordance with
applicable state and local public health standards and building codes.
(C) The property or facilities shall be kept reasonably safe for public use.
(D) Buildings, roads, trails, and other structures and improvements shall be
kept in reasonable repair throughout their estimated lifetime, so as to
prevent undue deterioration that would discourage or prevent public use.
(E) The facility shall be kept open for public use at reasonable hours and
times of the year, according to the type of area or facility.
(F) The property or facility shall be open to everyone without restriction
because of race, creed, color, sex, religion, national origin, handicap or
residence of the user.
(G) The Public Agency agrees to operate and maintain the facility in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
14. User Fees and Charges
User, or other types of fees may be charged at the project described by this
Agreement, provided that the fees and charges are commensurate with the
prevailing range of public fees and charges within the state for the
particular activity involved.
Unless precluded by state law, all revenues from fees and charges which exceed
the costs for operation and maintenance of the area from which they were
collected must be deposited in a capital —reserve fund identifiable within the
sponsor's(s') official annual budget(s), for acquisition and/or development of
outdoor recreation lands or facilities consistent with the agency's park and
recreation plan. Such funds may not be used for operation and maintenance of
other facilities.
3
15. Provisions Applying Only to Acquisition Projects
The following_ provisions shall be in force only if the project described in
this Agreement is for the acquisition of outdoor recreation land or
facilities:
(A) When Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds are part of this Agreement
per section 5(D) of his Agreement, the Public Agency agrees to comply with the
terms and conditions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1894 (1970)--Public Law 91-646, as
amended by the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act,
PL 100-17-1987, and the applicable regulations and procedures of the
Department of the Interior implementing that act.
(B) When state funds are included in this project per section 5(C) of this
Agreement, the Public Agency agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy of the
State of Washington (Chapter 240, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., RCW 8.26.010),
and chapter 468-100 WAC after it becomes effective on April 2, 1989.
(C) In the event that housing and relocation costs, as required by federal
law set out in subsection (A) above and state law set out in subsection (B)
above, are involved in the execution of this project, the Public Agency agrees
to provide any housing and relocation assistance that may be necessary and
will assume all administrative costs, with the understanding that eligible
relocation costs may be part of the total project cost.
(D) Evidence of Land Value Prior to disbursement of funds by the IAC as
provided under this Agreement, the Public Agency agrees to supply evidence to
the IAC that the land acquisition cost has been established as per IAC
procedural guidelines, which are incorporated by this reference.
(E) Evidence of Title The Public Agency agrees to show the type of ownership
interest for the property that has been obtained. This shall be done before
payment of financial assistance by the IAC.
(F) Deed of Right to Use Land for Public Recreation Purposes The Public
Agency agrees to execute an instrument or instruments which contain (1) a
legal description of the property acquired under this Project Agreement, (2) a
conveyance to the State of Washington of the right to use the described real
property forever for outdoor recreation purposes, and (3) a restriction on
conversion of use of the land in the manner provided in RCW 43.99.100, whether
or not the real property covered by the deed is marine recreation land. RCW
43.99.100 reads as follows:
"Marine recreation land with respect -to which money has been
expended under RCW 43.99.080 shall not, without the approval of the
committee, be converted to uses other than those for which such
expenditures were originally approved. The committee shall only
approve any such conversion upon conditions which will assure the
substitution of other marine recreation land of at least equal fair
market value at the time of conversion and of as nearly as feasible
equivalent usefulness and location"
H.
16. Provisions Applying Only to Development Projects
The following provisions shall be in force only if the project described in
this Agreement is for development of outdoor recreation land or facilities.
(A) Construction Document Approval The Public Agency agrees to submit one
copy of all construction plans and specifications to the IAC for review and
approval prior to seeking bids on those plans. Review by the IAC will be for
compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
(B) Contracts for Construction Contracts for construction shall be awarded
through a process of competitive bidding if required by state law. Copies of
all bids and contracts awarded shall be submitted to the IAC. Where all bids
are substantially in excess of project estimates, the IAC may, by notice in
writing, suspend the project for determination of appropriate action, which
may include termination of the Agreement.
(C) Construction Contract Change Order Any change orders must be in writing
and shall be submitted to the IAC. Any increase in the cost of the project as
the result of a change order shall be the sole obligation of the Public
Agency. No change order shall be issued by the Public Agency which changes
the plans or proposals submitted in, or in connection with, the Public
Agency's application for assistance for this project, unless that change has
been agreed to by the IAC by written amendment to this Agreement.
(D) Installation Payments Financial assistance provided by this Agreement
for development may be remitted to the Public Agency in installments, after
receipt of billings, and upon satisfactory evidence of completion of each
stage of construction or development. Installment payments shall in no event
be made more frequently than monthly.
(E) Nondiscrimination Clause Except where a nondiscrimination clause
required by the United States Department of the Interior is used, the Public
Agency shall insert the following nondiscrimination clause in each contract
for construction of this project:
"During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as
follows:
(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, sex, or
national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to
ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated
fairly during employment, without regard to their race, creed,
color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be
limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or
transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or
termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and
selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor
agrees to put in a conspicuous place, available to employees and
applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting
officer, setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination
clause.
7
(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for
employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state .that all
qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment
without regard to race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
(3) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative or
workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other
contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the agency
contracting officer, advising the said labor union or workers'
representative of the contractor's commitments under this section
and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available
to employees and applicants for employment.
(4) The contractor will include the provisions of the foregoing
paragraphs in every subcontract exceeding $10,000, so that such
provisions will be binding upon each such subcontractor or vendor.
The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract
or purchase order as the IAC or the Director may direct as a means
of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance;
PROVIDED, however, that in the event the contractor becomes involved
in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor
as a result of such direction by the contracting agency, the
contractor may request the State of Washington to enter into such
litigation to protect its interests."
17. Responsibility for Project
While the IAC undertakes to assist the Public Agency with the project by
providing a grant pursuant to this Agreement, the project itself remains the
sole responsibility of the Public Agency. The IAC undertakes no
responsibilities to the Public Agency, or to any third party, other than as is
expressly set out in this Agreement. The responsibility for the design,
development, construction, implementation, operation and maintenance of the
project, as those phases are applicable to this project, is solely that of the
Public Agency, as is responsibility for any claim or suit of any nature by any
third party related in any way to the project.
The Public Agency shall defend at its own cost any and all claims or suits at
law or in equity which may be brought against the Public Agency in connection
with the project. The Public Agency shall not look to the IAC, or to any of
the IAC's employees or agents, for any performance, assistance, or any payment
or indemnity, including but not limited to cost of defense and/or attorneys'
fees, in connection with any claim or lawsuit brought by any third party
related in any way to the project, including by t not limited to, its design,
development, construction, implementation, operation and/or maintenance.
18. Hazardous Substances
(A) The Public Agency shall inspect and —investigate the proposed acquisition
or development site for the presence of hazardous substances in accordance
with RCW 70.105D.040(b).
(8) The Public Agency represents that it has fully disclosed to the IAC the
results of its inspection and investigation and all other knowledge the Public
Agency has as to the presence of any hazardous substances at the proposed
acquisition or development site.
(C) Nothing in this provision alters the project sponsor's duties and
liabilities regarding hazardous substances as set forth in chapter 70.105D
RCW.
(0) "Hazardous substance" means "hazardous substance" as defined in RCW
70.105D.020(5).
19. Indemnity
The Public Agency agrees to, and shall, defend, protect and hold harmless the
IAC and any and all of its employees and/or agents, from and against any and
all liability, cost (including but not limited to all cost of defense and
attorneys' fees) and any and all loss of any nature from any and all claims or
demands or suits at law or equity, arising from the project, including but not
limited to, those arising from the Public Agency's acts, or failures to act,
which result in any loss of any kind to any third party. Such claims or suits
include, but are not limited to:
(A) claims or suits by any person or firm furnishing services in connection
with the Public Agency's performance under this Agreement; or
(B) claims or suits by any person or firm who or which may allege injury by
the Public Agency or its agents arising from the Public Agency's performance
of this Agreement or arising from or related to the project to which a grant
is furnished hereunder; or
(C) any claim or suit resulting from the use of any facilities and/or
programs assisted by a grant under this Agreement; or
(D) any claim or suit resulting from the presence of,or the release or
threatened release of hazardous substances brought by any federal, state or
local agency or any individual.
20. Records and Reports
(A) The Public Agency agrees to maintain all books, records, documents,
receipts, invoices and all other electronic or written records necessary to
sufficiently and property reflect the Public Agency's contracts, contract
administration, and payments, including all direct and indirect charges, and
expenditures in the development and implementation of the project.
(B) The Public Agency's records related to this Agreement and the project
receiving grant funds hereunder may be inspected by the IAC or the Director,
or their designees, or by designees of the State Auditor or by federal
officials authorized by law, for the purposes of determining compliance by the
Public Agency with the terms of this Agreement, and to determine the
appropriate level of funding to be paid under the subject grant.
(C) The records shall be made available -by the Public Agency together with
suitable space for such inspection at any and all times during the Public
Agency's normal working day.
(D) The Public Agency shall retain all records related to this Agreement and
the project funded hereunder for a period of at least six (6) years following
completion of payment of the grant-in-aid under this Agreement.
(D) The Public Agency shall promptly submit to the Director any report or
reports required by the Director.
7
(F) The Public Agency shall submit a final report when the project is
completed, prematurely terminated, or project assistance is terminated. The
report shall include a final accounting of all expenditures and a description
of the work accomplished. If the project is not completed, the report shall
contain an estimate of the percentage of completion, and shall indicate the
degree of usefulness of the completed project. The report shall account for
all expenditures not previously reported and shall include a summary for the
entire project.
21. Acknowledgements
The Public Agency shall include language which acknowledges the funding
contribution of the IAC to this project in any release or other publication
developed or modified for, or referring to, the project. The Public Agency
also shall post signs or other appropriate media at project entrances and
other locations on the project which acknowledge the IAC's funding
contribution.
22. Independent Contractor Status of Public Agency
The Public Agency and the Public Agency's officers, employees and agents shall
perform all obligations under this Agreement as an independent contractor and
not in any manner as officers or employees or agents of the IAC. Herein all
references to the Public Agency shall include its officers, employees and
agents. The IAC shall not withhold or pay taxes or insurance of deductions of
any kind.
23. Restriction on Assignment
The Public Agency shall not assign this Agreement, or the performance of any
obligations to the IAC under this Agreement, or any claim against the IAC it
may have under this Agreement, without the express written consent of the
Director.
24. Nondiscrimination
The Public Agency shall comply with all applicable federal and state
nondiscrimination laws, regulations, and policies. No person shall, on the
grounds of age, race, creed, color, sex, religion, national origin, residence,
marital status, or handicap (physical, mental, or sensory) be denied the
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under, this Agreement
or under any project, program, or activity, funded, in whole or in part, under
this Agreement. A violation of this provision is a material breach and cause
for termination under section 8 above.
25. Conflict —of Interest
The Public Agency shall not participate in the performance of any duty in
whole or in part pursuant to this Agreement to the extent participation is
prohibited by chapter 42.18 RCW, the Executive Conflict of Interest Act, or
any other federal, state or local similar conflict act which may apply to the
Public Agency. The IAC may, by written notice to the Public Agency, terminate
this Agreement if it is found after due notice and examination by the IAC or
the Director that there is a violation of the Executive Conflict o Interest
Act, chapter 42.18 RCW; Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees,
chapter 42.22 RCW; or any similar statute or ordinance involving the Public
Agency in the procurement of, or performance under, this Agreement.
10
The existence of facts upon which the IAC or the Director makes any
determination under this section may be an issue under, and may be reviewed as
is provided in, the disputes section of this Agreement, section 25, upon
agreement of the parties.
25. Disputes
When a bona fide dispute arises between the IAC or its Director and the Public
Agency which cannot be resolved between those parties, the parties may agree
that the disputes process set out in this section shall be used prior to any
action being brought in court. Either party may request a disputes hearing
hereunder. The request for a disputes hearing must be in writing and clearly
state: (a) the disputed issues; (b) the relative positions of the parties
regarding those issues as then understood by the requesting party; (c) the
Public Agency's name, address, project title, and the IAC's project number.
In order for this section to apply to the resolution of any specific dispute
or disputes the other party must agree in writing that the procedure under
this section shall be used to resolve those specific issues.
The dispute shall be heard by a panel of three persons consisting of one
person chosen by the Public Agency, one person chosen by the Director and a
third person chosen by the two persons initially appointed. If a third person
cannot be agreed upon, the third person shall be chosen by the chairperson of
the IAC.
Any hearing under this section shall be informal, with the specific processes
to be determined by the disputes panel according to the nature and complexity
of the issues involved. The process may be solely based upon written material
if the parties so agree. The disputes panel shall be governed by the
provisions of this Agreement in deciding the disputes.
The parties shall be bound by the decision of the disputes panel, unless the
remedy directed by that party shall be without the authority of either or both
parties to perform, as necessary, or is otherwise unlawful.
Request for a disputes hearing under this section by either party shall be
delivered or mailed to the other party at the address set out in section 31
below. The request shall be delivered or mailed within thirty (30) days of
the date the requesting party has received notice of the action or position of
the other party which it wishes to dispute. The written agreement to use the
process under this section for resolution of those issues shall be delivered
or mailed by the receiving party to the requesting party within thirty (30)
days of receipt by the receiving party of the request.
All costs associated with the implementation of this process shall be shared
equally by the parties. _
27. Governina Law/Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Washington. In
the event of a lawsuit involving this Agreement, venue shall be proper only in
the Superior Court in and for Thurston County.
11
28. Severability
If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any law, rule or
document incorporated by reference into this Agreement, shall be held invalid,
such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which
legally can be given effect without the invalid provision. To this end the
provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable.
29. OSHA/WISHA
The Public Agency represents and warrants that its work place does now or will
meet all applicable federal and state safety and health regulations that are
in effect during the Public Agency's performance under this Agreement. The
Public Agency further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the IAC and its
employees and agents from all liability, damages and costs of any nature,
including but not limited to costs of suits and attorneys' fees assessed
against the IAC, as a result of the failure of the Public Agency to so comply.
30. Headings Not Controlling
Headings used in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not
be considered a substantive part of this Agreement.
31. Notices
(A) All written communications which are to be given to the Public Agency
under this Agreement will be addressed and delivered to:
Name: _
Title:_
Mailing
ress
Superintendent Park Administration
Kent Parks and Recreation
220 4th Avenue South
Kent Washington 98032
(B) All written communications which are to be given to the IAC under this
Agreement will be address and delivered to the IAC, 4800 Capitol Boulevard,
KP-11, Tumwater,Washington 98504-5611.
(C) The above shall be effective until receipt by one party from the other
of a written notice of any change.
32. Additional Provisions or Modifications of Standard Provisions
12
That portion of the South half of the South half of the Northeast
quarter of Section 20, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King
County, Washington being described.as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Northeast quarter; thence
North 89°17'11" West along the South line of said Northeast quarter, a
distance of 1919.02 feet;
thence North 00°26103" East a distance of 30.00 feet, to the North
margin of Southeast 248th Street and the true point of beginning;
thence continuing North 00'26103" East, along an existing fence, a
distance of 629.68 feet, to the North line of said South half of the
South half;
thence North 89°17'47" West along said North line, a distance of
316.39 feet, thence South 01*01121" West, along an existing fence, a
distance of 629.63 feet, to the North margin of said Southeast 248th
Street;
thence South 89°17111" East along said margin, a distance of 322.85
feet to the true point of beginning, being a portion of Lot 4 of Short
Plat No. R-477018 as recorded under Auditor's File No. 7804190934.
City of Kent Fa t HjII ughborh&od ark
IAC #91-170A ATTACHMENT A Page 1
33. Entire Agreement
This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties with
respect to the subject matter hereof. Commitments, warranties,
representations and understandings or agreements not contained, or referred
to, in this Agreement or written amendment hereto shall not be binding on
either party. Except as may be expressly provided herein, no alteration of
any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement will be effective without the
written consent of both -parties.
STATE OF WASHINGTON INTERAGENCY
COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
DBY: -J&" -'
Director
Date: July 22 1991
PUBLIC AGENCY
BY:
Title:
Date:
Approved as to form this 5th day
of January , 1991.
By: /s/
SHANNON E. SMITH
Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for IAC
Approved as to form this day
of 19_.
By:
Attorney for Public Agency
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6. 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CONDEMNATION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY (VICINITY OF 108TH
S.E. AND 260TH)
2. RY STA7 .DTI.. As approved b the-_PublicWorks
Committee, option of Ordinance authorizing staff to
�ith condemnation proceedings, as negotiations for
right-of-way are unsuccessful
3
4.
EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and a
vicinity map
RECOMMENDED BY:
(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
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
moves, Councilmember
econds
Council Agenda
Item No. 307
Public Works Committee
May 21, 1991
Page 2
in planting the oats and to compensate for the seed source for the
wildlife. Dowell referred to a comment in the Executive Summary
which referred to Kent's previously allowing development in wetland
areas. After considerable discussion, it was determined that the
sentence would be modified.
Dowell asked if a site for disposal of the dredged material had
been selected. Wickstrom responded that we have a site in mind but
we will to enter into negotiations to secure the property.
Wickstrom added that we have had the material tested to determine
that it is not contaminated. Stoner added there is one isolated
area with a possible PCB level but that site will not be disturbed.
Thus, any contamination issue is relatively minor. Dowell asked
about harvesting the 12 acres of crop. Amundsen stated that
referred to the property in the power line corridor.
Dowell stated that the cost of the project is a concern to him.
Businesses which pay 80% of the property taxes can not continue to
exist if there, are projects that continually eat away to their
ability to produce products and employ people competitively.
Stoner responded that it is a valuable site that serves dual
purposes and there is a way to manage it for both uses and because
of its unique location it means putting a lot into a small area.
Dowell reviewed the proposed construction schedule which indicated
construction of the remainder of 64th in June of 1993 or 1994.
The Committee heard and addressed comments by. Mr. Freiwald, John
Kiefer, Charlie Kiefer and Randy Judkins.
The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the study with
the recommended changes and authorization for the Mayor to sign the
final report.
Proposed L.I.D. - S. 218th Street
Mr. and Mrs. Rust said there has been minimal contact with Trammel
Crow on the issue. It was suggested that Tom Brubaker follow up on
the matter. Mr. Rust stated they would prefer that the project be
reviewed so that their assessment would be one they could pay
themselves.
Authorization to Condemn - 108th and 260th
Wickstrom explained that the developer of the Canyon Ridge Plaza
development was required to construct via, an alternate route, an
additional east bound capacity through the congested 104th Avenue
and S.E. 256th intersection. This project is also included in the
City's annual element of our Six Year Transportation Plan. The
developer has been unable to acquire the necessary right of way
from the property owners. He has requested the City pursue the
acquisition of the right of way.
Mr. Kiefer thought the Crow Road bypass was a good idea and thought
another one at 264th and 114th was also needed. Mr. Doolittle
commented that it another light is constructed at 108th and Kent-
Kangley he wondered how traffic was going to get through the
intersections.
Charlie Kiefer stated he felt that the property owner should have
been notified of this meeting since her home is being condemned and
that he phoned her to inform her of same. It was clarified that
the property owner has been involved in the negotiations with the
developer and that the City will continue those negotiations. The
request at this time is only for authorization to pursue
condemnation for the right of way if these negotiations are not
successful. The Committee unanimously recommended approval for the
City to continue the negotiations for right of way and to proceed
with condemnation if negotiations are unsuccessful.
