Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 08/20/1991 C 'lvt of Kent g City Council Meetin Agehnda CITY OF LU2 Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members Judy Woods, President Steve Dowell Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr Jon Johnson Jim White August 20, 1991 Office of the City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1991 Summary Agenda MAYOR: Dan Kelleher COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President Steve Dowell Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann 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 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Just Cause Eviction - Ordinance 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes B. Bills C. Mobile Home Park Code - Ordinance D. Senior Housing Alley Vacation - Ordinance E. Bishop Rezone - Ordinance F. Cultural Center Feasibility Study G. Foster Industrial Park H. Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN) Shelter Funding I. Closed Circuit TV System J. Kent Springs Transmission Main K. LID 327 West Valley Highway Improvements L. Rosemary Glen II M. Reith Road Guardrail N. Board of Adjustment Appointment O. Drinking Driver Task Force Grant P . Council Absence 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Walnut Grove Final Plat B. Soos Creek Resolution C. Historical Site Notification - Resolution D. Code Amendments Regarding City Clerk and Other Departments - Ordinance E. Regional Justice Center - Resolution F. Economic Development Corporation - Ordinance 5. BIDS A. Canyon Drive Left Turn Lanes and Guardrail Rehabilitation 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. Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20 , 1991 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for a public hearing on an ordinance relating to landlord-tenant law, requiring that a landlord provide notice of just cause to evict a tenant, providing an affirmative defense in a subsequent unlawful detainer action, for tenants not given such notice; providing enforcement mechanisms and penalties for violation. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS : OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT- CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to set the matter for further consideration under Other Business at the September 3 , 1991 Council meeting - OR - other action as Council determines . DISCUSSION: ACTION- Council Agenda Item No. 2A i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to landlord-tenant law, requiring that a landlord provide notice of i just cause to evict a tenant, or to terminate and/or refuse to renew a rental agreement; providing enforcement mechanisms and penalties for violations. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: i Section 1. Short Title and Purposes. I I A. This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as 11ithe "Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. " The general purposes of this ! ordinance are to promote the availability, accessibility and lretention of rental housing to all persons in the City; to Illprohibit landlords from engaging in unfair or arbitrary eviction practices by protecting good tenants from 'no cause' evictions and ! I1possible homelessness; to provide enforcement mechanisms and penalties for the accomplishment of such purposes, and to these lends this ordinance shall be liberally construed. ! B. Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to deny any person the right to institute any action or to pursue any j civil or criminal remedy for the violation of such person's civil rights. jC. Nothing contained in this ordinance is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for any I liability on the part of the City, or its officers, employees or i agents, for any injury or damage resulting from or by reason of any act or omission in connection with the implementation or enforcement of this ordinance on the part of the City by its officers, employees or agents. i Section 2 . Definitions. Definitions used in this ordinance shall have the following meanings, unless an additional meaning clearly appears from the context: i A. "City" means the City of Kent. I B. "Duplex" means a single structure containing two (2) � dwelling units. I C. "Dwelling unit" means a structure or that part of a structure which is used as a home, residence or sleeping place by i one person or by two or more persons maintaining a common household, including but not limited to single family residences i I nand units of multiplexes, apartment buildings and mobile homes. !i D. "Landlord" means the owner, lessor, or sublessor of the dwelling unit or the property of which it is a part, and in addition means any person designated as representative of the landlord. i E. "owner" means one or more persons, jointly or i severally, in whom is vested: i (1) All or any part of the legal title to property; ] ' or (2) All or part of the beneficial ownership, and a ' right to present use and enjoyment of the property. 2 - i F. "Person" means an individual, group of individuals, corporation, government or governmental agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership or association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other legal or commercial entity. G. "Premises" means a dwelling unit, appurtenances thereto, grounds, and facilities held out for the use of tenants generally and any other area or facility which is held out for use by the tenant. H. "Rental agreement" means all agreements, whether oral or written, which establish or modify the terms, conditions, rules, regulations or any other provisions concerning the use and occupancy of a dwelling unit or the property on which it is i located. I . "Tenant" is any person who is entitled to occupy a dwelling unit primarily for living or dwelling purposes under a I rental agreement. Section 3 . Living Arrangements Exempted from this Ordinance. The following living arrangements are not intended to be governed by the provisions of this ordinance, unless established primarily to avoid its application, in which event thej provisions of this ordinance shall control: A. Temporary residence in emergency shelter or transitional housing operated by an agency serving homeless families and/or persons, for which the agency and resident agree I in advance to the term of residence, program fees, and any other I program requirements that the resident must fulfill to maintain residency; 3 - B. Residence in a retirement, convalescent or group home, halfway house or other shared dwelling owned or leased by a social service agency, for which occupancy in the dwelling requires continued participation by the resident in a social service program operated by the agency; C. Residence by the tenant in the owner's own dwelling unit; i D. Residence by the tenant in one of the two dwelling units of a duplex, if the owner occupies the other unit; E. Residence by a sublessee in a dwelling unit which is ', also occupied by the lessee for residential purposes; i F. Residence in a dwelling unit by a tenant who is also ] , an employee of the landlord or owner, and whose right to occupy is , ! conditioned upon employment in or about the premises; it �j G. Residence in dwelling units by seasonal agricultural Iiemployees which residency is provided in conjunction with such I employment; and j� H. Residence in a hotel , motel, or other transient ;dodging whose operation is defined in RCW 19 . 48 . 010. i� Section 4 . Waiver of Ordinance Provisions Prohibited. IAny provisions of a rental agreement which purport to waive any I right, benefit or entitlement created by this ordinance shall be I deemed void and of no lawful force or effect. I I Section 5. Termination or Nonrenewal of Rental Agreemen' for Just Cause. No landlord or owner shall evict or attempt to evict any tenant from a dwelling unit; nor shall any landlord or 4 I I I II owner terminate or refuse to renew any residential rental agreement for a dwelling unit; except for just cause. The following reasons for eviction, termination or nonrenewal of a rental agreement, and no others, shall constitute just cause under this ordinance: A. The tenant fails to comply with a notice to pay rent ) or vacate pursuant to RCW 59. 12 . 030 (3) ; a ten (10) day notice to comply or vacate pursuant to RCW 59 . 12 . 030 (4) ; or a three (3) day notice to vacate for waste, nuisance or maintenance of an unlawful I1business pursuant to RCW 59. 12 . 030 (5) ; I B. The tenant habitually fails to pay rent when due which causes the owner or landlord to notify the tenant with a f three (3) day pay or vacate notice of late rent four (4) or more Mimes in a twelve (12) month period; I it C. The tenant fails to comply with a material term of the rental agreement or fails to comply with a material obligation under RCW 59 . 