Joint Use Reservoir Purchase of Eouit
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
May 16, 1991
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Crow Road By -Pass (SR 516) Project
Authorization to Condemn - 108th and 260th
This project is included in the annual element the City's Six Year
Transportation.Plan. Its purpose is to provide via an alternate
route additional east bound capacity through the congested 104th
Avenue and S. 256th Street intersection. Implementing this project
is also one of the mitigation conditions associated with Canyon
Ridge Plaza Development. As such, the developer thereof has been
negotiating with property owners to acquire rights of way necessary
to implement the project.
Because this improvement is identified on the City's Six year
Transportation Plan and is a critical part of the transportation
system, the Public Works Committee had previously indicated they
would support the City pursuing condemnation should the developer's
negotiations fail. The developer now advises that his negotiation
efforts have been unsuccessful. As such the. Public Works
Department recommends pursuing condemnation of the necessary
property. The developer will contribute to the project fund any
and all monies necessary therefor.
-PAGE 32-
SITE PLAN
ADDIT'10I AL R/W ACQUISITION AT NW
QUADRANT OF iSE 260TH ST. AND 108TH AVE. SE
(TAX PARCEL- 292205.9178.03)
u
a a0 eo i
SCALE; V=40'
W. LINE OF THE E. 30'
- NE 1/4 NW 1/4 29-22-5
�f
/II W
I �
130' 3p -
TAX PARCEL
292205-9178-03 �
PROPOSED °� / 00
RIGHT-OF-WAY Q
N LINE OF TN�
NE 1/4 NW 1,/4 29 22.5
I
bl
`I
�-- S. LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4
OF SEC. 29, TWP. 22 N.. RGE. 5 E., W.M.
/EXISTING,
RIGHT-OF-WAY }
E. LINE OF TFIE NE 114 OF THE NW 114
OF AEC. 29, TWP. 22 N., RGE, 5 E., W.M.
SE 260TH ST.
Barghausen
Consulting Engineers Inc.
land Plq nnln g, Sarvxy ! Fr.gln.o ring Sp.<la�blr
I�IN I,H .r. l.vin x.ni. w.. E. r.ofl PVH II �N 111
0220-91-009
estingconsu , Inc.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 5, 1991.
PRESENT: Jim White
Ed Chow
Leona Orr
Ed White
Steve Dowell
Helen Wickstrom
Don Wickstrom
Karen Siegel
Gary Gill
John Watson
Carol Morris
Mr. and Mrs. Rust
Tom Brubaker
Lyle Price
Rod Saalfeld
East Hill Shopping Center
Mr. Saalfeld indicated to the Committee that his company wrote a
utility bond in 1983 for Heutmaker Construction for the East Hill
Shopping Center remodel. No plans were completed after the
relocation of the sewer line and the bond has not been released
because the City has not received the plans anal bill of sale for
the relocated line. Heutmaker Construction has since filed for
bankruptcy and Mr. Saalfeld's agency has had to pay the premium for
the bond since. Mr. Saalfeld asked for some assistance in getting
the bond released. Wickstrom suggested that Mr. Saalfeld could
hire a surveyor to complete the as -built plans. Another option
would be for the City to act on the bond and use the funds to
complete the survey. In response to White's question, Wickstrom
indicated that it would require the City to file a suit against the
bonding agency and if we win the bonding agency would pay the costs
associated with the work. Normally, we would hire the surveyor,
complete the work and then go after the bond. White asked how that
would affect Bell Anderson. The action would be against the
bonding company and not Bell Anderson. The Committee recommended
the City act against the bond to complete the work.
Update Intersection Improvements 104th Av(�nue S.E. and S.E. 260th
White had asked for an update on this project. Wickstrom stated
that the improvements of this intersection were part of the
mitigation conditions of the Canyon Ridge Plaza development. There
has been some recent activity on this development and they are
currently anticipating an opening date of June or July of 1992.
The improvements required as part of their mitigation must be in
prior to that date. Another off -site improvement associated with
this development is an intersection improvement at 260th and 108th.
The developer has to acquire some off -site property in order to
complete these and has been unable to reach settlement with the
property owners. Since this improvement is on the City's 6-year
plan, the Council had previously indicated willingness to proceed
with condemnation if necessary. We should know within the next six
months if the development is going to proceed. If it does not, the
City has budgeted funds to proceed with the improvements via an
LID.
Request for Signal - Military Road and 38t_h
White stated that Councilmember Houser has asked that this be
discussed at Public Works. Dowell had concerns that this should
have gone to IBC prior to Public Works. Wickstrom stated that the
intersection doesn't meet the warrants for a signal. White stated
that he is currently doing a count at the intersection and will
have that information later. The 1988 Traffic Flow Map shows
Military having an Average Daily Traffic of approximately 7,900
vehicles which probably has increased to about 9,000 currently.
There are probably about 2,000 ADT on 38th. The MUTCD which is the
industry standard for signals indicates the minimum requirement for
a signal is at least 150 cats cn the side street for at least 8
hours of a 24 hour period and at least 600 cars per lane for the
main street for the same eight hour period. White stated he did
not think this intersection came close to those volumes. There
have not been any reported accidents over the past three years at
this intersection. White stated that he would complete the count
and prepare a warrant analysis and bring this back to the
Committee. He indicated he would also contact Councilmember Houser
to see if she had any other concerns that had not been addressed.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6. 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SMITH AND MILLS SHORT PLAT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale submitted
by ACY-DEUCY Concrete, Inc. for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 673 feet of sanitary sewer
extension constructed in the vicinity of 94th Avenue So. and So.
222nd Street 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/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NOX _ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
3
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
moves, Councilmember seconds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I4
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6, 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ROYAL FIRS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by CPC/LEW Venture for continuous
operation and maintenance of approximately 31066 feet of water
main extension and 2,373 feet of sanitary sewer extension
constructed in the vicinity of 112th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 240th
Street for the Royal Firs Apartment complex and release of cash
bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period.
3. EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
rr
5.
21
7.
RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commiss
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT:
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
, etc.)
NO X YES
Not Recommended
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
econds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
(
S 2321
ST
(Pvt)
�\
21:9TF�y8T 29 H6
PL
ST
(PvU
(Pvt)
W)
xx
SE 2U
SE 231ST
S
231ST
SE 231ST \
ST
W
��
w
230TH � O� ST S v►
ST
>
PL. 1 ` 232ND ST 6w
S
232ND
232ND STixSE " <
f"3T
'`•4:•
SE 232ND PL 232ND -r
PL
day E 233RD' y �,
.may •� .:.
..
5+76
4. x
STH
O
w aE 236TH ST AVE
S 236TH
ST
ao
W �
O
< U
r r t/f (Pvt) co
r W (Pvt) SE 239TH
ST
4 8 0»
18 17
ST
'4 w Ped Dkwog
< [AST HILL
is 241ST- ST az ELEMENTARY
w
MIJN SE 236TH PL
~ SE 237TH ST
J
� x
SE
E 23STH �
ST.,
SE
o"
ST
W(
He!
iy
4
ST
u
k52�42MD<
T ui
S 243RD ww
ST
SE 244TH .. ST
24 TT w V)
ST _
> W F'
Mfs i _
OOL
x W S 246TH
247TH < PL
ST S 248TH ST W
ow ow >wi
SE 248TH ST
ar
?� w I ROYAL FIRS
t/ f'klPxlfl.l h
vy j� I'U�h
V 252NCI;T E ND ST
�a/ • W
�� EAST HILL ` w
��-- �.�. CENTER x
9 del r�
1 1•^�•� iLJ���'f F„ ,ch SE 25STD �� $1 w ! Field
CL-
r-
1. SUBJECT:
KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6, 1991
Category Consent Calendar
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale submitted
by Kent No. 1 Limited Partnership for continuous operation and
maintenance for a traffic signal constructed at the intersection
of So. 216th Street and 84th Avenue So. and release of the
construction bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance
period.
3. EXHIBITS: vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL./PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO > YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
M
7.
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
moves, Councilmember seconds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K�
KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK
I I _
� I I
�T
I
5 i 212TH STI l�
I r
jz- No
- � ? J Al I(Y
Y 04.INI AY r
w
J
J �
•t n
.]J1Utl_ 1I_
w
vrl l t
Q n
Itt T 11
1, H 111
Y -ri��an ar � [ .
d'0RIEN
�—]11'PIit -
I : p-
IrS
1p 1 II
t it
12 Ln ,r
r
_S )I I f D Ii�gH�>I rA
E_
e N
r- � ulKp_ r st
1 JI
I '
1
�, 7ma sl
�r
47
1
N - -
t- 1 _
VICINITY MAP
1. SUBJECT:
BRENTWOOD TOWNHOUSES
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6. 1991
Category Consent Calendar
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by Brentwood Development Company
for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 1,274
feet of water main extension and 790 of sanitary sewer extension
constructed in the vicinity of 101st Avenue S.E. and S.E. 258th
Place for the Brentwood Townhomes 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/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
moves, Councilmember seconds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3LZ
qA�lg�a
-mo='� --
<
i m.Lo ►- - - - 15T Z AV
+L-Zl
__ L� ~-•---—S--RAIIH(i' N RAiIR A AV
3 BR�o(N CENTRAL AV
S CENTRAAVl^"
BuRKE AV'-. �, � vJ
UEARV.w......,SCEr.�r ,vY AJ__
o .^iD KFNNf�fC� WDOOFOR
c�' nrl �LvFM
_ ..a ) "�CEARK Im AV
D N t I R• �_ -i 'qqr m D -
�> .m KP6!NGT� `. -, %AV ST O .AS'N ➢
D
87TH AV Z :VAN DE vANiFR Ay _n 'n e X; _ PROSPECT A%
r� .R �T (7 .,� - v F fNORA A -
36IH 'AVM _-Jr LEc N FR!C AV `- ► L n y HAZEI AV
RE5T AV
r=--r D N
FASS; I� � ``^" SUNKv S•� m I �
$ EAST �. C D ` D 'a y AV:........ Ln
`GA.RiIELD AY lA`.E r-• r- D U _ ".' �� 1�..` -_ .� A(_T( RD
�"" - ;� r.^� - • '- t�� SPRINCZ SE
mz v vl(w PT. i t--- 4 HIUJ
m C F, n , -, 7 SUMMIT 92'.O \
KNO
nm as I�3i13a v S _
N ry �o
y S MAPlEFV000 0.Y � ?(.(4 � ,, ,- ' �, n C� � • � �.
... .. $ MPERLT AY ,�1. _� =_941N AV 5
CT
�o S aO i r G YIEWC
�i 95T (n 1
AV
STg,.hBERRY 0
a8TH AV S -4 gglN AV
1 i ,
� ❑v 1
..._
P 100rn
2
=
n+ I
AV SE > i 102ND A
®� I
— - -- �.�---� LPG
104TH AV $E " AV
ln 248i N
^ -4
1 OST
La
-I G3
� S N 1 7 m -� -" r.., � N
I g
s �5rri m E I u5T H
V SE ti AV
o N �AV SE r
BRENTWOOD TOWNHOUSES
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6. 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 196TH CORRIDOR - TIB FUNDING
2. SUM11ARY STATEMENT: As recommended to the Public Works
Committee,; thorization for the Mayor to sign a grant agreement
with the Transportation Improvement Board for funding for the
196th Corridor Project and establishment of a budget for funds
received through same.
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum to the Public Works Committee and a copy
of the TIB agreement
4.
RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES_
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended z(r M Not Recommended
77
21
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3Mx
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 1, 1991
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom {,J�'V
RE: 196th Corridor - TIB Funding
We have received notice from the Transportation Improvement Board
(TIB) has authorized funding for the above referenced project. It
is important to note that they have over -obligated funds which
could affect the availability of funding.
We are requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the agreement
accepting the grant.
Because it is necessary to return the signed agreement by August 9,
we will be placing this item on your Council agenda for August 6 as
well.
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Subject: 196TH CORRIDOR - TIB FUNDING
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 08/02/91 at 0939.
THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT AN
ADDITIONAL 196TH CORRIDOR GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $780,828 AND TO REVISE
THE PROJECT BUDGET FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT.
THE CORRIDOR PROJECTS ARE LONG ESTABLISHED TOP PRIORITIES OF THE COUNCIL.
AN INITIAL BUDGET HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THIS PROJECT. ACCEPTANCE OF
THE TIB GRANT KEEPS THE PROJECT MOVING ALONG. THE IBC RECOMMENDS
ACCEPTANCE.
CITY OF KENT
State of Washington
® Transportation Improve►nentBoard
To7sportalion Building XF-01
Olympia, Washinglon 98501
ill, (206) 753-7198 SCAN 23d-7198
July 24, 1991
Mr. Don Wickstrom, P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
JUL 25 1991
ENGINEERING DEPT,
Transportation Improvement Project
TIB No. 9P-106(002)-1
192/196/200 Streets
Orillia Road to West Valley Hwy
City of Kent
Dear Mr. Wickstrom:
We are pleased to advise you that the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) has
authorized the above referenced project for development with financial assistance from the
Transportation Improvement Account (TIA). The total dollar amount authorized for the
design proposal is $771,903. The estimated amount of TIA funds for construction is
$2,432,925. Your request for an $780,828 increase in TIA funds above the amount listed
in the Urban Program Application Form was approved by the Board providing a total of
$3,204,828 in TIA funds.
The Board has adopted rules that may affect the development of this project. In particular,
the Board has over -obligated funds to projects which may affect the timing for when
sufficient funds will be available for construction phase approval. Contact the TIB office
for an update on the funding status before submitting your construction prospectus.
The effective date of the authorization, is July 19, 1991 and reimbursable work for the
design phase may now begin. The work covered by this authorization and the project
agreement is limited to design engineering, value engineering, right of way appraisals and
acquisition, and environmental assessment.
When the project design, final estimate, and right of way acquisition are completed submit
the construction prospectus to the Board for approval. The construction prospectus must
be received by the twentieth day of the month preceding the month in which the
construction phase authorization is proposed unless a later receipt date is specified and
permitted, in writing, by the TIB Executive Director. Board approval of the construction
phase must be obtained before the project may be advertised for construction.
Mr. Don Wickstrom, P.E.
July 24, 1991
Page 2
The Board acted on this project to limit charges for environmental requirements to those
that are required by Federal and State policies. Any charges that are the result of local
policy that exceeds the Federal and State policies will not be eligible for reimbursement
from the Transportation Improvement Account.
This project will require a Value Engineering(VE) study. When the design phase of the
project is nearing the 30 percent completion stage notify the TIB staff to schedule a VE
study or submit a request for a deviation. If a deviation from the VE study requirement is
requested, a VE assessment report must be submitted with the written deviation request to
the TIB. The report must address the project characteristics, cost per mile, potential
savings, high cost items and other considerations unique to the project. The TIB staff will
review the report and develop a recommendation as to whether the VE study deviation
should be granted., .
After signing the two enclosed project agreements, return to the TIB office by August 9,
1991. One of the agreement forms will be returned to your office after execution by the
Executive Director of the Transportation Improvement Board.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Gibson, P.E.
TIA Program Engineer
CEG:jjs
Enclosures
cc: Don Hoffman
NOW
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT
Project Agreement for Design Proposal
LEAD AGENCY
City of Kent
PROJECT NUMBER
AUTHOR TY NUMEER
9P-106(002)-1
9135039P
LOCAL NAME OF ARTERIAL
192/196/200 Streets
Orillia Road to West Valley MAy
TOTAL AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED TIA FUNDS FOR DESIGN PROPOSAL
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED EFFECTIVE FROM:
$771,903
July 19, 1991
IN CONSIDERATION. of the allocation by the Transportation Improvement Board of Transportation Improvement
Account (TIA) funds to the project and in the amount set out above, the agency hereby agrees that as condition precedent
to payment of any TIA funds allocated at anytime to the above referenced project, it accepts and will comply with the terms
of this agreement, including the terms and conditions set forth in RCW 47.26; the applicable rules and regulations of the
Transportation Improvement Board, and all representations made to the Transportation Improvement Board upon which
the fund allocation was based; all of which are familiar to and within the k,nowledgeoI the agency and incorporated herein
and made apart of this agreement, although not attached. The officer ofthe agency, by the signature below hereby certifies
on behalf of the agency that local matching funds and other funds represented to be committed to the project will be
available as necessary to implement the projected development of the project as set forth in the DESIGN PROSPECTUS,
acknowledges that funds hereby authorized are for the development of the design proposal as defined byChapter 167, Laws
of 1988.
IN CONSIDERATION of the promises and performance of the st:Ited conditions by the agency, the Transportation
Improvement Board hereby agrees to reimburse the agency from allocated TIA funds and not otherwise, liar its
reimbursable costs not to exceed the amount specified. Such obligation to reimburse TIA funds extends only to project
costs incurred after the date ofthe Board's allocation of funds and author ization to proceed wish the project.
LEAD AGENCY
Slgnafure of Mayor/Chairman pyre
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD
E.a;urive pireclor Daze
TIB Form 190-056
Revised 02/91
Cl/
\Y f
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
CULTURAL AND SPECIAL SERVICES DIVISION
AUGUST 61 1991
MEMORANDUM
Steve Dowell ` (t
Patrice Thorel
Grant Informati
This $8,000 grant (see attached information) has been approved by
Washington State Arts Commission. It needs to go to City Council
August 20th so that it can be signed by the Mayor and returned by
their August 26 deadline. How do you want to proceed? Parks
Committee meeting or other?
Please advise myself or Barney Wilson at your earliest convenience.
My phone number is 859-3991.
cc Barney Wilson, Director
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6. 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: BISHOP REZONE NO. RZ-91-1
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval of a request
by Robert Thorpe or Gary Volchok to rezone a 1.77 acres from the
current zoning of GWC, Gateway Commercial, to M3, General
Industrial. The subject property location consists of the
western 312 feet of Lot 1 of Shinns Valley Home Addition. The
address of the two homes located on the eastern portion of this
lot are 22225 and 22219 84th Avenue South.
3. EXHIBITS: Staff report, Hearing Examiner minutes, findings
and recommendation
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO >� YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
CouncilmemberYY
moves, Councilmember C'�Lseconds
to accept/re-j-eetfmodfy the findings of the Hearing Examiner, to
approve/djsagprau /modify the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
of approval of the Robert Thorpe or Gary Volchok's rezone with
two conditions and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4AX
ITCITY OF L"LLSV
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
V?k71[vTk (206) 859-3390
FILE NO: BISHOP #RZ-91-1
APPLICANT: Robert Thorpe or Gary Volchok
REQUEST: A request to rezone 1.77 acres from the current zoning
of GWC, Gateway Commercial, to M3, General Industrial.
LOCATION: The subject property consists of the western 312 feet
of Lot 1 of Shinns Valley Home Addition. The address
of the two homes located on the eastern portion of this
lot are 22225 and 22219 84th Avenue S.
APPLICATION FILED: 3/28/91
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
ISSUED• 4/26/91
MEETING DATE: 6/19/91
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 7/3/91
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED with conditions
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
Carol Proud, Planning Department
Alice Shobe, Planning Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Gary Volchok, representative of applicant
Other
Agnes Mortensen
Mark Weed
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public
hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied
personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by
the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the
following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the
Hearing Examiner on this application.
1
Findings and Recommendation
Bishop
JRZ-91-1
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, R.W. Thorpe & Associates, on behalf of Harold
Bishop, the owner of property at 222nd and 84th Avenue South,
requests a rezone of 1.77 acres from GWC, Gateway Commercial, to
M3, General Industrial. The stated purpose of the rezone request
is to allow expansion of the David A. Mowat Company outdoor
storage yard.
2. The property proposed for a rezone is the west 312 feet of Lot 1
of the Shinns Valley Home Addition. The property is more
particularly described on the rezone application and on the
conceptual site plan attached to the Planning Report. Both were
submitted as evidence during the hearing as part of Exhibit 1.
3. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map and the Valley Floor Plan
Map both designate the subject property as C, Commercial. The
City-wide Plan also includes specific Economic Development Goals
that include promoting diverse industrial development in
industrially developed areas and assuring retail and commercial
developments are in suitable locations. The Valley Floor Plan
also includes an Economic Development element. Those sections
include goals that promote fill-in development of industrially
developed areas.
4. Property to the west and south of the proposed rezone site is
zoned M3, General Industrial. Property to the east and north of
the proposed rezone site is zoned GWC, Gateway Commercial.
5. Surrounding land uses include the David A. Mowat Company to the
west, MacDonald Industries to the south, two single family homes
to the east and a warehouse to the north.
6. The land proposed for a rezone does not have frontage on
84th Avenue South. Access to the site would be difficult for
commercial purposes that are similar to commercial uses now
existing on 84th Avenue South.
7. The rezone site would be developed as a storage yard for
construction vehicles. About 2 vehicle trips per day would be
generated by the activity of moving vehicles on and off the lot.
8. When the GWC zone was initially placed on the subject property in
1989, the intent was to encourage "retail commercial uses
appropriate along major vehicular corridors." Section 15.04.195
2
Findings and Recommendation
Bishop
#RZ-91-1
of the Kent Zoning Code. That zoning designation was applied to
the entire parcel of land. The area proposed for a rezone
represents only the west 312 feet of that parcel. The proposed
rezone site is difficult to observe or access directly from
84th Avenue South. Placement of signs on the proposed rezone
site to encourage retail business customers would also be
difficult given the City's increased efforts to enforce the Sign
Code.
9. No one testified in opposition to the proposed rezone. One
individual testified about her concerns with drainage problems
involving her home and garden area to the south of the rezone.
She testified that this was because of clogged drainage ditches.
She asked that measures be taken to ensure no increase in surface
water runoff toward her property. She also expressed some
concern about nighttime noise and asked that it be kept to a
minimum. Another individual representing Fisher Properties
testified regarding concerns about the cost of improved access to
the site. He stated that the cost of this should be shared by
the applicant. The applicant agreed to meet with him to work out
a mutually acceptable shared fee agreement prior to final City
Council action on the rezone request.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Section 15.09.050 (A)(3) of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the
standards and criteria to evaluate a request for a rezone. A
request for a rezone shall only be granted if:
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.
3
Findings and Recommendation
Bishop
#RZ-91-1
Based on the Findings detailed above, and with the conditions
outlined in the Decision below, the proposed rezone will meet
these standards and criteria and should be APPROVED.
2. Although the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan are
for commercial development, the written goals of the
Comprehensive Plan support a rezone of the subject property to
assure that retail and commercial developments take place in
suitable locations and to promote fill-in development of an
industrially developed area.
3. The proposed use of the rezoned property is for an expansion of
a heavy equipment storage yard. This use is compatible with land
use developments in the vicinity.
4. The proposed use would not present a burden on traffic in the
area as there will be only two vehicle trips per day.
5. Circumstances have changed since the property was zoned GWC in
1989. The parcel zoned GWC is proposed to be subdivided so that
only the western 312 feet would be rezoned to M3 and the
remainder would remain GWC. That section of the parcel proposed
for a rezone is not suitable for commercial development because
access to that parcel would be difficult to develop in a way that
facilitates commercial use of the site and effective commercial
signs would not be possible.
6. No one spoke in opposition to the proposed rezone. There is no
evidence that the proposed rezone would in any way be adverse to
the public health, welfare or safety of the citizens of Kent.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings and Conclusions specified above, the Examiner
recommends that the application for a rezone of property now
designated as GWC, Gateway Commercial, to M3, General Industrial, be
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. That the storm water drainage plan for the proposed use of the
site as an expansion of the David A. Mowat Company outdoor
storage yard be prepared with particular attention to mitigating
the existing drainage problems that occur to the south of the
site;
E
Findings and Recommendation
Bishop
#RZ-91-1
2. That the nighttime operations of the proposed use of the site as
an outdoor storage yard be kept to a minimum so that the activity
will not interfere with the sleep of residents who live nearby
the subject property.
The applicant should also be aware that any approval required of any
change in the use of the' subject property will be subject to a new
traffic analysis to determine appropriate mitigation and may also be
subject to other environmental reviews at the time a change in use is
proposed.
Dated this 3rd day of July, 1991
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
Section 15.09.030 G: Kent Zoning Code provides that any conditional
use permit granted by the Examiner shall remain effective only for one
(1) year unless the use is begun within that time or construction has
commenced. If not in use or construction has not commenced within one
year, the conditional use permit shall become invalid.
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.
11
Findings and Recommendation
Bishop
#RZ-91-1
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.
C1
City of Kent - Planning Department
GWC • Apartments
6' fence surrounding site �1
I
Proposed Vacant
Contractor's
Storage Yard
Existing Zone: GWC Vacant
Proposed Zone: M3
Total Acreage: 77,002 s.t. (1.77 acres) \�
— LerMaee • An• __
Private access ownership F— 84th Ave S.-f
l
ee
5"<
5
APPLICATION NAME: eiship Rezone
NUMBER: RZ-91-1
REQUEST: Rezone from GWC to M3
SITE PLAN
DATE: .tune 19, 1991
LEGEND
Application site mw.
Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
-
foPr
APPLICATION NAME: Biship Rezone
NUMBER: RZ-91-1
REQUEST: Rezone from GWC to M3
ZONING/TOPOGRAPHY MAP
DATE: June 19, 1991
LEGEND
Application site _...
Zoning boundary �.
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
S 222ND ST
s z 24 ST
4 S 228TH ST
APPLICATION NAME: Biship Rezone
NUMBER: RZ-91-1
REQUEST: Rezone from GWC to M3
VICINITY MAP
DATE: June 19, 1991
LEGEND
Application site
Zoning boundary
City limits
CITY OF �Lt!)
lIAT�II(C4,f�
CITY OF KENT
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
(206) 859-3390
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1991
FILE NO:
BISHOP
REZONE
#RZ-91-1
APPLICANT:
Robert
Thorpe
and Gary Volchok
REQUEST: A request to rezone 1.77 acres from the
current zoning of GWC, Gateway Commercial,
to M3, General Industrial, to allow for the
expansion of an outdoor storage yard.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Alice Shobe, Planner
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The applicant proposes to rezone 1.77 acres from the
current zoning of GWC, Gateway Commercial, to M3,
General Industrial, to allow for the expansion of David
A. Mowat Company outdoor storage yard.
B. Location
The subject property consists of the western 312 feet
of Lot 1 of Shinns Valley Home Addition. The address
of two homes located on the eastern portion of this lot
are 22225 and 22219 84th Avenue S.
C. Size of Property
The subject property is 1.77 acres.
D. Zoning
Property to the west and south of the proposed site is
zoned M3, General Industrial. Property to the east and
1
Staff Report
Bishop Rezone
#RZ-91-1
north of the proposed site is zoned GWC, Gateway
Commercial.
E. Land Use
Surrounding land use includes: The David A. Mowat
Company to the west, MacDonald Industries to the south,
two single family residential homes to the east and a
warehouse to the north.
F. History
The subject property was annexed in the City of Kent on
August 31, 1955 as part of a 900 acre annexation. A
rezone application, PAL Company #RZ-76-9, was made in
1976 for the southern half of Lot 1 of Shinns Valley
Addition (22225 84th Avenue S.) which includes the
southern portion of the proposed rezone. At the time
of application the subject property was zoned HC,
Highway Commercial. The request for rezone to M3 was
denied following reconsideration because the property
fronted on 84th Avenue S., a commercial corridor.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
(MDNS) (#ENV-91-23) for the rezone proposal was issued
on April 26, 1991 subject to the following conditions
and mitigating measures:
1. The owner/developer shall obtain a pollution
discharge permit from the Kent Public Works
Department. A requirement of this permit will be
to provide treatment of stormwater runoff prior
to discharge into the nearest city system.
Provide biofiltration of stormwater runoff prior
to discharge into the nearest city storm system.
A minimum 200-foot long biofiltration swale with
maximum 3 to 1 side slopes is required.
Wetponds, filter strips, or other alternatives
shall comply with the latest edition of the King
County Surface Water Design Manual.
Biofiltration systems shall not constitute part
of the required landscaping.
2
Staff Report
Bishop Rezone
#RZ-91-1
2. On site detention shall be required in accordance
with Kent Standards.
3. The storage area shall not be used for equipment
maintenance, fueling, washing, or any other
activities without approved plans and permits
which include oil/water separators, connections
to the sanitary sewer system, possible METRO
permits etc.
4. The developer shall do a traffic study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of
Kent road network and traffic signal system. The
study shall identify all intersections at level
of service "E" or "F" or which will be at "E" or
"F" due to increased traffic volumes from the
development. These intersections are at a
threshold level for traffic mitigation.
The study shall then identify what improvements
are necessary to mitigate the development impacts
thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and mitigation measures
outlined in the study, implementation and/or
construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance of
the respective development permits.
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study,
constructing and/or implementing the respective
mitigation measures hereby, the developer may
agree to the following condition to mitigate the
traffic impacts due to the Bishop Rezone.
A. The developer shall execute an
environmental mitigation agreement to
financially participate and pay a fair
share of the costs associated with the
construction of the South 224th/228th
Street corridor project. The minimum
benefit to the above development is
estimated at $16,140 based upon 15 p.m.
peak hour trips entering and leaving the
site and the capacity of the South
224th/228th Street corridor.
3
Staff Report
Bishop Rezone
#RZ-91-1
The execution of this agreement will serve
to mitigate traffic impacts to the above
mentioned intersections and road system by
committing funding for the South
224th/228th Street corridor which will
provide additional capacity for traffic
volumes within the area of the above
mentioned development.
5. The developer shall provide verification that the
subject site has legal access to the public
street system.
6. The developer shall pay his proportional share of
the cost for the interconnection of the East
Valley Highway signals at South 224th Street,
SR167 on and off ramps, and South 228th Street.
The developer's share thereof is estimated at $75
per peak hour trip impacting said intersections.
7. Prior to the issuance of a development permit the
developer shall execute a financial participatory
agreement to pay his fair share of the costs
associated with construction of an east bound
left turn lane on South 224th Street at the
driveway location. The actual terms and
conditions of said agreement shall be subject to
review and approval by the Public Works
Department.
8. The owner shall subdivide the proposed project
lots or complete a lot line adjustment to create
legally separate lots for the two remaining
single family residences located at 22225 and
22219 84th Avenue S.
9. The owner/developer shall provide approved Fire
Department access and fire flow for all
structures and storage yard.
B. Significant Physical Features
Topography and Vegetation
The subject property is relatively flat except for
large mounds of fill which are covered with grass.
4
Staff Report
Bishop Rezone
#RZ-91-1
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property has access to S. 224th
Street which is classified as a minor arterial.
The street has a public right-of-way width of 100
feet while the actual width of paving is,44 feet.
The street is improved with lanes of asphalt
paving, curb and gutter and storm water drainage.
A widening strip will not be required to be
deeded to the city. A new left hand east bound
turn lane is required. (See MDNS condition #7
above.) The average daily traffic count on the
street is 13,000 vehicle trips per day.
2. Water System
The site is served by a 10-inch water main
located along 222nd Street. A 16-inch water line
is located along 84th.
3. Sanitary Sewer System
An 8-inch sanitary sewer main located adjacent to
the site 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
No LID's are pending at this time.
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
5
Staff Report
Bishop Rezone
#RZ-91-1
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.
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 that project site as C, Commercial.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
2
Staff Report
Bishop Rezone
#RZ-91-1
GOAL 1:
Goal 2:
Promote diverse industrial development in
industrially developed areas.
Assure retail and commercial developments
are in suitable locations.
Planning Department Comment:
Prior to being zoned GWC,
subject site was zoned
However, properties located
west were zoned either
Manufacturing. The land use
site were developed as
Gateway Commercial, the
GC, General Commercial.
to the north, south, and
M3 or CM, Commercial
s surrounding the proposed
industrial prior to
implementation of the GWC zone.
In the East Valley Study (#CPZ-89-1), 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.
The purpose of the GWC district, as outlined in Section
15.04.195 of the Kent Zoning Code, is to provide
"retail commercial uses appropriate along major
vehicular corridors." The proposed rezone does not
impact the intent of the GWC zone because approximately
300 east - west lineal feet of property fronting 84th
Avenue S. will remain available for commercial
development. The portion of land east of the proposed
site, which fronts 84th Avenue S. is more suitable for
commercial development. Because of signage
requirements and the need for visibility from passing
traffic, a commercial strip as deep as the existing lot
creates some portions undesirable for commercial
development.
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the project site
as C, Commercial.
7
Staff Report
Bishop Rezone
#RZ-91-1
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
GOAL 1: Promote fill-in development of industrially
developed area.
Objective 1: Minimize unnecessary public
improvements and provide
efficient municipal services.
Policy 7: Areas rezoned for urban
development shall be compact
rather than scattered or strung
out in linear patterns along
arterial streets which would
interfere with the utility and
integrity of lands that are
separated by the strip
development. Strip developments
also typically interfere with the
capacity and safety of arterial
streets serving them if each land
use has separate access.
Planning Department Comment
The proposed rezone is requested for expansion of an
existing storage yard. Approval of the rezone would
not result in separation of land or strip development.
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
Comprehensive Plan.
9
is consistent with the
Staff Report
Bishop Rezone
#RZ-91-1
Planning Department Comment
The proposed rezone is not precisely consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and Valley Floor Plan map
designations; however, it is consistent with goals and
policies outlined in both (as discussed in Section IV.
A. of this report).
2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of
the site would be compatible with development in
the vicinity.
Planninq Department Comment
The proposed rezone and storage yard would not have a
negative impact on future development consistent with
the GWC zone purpose because a portion of land suitable
for commercial development will remain along 84th
Avenue S. The proposed storage yard is consistent with
existing industrial developments to the west, north,
and south. Appropriate landscape and fencing buffers
have been included in the 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.
Planning Department Comment
The proposed project is an expansion of the an existing
storage yard and will therefore have minimal impact on
traffic in the vicinity. If the property is developed
at a more intensive use further review of the traffic
impacts would be required. Traffic impacts at proposed
levels were addressed through the SEPA process.
4. Circumstances have changed substantially since
the establishment of the current zoning district
to warrant the proposed rezone.
Planning Department Comment
The need for "visually" accessible commercial land
along 84th Avenue S. and other commercial areas
dependent on the automobile have become more pronounced
since the GWC zone was implemented. Sign regulations
E
Staff Report
Bishop Rezone
#RZ-91-1
have not changed since the GWC zone was implemented
however, a significant effort to enforce the Sign Code
has taken place in the two years. Developers are being
advised of sign regulations earlier in the development
process and therefore have become more realistic about
suitable locations for commercial development.
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
remaining commercial area and allow for expansion of an
existing use compatible with surrounding land uses.
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.
V. 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 Bishop Rezone request subject to the
following condition:
1. Any subsequent change in the use of the proposed site
shall be subject to a new traffic impact analysis to
determine appropriate mitigation.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
June 6, 1991
W]
City of Kent - Planning Department
Proposed
Contractor's
Storage Yard
Existing Zone: GWC
Proposed Zone: M3
Total Acreage: 77.002 s.f. (1 77 acres)
Privet(! access ownership
rou dinq site-1
f
i
APPLICATION NAME: Biship Rezone
NUMBER: RZ-91-1
REQUEST: Rezone from GWC to M3
SITE PLAN
Vacant
Vacant
GWC - Apartments
E— 84th Ave S.--
1� 'Nwl
t
S`�ee
2a�r
2
5•
DATE: June 19, 1991
LEGEND
Application site mwww
Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
IM10 line
Elk,
� a
APPLICATION NAME
NUMBER: RZ-91-1
Biship Rezone
REQUEST: Rezone from GWC to M3
ZONING/TOPOGRAPHY MAP
DATE: .tune 19, 1991
LEGEND
Application site :.._._...
Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
S 222ND ST
$ z 4 ST
4 S 228TH ST
APPLICATION NAME: Biship Rezone
NUMBER: RZ-91-1
REQUEST: Rezone from GWC to M3
VICINITY MAP
DATE: .tune 19, 1991
LEGEND
Application site
Zoning boundary
City limits
PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are prepared only for the
convenience of those interested in the proceedings of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner. These minutes are not part of the
official record of decision and are not viewed, referred to,
or relied upon by the Hearing Examiner in reaching a decision.
These minutes also are not part of the record of review in the
event a decision of the Hearing Examiner is appealed. Copies
of the tape recordings of the Hearing Examiner proceedings,
or a complete written transcript of these recordings, are
available at a charge from the City of Kent. Please contact
Chris Holden at the Kent Planning Department (859-3390) if you
are interested in obtaining an official transcript.
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
June 19, 1991
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, June 19, 1991 at 3:00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall,
Chambers West.
Mr. Hunter requested all those intending to speak at the hearing
and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to
sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports and
agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described
the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting
testimony was sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony.
BISHOP REZONE.
#RZ-91-1
A public hearing to consider the request by RW Thorpe & Associates,
Inc., 1300 Alaska Building, 618 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104,
and Gary Volchok, CB Commercial, 1200 Sixth Avenue, #1600, Seattle,
WA 98101, for a rezone from GWC, Gateway Commercial, to M3, General
Industrial. The subject property is the western 302 feet of two
legal lots located at 22225 and 22219 84th Avenue S.
Alice Shobe, Planning Department, presented the staff report.
Ms. Shobe showed transparencies delineating the 1) location of the
site and 2) the zoning of the site and surrounding area. Ms. Shobe
commented that to the west of the site is the David A. Mowat
Company, who is planning on purchasing the site to expand their
outdoor storage yard. In addition to the Mowat Company, some of
the uses located near the site are the McDonald Industries; a
warehouse to the north, and residential. homes to the east.
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
June 19, 1991
Ms. Shobe gave a brief history of the site. A Determination of
Nonsignificance was issued for the project on April 26, 1991 with
nine conditions. Ms. Shobe commented the City is requesting that
if the rezone is approved the site either be short platted or a lot
line adjustment be done in order for the rezoned portion of the
property be separated from the single-family uses to the east.
Ms. Shobe commented the Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site
as C, Commercial. Although the proposal is not consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan Map, it is consistent with some of the goals
and polices of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Shobe commented the
City felt that because of the problems with signs and visibility,
the rear portion of the site is not appropriate for commercial use.
Ms. Shobe briefly went over the criteria that needs to be
considered when reviewing a rezone request. Ms. Shobe commented
City staff is recommending approval with one condition.
Mr. Hunter asked for a clarification of the condition.
Ms. Shobe commented the traffic review was made for the designation
of storage yard in an M3 zone.
Mr. Hunter asked if a different type of use was to be developed on
the site would that affect the traffic impact analysis.
Ms. Shobe stated the intent of the condition is to make sure that
a new traffic impact analysis is done if something different than
the storage yard request would be constructed.
Mr. Hunter asked if a representative for the applicant would like
to comment.
Gary Volchok, 1600 Park Place, Seattle, WA 98101, was in full
agreement with the City's conditions, both under SEPA and on the
staff report, on the property. Mr. Volchok gave a brief
explanation of the traffic analysis. He stated that Ed White,
Public Works Department, had changed the trips from 15 to 2 because
this rezone is being considered as an expansion of the Mowat
construction yard. Mr. Volchok commented that if there was a
change 'to the use, the City would redo the traffic analysis.
Mr. Volchok talked about the road access. Mr. Volchok mentioned
the development standards that were required in developing a site.
Agnes Mortensen, 8033 S. 222nd, Kent, WA 98032, requested that
storm drainage be required in order that their property isn't
impacted because of the increased paving and increased run-off.