18 after service of a ten (10) day written notice pursuant to Section 5 (A) of this ordinance to comply, quit or vacate; D. The tenant habitually fails to comply with the material terms of the rental agreement which causes the owner or ( landlord to serve a ten (10) day notice to comply or vacate three i I (3) or more times in a twelve (12) month period; I I E. The owner seeks possession for the owner or a member of his/her immediate family and no substantially equivalent unit is vacant and available in the same building; provided that the tenant shall be given the right of first refusal for any dwelling unit that is vacant within the premises at the time the notice of termination or nonrenewal is served. "Immediate family" shall be 5 - limited to the spouse, parents, grandparents, children, brothers , and sisters of the owner or owner's spouse; I F. The owner seeks to do major reconstruction or rehabilitation in the building which cannot be done with tenants in occupancy. Any tenants dispossessed pursuant to this provision ; shall be given a right of first refusal for the rehabilitated !; units; G. The owner elects to demolish the building, convert !! it to a condominium or a cooperative, or convert it to a , nonresidential use; provided that the owner has obtained all ,; permits which are necessary to demolish or change the use before terminating any tenancy, and further, that the owner has complied with the notice to tenant provisions of Kent City Code Chapter 9 . 22 ; H. The owner seeks to discontinue use of a housing unit unauthorized by the Zoning Code, Title 15 of the Kent City Code, , after owner's receipt of a Notice of Violation from the City; I. The landlord or owner has entered into a contract for sale of the property with a buyer who intends to occupy the Iiunit, and the seller seeks to terminate the tenancy at the end of the rental period immediately preceding the sale of the property; provided that the tenant shall be given the right of first refusal I for occupancy of the unit if the sale does not close or if the j unit is offered for lease following the sale; i J. The tenant engages in criminal activity on the I ,; premises. A landlord seeking to evict a tenant pursuant to this i (! subsection need not produce evidence of a criminal conviction, leven if the alleged misconduct constitutes a criminal offense; - 6 - I i i III K. The tenant engages in drug-related activity on the premises, or allows a subtenant, sublessee, resident or anyone else to engage in drug-related activity on the premises with the knowledge or consent of the tenant. "Drug-related activity" means that activity which constitutes a violation of Chapter 69. 41, 69 . 50 or 69. 52 RCW. A landlord seeking to evict a tenant pursuant ) to this subsection need not produce evidence of a criminal conviction, even if the alleged misconduct constitutes a criminal offense. As set forth in RCW 59 . 18 . 180, if drug-related activity is alleged to be the reason for termination, the landlord may proceed directly to an unlawful detainer action; and L. The owner desires to discontinue renting the I. Ipremises or building and does not enter into any subsequent .lease Igor rental agreement for the unit for a period of at least nine (9) II months; provided that the tenant shall have the right of first I refusal for occupancy of the unit if the unit is offered for rent !iprior to the expiration of the nine (9) month period. j Section 6. Termination or Nonrenewal of Tenancy. With many termination notices required by law, owners or landlords ;) terminating or not renewing a rental. agreement for any tenancy protected by this ordinance shall advise the affected tenant(s) in , writing of the reasons for the termination. If the landlord or owner cites just cause for termination or nonrenewal of the rental � agreement, the landlord or owner may recover possession of the Idwelling unit or property in the manner provided by law. In any action for possession of the dwelling unit, the landlord or owner may only rely on the reasons which were set forth in the notice ofl i termination or nonrenewal. Section 7. Affirmative Defense of Tenant in Subsequent Legal Action. If the landlord or owner fails to give the required written notice, or the notice fails to adequately inform the 7 - ' tenant of the reason for the termination or nonrenewal, or the reason stated for termination or nonrenewal is not one of the reasons identified herein as just cause, then this fact may be I presented by the tenant as a defense in any action for possession of the dwelling unit. i Section 8 . Landlords Shall Not Evade the Provisions of this Ordinance. A landlord shall not increase any tenant's rent or change the terms and conditions of any rental agreement, reduce ) services to the tenant, or in any manner increase the obligations i of the tenant when such actions are intended to evict the tenant or otherwise cause the tenant to vacate without just cause. The landlord's initiation of any of these actions shall create a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that the action is an attempt to evade the provisions of this ordinance: PROVIDED, that no presumption against the landlord shall arise i under this section with respect to an increase in rent, if the landlord, in a notice to the tenant of increase in rent, specifies , reasonable grounds for said increase. i Section 9 . Landlords to Post and Provide Copy of this Ordinance to Tenant. A landlord or owner shall : A. conspicuously post and reasonably maintain a copy of li this ordinance in common areas frequented by tenants informing j them of their rights under the ordinance; and i I B. In addition to inserting the 'just cause' I information required by Section 6 of this ordinance on a termination notice to the tenant, attach a copy of this ordinance to such notice. i Section 10. Complaint -- Filing. A complaint may be made with the Kent City Attorney's Office by any aggrieved tenant - 8 I �I I who has reason to believe that a violation of Section 9 of this ordinance has occurred. The complaint shall be in writing, signed by the tenant within ninety (90) days of the alleged violation, include a description of the persons responsible for the violation(s) , and other necessary information concerning the dates, location and circumstances of the violation. i Section 11. Enforcement and Civil Penalty. I i A. In addition to any other sanction or remedial procedure which may be available, each act or omission in violation of Section 9 of this ordinance shall constitute a civil Ilinfraction which shall be punishable by imposition of a monetary 1 1, penalty in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1, 000. 00) . i I B. The City Attorney shall have responsibility for , enforcement of this ordinance. �I Section 12 . Severability. The provisions of this I I� jordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The ,[ invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, ,[ section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect [; the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 13 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. l DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR - 9 - r ,.1 , CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember moves, -Cauncilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through P be approved, Discussion Yr, Action 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of August 6, 1991. 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through August 15, 1991 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 4 :45 p.m. on August 27, 1991. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Numbers Amount Council AgeVa$ Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington August 6, 1991 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.1n. by Mayor Pro Tem Woods. Present: Councilmembers Dowell, Johnson, Houser, Mann, Orr and White, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Finance Director McCarthy, Information Services Director Spang, Parks Director Wilson, Personnel Direc- tor Olson, Fire Chief Angelo, and Police Chief Crawford. Mayor Kelleher and Assistant City Administrator Hansen were not in at- tendance. Approximately 80 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem Woods an- COMMUNICATION nounced that Mary Lou Becker has been selected as Employee of the Month for August. She noted that Ms. Becker works in the Parks Department Resource Center and said she is praised for her dedication, courtesy, initiative and excellent work perform- ance. Parks Director Wilson noted that Ms. Becker is also the editor of the newsletter and commended her for the fine job she does on it. Woods pre- sented her with the Employee of the Month plaque. Ms. Becker expressed appreciation and stated that her job is made great by the special people she works with. National Night Out. Mayor Pro Tem Woods read a proclamation declaring August 6, 1991, as National Night Out in the City of Kent and calling upon all citizens to join the Kent Police Department and the National Association of Town Watch in support- ing and participating in the 8th Annual National Night Out. Police Chief Crawford noted that Kent placed fourth in the national competition last year, which shows that the citizens of Kent are concerned and involved. lie added that the Police Department appreciates that. Just Cause Ordinance. Betty Worsdale of 25131 98th Place South, asked that the subject of the just cause ordinance be reopened. Mayor Pro Tem Woods explained that this issue is scheduled to be heard by the full Council on August 20th and Sep- tember 3rd. Worsdale submitted a letter and photographs of one of her apartment units and WHITE MOVED that they be made a part of the rec- ord. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of July 16 , 1991, with the following correction to Item 3L on page 2 : August 6, 1991 MINUTES " . . 231 lineal feet of 8" sanitary sewer and 2 catch basins in the vicinity of Bridges Avenue. . . " should read . . . 231 lineal feet of 8" storm sewer in the vicinity of Bridges Avenue . . . " CONSENT JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through N, with the exception of Item C which was removed by Councilmember Dowell, be approved. White seconded and the motion carried. HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) SANITATION Smith and Mills Short Plat. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale submitted by ACY-DEUCY Concrete, Inc. for continuous operation and maintenance of ap- proximately 673 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of 94th Avenue South and South 222nd Street and release of the cash bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) Royal Firs. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by CPC/LEW Venture for continuous operation and maintenance of ap- proximately 3 , 066 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. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) Kent East Corporate Park. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale submitted by Kent No. 1 Limited Partner- ship for continuous operation and maintenance for a traffic signal constructed at the intersection of South 216th Street and 84th Avenue South and release of the construction bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) Brentwood Townhouses. 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 2 August 6, 1991 HEALTH & main extension and 790 of sanitary sewer extension SANITATION 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. STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M) 196th Corridor - TIB Funding. AUTHORIZATION 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, as recom- mended to the Public Works Committee. (BIDS - ITEM 5A) 1991 Asphalt Overlays. Bid opening for the 1991 Asphalt Overlay project was August 1 with three bids received. The low bid was submitted by M.A. Segale in the amount of $229 , 023 . 75 for all nine schedules included in the bid. 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 South; VI) Kennebeck Avenue; VII) Wynwood Drive; VIII) Tilden Avenue; IX) S . 212th Street. After review of the bids and the available funding, staff recommends 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 . WHITE SO MOVED. Orr seconded and the motion carried. ALLEY (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B) VACATION Senior Housing Street Vacation. An application has been made by Morgan Llewellyn to vacate a por- tion of the alley lying between Smith Street and Harrison Street and Fourth Avenue and Fifth Ave- nue. Mayor Pro Tem Woods declared the public hearing open. Morgan Llewellyn, 4848 S . 274th Place, noted that this is a landlocked alley which was inadvertently missed in the original vacation 3 August 6, 1991 ALLEY ordinance. He noted that the property owners have VACATION agreed to turn it over at no cost. Upon a ques- (Senior tion from Nona Brine, owner of the property at 625 Housing) W. Harrison, Wickstrom explained that normally when a street vacation abuts two properties, it is split between the two. There were no further com- ments and WHITE MOVED to close the public hearing. Houser seconded and the motion carried. JOHNSON MOVED to approve the Planning Department ' s recom- mendation 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 compensa- tion. White seconded and the motion carried. CONDEMNATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) Condemnation for right-of-way (vicinity of 108th S.E. and 260th) . ADOPTION of Ordinance 2988 authorizing staff to proceed with condemnation proceedings, as negotiations for right-of-way are unsuccessful , as approved by the Public Works Com- mittee. SOOS CREEK (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) PLAN Soos Creek Plan. This meeting will consider the Planning Committee ' s endorsement of the King County Executive Proposed Soos Creek Community Plan Update including changes regarding incorpor- ation 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. Johnson noted that a new section (Section 4) has been added to the resolution requesting that the King County Council support the concept of land use zoning provisions in the Soos Creek Plan which will preclude new urban development within the Soos Creek Planning area until such time as the roads and arterials which serve such development are improved to level of service "E" . HE THEN MOVED to approve the Planning Committee ' s endorse- ment of Resolution 1289 in support of the proposed August 6, 1991 SOOS CREEK Soos Creek Plan including the above changes, which PLAN will be presented to the King County Council for their consideration. Mann seconded and the motion carried. FINAL PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Walnut Grove Final Plat SU-90-2. 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 South, west of 96th Avenue South, south of South 241st Street, and north of South 243rd Street. REZONE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) Bishop Rezone. 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 con- sists 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. Carol Proud of the Planning Department noted that the property owners to the west want to use the property for an outside storage yard, which is not permitted in the Gateway Commercial zone, but is permitted in the General Industrial zone. She added that both staff and the Hearing Examiner have recommended approval . JOHNSON MOVED to accept the findings of the Hearing Examiner, to approve 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. White seconded and the motion carried. ANNEXATION (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) PETITION ADDED ITEM Ramsted Annexation. Mike Sharp, 12824 S .E. 256th, presented a petition for annexation and noted that it contains in excess of the property valuation required. ORR MOVED to make the petition a part of the record. Houser seconded and the motion carried. City Attorney Lubovich explained that 5 August 6, 1991 ANNEXATION the signatures must be verified by Public Works, PETITION and recommended that the petition be referred to (Ramsted) the Annexation Committee simultaneously. He pointed out that the Council must consider it within sixty days. Woods noted that someone from the Public Works Department will be in contact with Mr. Sharp. MOBILE HOME (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) PARK CODE Mobile Home Park Code Amendment. This public AMENDMENT hearing will consider three revisions to the Kent Mobile 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-conforming mobile home park section. The re- visions 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. " Carol Proud of the Planning Department noted that they have received a regulatory review request from a mobile home park o:aner asking that Section 1. 3 paragraph 3 which reads as follows be amended: "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 . " She noted that it is the duty of the Building Official to issue relocation permits for individ- ual mobile home units in existing parks, and that he has denied relocation permits because the Code does not permit relocating individual mobile home units that cannot meet requirements and standards for new parks. She explained that all of the existing mobile home parks within the City were built prior to the 1978 adoption of the Mobile Home Park Code and that all of the existing mobile home parks are non-conforming with respect to 6 August 6, 1991 MOBILE HOME individual unit placement criteria which includes PARK CODE lot size, coverage, setbacks and separation AMENDMENT requirements between units and accessory build- ings. She noted that an environmental review of the proposed amendments to the mobile home park code was conducted pursuant to the State Environ- mental Policy Act and that 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. Proud noted that several meetings were conducted with interested parties which included park owners, tenants, real estate agents and King County Housing and Economic Development section. She said only one comment was received, which con- curred with the staff ' s recommendation. She noted that of most concern is the dwindling number of mobile home parks available, and the fact that new mobile home parks are not. being constructed. Proud reviewed the non-conforming Mobile Home Park Standards which staff has developed. She clari- fied for White that sewer and other types of hook- ups may be required and that the Building Depart- ment will administer this . White voiced concern regarding the number and cost of permits required. Proud urged the Council to direct the City Attor- ney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Woods declared the public hearing open. Mel Kleweno, 555 W. Smith, Attorney representing sev- eral mobile home park owners, noted that they are concerned about the costs associated, and pointed out that mobile home parks are one of the main sources of affordable housing for low and fixed income people. He stated that some park owners had asked for additional meetings with staff and urged the Council to direct Planning to work fur- ther with the owners. Paul Symbol , owner of a park at 412 N. Washington, voiced concern about losing spaces due to setback requirements, and noted that it would be difficult to comply with the ordinance regarding water, sewer and power hookups because of the short no- tice given by tenants when moving in and out. He also requested that more meetings be held with 7 August 6 , 1991 MOBILE HOME Planning staff before adoption of the ordinance. PARK CODE Jack Keck, 855 E. Smith, owner of Circle K Park, AMENDMENT spoke in regard to recreational vehicles. He also stated that he would like to meet with Planning again before this issue is finalized. Upon a question from a mobile home