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
June 19, 1991
Ms. Mortensen commented the ditches in the area need to be cleaned
and maintained.
Mark Weed, Fisher Properties, recently purchased the property
immediately to the south of the subject site. Mr. Weed pointed
out the private access to his site. Mr. Weed commented one of the
conditions of the Fisher's DNS was to improve the access to City
standards. Mr. Weed felt that since the proposed project would
benefit from the improved access, that property owner should be
subject to the cost of the improvements. Mr. Weed commented that
a condition should be added that if there was a change in the use
and additional traffic started using the access, a late -comer fee
should be assessed.
Mr. Hunter commented that request should be brought directly to the
Public Works Department for a determination.
There was no further public testimony.
The hearing was closed at 3:35 p.m.
9
1 Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: SODS CREEK PLAN
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Planning
Committee's endorsement of the King County Executive Proposed
Soos Creek Community Plan Update including changes regarding
incorporation and annexation language which should be stronger
for the urban areas, and the mitigation payment system which
should not be referenced specifically but should support
coordination of mitigation impact fees.
k
3. EXHIBITS: Memo, summary of the Soosk proposal from the
draft environmental impact store ent, the proposed plan map, the
proposed zoning map, resolution in support of the proposed plan
and the Planning Committee minutes of July 2 and July 16.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO /\ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember ?1�--moves, Councilmember�� z seconds
to approve/disappo e/modify Planning Committee's endorsement of
Resolution fh�Lt il5 support of the proposed Soos Creek Plan
including the above changes, which will be presented to the King
County Council for their consideration.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4Bx
CITY OF) LS
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
August 6, 1990
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: LAURI ANDERSONIO*
SENIOR PLANNER
RE: RESOLUTION REGARDING THE EXECUTIVE PROPOSED SOOS CREEK
COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE
At the Planning Committee meeting on July 16, 1991, the Planning
Committee endorsed the Executive Proposed Soos Creek Plan with two
comments: 1) stronger language should be developed to encourage
Covington and the Urban Phase I areas to annex to a city or
incorporate prior to urban level development and to discourage
incorporation and annexation of rural areas; and 2) development
phasing should be tied to traffic mitigation, but the County should
not expect local jurisdictions to accept their Mitigation Payment
System as the only mitigation program. Wording should be developed
to talk about coordination of mitigation systems, rather than
specifically referencing interlocal agreements supporting the
Mitigation Payment System. A resolution based on these comments
has been developed and is attached for your consideration.
Also attached for your review are a summary of the Soos Creek
proposal from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the
proposed Plan map, the proposed Zoning Map, and the minutes of the
Planning Committee meetings on July 2 and July 16 when the proposal
was discussed.
Action requested from the City Council is endorsement of the
resolution in support of the proposed Plan as developed by the
Planning Committee. The approved resolution would be presented to
the King County Council for their consideration as -they prepare to
act on the Plan.
LA/mp:soosplal
Attachments
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred S. Satterstrom
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent,
Washington, generally endorsing the policies
contained in King County's proposed Soos Creek
Plan Update, suggesting changes relative to
annexation/incorporation and traffic
mitigation, and encouraging adoption by the
County Council of the Update as modified.
WHEREAS, the easternmost boundary of the corporate limits
of the City of Kent (hereinafter the "City") abuts the King County
Soos Creek Planning area (hereinafter "Soos Creek"); and
WHEREAS, the city's Comprehensive Land Use Plan addresses
a portion of Soos Creek; and
WHEREAS, the City provides water, sewer and fire services
to a portion of Soos Creek; and
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council finds that development in
Soos Creek has a direct impact on the City, particularly with
regard to automobile traffic which can negatively affect the
City's transportation planning efforts; and
WHEREAS, The Kent City Council has reviewed King County's
proposed Soos Creek Plan Update (issued May 1991), which sets
forth the land use and transportation policies to guide the County
in making development permitting decisions, and finds that the
City of Kent will be affected thereby; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City generally endorses the proposed
Soos Creek Plan Update, recommends that the Update be modified as
described in this Resolution, and supports the King County
Council's adoption of such a modified Update.
Section 2. That the City favorably views the County's
acknowledgment in the Update that development in Soos Creek may
cause adverse traffic impacts in other jurisdictions. In relation
thereto, the City proposes that language be added in the Update
which would tie the County's development phasing to traffic
mitigation, but eliminate any wording which would either assume or
require that local jurisdictions accept the County's Mitigation
Payment System as the only method to achieve this goal. Since the
promotion of coordinated traffic mitigation payment programs
within the affected jurisdictions is desired, but no.one program
is mandatory, it is also recommended that specific references to
interlocal agreements implementing the Mitigation Payment System
be deleted.
Section 3. That the City is benefited by the County's
firm acknowledgment that cities are the preferred areas for urban
growth because of the typically higher level of services they can
provide, and therefore recommends that stronger language be
inserted in the Update by the County Council to encourage Covington
and the areas described in the plan as "Urban Phase I" to annex to
a city or incorporate prior.to urban level development. In con-
formance with the policies set forth in the Update and the Growth
Management Act, the City suggests that the Update also contain
additional language to discourage incorporation and annexation
within rural areas of unincorporated King County.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1991.
day of
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
1991.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, 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 , 1991.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
9600-340
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
JULY 161 1991
Carol Morris commented that Kent's sign ordinance to regulate signs
in the public right of way does not need to be in the zoning code.
She has drafted an ordinance that deals with rights of way, size,
insurance and identification. Cities are authorized to regulate
and allow the use of their streets and other public rights of way
for different purposes under terms the city may designate. The
sign ordinance must state the city's authority to regulate the
streets, and that the citizens must understand that the permit
could be revocable. She has already drafted an ordinance that
deals with rights of way, size of signs, insurance requirements and
identification of signs.
Mr. Harris pointed out that if there is an ordinance on the books,
it needs to be repealed. He felt it is wrong to have an ordinance
and tell the Planning staff to ignore the ordinance.'He expressed
concern about sidewalks. The overall picture should be presented
to the Planning Commission. Sidewalks could be handled through
Council right away with an emergency ordinance.
Chair Johnson directed staff to bring to the next Council meeting
on August 6 an interim ordinance regarding the sidewalk issue. It
may be possible for the Council to repeal a section of the sign
ordinance that deals with sandwich boards.
Chair Johnson directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare an
ordinance for the August 6 Public Works Committee and City Council
meetings. Councilmember Orr SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Councilmember Orr expressed concern about Mr. Rust's criminal
record and asked to have someone check the situation.
SODS CREEK COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE (L. Anderson)
Lauri Anderson stated that on July 29, 1991, King County Council
will hold its first public hearing on the Soos Creek Community
Plan. She asked for questions about the proposed plan and concerns
with regard to the phasing or transportation policies, the proposed
plan and zoning map. She asked for a motion in support of or
opposition to the plan so that by July 29 there will be a Planning
Committee response to the plan to take forward to County Council.
Chair Johnson felt that since the Covington area is designated as
an urban area, it should be encouraged to incorporate as a separate
city. Since Phase I areas are designated as urban areas under the
proposed plan, the county should strongly encourage those areas to
annex into neighboring cities. He felt that if the county were
going to allow urban densities in those areas, these areas should
4
Description of the Proposal
Soos Creek Community Plan Update
Soos Creek is one of 13 defined community planning areas in unincorporated King County. Within these
areas, local residents assist County staff to develop 6-10 year plans for the future growth of their
communities. Consistent with the Countywide Comprehensive Plan, community plans establish policies for
land use, environmental protection, transportation, and a range of essential public services and facilities,
such as parks and open space, sewer and water. The plans also contain recommendations for capital
improvement projects. An area -wide zoning map is developed along with the plan; land within the planning
area is rezoned in conjunction with the designations and policies of the adopted plan. When adopted by
the County Council, the community plan and area zoning amend the County's Comprehensive Plan and
official zoning map, and serve as a guide for future land use decisions in the area.
As depicted in the Soos Creek Planning Area Map, the planning area encompasses 73 square miles. It is
bounded on the north by the bluffs of the Cedar River Valley; on the east by 196th Avenue SE and Wax
Road; on the south by the Green River Valley, and on the west by the Green River and SR 167 north to
Renton's city limits. The Cities of Auburn, Kent, and Renton border the planning area.
Unincorporated Soos Creek has grown rapidly. The 1990 population is estimated at 95,300 a 34% increase
since 19W. By the year 2000, population in unincorporated Soos Creek is projected to increase by 36% to
129,600 (King County, 1990). The population of unincorporated Soos Creek by the year 2010 is projected
to be 167,600 persons.
The Soos Creek planning area also includes portions of the nearby cities of Auburn, Kent, and Renton
which have also grown rapidly over the recent decade. The combined population of incorporated and
unincorporated areas in Soos Creek is estimated to reach 160,800 by the year 2000 and 202,800 by the
year 2010.
Land use in Soos Creek is generally characterized by a predominance of urban/suburban neighborhoods
and some significant resource areas. The primary land use pattern consists of low and medium density
residential development in the western portion of the planning area and rural densities in the southeastern
and northeastern portions. Several activity centers — including areas at major intersections along Benson
Road, Kent-Kangley Road, and Petrovitsky Road — are located within the planning area and are
characterized by more Intensive commercial and multifamily development. Similarly, the neighborhoods of
Benson Hill, Fairwood, East Hill, Lea Hill and Covington generally contain concentrations of higher density
(i.e. multifamily) residential development and commercial centers. Significant open space areas and
environmental resources are also found in parts of the planning area, particularly adjacent to Lake Youngs
and along the Cedar River, Big Soos Creek, and Green River.
37
The Soos Creek Community Plan, originally adopted in 1979, generally directed higher density urban
development to nearby cities, where services were present or could be extended efficiently. The Plan
recognized three general categories of land use: suburban, transitional, and rural. Covington was also
recognized as an activity center provided urban services could be provided. Low density (ranging from 1
unit/acre to 1 unit/5 acres) zoning was applied to rural lands and environmentally sensitive areas generally
In the southeast and northeast portions of the planning area. The remainder of Soos Creek was designated
for a range of residential densities.
In March, 1988, the County Executive and King County Council appointed the Soos Creek Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC) to develop an updated plan for the area. The Committee consists of 10 members
representing differing interests and views. The motion initiating the plan update generally directed the CAC
to develop a plan that could accommodate forecast growth consistent with other important County goals
and policies, including protecting the environment, preserving resource lands, and providing adequate
facilities and services.
A series of neighborhood public meetings were held over the three-year planning period to describe the
community planning process and to solicit residents comments and views about the future of the
community. Based on this input, the committee and staff formulated general goals and objectives to guide
the development of a plan concept.
o phase growth with the provision of urban services — a major focus of the Plan is to strengthen
requirements for adequate roads, parks, and school capacity concurrent with development;
o protect rural areas and natural resources — stream corridors support fisheries and wildlife habitat
and supply open space/recreation and agricultural soils;
o improve quality of development in urban areas — improving the built environment by incorporating
natural features with better landscaping, building and site design; and
o provide for the community's diverse housing needs -- create a wide range of urban and rural
housing opportunities and focus most growth around existing business centers.
In the spring of 1988, a brochure was mailed to residents describing three alternative land use plans; the
alternatives reflected different possible development and density patterns for Soos Creek. The brochure
also contained a questionnaire to help solicit local reaction to the alternatives. The alternatives presented
in this brochure all were estimated to accommodate (approximately) the year 2000 population growth
forecast by the PSCOG for the planning area. After meetings and input on these alternatives, staff and the
CAC developed the Proposed Plan. This preferred alternative did not accommodate as much growth as
the original alternatives, however, due to infrastructure constraints such as roads.
During the summer of 1989, the County Council adopted interim zoning regulations for the Soos Creek
Basin proposed by the County Executive to protect valuable fisheries habitat. The interim regulations
established maximum densities of one unit per 5 acres within one -quarter mile on both sides of locally
significant streams. Natural spawning and hatchery production make a substantial contribution to the
Green River sport and commercial fishery, valued at approximately $19 million annually. Interim zoning
measures were intended to minimize the.impacts of rapid urban growth and development on these
regionally significant fisheries resources while long term zoning was developed by the Soos Creek Plan
Update. The overall area affected by the interim ordinance is approximately 15,000 acres, of which
approximately 4,500 acres were downzoned to 1 unit/5 acres The remaining area, 70%, already has a
permitted zoning density of 1 unit/5 acres (or less) prior to interim measures. These development
limitations include a one -quarter mile wide corridor on both sides of a locally significant stream and the
entire sub -basin of a drainage area that is tributary to a regionally significant stream. The Interim Controls
Ordinance also called for development of a master drainage plan for the Covington area. Adoption of the
Soos Creek Executive Proposed Community Plan and Area Zoning will replace these interim zoning
measures.
The Executive Proposed Soos Creek Community Plan and Area Zoning, accompanied by this Draft EIS, will
,. be transmitted to the King County Council for review In Spring of 1991. After holding a public hearing, the
County Council will refer the proposed plan to a review panel, consisting of a subcommittee of the Council.
The review will consider the proposed plan in detail and hold additional public meetings; the Council will
then make recommendations to the full County Council. After holding additional public hearings — and
following Issuance of a Final EIS which responds to comments on the Draft EIS and analyzes any changes
recommended by the Council — the Council will adopt the plan by ordinance. Following adoption, it will be
used by the King County Council, Executive, various agencies and departments and private property
owners as a guide in making decisions about land use, Infrastructure, and other issues for the Soos Creek
planning area -
Proposed Soos Creek Plan Concepts and Policies
Proposed Plan Concept
The land use concept contained In the Executive Proposed Soos Creek Update allocates future
development and population growth based on the following general characteristics of the planning area:
o Established neighborhoods and urban development patterns in the western and central portions of
the planning area;
o Productive agricultural areas and rural development patterns in the southeastern and northeastern
portion of the planning area;
0 Significant forecast population growth and growing development pressure;
o The presence of environmentally sensitive areas and valuable natural resources;
o Currently limited infrastructure capacity (especially roads, parks, and school capacity) to support
substantial additional growth; and
0 Demands for urban levels of service in rapidly developing rural areas;
The challenge to the Soos Creek Community Plan Update is to balance these factors consistent with the
policies of King County's Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances, and to accommodate the
needs of the regional community. The major features of the proposed plan concept are shown in the
Preferred Alternative Map.
The land use and zoning designations contained in the Executive Proposed Soos Creek Community Plan
Update would support a maximum population of between approximately 126,009 and 134,342 people at
buildout (varying with the percentage of partly developed land that is assumed to redevelop in the future,
and assuming buildout of Phase 1 area designated Growth Reserve with Potential Zoning classifications at
their ultimate urban densities). This represents a potential increase of between 30,709 and 39,042
additional people. Compared to recent PSCOG population forecast, the plan would accommodate
between 3,591 fewer people (assuming 40 percent partly developed land redevelops) and 4,742 more
people (assuming 70 percent partly developed land redevelops) than are forecast to live in unincorporated
portions of the planning area by the year 2000. The Plan would not accommodate the PSCOG population
projections for the year 2010. Population for the year 2010 is estimated to be 167,600 for the
unincorporated portions of the Soos Creek planning area, which is between 33,258 and 41,591 persons
i greater than estimated buildout under the Proposed Action assuming realization of urban densities for
lands designated Phase I and between 4,418 and 19,885 persons greater than estimated buildout assuming
realization of urban densities for both Phase I and Phase 11 lands. Based on forecast rates of growth (1990-
,� 2010), buildout could occur some time between 1999 and 2008 (depending on how much Phase I and II
lands actually develop to urban densities over the time period).
This estimate assumes development of areas at their ultimate urban densities. In the near -term, however,
1 assuming that development occurs at currently permitted densities without actualization of potential
zoning, without annexation by the adjacent cities, and without extension of urban services, estimated
population capacity of Soos Creek would be approximately 4,174 additional people, or a total population
1
39
6
s
capacity of approximately 99,474. This range would be approximately 23 percent less than PSCOG's year
2000 population projection, and approximately41 percent less than PSCOG's year 2010 projection.
Urban Growth Areas: Consistent with the Washington Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), and with
the King County Comprehensive Plan, the Executive Proposed Soos Creek Update directs most future
growth to areas that are characterized by urban development and which can support urban growth based
on the availability (or planned extension) of essential services and facilities. Identified Urban Growth Areas,
and the land use designations proposed for these areas, have been coordinated with the boundaries,
annexation/expansion areas, and service capacities of the adjacent cities of Auburn, Kent, and Renton.
King County and the Cities will pursue intedocal agreements to formalize and implement their
understanding regarding these areas. Detailed policies are included in the plan to guide the formation of
pre -annexation planning agreements. s
Urban Areas: The Executive Proposed Soos Creek Update applies urban land use designations to
established residential and commercial areas in Soos Creek. Established neighborhoods in the western
portion of the planning area would generally be developed more intensely and with a broader range of
uses; these include the neighborhoods of Fairwood, Benson Hill, East Hill, Kent/Meridian, Lea Hill and
Covington, the one urban activity center in the east. Over the 6-10-year life of the plan, these
neighborhoods would accommodate additional growth at densities similar to present development
patterns. Single-family urban areas would have densities ranging between 3 and 8 dwelling units per acre
and averaging approximately 5 dwelling units/acre. The Executive Proposed Plan also proposes
maintaining the multifamily areas designated in the existing plan located along major arterials adjacent to
neighborhood commercial centers. As noted in the discussion of the proposed phasing program, urban
densities for new development could be achieved only after infrastructure and service deficiencies are
corrected.
The Executive Proposed Plan generally promotes redevelopment of existing commercial centers and
intensification of retail and service space. Ten commercial centers are designated throughout the planning
area. Their proposed locations recognize existing concentrations of commercial activity and are intended
to provide an appropriate scale of retail commercial services and multifamily uses located in compact
centers convenient to residential neighborhoods. These commercial centers include 6 neighborhood
centers serving local shopping needs and 4 community centers with a wider range of retail and commercial
services. The plan policies do not support rezoning multifamily land for additional commercial uses.
Multifamily land use designations, with densities ranging between 9 and 30 dwelling units/acre, are located
within activity centers surrounding commercial areas. Generally, permitted density of multifamily
development would decrease with distance from the commercial center, this is intended to create a
transition in building scale and human activity between commercial and adjacent single-family uses.
An industrial area and quarring/mining operation is sited in Covington; a smaller industrial area is
designated near Aubum-Black Diamond Road along 148th Avenue SE. The proposed action would allow !�
these existing uses to continue.
The Cities of Auburn, Kent, and Renton function as Urban Activity Centers for the planning area.
Consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan, high density residential development and most
commercial/industrial development is directed to these cities based on the presence of or efficiency of
providing necessary urban services.
Unincorporated Urban Activity Center: Covington is also designated as an Urban Activity Center by the
King County Comprehensive Plan. The Executive Proposed Soos Creek Community Plan maintains this
designation and promotes policies intended to focus a substantial amount of future growth into Covington.
Redevelopment in Covington would emphasize its potential to enhance employment opportunities with the
development of business parks, office uses, and service commercial uses. It is anticipated that industrial
40
1
zoned land is sufficient to accommodate forecast demand. Plan policies for Covington encourage
additional retail, office, and multifamily uses to locate in this Urban Activity Center.
Plan for Phasing of Development: The Executive Proposed Soos Creek Community Plan and Zoning
Includes a phasing plan for future development. Urban lands in the Soos Creek planning area are divided
between Phase 1, and Phase 2 (see preferred alternative map). The phasing plan would direct growth first
to cities which have facilities and services available, then to unincorporated portions of Phase 1.