owner, Mrs. McLaughlin, Carol Proud said that this amendment would have no effect on people currently living in mobile home parks, that it only affects people trying to move into parks. Proud noted that she had sent out notification and draft copies asking for comments, but received only one comment. Proud pointed out that this amendment would allow the Building Official some flexibility to allow people to move into parks and that it would make it easier for people to replace their existing mobile home with a new one. White asked that the issue regarding whether tenants could have both a carport and a storage shed be clarified. Ron Clark, representing the Washington Manufac- tured Housing Association, said the ordinance pro- vides flexibility and noted that the National Fire Protection Standards are reasonable. John Marshall , owner of two empty spaces at Valley Manor Park, asked that the amendment be accepted subject to further review if necessary. He noted that there are urgent needs for people to move into the empty spaces which clearly conform to the new restrictions. Harry Allen, 849 Main Street, Edmonds, voiced con- cern about modifying spaces to meet this new code. He noted that there is considerable cost involved regarding water, sewer, pad, concrete patio and other things . He said if a park owner chooses to modify a space, he would have to clear the second space in order to create the room to meet the new code, which would impact other tenants. He added that the restriction should be changed so that there can be more than one structure per lot. He suggested that this be discussed further and pre- sented at a future time. Proud said that the ma- jority of parks will be able to be accommodated by this, although some of the old ones would have a problem. 8 August 6, 1991 MOBILE HOME Bill Doolittle said that this would allow older PARK CODE parks built before the 1978 Mobile Home Park Code AMENDMENT went into effect to keep utilizing those spaces for similar units. He noted that without it, when spaces are vacated, owners would have fewer units and rent would have to be increased. He noted that permits required would probably be at a mini- mum, and commended the Planning Department for ad- dressing this problem since mobile home spaces for older units are scarce. There were no further comments and WHITE MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion carried. WHITE MOVED that this be referred to staff and that the minor details be worked out and brought back in two weeks if possible. Harris asked for more time, and agreed to work toward a September 3 deadline. White asked staff to respond to the items people brought up tonight. Woods asked interested people to contact Planning Director Harris or Carol Proud for input as to when meetings are held. WHITE REPHRASED HIS MOTION to move that this be referred to staff and be brought back to Council on September 3 . Houser seconded. Orr voiced concern about the time con- straint for people being displaced at Longacres and suggested adopting this ordinance with the provision that the staff revisit those areas that are problems and bring it back to Council for re- vision. She noted that Council could amend this simply by passing another motion. City Attorney Lubovich pointed out that the ordinance has not been prepared yet. He added that the ordinance would not go into effect until 30 days from passage. White withdrew his motion and Houser withdrew the second. JOHNSON MOVED to accept the revisions to the Mobile Home Park Code and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance, with the understanding that people who have concerns about certain provisions of the proposed ordinance meet with the Planning Department and work them out and that staff bring revising language back to Council . Orr seconded. Upon comments from the audience, Woods and Harris clarified that an ordinance has not yet been pre- pared, and that the motion is to direct the City 9 August 6, 1991 MOBILE HOME Attorney to prepare an ordinance, and to direct PARK CODE Planning to meet with interested people and come AMENDMENT back with necessary amendments. Proud noted for White that as the code stands now, without the revisions, she cannot allow anyone to move into the parks. White assured the people in the audience that their concerns will be addressed. Orr agreed with White and noted that it will be a simple task to make the changes and in the meantime this will provide relief to people in need. The motion then carried. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL Planning Commission Appointment. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s appointment of Kent Morrill to the Kent Planning Commission replacing Willie Gregory who resigned. Dowell voiced concern regarding the appointment of a King County official , which gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He noted also that Mr. Morrill is challenging councilmember White for a Council position, and that if he wins the election, he would have to be replaced on the Planning Commission in five months. Dowell pointed out that the appointment could be viewed by citizens as political in nature rather than in the best interests of planning for the City. Dowell said he has no objection to Mr. Morrill ' s ability or experience, but objected to the timing, the potential conflict of interest, and the appearance of fairness associated with the appointment at this time. HE MOVED to refuse the confirmation. White seconded. The motion was defeated with Dowell and white in favor and Woods abstaining. DOWELL THEN MOVED for approval . Johnson seconded and the motion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) Board of Adjustment Appointment. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s reappointment of Raul Ramos to the Kent Board of Adjustment- 10 August 6, 1991 PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) RECREATION IAC Grant Agreement/Lake Fenwick Phase III. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Inter- agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) grant agreement to receive $466, 784 in matching funds for Lake Fenwick Phase III project as rec- ommended 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 ap- proval herein. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) IAC Grant Agreement/East Hill Neighborhood Park. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Inter- agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) grant agreement to receive $401, 500 in matching funds for East Hill Neighborhood Park as recom- mended by the Parks Commi.ttee. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N) ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL Washington State Arts Commission Grant. Dowell noted that an $8 , 000 grant has been approved by the Washington State Arts Commission for the City of Kent. He explained that they must have information on acceptance by August 26, and that the Parks Committee will not meet before then. He asked that this be added to the agenda as Item 3N. There was no objection from Council . FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through July 31, 1991 after au- diting by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 4 : 45 p.m. on August 1_' , 1991 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 7/16-7/31/91 107116-108156 $2 , 396, 977 . 88 Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Numbers Amount 8,/5/91 01158656-01159463 $ 647 , 280 . 09 11 August 6 , 1991 REPORTS Council President. Woods noted that Suburban Cities will meet next Wednesday evening in Lake Forest Park and asked that reservations be made through Administration. Parks Committee. Dowell noted that some time ago, the Operations Committee voted to spend $16, 500 for a study of the golf course. HE MOVED to ap- prove the request for the funds and to allow the project to continue. Houser seconded. Upon Woods ' question regarding proper notification, the Attorney stated that the motion can be accepted tonight. There were no further comments on the motion and it carried unanimously. Administrative Reports. City Administrator Chow reminded the Council of the Budget Workshop to be held on August 8 at the Senior Center at 8 : 00 a.m. McCarthy noted that departments will not be making separate presentations as they have in the past, and that issues will be looked at on a city-wide basis . Woods commented that the purpose of the meeting is to decide how to address the budget shortfall . ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 35 p.m. Brenda Jacober, CMC Deputy City Clerk 12 Kent City Council Meeting u - Date August 20. 1991 V Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CODE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance amending the Mobile Home Park Code to add a new section on nonconforming mobile home parks, and additional revisions for the purpose of consistency with adopted city code and policies, and other minor text revisions to correct numbering errors. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C i I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE relating to mobile home parks, amending the Kent Mobile Home Park Code, Chapter 12 . 08 of the Kent City Code, by adding new nonconforming mobile home park standards, making minor text revisions for consistency with existing City codes and policies, and renumbering certain sections. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS : i I Section 1. The Mobile Home Park Code, Chapter 12 . 08 of the Kent City Code (Ordinance 2077) is amended as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto. I i Section 2 . Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The �linvalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the i validity of its application to other persons or circumstances . i I� 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. i DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR I' II ATTEST: ' I i BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1991. APPROVED the day of 1991. PUBLISHED the day of , 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 j; City of Kent as hereon indicated. ' I i i (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK I I I I mobhm.ord 2 I 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. EXHIBIT A City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code SECTION 1 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) 1 2.08.030. 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 -p� Official to enforce all provisions of this code after a Final Site Plan has been approved. The Building Teeter- Official shall may inspect eaeh any mobile home park epee- F year in order to inswe verify 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 a;�eF Official or his duly authorized representative shall have the right and is hereby empowered to enter any mobile home park. The Building Department Code Enforcement Division of the Fire Department 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;per 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. 1 2.08.071 . ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - Any structure on an interior mobile home lot or site that is appurtenant to the princioally permitted mobile home or (nonconforming recreational vehicle. ' 2.^. 12.08.072. CITY COUNCIL. The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington. 1 2.08.073 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. 1z?98 873. 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. 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. BS�76. 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 98 876. 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. gS 87 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. 12.08- 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. 2 09 87.8. 12.08.080. DEPENDENT UNIT. A mobile home that does not have toilet and bathtub or shower facilities. 1 2.08.0 9. 1 2.08.081 . DEVELOPER. The person, firm or corporation developing a mobile home park.. ; 2.08.nP1. 12.08.0812. 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. 12.98.9 12.08.083. INDEPENDENT UNIT. A mobile home that has a toilet and bathtub or shower facilities. 49&8&3. 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. 1298 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. 12.^-�6•. 12.08.086. LOT FRONTAGE. The front of a lot shall be that portion nearest the street. 1 2-08.Q8-6. 12.08.087. LOT LINES. The lines bounding the lot. 3 City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code 4z?98 BSA. 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. 1 88,9H&. 12.0&089. LOT, THROUGH. A lot that has both ends fronting on a street. Either end may be considered front. 4z?8Sr989. 12.08.090. MEANDER LINE. A line along a body of water intended to be used solely as a reference for surveying. . 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. 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 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. 2.^,���0�. 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. 12.08.094. 12.08.096. PERFORMANCE BOND OR GUARANTEE. That security which may be accepted in lieu of a requirement that certain improvements be made before 4 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. n�&O . 12.08.097. PLANNING COMMISSION. That body as defined in Ordinance 1674, City of Kent. 1. p:.pR_0 . 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. 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. �. R P. 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. 188 1 2.08.101 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. 1 2.08.210. 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 ail 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 . Application. 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. Map 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. 6 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_ ieF te ` -Exa.miR.Ler hearing hi h it .s to be oensideFed. 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 (100) 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 reauired. If a full Environmental Impact Statement is required under the State Environmental Poiicy 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 May. 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 0 00) 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. 8 City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code 11 . Indicate proposed grading, drainage and landscaping plans. 12.08.254. Referral to Other Citv 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 (10) days of receipt of the preliminary site plan; or in the eve nt that a preliminary site plan meeting should be called b 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?). S. 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 application(s1 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 (100) 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. heafing shall be, held no lateF than the seeend FegulaF meeting ef the Heafing Ex&w+4+ef-a#ef . Within 30 (30) days of receipt of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation the City Council shall, a a regular public hearing consider said recommendation. 9 City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code B. The Planning Department shall give notice in the following manner: 1 Th (3) neti 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. Natiees 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. 1 2.08.271 . 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 10 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 (150) 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 Aoainst 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. 14 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 Space. 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. Parkin . 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 ilities located in a planting strip shall be placed in park shall be placed underground. Any ut 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-ups. 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 nb�e substituted in its entirety only i 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 Open Space. 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. 18 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 created prior to the adoption of the Mobile Home Park Code and therefore not in compliance with all or some of the develo ment standards re uired herein said narks shall be considered le al 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. 1Z A site plan drawn to scale that shows the perimeter nark boundaries;.the dimensions of all existing mobile home lots the location of al! existing mobile homes accessory buildings utility hookups and internal roadways shall be submitted in conjunction with permit ai3plication. for lacement 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 subject 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 requirements need not apply. See diagram 12 08 380-2 for required placement standards. All new construction of accessory structures in a nonconforming nark or tLe remodeling of existing structures shall be subject to the se aration standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 501 A Section 4-4.1) as adopted by reference in the Kent Munici al Code Cha ter 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 _1 2 08 380-3 for required placement standards. 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 rovisions 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. f 5Z 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 ex ansion shall be subject to the provisions of the Mobile Home Park Code. 19 City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code Diagram 12.08.380 - 2 Minimum NONCONFORMINg Mobile Home Park Separations Reference: NFPA 4-2.1 .1/Kent Municipal Code_Chaater 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 I I 10' SIDE TO SIDE I i $ END TO SIDE I 6' END TO END 6' DIAGONALLY I 1 � I I 10 ,I ,1 silo n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (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 park spaces and separations between units and accessory structures and roads. Additional permits and review may be required by other agencies or City departments as a result of the placement of a mobile home/manufactured home. If You have further questions please contact the Kent Code Enforcement Division of the Fire Department at 859-3360. NOTE Construction of a fire resistive wall may decrease required separation distances. 20 City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code Diagram 12.08.380 - 3 New Accessory Structures in NONCONFORMING Mobile Home Parks Reference: NFPA 4-4.1 : Kent Municipal Code Chapter 13.02.080 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 S' to site line (combustible construction) 3 to ediecent structure (non- combustible construction) 5. a IS Proposed combustible: Proposed noncombustible: Existina (combustible/ — • S' - noncombustible): } 1 pp";Jj NOTE: Construction of e fire- 'T t resistive well may decrease I required setback distances. I (IN criur perk (Iriveway) SIQa Il Proposed structures to be constructed of combustible materials shall not be locate c oser than five feet from any park space line Structures of noncombustible material shall be permitted to be located immediately adianant to a nark space provided that they are not less than three feet from any building or structure on an adiacent 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 adjacent 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. Exception Requirements. 