Development in Phase 2 Is tied to the need for additional urban land to meet the 10-year capacity needs
and achievement of adequate facilities. In general, phasing of development is tied to specific level of
service requirements for urban services and utilities and is used as a tool to achieve concurrency
requirements in King County ordinances and the Growth Management Act. Timing new development to
coincide with the availability of services will also give local service providers a basis to plan for expansion,
and will encourage the efficient use of urban land before opening new areas to urban development.
Phase 1: Vacant and underutilized land in Phase 1 would be zoned Growth Reserve (5-acres); potential
zoning for higher densities would be applied and used to time development. Rezones could be applied for
after the County adopts revised Road Adequacy Standards (RAS) addressing the concurrency
i requirements of the Growth Management Act and payment of mitigation fee interiocals to the cities of Kent,
Renton, and Auburn. Adoption of interiocal agreements would permit the reciprocal collection of mitigation
fees. Potential zoning would be activated by the rezone process and allow development of up to 8
units/acre for single-family developments If criteria for public services and other requirements are met.
Existing urbanized areas in the western and northern portion of the planning area would be categorized as
Phase 1. The target area includes vacant and underutilized lands within the cities, the Benson/116th
corridor, the Fairwood area, and existing business centers, including Covington and it's surrounding area.
The Soos Creek Citizens Advisory Committee felt strongly that a deadline should be established for King
County to accomplish the adoption of Revised Road Adequacy Standards and Mitigation Payment System
interlocals to provide a measure of predictability for property owners within Phase I. Three years have
been allowed for these two actions to occur. Technically, the lands cannot automatically convert to
outright urban zoning. Therefore, King County will initiate a plan amendment to the Soos Creek
Community Plan after May 1, 1994 if these actions have not been completed to convert the Phase I area to
outright urban densities.
Employment areas within urban activity centers located in Phase 1 would be zoned 'out -right' for
commercial and industrial uses and would not be subject to Growth Reserve potential zoning classification.
Undeveloped multifamily areas in urban activity centers would, however, be zoned Growth Reserve with
potential zoning for higher density - up to 30 units per acre.
Properties which have submitted development applications that are vested per state law (approximately
1,426 lots in Phase 1), as well as existing development, would not be downzoned to Growth Reserve-5
acres. These lands would retain their current zoning and could develop in the near term, subject to
i applicable standards and regulations.
Phase 2: Phase 2 is located in the central portion of the planning area generally east of 116th Avenue SE.
Phase 2 would be designated for future urban in the Soos Creek Community Plan and assigned Growth
a Reserve-5 acre zoning. Potential zoning classifications would not be applied. Residential lot clustering and
densities of one unit/5 acres would be required to minimize urbanization in the near term and retain future
planning options.
i Phase 2 lands could not be developed at urban densities until all necessary facilities and services are
available concurrent with development. Application of urban density zoning would require an amendment
to the Soos Creek Community Plan. The plan amendment process will be used to address the following
criteria:
41
o Whether the area is needed to provide additional land to meet the ten-year capacity requirements 41
of the Growth Management Act; J
o All necessary utilities such as sewer and water service are available;
o All necessary facilities (such as schools, fire and police protection, and parks) are identified and,
where significant impacts are expected, additional facilities are provided to serve the proposed
development;
0 New Road Adequacy Standards have been adopted that are consistent with the Growth
Management Act; and
o A mitigation payment system interiocal agreement has been adopted that permits reciprocal
collection of fees for King County, Kent, Auburn, and/or Renton.
In addition to the criteria for development of urban densities in Phase 2, certain transportation -related
issues that improve east/west access to the plateau for existing residents must be resolved. One road
construction project that is tied to urban development in Phase 2, is the SE 277th Street corridor. The
Proposed Action identifies general areas that would benefit by the construction of SE 277th Street; within
these areas development densities will remain very low until routes are established, an area -wide plan
amendment is approved, and construction is fully funded within two to three years of approving the
amendment.
Properties within Phase 2 that have submitted development applications which are vested per state law --
ICY
approximately 2,144 lots — would not be rezoned to Growth Reserve-5 acres. These lands would retain
their current zoning classifications and, assuming applicable standards and regulations are met, could
develop at urban densities (per prior zoning) in the near term.
Urban Separators: The Growth Management Act of 1990 promotes the concept of locating green belts,
open space, regional parks and low densities in a manner that provides separation between urban areas.
The proposal would provide two urban separators. In the northwestern portion of the planning area, an
urban separator is proposed along the SE 196th Street corridor encompassing the City of Renton
watershed and Panther Lake. This area would provide a visual break between the urban areas near Kent
and Renton. The second major urban separator is located in the Green River Valley between Auburn and
Lea Hill.
Zoning in proposed urban separators would be one unit/acre with a requirement for clustering of
dwellings. For areas that are already developed, zoning that reflects the existing development pattern
would be retained. Potential zoning categories are not applied to the urban separators.
Rural Areas: Portions of the eastern one-half of the planning area are designated for rural residential use
and open space. These areas are presently characterized by a rural development pattern, including
grazing pastures, wood lots, and scattered residences. These areas are envisioned to remain permanently
rural. The Seattle International Raceway is also located in the rural area. Parks and recreational uses are
located adjacent to the Cedar River and Soos Creek. AOM
Low density rural residential designations are generally proposed adjacent to agricultural lands, 01�
environmentally sensitive areas, and within sparsely developed portions of the planning area. Low ,
densities (ranging from 1 dwelling unit per 2.5 to 10 acres) are intended to maintain existing rural character
and appropriate service levels. Rural land use designations are also used to minimize land use conflicts -�
and provide a buffer between environmentally sensitive areas near Lake Youngs and the Cedar River and �,�..
surrounding urban uses.
Major Plan Policies
Highlights of the Executive Proposed Soos Creek Community Plan Update are summarized below. This
section is a selective summary and paraphrases proposed policy language; the full text of Executive
Proposed policies is included in Appendix A.
42 r77
Natural Resources
This group of policies is designed to protect Soos Creek's varied natural resources and environmentally
sensitive areas, Including wetlands, streams and drainage channels, lakes, steep slopes, and wildlife
habitat. The major objective of the natural resource policies is to recognize the limitations of environmental
constraints while accommodating pressures for growth. Major natural resources policies include the
following:
Streams and Wetlands Resources
o King County should prevent land development that would pose hazards to stream systems and
fisheries through appropriate application of zoning and development regulations. Sensitive areas
Important for the control of surface water runoff, erosion, flooding, and protecting fisheries should
i not be disturbed by development activities. (NR-1, NR-2)
o New development should be required to rehabilitate degraded wetlands and stream channels and
prevent further erosion and water quality problems. Agricultural activities (grazing) should also be
limited in sensitive stream and wetland resource areas. (NR-3, NR-4)
Clearing and Erosion Control
o Clearing, grading operations and vegetation removal during construction should be minimized,
should not occur between October 1 st and March 31 st, and avoided in sensitive areas. Retention
of wetland buffers, slope setbacks, and other environmentally sensitive areas to moderate surface
water runoff and erosion should be required through special zoning conditions, critical drainage
basin requirements, or Countywide ordinance. Native landscaping should be used where
revegetation is required. (NR-5, NR-6, NR-7, NR-8, NR-9)
Ground and Surface Water
i o Ground water recharge areas should be protected consistent with the South King County Ground
' Water Management Plan. (NR-10)
o Wells should be monitored by purveyors to document water levels, amounts withdrawn, and water
quality to determine long-term trends of water use. (NR-11)
o Special zoning requirements for increased on -site retention/detention of storm water should
Implement the Soos Creek Basin Plan. Infiltration of treated surface water is encouraged in single-
family neighborhoods .where technically feasible and compatible with on -site septic systems.
Unless adequate treatment for surface water runoff is provided, infiltration should not occur in
areas draining multifamily, commercial, and industrial land uses. (NR-12, NR-13).
o Development within 660 feet of the steep walls of the Green River Valley should be avoided to
minimize environmental impacts and property risks. (NR-14)
o King County and METRO should work together in helping residents form Lake Improvement
Districts to address water quality concerns in small lakes. Where possible, larger scale water
quality planning projects, such as basin plans, should address water quality in small areas. (NR-
15)
1 o Lot clustering density bonuses or other incentives may be required adjacent to urban separators,
watersheds, and the urban/rural boundary to protect water resources and buffer rural areas from
intensive urban uses. (NR-16)
43
Wildlife Habitat
o Unique or significant wildlife .habitat and corridors connecting important habitat areas should be
Identified and preserved; this may result In reduced development densities. (NR-17)
Special Recommendations
Several recommendations, which are a part of but beyond the scope of, the Executive Proposed Soos
Creek Plan, were developed In response to issues Identified by the CAC and Staff and are directed to other
County agencies: These include:
o Increase enforcement of clearing and grading regulations; zoning and surface water regulations,
especially in the Soos, Covington, and Jenkins Creek drainages; require minimum levels of
maintenance and regularly inspected detention and retention facilities; and master drainage plan
requirements;
o Initiate a Countywide program to identify and protect upland wildlife habitat and corridors;
o Increase educational programs in the community that inform residents of the environmental
consequences of Individual actions on sensitive resources; and
o Continue financial support for the Soil Conservation District and Washington State Extension
Program.
Urban Growth Areas
The Executive Proposed Soos Creek Community Plan Update designates urban growth areas for cities and
unincorporated activity centers within the planning area. Lands within the growth areas are considered
appropriate for annexation to one of these Cities. The objectives of these policies, which were developed
in conjunction with the KCCP and GMA, are to:
o Direct growth to Urban Growth Area's capable of supporting growth;
o Protect rural and resource areas from urban growth;
o Recognize cities as the preferred areas for urban growth;
o Phase growth and annexations with the provision of services;
o Establish city -county cooperation for the provision of urban services in Urban Growth Areas; and
o Coordinate with cities to assure regional goals are continued after annexation.
The major goal is to permit urban growth only within the Urban Growth Areas designated in the Soos Creek
Community Plan Map (A-1, A-2, A-3). The following criteria have been used to identify these Urban Growth
Areas:
o Lands are designated urban by the King County Comprehensive Plan. Lands designated as
resource lands or rural are not suitable for urban development;
o Natural features and land characteristics are capable ' of supporting urban level population
densities, development activity, and services without significant environmental degradation and
with minimal adverse impact on adjacent resource and rural areas;
o Public facilities and services are in place, or can be provided at reasonable cost to accommodate
urban growth;
To achieve these Urban Growth Area objectives, the following policies are proposed in the Executive
Proposed Scos Creek Community Plan:
a
IY"
Implementation of Annexations and Incorporations
o Support annexation of lands within the Urban Growth Areas when they are phased to allow efficient
provision of services; will not create islands of unincorporated area that are difficult to service; the
annexing city has standards for level of service, mitigating land use impacts of development,
environmental protections equal to or better than the County's; a pre -annexation agreement has
been developed; and urban public services, at a level equal to or higher than currently provided,
can be provided to annexing areas without a degradation in service levels to existing service areas.
(A-i)
Urban Separators
30 o Natural features shall be used to define the Urban Growth Area boundary between urban growth
areas of Renton, Kent and Auburn, and the community of Covington, and between urban and rural
:0 areas. (A-5, A-&)
Intergovernmental Agreements
Intergovernmental Agreements are working agreements covering a wide variety of issues between a City
annexing a portion of unincorporated King County and the County (A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10). The agreements
shall address the following issues:
o Annexation areas are principally for urban uses;
o Appropriate service contracts and/or equitable transfers of responsibilities and assets with special
service districts;
o Establish a capital improvement program to extend services within a reasonable time frame to
meet the needs of future residents, while maintaining or improving service levels to existing city
residents;
o Provide a variety of residential development at a density consistent with regional goals and to
promote transit and efficient service delivery;
o Provide for a fair share of affordable housing within its jurisdiction;
o Provide for the protection of historic sites listed on the King County Historic Register within the
annexation area; and
o Environmental protection for sensitive areas (including, but not limited to, flood plains, steep
slopes, wetlands, seismic areas, streams, and landslide hazard areas) at or above County
standards.
In retum, within the context of the Interlocal Agreement, the County will work with the cities to address the
following issues:
e Notify and consult with cities of development proposals in the expansion areas to condition
approvals to mitigate adverse impacts on municipal services;
o Provide cities with the first opportunity to be the designated sewer or water provider within the
expansion areas, where that issue has not been decided;
45
o Identify improvement requirements which assure that county roads, parks, building design, and
other urban standards are consistent with those of the annexing city;
o Maintain greenbelts, open spaces, and community separators in areas designated in the
community plan map through acquisition, regulation, and incentives;
o Phase urban development to coincide with adequate levels of public services;
o Responsibility for upgrading facilities in urban growth areas where present facilities have been
identified as insufficient.
Phasing Urban Development
o Adequate services and facilities should be provided to support growth and development planned
for the Urban area. New development should be phased to match available public services and
facilities. (A-11)
o Lands immediately adjacent to Renton, Kent, and Auburn, the multdamily/commercial centers, the
Covington Urban Activity Center, and the Master Drainage Plan area are within Phase 1 of the
planning area and zoned for potential urban development. Urban development may be approved
when:
* the area annexes to a city capable of providing services; or,
* the County has adopted Revised Road Adequacy Standards that can be met and address
the need for concurrency as outlined in the Growth Management Act;
* all other urban facilities and services, such as stormwater drainage, schools, fire, police,
sewer, water, transit and parks can be made available to the development; and
* mitigation payment system interlocal agreements have been adopted with the appropriate
cities that permit reciprocal collection of fees for each other's projects. (A-12)
o The Covington Master Drainage Plan Area is within Phase 1 of the planning area and is zoned for
potential urban development. Potential urban zoning may be actualized when the following criteria
can be met:
* sewer service and adequate school capacity is available (at the time development is
completed);
* the Covington Development Guide and Covington Master Drainage Plan have been
adopted;
* the County has adopted Revised Road Adequacy Standards that can be met and address
the need for concurrency as outlined in the Growth Management Act;
* mitigation payment system interlocal agreements have been adopted with the appropriate
cities that permit reciprocal collection of fees for each other's projects. (A-12)
o Lands within the Phase II area south of SE 248th Street —the service area for the SE 277th North
Corridor project— will be designated Growth Reserve and remain at very low densities until the
area annexes to the City of Kent, or a plan amendment applies urban densities. To initiate the plan
amendment, the SE 277th North Corridor project must be through the final EIS stage and must be
fully funded for construction within two years. (A-13)
o The area in Phase 2 south of Petrovitsky Road and north of SE 248th Street is eligible to convert to
urban densities when: mitigation payment system interlocal agreements have been adopted with
the appropriate cities that permit reciprocal collection of fees for each other's projects; revised
Road Adequacy Standards have been adopted consistent with the Growth Management Act; and
additional lands are needed to accommodate the regional ten-year forecast of growth. (A-14)
o Urban residential areas delineated as Phase 2 lands should not be developed at urban densities
until all necessary facilities and services are available concurrent with development. Phase 2 lands
are designated with growth reserve zoning. Application of urban density zoning would require an
amendment to the Soos Creek Community Plan. The plan amendment process will be used to
address the following criteria:
* Whether the area is needed to provide additional land to meet the ten-year capacity
requirements of the Growth Management Act;
* All necessary utilities such as sewer and water service must be available and, utility
Lo el
Service Areas boundary adjustments are necessary, they must first be approvedY
County;
All necessary facilities (such as schools, fire and police protection, and parks) are
identified — both project -related and cumulative — and, where significant impacts are
expected, additional facilities should be provided to serve the proposed development;
* New Road Adequacy Standards have been adopted, and can be met, that are consistent
with the Growth Management Act; and
* A mitigation payment system interiocal agreement has been adopted that permits
reciprocal collection of fees for King County, Kent, Auburn, and/or Renton. (A-15)
Annexation Timing
o Lands in Phase 1 are immediately available to be annexed to the appropriate city provided the
annexation is consistent with provisions discussed above, specifically policies A-4, A-6, A-7, A-8)
Cities of Auburn, Kent, and Renton
o King County will support annexation of areas that meet the provisions of these policies and are
identified in the Soos Creek Community Plan Update as part a future growth area. Through
intergovernmental planning agreements, King County will provide opportunities to participate in the
review of land use decisions that affect these Cities. King County will work with these Cities to
evaluate opportunities for providing neighborhood parks to meet the needs of new development
within the urban portions of the planning area. (A-4 through A-15)
Covington
o The Covington Urban Activity Center may be appropriate for incorporation. The full range of urban
services necessary to serve urban densities should be provided King County will evaluate
proposed incorporations for consistency with the KCCP and policies A-4 through A-16.
Residential Development
Several key issues and concerns relating to residential growth have been identified by the CAC and
planning staff during preparation of the Executive Proposed Soos Creek Community Plan. The Soos Creek
plateau is one of the fastest growing areas in King County and, as a result:
o rural areas, environmentally sensitive areas, and open spaces are threatened;
o new development is often not compatible, in terms of character, with existing residential
development;
o urban areas have grown faster than the provision of public services and facilities, especially roads,
parks, and schools; and
o the cost of housing is out of reach for many residents
+� 47
The updated residential development polices are designed to help address these issues by promoting a
pattern of higher density infill development in appropriate portions of the planning area, i.e., where sensitive
areas are not present, where services and facilities are adequate and where compatible with adjacent
development In areas where services and facilities are deficient, or where natural resources and
environmentally sensitive areas constrain development, density is limited accordingly.
The plan allocates a wide range of residential densities to Soos Creek neighborhoods depending on the
presence of environmental constraints, the availability of urban services and existing development patterns.
Multifamily densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre are permitted in urban areas and activity centers
where adequate facilities and services are available. Lower urban densities are applied in areas with an
established -low density development pattern, or where service levels are currently deficient. For efficient
use of urban land and to promote alternative transportation options, the overall density goal of the
proposed plan is to achieve an average density of 7 to 8 unit/acre in within the urban areas. Rural
densities would range from 1 unit per 2.5 to 10 acres to preserve rural character, and protect
environmentally sensitive areas.
In general, urban levels of development are directed toward urban activity centers identified in the King
County Comprehensive Plan or through other County policies — Auburn, Kent, Renton, Covington, and
along Benson Road. More intensive development in these areas must be integrated with the surrounding
community and the natural environment in terms of architectural style and site planning. The Executive
Proposed Soos Creek Area Zoning contains numerous conditions to ensure compatible infill development
and intensification of appropriate lands.
Major residential policies include the following:
Urban Residential Areas
o Single -Family residential development should range between 4 and 8 units per acre. The range of
single-family densities in urban areas allow 4 to 6 units/acre to be used as the predominate
density; 6 to 8 units/acre near centers along the Benson corridor; and where development
constraints exist, techniques such as clustering on unconstrained portions of the site should be
used. Development should occur at the high end of the allowable density range where adequate
services are available and the environment is protected. (R-1, R-2)
o Mobile home parks are appropriate in the Urban Areas on single- or multifamily designated land
subject to the same development requirements as other residential developments. (R-3)
o New development must provide pedestrian connections to off -site facilities such as existing trails,
walkways, community facilities and services, transit, schools, and surrounding residential
neighborhoods. Pedestrian connections should be provided internally for all new residential
developments. (R-4)
Multifamily Residential Development (Urban High Density)
o High urban densities (between 9 and 30 units/acre) should be located in designated urban activity
centers; densities should gradually decrease outward from the centers. To improve residents'
access to shopping, transit, employment, and other services, the highest densities (up to 30
unit/acre) should be provided in Activity Centers along Benson Road and the Covington Urban
Activity Center. Moderate densities (up to 18 units/acre) should be used in transition areas
between nonresidential uses and lower density housing. Along the edge of Activity Centers,
densities of up to 12 unit/acre should be used to encourage design and scale similarities with
single-family neighborhoods. (R-7)
n�.7
F7
1
0 Multifamily housing should be located in activity centers and along east/west arterials with
available capacity and that connect to employment and commercial opportunities in the Green
River Valley. Multifamily housing should also be provided near the Green River College in locations
with good freeway access. (R-8, R-9)
0 Growth reserve zoning with potential multifamily densities is applied to undeveloped and
underutilized lands designated for multifamily development in Phases 1 and 2. (R-10)
Rural Residential Development
0 Rural areas should have a predominate density of 1 unit per 5 acres. Where existing development
is greater than this density, 1 unit/2.5 units may be appropriate ff: existing densities exceed 1
unft/5 acres; public water supplies are available; and soil conditions are able to handle on -site
sewage disposal without impacting surface and ground water resources. (R-11, R-12).