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 necessaryto 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. Applications 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 1 2.08.440. SEVEflABILITY. 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 6/91 - formsl:a:mhpcode.91 23 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SENIOR HOUSING ALLEY VACATION —ORI)TVANCE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance rA`i 1 vacating an unopened alley lying between Smith Street and Harrison Street and Fourth and Fifth Avenue without compensation to the City from the abutting property owners . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Aecommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D ,( i j I i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to the vacation of streets, vacating a portion of the unopened alley lying between Smith Street and Harrison Street and Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue. WHEREAS, application was filed with the City of Kent by abutting property owners for the vacation of a portion of a unopened alley lying between Smith Street and Harrison Street and Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue, which was dedicated to the City; and �i WHEREAS, the Kent City Council, by Resolution 1285 I fixed a time when said petition would be heard and the hearing was held with proper notice on August 6, 1991, at the hour of j 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Kent City Hall ; and i I WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Director processed said petition and secured technical facts pertinent to the question of said vacation, which includes a sketch of the proposed vacation, and also, a recommendation as to approval or rejection thereof by the Public Works Department; and I j WHEREAS, the Public Works Department and Planning i ! Director recommended that the City Council approve the vacation without conditions or cost to the City, since the City has had no expenses associated with this unopened alley, and could therefor be vacated without compensation to the City i by the owners as a Class "C" right of way under Ordinance 2333 ; and i i 1 III WHEREAS, the City council finds that the alley sought to be vacated is: (1) an unopened dedicated alley and Inot presently being used as an alley; (2) not suitable for any of the following purposes: Port, beach or water access, boat ! moorage, launching sites, park, public view, recreation or I'� education; (3) a Class "C" right of way under Ordinance 2333 ; and (4) a vacation which is in the public interest; and i WHEREAS, the city Council by resolution directed the i ipreparation of an ordinance vacating the portion of said I street; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . The alley described as: That part of the dedicated alley lying between lots 1 and 18, block 16, Yeslers lst Addition to Kent, as recorded in Volume 5 , Page 64 , in the records of the King County Auditor, King County, Washington �I hand as mentioned in the petition for vacation by abutting property owner is hereby vacated. Section 2 . No vested rights shall be affected by II ,, this provisions of this ordinance. I I I 2 �I ,1 1 ! i Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall be I in effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR I ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK I APPROVED AS TO FORM: i ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY i I I '1PASSED the day of 1991. I I APPROVED the day of , 1991. PUBLISHED the day of , 1991 . II 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 bogard. ord i 3 I .. Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BISHOP REZONE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance - relating to land use and zoning, amending the official zoning map of the City of Kent, rezoning certain property in Lot 1 of Shinns Valley Home Addition from GWC (gateway commercial) to M3 (general industrial) and accepting a property use and development agreement in connection therewith. 3 . EXHIBITS• Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO_y 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. 3E I l 1 I ORDINANCE No. AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning, amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Kent, to conditionally rezone certain property in Lot 1 of Shinns Valley Home Addi- tion from Gateway Commercial (GWC) to General Industrial (M3) zoning, (Petition of Bishop No. RZ-91-1) . WHEREAS, a petition (No. RZ-91-1) was filed with the City to rezone certain property from Gateway Commercial (GWC) I to General Industrial (M3) zoning, (Petition of Bishop, No. RZ-91-1) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department recommended that the petition be granted, subject to certain conditions ) designed to ameliorate the impact of uses and developments Ilhotherwise permitted in the General Industrial (M3) zone; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a hearing on said matter on June 191 1991 and recommended that the petition be lgranted, subject to certain additional conditions; and I I WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the recommendations of the Planning Department and Hearing I Examiner, and finds that such rezone petition shall be granted ( subject to the Owner' s compliance with the conditions imposed I by the Department and the Hearing Examiner; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : I! I �I I I i I i i Section 1 . That the Official Zoning Map of the City of Kent, as adopted by Ordinance, is amended to rezone from Gateway Commercial (GWC) to General Industrial (M3) the 3 ' following described property: { The westerly 312 feet of Lot 1 of Shinns Valley Addition to Kent, North one-half, less street and; The westerly 312 feet of Lot 1 of Shinns Valley Addition to Kent, South one-half, less east 12 feet for street. which property is more commonly described as the westerly 312 feet at 22225 and 22219 - 84th Avenue South, Kent, Washington. i Section 2 . That future development of the Property { is conditioned upon the following: A. That the storm water drainage plan for the { lProperty be prepared to mitigate the existing drainage problems on the southerly portion of the Property; and !I B. That nighttime operations on any proposed outdoor storage yard on the Property be kept to a minimum so I as not to disturb neighboring property owners; and C. That all necessary pollution discharge permits for the Property be obtained, subject to the requirements , listed in the final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the Property (No. ENV-91-23) ; and D. That all necessary on-site detention facilities be installed; and 2 E. That the proposed outdoor storage yard on the Property shall not be used for equipment maintenance, fueling, washing or any other activities without approved plans and permits from the City and/or METRO, which may include, but not be limited to, oil/water separators and connections to the sanitary sewer system; and F. That all traffic studies and/or traffic mitigation agreements be prepared in accordance with the MDNS for the Property (No. ENV-91-23) ; and G. That legal access to the Property from the cIlpublic street system be provided; i i I H. That all payments for the future development ' s proportionate share of all street improvements as described in the MDNS (No. ENV-91-23) be paid; and j !I I . That a final participatory agreement be I� it executed for the future payment of the development' s proportionate share of the street improvements, as described in the MDNS (No. ENV-91-23) ; and J. That the portion of the Property on which the 1 single family residences located at 22225 and 22219 - 84th Avenue So. be legally subdivded; and i K. That the development provide approved Fire Department access and fire flow for all structures and the proposed storage yard. 3 II I Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK I I APPROVED AS TO FORM: I i i I I ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1991 - APPROVED the day of 1991 • PUBLISHED the day of 1991 . I it I hereby certify that this is a true copy Of iOrdinance No. 2365, 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 i 4 I i � Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20 , 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CITY OF KENT CULTURAL PLANNING/CULTURAL CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of�ty of Kent Cultural Planning/Cultural Center Feasibility Study as presented by the City of Kent Performing Arts Center Task Force to City Council at their workshop on Tuesday, July 16. t: 3 . EXHIBITS: City of Kent Cultural Planning/Culture Feasibility Study 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee and City of Kent Performing Arts Center Task Force (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3F✓ CITY OF KENT CULTURAL PLANNING/ CULTURAL CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY MAYOR: DAN KELLEHER Kent City Council Dr. Judith Woods, President Paul W. Mann Steve Dowell* Leona