0 Ten -acre zoning is applied to rural areas where lands are: adjacent to either agriculture or forest
production districts or long-term mining sites; include significant areas of steep slopes (40%),
severe landslide hazards, wetlands, or other severe developmental constraints; or within the 100-
year flood plain of the Cedar, Green, or other rivers in the planning area. (R-13)
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
.� The King County Comprehensive Plan allows community plans to redesignate transitional areas to either
Urban or Rural, depending on the availability of services and other factors. Criteria outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan for redesignating transitional areas are: natural features can support urban
development without significant environmental degradation; public services are in place, or will be, to
accommodate growth; an opportunity to create a balance between jobs and housing exists; and service
providers have made firm commitments to provide urban levels of service. Based on these criteria, the
Executive Proposed Soos Creek Community Plan proposes the following changes in the Transitional Area
designations.
0 The area located generally east of Fairwood, south of Maple Valley Road, north of Petrovftsky Road
and west of 196th Avenue SE is redesignated Rural. (R-14)
o A portion of the south Transitional Area, south of Big Soos Creek, should be designated Rural
since there are major physical barriers to providing an urban level of service at a reasonable cost
and the desire to protect fisheries habitat along Big Soos Creek. (R-17)
o Maple Valley should be redesignated from Urban to Rural because: 1) the Cedar River supports
anadromous fish, 2) there are four class I and class II wetlands present, 3) the Valley floor is a flood
plain, 4) seismic, erosion, and landslide hazard areas are on north facing slopes, 5) Maple Valley is
designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as the City of Renton sole source aquifer, and
6) much of the Valley contains Class I and II prime agricultural soils. (R-18)
o A portion of the Green River Valley should be redesignated from Urban to Rural because: 1) the
Valley floor is in the floodplain; 2) seismic, erosion and landslide hazard areas are in the north
facing slopes and 3) the Green River supports anadromous fish. (R-19)
Quality in Residential Areas
0 All new development should provide adequate and convenient pedestrian links through
neighborhoods to recreation areas, schools, transit, surrounding neighborhoods, and community
facilities should be provided. Where topographic constraints exist, stairs and ramps should be
provided consistent with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. For development adjacent to transit
51 49
routes, convenient pedestrian routes and sheltered bus stops should be provided. Multifamily
developments should provide areas for bicycle parking. (R-25 through R-38)
Recreation Areas Close to Nome
o All residential development should provide adequate parks and open space. Land set aside for
active recreation should be well -drained, level, and suitable for active uses and linked to residential
areas with sidewalks and pathways. If land is not set aside for recreational uses, a fee -in -lieu of
park dedication that is equal to the value of land and facility development may be substituted.
Where possible, land dedicated for parks and open space should be linked with other open spaces
and trail systems. (R-29 through R-32)
Design and Community
o All new residential developments should retain significant existing vegetation, as defined in the
Soos Creek Area Zoning, augmented by new landscaping. Street trees should be provided to
enhance the natural character of the area. (R-33, R-34)
o New development at urban high densities must integrate with the architectural style of the
surrounding neighborhood in style, scale and materials. New development must protect sensitive
areas. (R-35)
o Significant views should be protected by siting structures below ridgeiines. The scale of
multifamily structures should be reduced by incorporating architectural design elements such as
variable setbacks, pitched roofs, deep roof overhangs, angled facets, and recesses. Multifamily
structures adjacent to single-family homes should be limited to heights allowed in single-family
districts. (R-36, R-37)
Special Recommendations
Several recommendations related to housing included in the Plan are directed toward other County
Agencies. Although beyond the scope of the Executive Proposed Community Plan, these include:
o A County -City team should coordinate annexation and incorporation proposals.
o King County, the cities of Renton, Kent, and Auburn and Covington should work together on areas
of mutual concern, such as Urban Separators and the 277th Street Corridor study.
o Amend the zoning code to allow density bonus provisions for low income housing projects that are
consistent with the Housing Assistance Plan;
o Modify, from Urban to Rural, the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan in the Tahoma
Raven Heights Planning Area east of Spring Lake between Petrovitsky Road and Maple Valley
Road since it is surrounded by rural uses and limitations of the transportation system;
o Encourage the Cities of Auburn, Kent, and Renton to include more multifamily housing areas within
those urban centers; and
o Review tax assessment policies that undermine the objectives of comprehensive land use planning
and the provision of urban services.
50
Commercial/industrial Development
ai The Update's proposed commercial/industrial policies are Intended to focus most future growth In
designated activity centers. Special design criteria are recommended for commercial and industrial
development.
Center Functions, Boundaries, and Development
o To minimize land use and traffic impacts on residential uses and promote efficient use of services,
commercially designated land in Urban, Community, and Neighborhood Activity Centers should be
redeveloped and uses intensified; commercial and industrial uses should be located in these
centers and their boundaries should not be expanded. Multifamily zoned land should not be
converted or rezoned to allow commercial or industrial uses. (C-1, C-2, C-5)
o Sic locations are designated as Neighborhood Activity Centers: Benson/192nd; 164th/256th;
Lake Meridian; Lea Hill; Cascade; and 132nd/240th. These centers should be small-scale and
provide for the retail and service needs of the Immediate neighborhood. Boundaries of these
centers are not expected to be expanded. (C-3)
o Four locations are designated as Community Activity Centers and provide a wide range of goods
and services for residents throughout the area: Benson Hill; Fairwood; Panther Lake, and Kent-
Kangiey. Boundaries of these centers are not expected to be expanded. (C-4)
Covington Urban Activity Center
y
o Covington is reaffirmed as an Urban Activity Center and should provide a wide variety of shopping,
office, and other commercial services and employment opportunities. Business and office park
development should be subject to site plan review to minimize adverse impacts but is encouraged
as a means to attract employment opportunities. The boundaries of the Urban Activity Center
should not be expanded. (C-6, C-7, C-8)
o Commercial uses that provide regional needs should continue to be provided in the cities of
Renton, Kent, and Auburn. (C-9)
Public Services in Commercial Areas
o Public services must be available consistent with adopted County plans and standards prior to the
approval of any commercial development. (C-10)
Commercial Center Quality
o The Covington Urban Design Study should guide the aesthetic character of Covington Center
including identifying the most desirable placement of new buildings to improve pedestrian activity
and the aesthetics of the Center. Review parking needs to encourage a cdmpact center and
discourage in -center driving within Covington. Locate pedestrian linkages to allow maximum
mobility and enjoyment. Identify potential parks, plazas and public green spaces which enhance
the character of Covington. (C-11)
o Urban design components are integrated into new commercial and industrial development through
a Pedestrian Overlay District in Covintong, Soos Creek's Urban Activity Center by: promoting the
;f concept of a 'center through the use of common design themes such as street and landscape
materials; accentuating the character of the area through the use of style and materials;
51
emphasizing pedestrian components; diminishing adverse impacts of automobile access and
circulation; facilitating transit uses; and integrating urban open spaces for community use. (C-12)
o Trees and landscaping should be utilized to mitigate environmental degradation and buffer
surrounding land uses that are impacted by industrial and commercial activities. Street trees and
landscaping should be required in all commercial/industrial developments and redevelopments in
Soos Creek. (C-13)
o Parking areas should be encouraged at the rear of buildings, under buildings, or in shared facilities
to avoid disruption of pedestrian circulation and promote compact centers. (C-14)
o Commercial centers should be accessible by a variety of transportation modes. Individual
developments should provide safe and well integrated auto, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation
systems within and around Activity Centers. (C-15, C-16)
Transportation
Providing adequate transportation facilities to accommodate projected growth is a major issue in the Soos
Creek planning area. The Executive Proposed Plan Update seeks to develop a balanced transportation
system, provide improvements to the system to solve existing problems, and tie future developments to the
provision of an adequate transportation network (T-1). Policies are proposed regarding roadway and
transportation management, arterial and local circulation, non -motorized vehicles, and needed
improvements.
Major transportation policies include the following:
Roadway Management Polices
o Urban development is appropriate in areas most likely to be served by transit and in close
proximity to employment centers. (T-2) of
o Land uses that generate high traffic levels -- such as commercial, industrial, and multifamily uses —
should be located around intersections of principal and minor arterials and around freeway
interchanges. (f-3)
o New commercial and residential developments in the planning area shall be timed to coincide with
transportation projects to improve traffic on affected roadways. (f-4)
o Road improvement projects that will alleviate existing am and pm peak -period traffic congestion,
such as intersection Improvements, should receive the highest priority. Intersection projects and
operation and maintenance to improve safety and efficiency of existing roads for motorized and
non -motorized transportation are also high priorities. (T-5, T-6)
Arterial Circulation Policies
o New development should contribute a fair share toward completing the arterial system that serves
travel needs within the planning area. King County should develop a hierarchy of street
classifications consistent with the land uses in the Soos Creek community planning area. (T-7, T-8)
52
�►. Local Circulation Policies
o Small -area circulation plans should be developed for Lea Hill, Seattle International Raceway, the
SE 132nd Avenue corridor, and the Benson Hill/Panther Lake subareas. These plans are intended
to provide a guide In designing new local roadways that:
* establishes an effective and Integrated hierarchical circulation system within
neighborhoods;
* produces safe and efficient access to community and area -wide activity areas and
facilities;
* considers multi -modal needs; and
allows efficient emergency and transit service.
* assists developers in designing new local roadways to promote an integrated circulation
system. (T-9, T-10)
o New development shall design internal road systems to allow vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists
to link with adjacent uses and be consistent with the small -area circulation guides developed by
the County for Soos Creek. (T-11)
o Through traffic should be discouraged on local roads with road designs and traffic control devices
rather than road barriers. (T-12)
o Consolidating access locations along arterials should be considered during development review,
as part of roadway improvement projects, or as part of land use redevelopment projects. (T-13)
. Transit/Transportation Demand Management Policies
o Transportation improvements shall be designed to reduce the use of single -occupancy vehicles
and promote transit, ride sharing, walking, and bicycling. (T-14)
o Transit service should be increased and expanded in developed portions of Soos Creek,
particularly in corridors between the valley and plateau, along Benson Road, Covington, and to
Green River Community College. Paratransit service between employment centers and eastside
cities should be increased as well. (T-15, T-16)
o High density residential uses are assigned to transportation corridors in urban areas, such as the
Benson Road, to increase the feasibility of providing regular transit service. (T-17)
o Decrease dependence on single -occupancy vehicles as a primary travel mode by: increasing the
] frequency of transit service in developed portions of the planning area; locating a park -and -ride lot
with shelters or a transit station in Covington and other community activity centers; providing
3 bicycle storage facilities in park -and -ride lots; and incorporating bus pullouts, shelters and other
transit facilities into roadway design. (T-18, T-19)
Nonmotorized Policies
'I
o Develop an efficient and safe system of commuter and recreational routes for pedestrian, bicycle
and equestrian use. Nonmotorized improvements should be incorporated into major widening
roadway projects with funding priority as follows: pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian. (T-20, T-21
T-22)
1
o Pedestrian facilities such as pathways connecting with adjacent developments, transit services and
') arterials shall be required. Consult Metro regarding new service locations. (T-23)
53
o Development shall provide safe pedestrian pathways to all sizes of commercial areas, including
mini -marts. Emphases for designs of pedestrian facilities should be placed on safety to reduce
pedestrian and motor vehicle conflicts at activity centers and provide handicapped accessibility.
(T-24, T-25).
o Bicycle storage facilities in park -and -ride lots should be provided. Transportation projects should
include design features that encourage bicycling and improve safety. A variety of design options
are encouraged such as: bicycle lanes, wide outside travel lanes, paved shoulders, appropriate
signing, and signal detectors. (f-26, T-27)
o Equestrian trail access shall be maintained along County roads and by establishing off -road trails
along and across new major road corridors as needed. Equestrian crossings of arterials should be
permitted only where they do not greatly disrupt traffic and be combined with pedestrian and
bicycle crossings. (T-28, T-29)
Transportation Improvement Projects
o The Soos Creek Community Plan Update road improvement list and maps shall be used to update
the King County Transportation Plan. (T-30)
o Incorporate Transit/HOV lanes and transportation demand management programs for new roads
and in improvements to existing roads between the plateau and the valley to reduce traffic
congestion. The Plan recognizes that these measures are short-term solutions and long-term
solutions require constructing new corridors between the plateau and valley employment centers.
(T-31, T-32)
Special Recommendations
Although beyond the scope of the Executive Proposed Community Plan, it is recommended that King
County:
o Pursue all potential sources of funding for road improvements;
o Amend the Subdivision Code to require maps that show how proposed streets relate to existing
roadways and transportation systems;
o Adopt a Countywide Transportation Demand Management ordinance;
o Revise the road adequacy standards to require the timing of commercial and residential
development to coincide with transportation improvement projects on affected roadways;
o Encourage WSDOT to provide a Class I trail facility in the design of SR-18; and
o Encourage school districts to provide bicycle and pedestrian safety education.
Facilities and Services
Utilities
o King County and service providers should plan for urban levels of service in the urban growth
areas. Utilities should be located, constructed, and maintained in a manner that avoids significant
environmental impacts and protects environmental features (i.e. wetlands and streams) (F-1, F-2)
o Utility service providers should plan for urban levels of service for the Urban Growth Areas and be
consistent with the coordinated water system plan. Water purveyors should demonstrate ability to
serve all vacant and buildable portions of their existing service areas before granting such
expansions beyond boundaries. (F-3, F-4)
54
o In order to protect the water quality of Lake Youngs watershed, the surrounding land should be
designated Forest. (F-5)
�!
o The extension of public water service in rural areas shall not justify higher residential density than
anticipated in the Soos Creek plan. Water purveyor comprehensive plans and facilities planned for
rural areas must be consistent with rural densities and development standards; expansion cannot
require increased densities to finance planned facilities. (F-6)
o Public sewers are the preferred method for wastewater treatment in designated Urban Growth
Areas and on -site sewage disposal is the preferred method of sewage disposal for rural areas.
Where a health hazard is Identified outside the sewer local service area, alternatives to sewer
service for wastewater disposal shall be demonstrated to be infeasible before sewer service Is
approved. (F-7, F-8, F-9)
o Where health hazards are present, and identified by the Seattle -King County Health Department,
for existing development outside of the local service area, an applicant for sewer service shall
demonstrate that alternatives are not feasible. (F-10)
o The Local Service Area (LSA) for sewers shall include Lake Desire and surrounding development
because of known water quality problems. Expanding the LSA to include new development within
rural areas is inappropriate. LSA boundary adjustments outside Urban Areas should not be
granted. (F-11, F-12)
® Expand education efforts to inform residents of the methods for proper operation and maintenance
of on -site treatment systems. (F-13)
School Service
0 School district certification that capacity is, or will be, available to accommodate projected student
enrollment generated by proposed residential project shall be required prior to approving new
residential development. (F-14)
Crest Airport
o Due to noise and safety concerns, low density development should be the primary land use
allowed within Crest Airpark's north flight path within one-half mile of the airport runway. Ail new
development within one -quarter mile of Crest Airpark should include a no protest agreement
recognizing Crest Airpark's value to the community and the. noise and public. safety aspects of
living in proximity to the airpark. (F-15, F-16, F-17)
3 Seattle International Raceway
o The Seattle International Raceway is expected to continue operating throughout the ]He of the
9� Soos Creek Community Plan. (F-18)
Special Recommendations
A)though beyond the scope of the Executive Proposed Community Plan, it is recommended that King
County:
a Require that pas -built' drawings of on -site sewage systems be attached to property deeds;
o Require an inspection of on -site waste disposal systems when property changes ownership; and
o Encourage regular maintenance of on -site waste disposal systems with periodic reminders sent to
property owners.
55
Parks and Open Space
The Executive Proposed Plan Update's park and recreational policies emphasize the creation of a system
of active and passive opens paces, recreation areas, parks, trails, and scenic ares throughout the Soos
Creek area.
Major parks and open space policies include the following:
General
o Existing and future park needs should be provided for with a variety of new park and recreation
facilities. Park facilities and open space should be readily accessible to residents. New
development should provide parks adequate to meet the needs of new residents and employees.
Land acquisition for parks should be pursued through a variety of methods, in addition to fee
simple acquisition, including: incentives to developments, land dedications or fees -in -lieu -of
payments through the development process, and land trades. (P-1, P-2, P-3)
Parks
o Existing and future Urban Growth Areas should be evaluated for future park needs and given
highest priority for park acquisition and facility development. Park and recreational facilities should
adequately support the existing and projected growth in the planning area and be given a high
priority in allocating funds. Sites providing shoreline access opportunities should be a high priority
for acquisition. (P-4, P-5, P-9)
o Enter into or continue cooperative agreements with school districts and with cities for shared
recreational facilities. (P-7)
o King County should encourage retention of significant views of Mt. Rainier by using a variety of
residential development strategies (clustering, siting of improvements, height restrictions and
zoning) and acquired as parks consistent with Plan policies. (P-8)
Trail System Development
o As development occurs in the planning area, public access, easements, or dedication of land
should be required to complete the development of local and regional trial systems. Development
conditions should be used to require trail easements as a condition of subdivision approval for
property where existing trails have been historically used by the public. (P-11, P-12)
o Trail systems acquisition and development should have a high priority, should safely
accommodate a wide range of users and should be developed consistent with the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance. Rights -of -way or easements along utility corridors, abandoned railroads, and other
former transportation corridors as potential trail corridors should be considered for acquisition. (P-
13, P-14)
o Trail linkages should be provided between the Covington Urban Activity Center and the Soos
Creek Trail and link the Cedar and Green River Valleys. (P-15, P-16)
56
Open Space
o King County should coordinate with other jurisdictions to link major elements of the open space
system including the Cedar River, Lake Desire, Lake Youngs, Big Soos Creek, SR-18 and the
Green River trail systems. (P-18)
o This plan supports the protection and/or preservation of the open space sites identified for
acquisition by the Open Space Action Plan either through fee -simple acquisition, establishment of
All development controls, or provision of development incentives. (P-19)
o An open space system should be created consistent with the criteria of the Open Space Plan.
Park mitigation should be required for all development. Park preservation or protection techniques
that should be considered or required include: lot clustering; creation of linkages between open
spaces; and provision of density bonuses or other incentives. (P-20)
o Urban separators should be established consistent with the community plan map through
acquisition, regulation and incentives allowing linkages for wildlife habitat and visual identity
between distinct communities. (P-21)
Cultural Resources
The Executive Proposed Plan Update encourages King County to coordinate with other jurisdictions to
identify, preserve, and nominate as landmarks significant historic resources located within the urban
growth area. This would be accomplished, in part, by:
Preservation Strategies
o Establishing intertocal agreements with the cities of Auburn, Kent, and Renton to protect historic
resources; incorporate historic resources into tourism activities and economic development
programs. (CR-3, CR4)
o Historic resources should be retained and integrated into development plans for parks and
recreational facilities; interpretive programs to increase public awareness should be developed;
consult and involve property owners in identifying and nominating (CR-1, CR-2, CR-&)
Special Recommendations
Although beyond the scope of the Executive Proposed Community Plan, it is recommended that King
County:
o Conduct Informative workshops on identification of architectural styles, methods of researching
historic buildings, and restoration techniques in an effort to increase public awareness and
appreciation of Soos Creek history.
57
Proposed Land
Use
Rural
I
1 unit per 2.5, 5 or I
i
acres
Urban Separator
1 unit per acre, clustered
n+
-is, Regional Parks, Rec-
reation Facilities and
Watersheds
URBAN PHASE 1
♦-0-0 Phased Urban Area
Boundary
Single Family
4-8 units per acre subject
to the growth phasing
provisions of this plan
' 1FW
Activity Center
® Multifamily - 9-30 units per
-
acre subject to the growth
phasing provisions of this
plan
I\\,
Commercial/Office/Indus-
J.
trial
l
URBAN PHASE 2
�.�
Single Family
4-8 units per acre subject
to the growth phasing
provisions of this plan
ii/
I
Source.: Kinp County Community Plnnninp
Executive Proposed Sees Creek
Community Plan Update 1991
",�•1._� Sees Creek Community Planning Area
d
•-I ry
iY N
i r King County Planning and _�
Community Development Division
1991
I 0 i AIn
CITY OF
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
July 2, 1991 4:45 PM
Committee Members Present
Jon Johnson, Chair
Christie Houser
Leona Orr
Planning Staff
Lauri Anderson
Margaret Porter
Lois Ricketts
Fred Satterstrom
Guests
Emile Ghantons
Sami Aoun
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (Added Item--L. Orr
Councilmember Orr pointed out to the Committee the provision in the
PUD ordinance that allows for multifamily housing to be built in
single family zones with a Planned Unit Development permit. She
did not feel that the City should encourage multifamily development
in the little single family area that remains in the City. The PUD
ordinance currently permits it. Councilmember Orr MOVED that the
Council direct the Planning Commission to look at the section of
the PUD ordinance which permits multifamily in single family zones
and send their recommendation to Council on "this issue.
Councilmember Houser SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
SOOS CREEK RESOLUTION (L. Anderson)_
Senior Planner Lauri Anderson presented the Mayor's request for
endorsement or nonendorsement of the Soos Creek Resolution which
deals with the level of service for roads. The Soos Creek Plan as
it is proposed suggests that growth be phased out on the East Hill,
and that the phasing should be tied to road adequacy standards.
King County is not going to consider rezoning or allowing potential
zoning to actualize in the East Hill area until a certain level of
service is achieved. The problem is that King County does not
define that level of service. The County may feel it is important
to tie the growth to something specific rather than the vague
adequacy standard language that is stated in the plan. The Mayor
is asking that the City of Kent request the King County Council to
support the concept of the new east/west arterial, and that the KC
Council support the concept of land use zoning in the Soos Creek
Plan which precludes new urban development but which ties it until
such time as the roads and arterials which serve such development
are improved to service Level E. Lauri quoted from the resolution
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
JULY 21 1991
"Whereas, the soos Creek Plan states that vacant and partly
developed properties shall only be considered for urban density
development when the County has adopted revised Road Adequacy
Standards, but those standards have not been identified." This
would relieve the fears of East Hill residents that if a road were
to be approved, suddenly new urban development would be allowed
even if the new road had not been modified to the appropriate level
of service for development. This situation would not be the desire
or intention of the City. Councilmember Orr MOVED that Planning
Committee recommend the proposed resolution to the Council.
Councilmember Houser SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
SOOS CREEK COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE (L. Anderson)
According to the current plan for the next 6-10 years development
would take place in Phase I areas and the cities. New growth
belongs in.the cities where urban services are already provided.
The County would then be out of the service -provision business.
New growth would be targeted to Renton, Kent and Auburn. Phase II
area is not projected to see new growth for the life of the plan,
with the exclusion of permits that have been approved up to this
date. Approximately 12,000 to 14,000 housing units have already
been approved for development. Vacant land and partly developed
land (for example, a single house on large acreage) would not be
developed for six to ten years. Phase I and II lands are tied to
a series of conditions. Land cannot be developed until the Road
Adequacy Standards are met, or impact fees have been established,
or when the 277th corridor is through the EIS process and is
partially funded. The County has tied the new growth to a series
of conditions which is hoped will achieve transportation
concurrency.
Low density urban separators are low density strips of land between
the cities which separate large urban areas into more distinct
pieces. The County has retained the urban/rural line from the last
version of the plan which runs along Big Soos Creek which is where
our planning area ends. This area is eventually expected to be
urban with primarily single family development ranging from an
overall average density of 7-8 dwelling units per acre, single
family from 5-8 dwelling units per acre, and multifamily and
commercial in areas which have been targeted for multifamily and
commercial at certain nodes.
The zoning map gives a picture of the standards that would be
applied. Ms. Anderson felt that the phasing concept had not
addressed the issue of development that has already been approved.
Areas targeted for GR-5, which is Growth Reserve (1 unit per 5
acres), consists of small pieces of land adjacent to Kent Is
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
JULY 21 1991
boundaries. These are areas that are not completely developed and
where the County hopes to utilize the phasing concept. This is not
downzoning, but if development has already been approved by King
County, the zoning decision holds.
The Growth Management Act states that the cities in conjunction
with the County need to find an urban growth area. A line needs to
be drawn, and beyond that line should be rural, low density use.
Within the line urban growth should occur. Kent is not ready to
draw that line. Kent's land capacity analysis has not been
completed. The Planning Department feels that this should be more
of a county -wide effort, because if one city wants all the growth,
no other city could have it. If a city did not want any growth,
that would mean that another city, presumably, must take it. Staff
thinks that this issue should be decided by King County as a whole.
The Regional Technical Forum is working to come up with those
lines. The County has proposed a tentative line which may be
amended by this Forum. They have drawn the Urban/Rural Line at Big
Soos Creek, which follows our planning area. It presumed that the
City of Kent would annex and service out to this Urban/Rural Line
(Kent Is Urban Growth area). The County does not want to see
annexation unless the County and the City enter into an
intergovernmental agreement that discusses how that transfer will
take place. One of the County's criteria for annexation is to
assume that the annexing city will zone to an urban density, 7-8
dwelling units per acre, which will accommodate transit. If Kent
wishes to annex, it should expect urban density in the newly
annexed area. The primary assumption is that the cities should be
where primary growth will occur. Those cities will someday provide
the services, and the County is tending to say it will go back to
being a rural provider. In the meantime the County will try to
limit the new growth through phasing until adequate transportation
can be achieved.
Councilmember Orr asked if 7-8 units per acre would be the overall
density expectation, and that nodes of multifamily in.. the area
would be counted to meet this density requirement. She felt the
people in the County would fear being annexed if the quotas would
be required for each parcel rather than an overall quota for the
area. Ms. Anderson felt that the requirement would be overall
density and would be stated in the interlocal agreement with the
County. Mr. Satterstrom commented that the Soos Creek Interlocal
agreement has never been signed.
The County expects 116th Avenue SE, a collector street, to be
developed into a minor arterial with three lanes.- Residential
densities in the Phase I area, north part of East Hill, should
support transit which would require a higher density. The County's
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
JULY 2, 1991
Public Works Department is currently doing a feasibility study on
277th and expects this to be completed in early 1992. This
corridor has been discussed beyond the 6-10 year horizon (Phase
II). Zoning in the 277th corridor would only be changed when the
Road Adequacy Standards or mitigation payment system was in place,
or if the 277th corridor had been through the EIS process and
partially funded. When the corridor study has been completed,
Phase II would be considered for urban growth. The County would
consider the result of the corridor study when deciding the density
recommendation which would provide the basis for the transportation
analysis and the rezoning of the Phase II land. The County has not
determined the Road Adequacy Standard requirements. King County
expects that 248th will be improved from 116th eastward. It was
pointed out that 248th dead ends at Meridian Valley Country Club.
King County expects 124th and 132nd to become higher capacity
streets.
In the draft environmental impact statement one of the traffic
mitigation suggestions is to construct the corridor. Ms. Anderson
felt the County would be in an awkward position with regard to the
corridor plan, because their environmental research states that in
order to initiate any of the alternatives in the book, the
corridors must.be completed.
Ms. Anderson summarized by stating that it is presumed in the plan
that growth will occur in the cities. Her concerns revolved around
annexations and the intergovernmental agreement. She felt that
King County would not allow Kent to annex additional areas until
the City signs the agreement. The environmental standards of the
City need to be equal to or greater than the County's standards.
Kent does not have the sensitive area regulations that exist in
King County. She expressed concern about the density issue. She
felt the current phasing plan was better than the former proposals.
She added that Covington is so far removed from Kent that it could
not be absorbed by Kent. Encouragement seems to have been given to
Covington to incorporate.
Chairman Johnson MOVED that this issue be brought to the July 16
Planning Committee meeting for additional consideration and
recommendation to Council. Councilmember Orr SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
PC0702.Min
4
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
JULY 16, 1991
Carol Morris commented that Kent's sign ordinance to regulate signs
in the public right of way does not need to be in the zoning code.
She has drafted an ordinance that deals with rights of way, size,
insurance and identification. Cities are authorized to regulate
and allow the use of their streets and other public rights of way
for different purposes under terms the city may designate. The
sign ordinance must state the city's authority to regulate the
streets, and that the citizens must understand that the permit
could be revocable. She has already drafted an ordinance that
deals with rights of way, size of signs, insurance requirements and
identification of signs.
Mr. Harris pointed out that if there is an ordinance on the books,
it needs to be repealed. He felt it is wrong to have an ordinance
and tell the Planning staff to ignore the ordinance. He expressed
concern about sidewalks. The overall picture should be presented
to the Planning Commission. Sidewalks could be handled through
Council right away with an emergency ordinance.
Chair Johnson directed staff to bring to the next Council meeting
on August 6 an interim ordinance regarding the sidewalk issue. It
may be, possible for the Council to repeal a section of the sign
ordinance that deals with sandwich boards.
Chair Johnson directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare an
ordinance for the August 6 Public Works Committee and City Council
meetings. Councilmember Orr SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Councilmember Orr expressed concern about Mr. Rust's criminal
record and asked to have someone check the situation.
SOOS CREEK COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE (L. Anderson)
Lauri Anderson stated that on July 29, 1991, King County Council
will hold its first public hearing on the Soos Creek Community
Plan. She asked for questions about the proposed plan and concerns
with regard to the phasing or transportation policies, the proposed
plan and zoning map. She asked for a motion in support of or
opposition to the plan so that by July 29 there will be a Planning
Committee response to the plan to take forward to County Council.
Chair Johnson felt that since the Covington area is designated as
an urban area, it should be encouraged to incorporate as a separate
city. Since Phase I areas are designated as urban areas under the
proposed plan, the county should strongly encourage those areas to
annex into neighboring cities. He felt that if the county were
going to allow urban densities in those areas, these areas should
4
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
JULY 16, 1991
be in urban centers. The rural areas should be kept outside the
cities.
Councilmember Orr pointed out that under the Mitigation Payment
System, an interlocal agreement would be adopted which utilizes
reciprocal collection of fees for King County, Auburn, Kent and
Renton. She wondered if this would fit in with the Growth
Management Committee's plan for collecting impact fees.
Ms. Anderson suggested that the City may wish to recommend that the
county look at another way of wording the mitigation payment policy
so that the cities and the county would adopt mitigation or impact
fees that are compatible.
Councilmember Orr felt that if the City of Kent developed a large
area on the county line, and if it would impact the county, she
felt that the city would have an obligation to provide fees for the
impacts that it would have outside the city. If the county
developed on the. city border, she felt that the city would have the
right to expect some sort of mitigation from the county. She
suggested coordination of mitigation systems, not necessarily
support of their system.
Ms. Morris pointed out that the city does not want us to let King
County feel that Kent is going to "buy in" to their system.. Unless
we have an interlocal agreement with them, we are not bound to do
it.
Councilmember Orr MOVED that the Soos Creek Community Plan Update
be sent to Council with the Planning Committee's endorsement,
including changes regarding the incorporation and annexation
language which should be stronger for the urban areas, and the
mitigation payment system which should not be referenced
specifically, but which should support coordination of mitigation
impact fees. Chair Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
HISTORICAL PRESERVATION/NOTIFICATION OF DEMOLITION PERMITS (L.
Anderson)
Ms. Anderson stated that a year ago staff asked the Planning
Committee for an interim ordinance to protect historic structures
that were threatened. The ordinance is not in effect yet. Ms.
Morris has stated that since Kent does not have a formally adopted
register, the City does not have a basis for requiring actions or
holding up permits. King County has Kent's draft ordinance and
finds no problem with it. This ordinance should be presented to
the Committee and the Planning Commission by early fall. The owner
of Orillia School may be requesting a demolition permit. Currently
5
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Bid opening
three bids
the amount
bid.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 5, 1991
Mayor Kelleher and City Council
Don Wickstrom,04
1991 Asphalt Overlays
for the 1991 Asphalt Overlay project was August 1 with
received. The low bid was submitted by M.A. Segale in
of $229,023.75 for all nine schedules included in the
The project, as originally proposed, provides for overlay work in
nine areas throughout the City - I) Cambridge; II) S. 260th and S.
261st Streets; III) 38th Avenue South; IV) Cherry Park Estates; V)
39th Avenue S.; VI) Kennebeck Avenue; VII) Wynwood Drive; VIII
Tilden Avenue; IX) S. 212th Street. After review of the bids and
the available funding, it is recommended that Schedule IV - Cherry
Park Estates be deleted from the contract and the project awarded
to M.A. Segale for Schedules I, II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX
for the amount of $186,086.35.
M.A. Segale
Watson Asphalt Paving
Lakeside Industries
Engineer's Estimate
I: - lulu.. offl
:
$229,023.75
$244,093.40
$269,838.75
$244,625.75
Less Schedule IV
$186,086.35
$200,190.40
$222,308.75
$200,205.75
J(
� �
r •._ „„ Yam'„
is
~
1 y9ry
m
Le
S aw N
rn N
240TH 16
15
ST
_
°>�
N
a
> x
N
21
22
sr
sT Y o 43
¢
W
x
Q m
>
d
-v
Q
'O
!-
I N
Drivel
242NU¢
57
SCHEDULE V
x
N
Q
f
L Theat
rn
N
=
w
O
¢
N
S n
243R
43R�
PL cn // w
11�
W
S 2
2ND ST 99
Q
- /
Q
a
> -• LL
:1 n
w
�ICITY LIMITS
s
as
244TH �'
S 2 4TH
v
> r
ST
r%VAHH INC'1'ON Z45 rH �T -
Nx
ITX�.
F
r-
r- •\':•.7 iCiNA1.
245, Ci
(, ',)
s 246THI SCALE:
1" 1,000
m
m A1c'1<Y
z4�T1 s j
fFx-m—_ q
-
��'lil.l l.11 y
15 l:V tl.
SUNNYCR EST
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLrM
s
S
Nw
S
247TH
a
CT
V V ST
Q1
5 248TH
ST
Sanitary La
fill
_
1 � A
9P�cn
�
¢
,
¢ ?
N Q S Sell)So 2
4
P\'
S 249T11
ST
9TH ST
H S
ST r
y
a
- . J . J
f
--
"
J
SCHEDULE IV
z
S 5 TH
¢
5
251
y
PL n
ST
d
S 2 1ST
sY
S N 252ND ST��
%i: J,'j.
5 252NL25D
S
2 n
252ND W
SPL
STST
wa S 252ND
1
1II
S
252ND° y x N
S 253RD ST
?L M n a
1. _ _ _ J
CITY L/M/TS m
v'
'
?53 ti
RD
525_•PL
253RD
Pl(PND
N
Sr , PL
1
"ST S
S
254
5T 7d.
0 h
S 2 S'®5ct
54 TI{e SK
,n
P M
1Vatef P y
W
>
- �6
"
a
r- 'SS��
95ervoir.J
p �Z S 256TH ST
Q
+
S
255TH ST ,m
"t
h r p 2
S
256T
ST
S
256TH ST
"
lil >
°
m
s
SCHEDULE
° 2
x
N
257
m
W
>
>
Q
L sT
rL
y
N
Q
C'K
PL Si
2697-K
m259
69,
ST
S 260T 1
W
S BOTH
+
>
F,w
SCHEDULE II
¢
AKF:''
Q
S 2615T �','; .� �•n It t: l ...,..,.,.
MCP S 261ST PLr� �'
N
,t
•� 1
L
�. , ;?f;`:
-l.•,
262ND ST
�i:-'1:::
SCL
�'
�o r S 262ND P
P 4 N D
p q o
S 1 "�
~ N
W a W
�5 a Public
v
v
263RD 3T
Boat iY::
v w T 'r'
Q
v
k� Launch
h67`r
ar=-U
i a
o
>
�S LN C r
S 264TH
W
Z r
v¢
Py
S 26 H
ST
= }1AMP N NPR
F SOri
FRSFr
S
Water .:) w m TRAT `"
O cr
N C
Reservoir a .�„aTFDR Q
H4MnrpN cr
m 'T O
MPTON WAY
Kmg County
Manrlcn,rnu'. Shoos
�. Z
\71 .�,.
A 2
Y w
4 ,�
U
-7
-� o
SCHEDULE
I
t:Lk:N 1 F-
',U
O AVE 0 4
TOTEM m
JR.Ht. Iry m
,t:15U.
z� a�
m
1 AIcK wU
mC
SCHOOL ��� �CK
Gravel Pit'
CANTER�U RY
LN
¢
fE
f T
S"268TH a
ST j�
_
S
pry
MANCHESTER
sT
LAKE 0 CARNABY RNA BY
F
rn
S PLC
M>
% TH WAY
S 269TF1
HOOL Z ST
t
a
sT
N
o
( J
ST
2
pp; w
iN
S 270TH
c�
707H ST{o ¢ U¢'
> v
-_
j
>
w
sT STAR LAKE >
i
m 8.01
T
ST
z z <'1 w a o' > S. 239tf� PI s_ -- i 1 S 1
L i N'. a '� 2401 ST Y
AMES ST Z. fff..���... o.-- -- "tea v7 >•: pt•d.IJ a� E
Z i
4 a ¢ I, 1`
J
:�H�IN11U r1.V ��.�,. KENT �)4 w > N H Cl
('• L1..�1 rn L.11 JR. HI, i > a o a �... w I S 241ST ST mi SI
w SCHOOL a E _, _
> q �AL'tl,•lic Fld
Q W Y z " a - `9 S 242ND�
q O PIONEER 'i __ I x o lI ST vt
a z z
< O E '� TEM ERAM1�E J17
! S 243RD
O Mc ILLAN
ST
SMIT ST4 SM�4,? T S 44TH N
SMITH ST � 4 i.d K T r �_.,,�,_ .,.
z R m SCHEDULE V1 a
ARNSON ST w> I T z > x
SCHOOL a ~
1EEKER4 .p ST
E ME-KER �i "'•C� O
w w m J \t O y -� { 'y r+� yr
W LL ti 4
GOWE ST ,� E GO E- 1 ¢ bT O �<' P%�o.`. }'s'. WEILAN) S w S 246TH
> _
W 4 > ST 247TH v > PL
ENT *POI e S Ir >< OS�P TACCMA SF
a.. i LEM VICI Hal PO$$t $16 qL N CHERRY OL i, ' '� O'P H F- W
< scH �LI ery Oftic e A c' V1_ ° n > s 248TH ST
a
A DEANO E DEAN O w HILL ST
TITU STH 167 4n R, a
w Drn ST 2 w ST X E MAC LYN
SAAR < ST ' E a a V 1'._•.i'J m i
SAAR 3 Z 0CI E GUIE ERSON S7
PA 11, ;4ST AL I
WAY w t> ?2.• �yi
1 IILIS ST > E SEATTLE
W i i 516 w v t• - Z Sr ; J" 516
' > < a .-+- m �R"S ��l q SEAT-IST w w N
w o tj i 'V�. sC1.1
W ROY ST l�' •I RU ELL > E r ,•. t. > �'"- vv; i'�inc
ni a X> O Z I� Srt r, �F S 252NO T
1.n, ,',i- w w ST w a H a i;\ E CHICAGO \�' v. r yT
K y Fire m ,1 >> w - O E>
1- StallOn < < I( GO a J \�J `)', �. J-�.+• �9,y •.w'�
'^ O 1 MO ON O Z T f, E LAUREL ST
m w I O w ST m o `0 1 'i ,�`.l J OFrP„rh
4 O � 1� P U E HEMLOCK ST p
r 3O�1\ �-• "'7 J �; Field
CA FiI ER z 3 Obi. King
SCHEDULE V11 5, J W w a c° ntY
r MARION z "' E FILBERT 5T �a E- J w t� P°IICe
�/O w a m w r ,✓�r O ,W
ST �� w z z�
,��� 1� i E �`� WAL UT m h ST j��i••i
z ?5 30 W ° w > �� 30
<
I
>
O U< MAPLE ST m `� •"•�,J'i i 'Y
,,t a SCHEDULE V111*"
• 259TH ST S 2591H ST hf riT
C: METFRY
r I1 h
-� 9�
I t
ry�
ELEMENTARY
SCENIC `,
`F x
SCHOOL
y } ALDER LN.� 1
Sr zsisr !� s 262rro
r SCALE: 1" 1,000 ` q I 262N°
I' ul I
i > Oa D \
I A q I a A vT
C Fr
= I m M /.