Orr Christi Houser Jim White* Jon Johnson* * Parks Committee City of Kent Performing Arts Center Task Force Patricia Curran, Chair Jim Land Claudia Appell Dee Moschel Bernie Bleha Clark Townsend Steve Burpee Frank Zaratkiewicz Dennis Hart John Van Zonneveld Patrice Thorell, Superintendent, Cultural & Special Services, Staff Robb Dreblow, Assistant Community Events Coordinator,Administrative Liaison Task Force Advisors Len Bassham Greg Murray Grace Hiranaka Sherri Ourada Chuck Howard Lori Severeid Merrily Manthey Janice Thompson-McConnell June Mercer Jim Torina Barry Miller Jim Young City of Kent Arts Commission JoAnn Brady, Chair Marcella Hobbs Barbara Biteman Chris Kramer Keiko Cullen Jim Land Beverly Domarotsky Sally Storey Marilyn Hadley Jamie Vickrey Grace Hiranaka Frank Zaratkiewicz Cultural Planning/Cultural Center Feasibility Study Consultants AMS/Artsoft Management Services Robert Bailey, Principal Arthur Greenberg, Consultant KENT CULTURAL CENTER STUDY CONTRIBUTORS City of Kent King County Hotel/Motel Tax Cultural Fund King County Arts Commission Kent Chamber of Commerce Foundation Auburn General Hospital Lynden Transport Gerry Anderson/Bell-Anderson Realty John &June Mercer J.Martin Anderson,DDS Meteor Communications Bell-Anderson Insurance Northwest Metal Products The Boeing Company NW Energy Resources Boise Cascade Office Products Bob O'Bryan Bowen Scarff Ford/Volvo Leona Orr Children's Therapy Center Sherri Ourada Edward Chow, Jr. Pacific Metallurgical Citizens for Patrick Puget Sound Bank Janet& Richard Cox Rainier Chorale Ernest F. Crane Richard Robbins Pete & Patricia Curran Scarsella Brothers Dr. George&Joanne Daniel Seattle-Tacoma Box Company Dowell Company Shannon &Associates, C.PA.s Father Duggan/St.Anthony's Church Stewart Drugs GDG Designs Robert Swartout Golden Steer Restaurant Patrice Thorell Green River Community College Foundation Charles S.Turner, CPA Karen Hatch Valley Daily News Heath Tecna Aerospace Company Valley Medical Center Grace Hiranaka Van's Furniture Howard Manufacturing Leslie Wagner JaBow, Inc. West One Bank Mike Jasper Western Distribution Services, Inc. Dan Johnson Jim White Jube Art & Frame Dr.Judith Woods Mavor Daniel Kelleher Weverhauser Paper Company Kent Valley Leasing Young Development & Construction, Inc. Ford Kiene/City Beverages Contents I. BACKGROUND & KEY ISSUES........................................................................I KeyCommunity Issues..........................................................................................1 PositiveAttributes..................................................................................................2 Arts & Culture - Strengths and Weaknesses .....................................................3 CulturalNeeds........................................................................................................3 CompetitiveIssues.................................................................................................4 Development of a Cultural Facility - Key Issues ..............................................4 RelatedDevelopments..........................................................................................5 II. MARKET AREA.....................................................................................................10 DemographicAnalysis...........................................................................................10 MarketResearch....................................................................................................15 III. USER NEEDS ..........................................................................................................is IV. FACILITY PROPOSAL..........................................................................................20 Goals & Objectives................................................................................................20 BuildingProgram...................................................................................................20 Site and Planning Issues........................................................................................22 Parkin ...............................................22 SiteSelection..........................................................................................................23 V. ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS ...................................... ...............27 VI. ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS...................................................................28 ProjectedSchedule of Use....................................................................................28 Estimated Costs of Operation..............................................................................29 VII. FINANCING STRATEGIES.................................................................................32 PublicSources.........................................................................................................32 PrivateSources.......................................................................................................35 Vill.IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................................................37 SiteAcquisition.....................................................................................................37 ProjectManagement .............................................................................................37 ProjectAdministration..........................................................................................38 Appendix 1 Listof Interviews....................................................................................................39 Appendix 2 Regional Performing Arts Facilities ...................................................................40 I. BACKGROUND & KEY ISSUES AMS/ArtSoft Management Services was contracted by the City of Kent, Washington, to develop a Cultural Plan and complete a feasibility study for a new cultural facility in Kent. The report that follows details the results of AMS's research into the key issues facing the Kent cultural community and provides recommendations for the development of a community cultural center. The consultants began research in Kent by reviewing previous planning efforts relevant to the development of a cultural facility. A series of interviews followed with key leaders representing a cross-section of the business, educational, and cultural communities in Kent (a complete list of those interviewed can be found in Appendix 1). Key Community Issues AMS staff conducted key leader interviews in order to provide a context for planning efforts and recommendations regarding a cultural facility in Kent. A summary of the key issues facing the Kent community is presented below, with specific attention paid to those topics relevant to the development of a cultural center. Members of the greater Kent community who were interviewed for this study were nearly unanimous in citing Traffic/Congestion/Transportation as the foremost issue facing Kent in the years to come. Primarily, the lack of an East/West corridor adjacent to the City, and the absence of a North/South route on the east side of Kent were mentioned as hindrances to further growth in Kent's downtown. While the city is seen as having a desirable location within southern King County, the downtown area's perceived inaccessibility from nearby freeways presents several issues to be considered during the planning process: how far does the market area extend for arts events in Kent? what size facility should be proposed? and, which sites will accommodate a cultural center without adding significantly to congestion in downtown Kent? Other issues that were identified during the course of the interviews include the rapid increase in Kent's population over the last several years, and the accompanying problem of identifying with the community posed by the wave of new residents. Image and identity in general were seen as lacking in Kent due to the growth of the downtown area adjacent to manufacturing facilities and the prevalence of Pa��e warehouses and distribution centers on the valley floor. Community leaders also brought up the following issues: - Affordable Housing - Downtown Revitalization - Governance - new County government structure anticipated - Regional Planning - Kent needs to be a stronger participant - City of Kent serving County residents - Revitalization of Park System - Wetlands/Environmental issues - High proportion of rented versus owned units The issue of downtown revitalization was a common refrain in the key leader interviews, and the potential of building a cultural center in the downtown area was seen by many as a stimulus to continuing efforts to revitalize the city's central core. Additionally, the issue of City facilities and parks serving residents of the entire County was mentioned by many of those interviewed as a reason for thinking in terms of a community rather than reizional cultural facility in Kent. Finally, according to representatives of the Kent School District and others interviewed, the high proportion of rental units in Kent (as opposed to owner-occupied housing) makes it difficult to predict the actual mix of residents at any given time, and makes planning for schools somewhat speculative. For the purposes of a cultural center development, the frequent turnover in population and high percentage of programming should not significantly affect recommendations for type of building, but may impact future programming decisions if swings in the composition