I q C0 =
_ I S -266TH ST r� ,• fir/ N
m
N31HIO
m
p
t
D
fT1
!n
O�
1S 'V1 8(Z 5
D
=
/ �'
UUI��'1S 2JIj
m
i /
y5
3AV Hl 922 S
!1
-100- 5S
ice- ! nJ.cic ---r--'----.=
JZLiV1N3
W3�3 I
X 1 3-iH Q 3 H O S
�II
Q
r
1
\
li
1
� n
1S
H190Z S
T
u=
s
is H19oz s
A23Isnc)WI
3DvdS OH3V
1S 'H1, bOZ S
c)
j
W
~
1
lueld
11'S��li `.Ill
B21euaS
U
1
c
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 6. 1991
Category Bids
SUBJECT: 1991 ASPHALT OVERLAY
SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening w 95�-held August 1, 199J The
Director of Public Works will revieV the bids received and make
a recommendation as to award.
EXHIBITS•
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve the recommendation by the Public Works Director as to
award of the contract for the 1991 Asphalt Overlay.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5AI
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
A. COUNCIL PRESI
Im
C.
m
E
F.
G
R E P O R T S
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
PLANNING COMMITTEE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Brenda Jacober
Deputy City Clerk
Parks Committee MinuLcs
July 16, 1991
Councilmembers Present: Steve Dowell, Chair; Jon Johnson and Jim
White.
Staff Present: Jim Hansen, Roger Lubovich, Tony McCarthy,
John Hillman, Robb Dreblow, Tom Brubaker, Jim
Huntington, May Miller, Priscilla Shea, Lea
Britting, Cheryl Fraser, Lori Hogan, Helen
Wickstrom, Karen Ford, Robyn Bartelt, Patrice
Thorell, Stephanie Strozyk, Liz Carpenter, Lee
Anderson and Pam Rumer.
others Present: Bill Doolittle, 412 N Washington, 31; Pat
Curran, 300 Scenic Way; Robert Bailey and
Arthur Greenberg, AMS/Artsoft Management
Services; Lyle Price, Valley Daily News; and
Doug Schwab, Riverbend Men's Club.
ADDED ITEM
Dowell announced that there was an added item, which was an
ordinance to authorize the closure of certain public streets for
Canterbury Faire. White moved to accept the ordinance; Johnson
seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The issue will be taken
to the Council for approval.
OLD FISHING HOLE ARTWORK PROJECT
Carpenter requested permission to purchase a totem pole to be
placed at the Old Fishing Hole Park. She said that the Museum of
History and Industry commissioned the pole, which was designed by
artist David Bosley.
In response to White's question, Carpenter reported the cost of the
pole to be $30,000. Carpenter said she felt that maintenance of
the pole should be very low.
White asked what budget the pole would come from. Carpenter
responded that it will come from the City Art project budget.
Bill Doolittle questioned if the Old Fishing Hole is the best
location due to vandalism. Carpenter reported that totem poles
traditionally do not experience vandalism. She further noted that
the totem pole is currently located at the Seattle Center and has
not been vandalized there.
Dowell asked if the totem pole would be visible from the road.
Carpenter assured the committee that she will work with the artist
and the museum to site the totem pole in the best and safest
location at the park.
Parks Committee Minutes
July 16, 1991
Page Two
White moved to approve purchase of the totem pole to be located at
the old Fishing Hole Park. Johnson seconded. The motion passed
unanimously.
FIRST AVENUE PLAZA MURAL
Carpenter explained that artist David Barrie's proposal includes
painting murals on both sides of the walls to create a garden
atmosphere in the park. She showed that one side will be a scene
of Mt. Rainier and explained that the other side will be a cafe
scene with archways, flowers and picnic tables. The purpose of the
design chosen is to create more space visually.
In response to White's question, Carpenter reported that there is
money budgeted for the maintenance of murals. Carpenter clarified
for Dowell that the artist will design and paint the mural, which
is a little different from other projects.
White moved to approve the First Avenue Plaza mural; Johnson
seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
KAIBARA PARK MURAL
Carpenter reported that sixteen designs were submitted by citizens
of Kaibara, Japan. She noted that this mural will be glass enamel
fired onto steel panels and will be mounted on a sign that will
resemble a torii gate. Carpenter explained that the artist will
come to Kent for the dedication in lieu of payment.
In response to White's question, Carpenter stated that the mural
size will be 31X 41. She pointed out that this mural will be a
free standing sign since there is no wall in the park.
White moved to approve the Kaibara Park Mural; Johnson seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
RASMUSSEN BUILDING MURAL
Carpenter reported that the group direct selected Danny Pierce as
the artist for this mural because of his skill as a Kent artist.
She explained that this mural will also be on panels because of the
wall surface.
Carpenter confirmed for Dowell that the City has a ten year wall
lease with the building owner.
Parks Committee Minutes
July 16, 1991
Page Three
White moved to approve the Rasmussen Building Mural; Johnson
seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
carpenter noted that the four artwork projects would appear on the
Council agenda that evening on the Consent Calendar.
EAST HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PARR ARCHITECT AGREEMENT
Helen Wickstrom reminded committee members that the master plan for
East Hill Park was adopted last year. She noted that the City has
since been approved for a 50% matching grant from the IAC.
Wickstrom said that the department would like to use the same
architect who designed the master plan to prepare the bid
specifications to go out to bid.
Wickstrom also requested a motion to allow the Parks Department to
accept the grant when it arrives and to submit it directly to full
Council for approval.
White moved to approve the architect agreement and to allow the
Parks Department to take the grant directly to Council for
approval. Johnson seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
GOLF COURSE STUDY
Dowell requested that this be delayed because Mr. Wilson was not
present to answer pertinent questions. Dowell said that he spoke
with Council President Judy Woods and she agreed that it would be
possible to also pull the item from the Council agenda.
CULTURAL CENTER STUDY UPDATE
Thorell introduced Robert Bailey from Artsoft Management Services
to give a brief overview of the project to date and to suggest the
next steps for the project.
Bailey reported that his group conducted a market assessment, a
market research study, a survey of prospective users of the
facility, and toured some facilities. He said that the next step
is to look at financing strategies.
Thorell discussed the next step, which includes design work, a site
study, an analysis of potential sites, base drawings, definition of
spaces, fulfillment of space requirements, conceptual design and a
presentation package.
Parks Committee Minutes
July 16, 1991
Page Four
Thorell said that King County has funds available for cultural
projects and the task force wants to be able to tap into those
sources. Thorell explained that the cultural center needs funding
from the City to show that Kent is vested in the project before we
can ask King County for funding.
Dowell questioned whether the City had given up on the idea of a
park district. White commented that he would like to further
explore a park district to spread the cost throughout the school
district.
In response to Hansen's question, Thorell agreed that the adoption
of $50,000 in the City's CIP would be firm enough to demonstrate
the City's seriousness in promoting the cultural center.
Pat Curran commented that she could not emphasize enough the
importance of the availability of King County funds. She stated
that she did not want the City to lose out. She stressed that it
is important for the City to have matching funds for 1992 for this
project.
Dowell asked Bailey to share any success stories that he had about
similar facilities at the 5:45 Council workshop.
Thorell mentioned that Ms. Curran would be asking the Parks
Committee to approve the Cultural Center Study for placement on the
August 6 Council agenda.
White moved to accept the Cultural Center Study for the August 6
Council agenda; Johnson seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Dowell asked if there was anything else to come before the
committee.
Helen Wickstrom requested to include in White's motion regarding
East Hill Park authorization to allow the Parks Department to also
accept the matching grant for the Lake Fenwick Acquisition project
and submit it on the consent calendar when the contract is
received.
White moved to authorize the Parks Department to accept the
matching grant for the Lake Fenwick Acquisition project and to
place the item on the consent calendar as soon as the contract has
been received from the IAC. Johnson seconded. The motion passed
unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to Canterbury Faire;
authorizing closure of certain public streets
for a public festival.
WHEREAS, Canterbury Faire has been an annual festival
celebration in the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, Canterbury Faire is a result of the efforts of
a number of private volunteers, cdtizens, civic groups, non-
profit organizations, and the City of Kent Parks and Recreation
Department; and
WHEREAS, a closure of certain public streets is deemed
appropriate for the safe operation and maintenance of the
festival celebrations; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The following described public areas and
rights -of -way will be closed to normal vehicle traffic during the
times and pursuant to the terms and conditions as set forth below
for the purpose of conducting the Canterbury Faire festivities:
(A) Downtown Kent Activities
Saturday August 17 1991 7 a.m. - 5 p.m._
Second Avenue will be closed between Meeker Street
and Titus Street for the classic car show. Classic cars will be
parked to accommodate passage of public safety equipment. First
Avenue will be closed between Gowe Street and Saar Street keeping
the intersection at First and Gowe open to east -west traffic.
Placement of a stop sign at Second Avenue and Gowe Street is
necessary for public safety. Titus Street will be closed between
Second Street to Railroad. Detour traffic to Gowe Street.
(B) Canterbury Faire - Official Site
Saturday August 17 1991 and Sunday August 18,
1991.
East Titus Street will be closed between Reiten
Road and Smith Street from 8 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Saturday, and
9:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Sunday. This street will be used as a
bus stop at the Faire entrance. Public safety apparatus may be
parked on Titus as well.
Section 2. City Access. The City reserves for itself,
its officers, employees, agents and contractors, access to the
closed rights -of -way and public areas at all reasonable times for
the purpose of emergency response and other public safety
demands, inspection, cleaning, or other City responsibilities.
No use by any group, entity, or organization shall be
inconsistent with City needs for such access.
W4
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and.be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its
final approval and passage as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of , 1991.
APPROVED the day of
PUBLISHED the day of
1991.
1991.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct 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)
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
cantfr.ord
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JULY 9, 1991
PRESENT: Jim White
Steve Dowell
Leona Orr
Don Wickstrom
Tom Brubaker
Gary Gill
5th & Cloudy -
John Bond
Jerry Hayes
Bill Doolittle
Jack Cosby
Pat Taylor
Mr. & Mrs. Rust
Ed White stated that his staff did a visual survey of the parking
situation. The Transportation Division feels three of the four
recommendations previously explained in memo form to the Committee,
should be implemented as soon as possible. The street lighting is
in progress now; Puget Power is doing the installation which is
covered under the contract.
Regarding the signing, a work order needs to be prepared. At this
time Jim White asked what prompts a 25mph section vs. a 15mph
section in such a short and narrow area. Ed stated that State law
stipulates that a street cannot be signed less than 25 mph unless
it is a school zone. Ed will be contacting the Parks Dept. to
review the possibility of dedicating a portion of that field or
possibly relocating the fence along 5th St. to allow for parking.
Jim White requested that Ed pursue that issue and get back to the
Committee. Ms. Williams voiced objection to the parking proposal
and stated that just the "attention" to the present parking
situation seems to be working. Ms. Williams feels that taking any
portion of the field and paving it for parking means the community
will be loosing park space. She feels that posting "tow away"
signs and/or posting notices of parking across the street would be
a better start.
After further discussion of parking location, parking safety
issues, and police response to violators, Leona Orr suggested that
these types of issues be brought before the Public Safety
Committee.
At this time, Ed stated that the Transportation Section cannot
support the installation of speed bumps. After taking speed
information, the average speed on 5th Avenue appears to be 28mph.
Most speed bumps are designed to lower the speed somewhere less
than 30mph. The Transportation Section did estimate installing 3
speed bumps at a cost of $2500.00.
The Committee unanimously recommended proceeding with the first
three items on the Cloudy Street issue.
Guiberson Street Reservoir
Wickstrom stated that in December of 1990, Jack Cosby requested
that the City landscape the reservoir; a plan was developed and
circulated among the community. Landscaping improvement costs
would be approximately $30,000 and would be drawn from the water
fund. There are funds in the water utility for both construction
and maintenance. However, the problem is with the present
situation of the City's overall budget. Because of same,
vacancies within Public Works Maintenance are not being refilled
independent of whether or not the General Fund is impacted. As
such, the Department has no assurance of keeping the personnel we
have, which are needed to maintain the existing facilities, let
alone add new maintenance responsibilities. Wickstrom recommended
deferring this item until the budget situation is resolved.
Responding to Jim White's question of transferring existing
personnel within the department, Wickstrom stated we need to first
secure the personnel we have in order to insure the maintenance of
the infrastructure versus vegetation which is a lower priority.
Jack Cosby stated that the community has an "eye sore" in the
Guiberson Street Reservoir and he feels it should be landscaped.
Jim White asked Don to submit a landscaping plan and an estimate of
the maintenance cost involved at the next Public Works meeting.
Water Comprehensive Plan - Conservation Element
The County's approval of our Water Comprehensive Plan is tied to
the City amending said Plan to incorporate a Water Conservation
Plan and Program. Their hold on us is our needing their approval
to serve outside the City limits and/or to construct our facilities
such as the rebuild of our Kent Springs Transmission Main within
County rights -of -way. We are in the process of developing a
conservation plan as part of the Pipeline 5 project with Tacoma.
Thru RWA, we are" working on a South County Regional Water
Conservation Program.
Committee unanimously concurred with the need to develop a plan
that meets the County's conservation elements.
Kent/Des Moines Park & Ride Lot
Wickstrom stated that we have received TIB grant and METRO is
absorbing all the local costs. Metro will be responsible for the
design and construction of the project. The City will have some
work involved in administering the funds and securing the permits
and annexing that piece of property which will be de -annexed by
City of Sea-Tac. Cost wise, Metro is responsible and the City of
Kent is responsible only for collecting the money from TIB and
forwarding it to METRO, plus any work required in administering the
funds or in the de -annexation and permit process, which METRO will
pay for.
Committee unanimously agreed to proceed with the Kent/Des Moines
Park & Ride Lot expansion.
Metro Center YMCA_ Proposal - Hazardous Free Communit
Don stated that Metro Center YMCA has requested that the City
become a "hazardous free community" which in 1991 we wouldn't have
any budgetary impact other than staff and in 1992 it would cost
$5000 plus staff time. However, as of the present time the Solid
Waste Coordinator position is on hold due to the City's budget
situation. Since we do not have the staff to make available, we
are proposing not to pursue this proposal. The $5000 funding does
not present a problem as we believe we could get a grant for same.
Committee unanimously agreed not to become involved in the Metro
YMCA proposal at this time.
Pat Taylor Requests/Concerns: 101st Ave. Parking
Ms Taylor stated that the removal of parking on 101st Ave. S.E. has
created a problem. 'She stated the students at the Beauty College
have been parking there in the past and now with the removal of
parking, it has presented a serious problem. Ms. Taylor requested
that temporary parking be made available on one side of the street.
Ed White responded that there was a site distance problem. The
Traffic Division felt that in order to relieve that situation, the
parking was removed. Jim White requested Ed to review the problem
again and see if there is something else that can be done to
relieve the situation. Ed will keep in contact with Pat Taylor on
the problem.
Bill Doolittle Requests/Concerns:
Mr. Doolittle stated that six weeks ago the Council passed a
resolution to eliminate the restricted parking in front of city
hall for police and fire. To date, the signs were still there.
Mr. Doolittle also wanted to discuss rubberized crossings on UPRR
crossings. His understanding was that UPRR would pay for the cost
of upgrading their crossings using concrete materials. According
to Mr. Doolittle, the City wants rubberized materials at City
expense. However the concrete would need to go through a test
phase before it could be installed. At this time Mr. Doolittle
requested the committee to do whatever it takes to fix the UPRR
crossings, preferably at no expense to the City. The materials for
the Meeker St. crossing have been sitting in their yard for months,
according to Mr. Doolittle.
Steve Dowell asked Ed White what the status was of the sign request
by Mr. Doolittle. Ed explained that the ordinance takes 30 days
before it becomes effective. Also that they had to order new signs
and were waiting for them to arrive so they could remove the old
and install the new in one trip. Ed explained that police will not
enforce the parking unless there is signing directly adjacent to
the parking stall.
n
Regarding the railroad question from Mr. Doolittle, Wickstrom
explained that the City has not held up the railroad from doing
anything. He pointed out that the railroad sets their own
schedule. He also pointed out that yes, we would like to have them
do S. 228th first so we could see how the concrete is going to
work. Wickstrom confirmed that the railroad will do the concrete
without charge. If we do rubberized crossing, the City will have
to furnish the rubber. Essentially, with completion of the
railroad crossings, of the mainlines will be done leaving the spurs
to be completed. Wickstrom stated that the City has had excellent
experience with the rubber crossing that have been installed and
have had poor experience with concrete.
Steve Dowell suggested using the rubberized crossings and asked for
a time frame for installation. Don again explained that everything
is up to the railroad schedule. The City has no control over the
railroad time. Regarding the cost, Don stated that there is
$120,000 in the 1991 budget. Jim White requested to get back to
the committee with the UPRR's schedule of installation.
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
Ed White briefly explained the Project Summary prepared for the
committee. Jim White suggested the committee review it and bring
it back for discussion at the next Public Works Committee meeting.
Referencing James Street Safety Improvements, Ed White stated that
he will be meeting with the citizens on the 23rd of July to get a
clear definition of the problems of safety on James St. The
citizens had stated their concern on the lack of ability to cross
James St safely and came up with an estimate of $300, 000 for a
pedestrian overpass. Ed stated that in the area of the church off
James, there is a proposal for a two-way left turn lane. Also,
there are some concerns about the future signalization of James &
Jason.
Discussion followed regarding the possibility of future widening of
James St. Don explained that cost could run as high as $2 - $3
million per mile. He further stated that the construction of the
S. 228th St. corridor would alleviate the James St. problem. Don
suggested that the committee look at James St. as an alternate to
the east leg of S. 228th.
Don explained that although the TIP is important, it is not as
important as the approval for the CIP plan. The CIP sets the
City's funds where the projects are actually funded from. Most of
these projects are within the CIP plan. The CIP is more important
in terms as to what will be built whereas the TIP is targeting
grant funds.
Further discussion followed regarding the upgrading of the City's
signal system. Ed White stated that a consultant will be hired to
help evaluate the current system needs. This was partially funded
by the City last year. It is a VMS upgrade and it will be 1993
before it is done.