of local residents are significant (i.e. percentage of children). Positive Attributes The City of Kent is widely respected for its high quality public facilities, namely, its Senior Center, Recreation Center (Commons), City Hall, and Library. The various parks in Kent are seen as the finest in the State, as are the recreation programs sponsored by the City. The Kent School District was consistently cited as providing excellent education, sports, and cultural programs. Most of all, Kent's central location within South King County, its proximity to the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma and to SeaTac Airport were seen as extremely positive attributes. Interviewees also noted that 11 of Washington's top 150 corporations are based in Kent, equal to the number in Bellevue (Spokane has 9, Tacoma 3). Individuals who were interviewed also mentioned the strong sense of community and appreciation of local history in Kent Page 2 Arts & Culture - Strengths and Weaknesses Interviewees expressed their appreciation for the cultural programs in Kent sponsored by the City's Parks & Recreation Department. Festivals and free concerts are seen as good draws for families from throughout the South King County region. Outdoor events at Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks, the Balloon Classic, Canterbury Faire, and Cornucopia Days were all cited as "crowd pleasers" in Kent. Other children's and family programs and concerts sponsored by area service organizations (Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, Soroptomists) were mentioned. The most commonly reported weakness of Kent's cultural offerings is perceived to be the lack of an indoor facility suitable for the live performing arts. Interviewees noted that events at Kentwood H.S. suffer from the school ambience. Auburn P.A.C., Carco Theatre in Renton, and various Seattle venues were among the locations to which Kent residents travel to partake of.the performing arts. An issue related to the lack of a cultural arts facility is the small number of community-based arts organizations in Kent. Aside from the Rainier Symphony, there are relatively few non-profit community music, theatre, and dance organizations functioning in Kent. The lack of community ants groups was seen by many interviewed to be closely related to the absence of suitable performing facilities in the City. Without a place in which to perform, arts organizations cannot prosper. Another related concern expressed by some community members is the perception that the City of Kent "does it all" culturally, and should try to nurture emerging non-profit cultural groups to provide programming. Other issues reported in relation to the local arts community include a perceived difficulty in enlisting local volunteers, the minimal involvement of local corporations in funding cultural prorams, and the prevalence of"crafts" as opposed to "high culture." Cultural Needs The need mentioned most often by those interviewed is that for a cultural facility capable of showcasing live performing arts events. While interviewees noted their desire for a community theatre and/or volunteer-based cultural organizations, most expected non-profit cultural organizations to form and grow if a cultural center were to be constructed in Kent. Some individuals also mentioned the need for a local history museum or display in Kent. Most local history artifacts are now sent to the White River Historical PaLle Museum near Auburn, and many felt that these relics should remain in Kent to be exhibited. Competitive Issues A number of issues relating to competition for cultural facilities emerged during the her cities in the region were cited as being course of the interviews. At least six ot interested in developing new or renovating existing cultural facilities, including Federal Way, SeaTac, Auburn, Enumclaw, Issaquah, Kirkland, and Bellevue. While the cities of Renton and Auburn are not seen as major players, Federal Way, with its growing population and upscale residential areas, is viewed as having the potential to become another Bellevue" over the next 10 years. Interviewees were generally concerned about plans in Federal Way to build a cultural facility and encouraged a regional planning effort to avoid duplication and/or competition. The situation in Federal Way, however, not unlike that in the city of Bellevue, has been stalled due to a lack of consensus around type of cultural facility. SeaTac is perceived to be too concerned with its recent incorporation, not as a serious threat to construct a performing arts facility; SeaTac was reported to be more likely to consider a conference/convention facility rather than a cultural facility. Also noted during the course of the interviews were plans for renovation of Seattle Center, and the proposed $120 million countywide bond issue to finance improvements and new mid-sized facilities. The results of the May 28th election showed the bond issue passing in the City of Seattle and failing in King County, leaving the future of the renovation plans in limbo. Development of a Cultural Facility - Key Issues Several issues were identified during the course of AMS's research directly related to the proposed construction of a cultural arts center in Kent. Location City staff and community leaders expressed their desire that any cultural facility should be constructed in downtown Kent to help spur revitalization of the downtown core. Interviewees noted that a downtown location would generate the most political support as well as backing from the business community. While a downtown site is seen as desirable by most, other interviewees introduced the potential problems of increased traffic, congestion, and parking requirements. Downtown Kent is also perceived as having a dearth of good quality restaurants and other amenities to cater to arts audiences. The presence of manufacturing plants in Page 4 downtown was mentioned by some as a hindrance to the development of an image of Kent as a cultural destination. Facilities Community leaders who were interviewed speculated as to the size and configuration of a cultural center in Kent. Some thought that a theatre should have around 500 seats and serve as a true community arts center, while others indicated the need for a facility of at least 1,200-1,500 seats to serve the entire region and draw audiences from throughout south King County. Proponents of both sizes of theatres agreed that any facility should be built to accommodate a wide variety of arts, business, and community functions. The 1,000 seat Auburn Performing Arts Center was mentioned as being booked many months in advance and utilized fully. Several interviewees noted the need for rehearsal facilities, classrooms, and meeting rooms to help generate revenue for an arts center. While the consensus among those interviewed recognized the need for a performing arts facility, many individuals noted their interest in including exhibition space for the visual arts, local history and even science-related exhibits. Chamber of Commerce representatives expressed an interest in some form of science museum or exhibition of high tech products manufactured in Kent. Other interviewees mentioned the need for an ice rink in Kent with the hope of attracting a minor league hockey team to the Valley. Related Developments Regional.lustice Center The potential location of a South King County Regional Justice Center (931-beds, 31 court rooms, 16 acres) in Kent might enable the City to advocate for a "desirable" regional facility as a mitigation after accepting a potentially controversial facility. The possibility of leveraging county financing for a cultural center was indicated in conjunction with the Justice Center project. International Interpretive Center A few interviewees introduced the concept of an International Interpretive Center designed to accommodate multi-lingual conferencing with in-house translation services. Administration representatives from Green River Community College have suggested that such a Center would service international business negotiations and conferences by taking advantage of Kent's proximity to the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, SeaTac airport, and the whole of the Pacific Rim. Pa(Te It is envisioned that such an interpretive center would assume an auditorium-style configuration for use as a conference facility during daytime hours, and then would operate as a performing arts facility during evening hours. While AMS believes the concept warrants further investigation, there is no indication that research has been conducted with the key prospective users of such a facility, namely, regional businesses and corporations. Additionally, the senior administration at Green River Community College does not appear to have recognized the interpretive center as a top priority to meet college needs. Opportunities for Financing a Facility Preliminary discussions touched on the feasibility of assorted financing mechanisms for a cultural center in Kent. The possibility of forming a special bonding district was discussed and received mixed reviews. Most of those interviewed felt there is little chance the electorate would approve a newly created bonding district, let alone vote to raise tax revenues to fund construction of a cultural center. It was the general consensus that politically, a cultural center bond issue would have little chance of passing through the electorate, unless it were linked with an educational program or facility. At the direction of the Cultural Center Task Force, AMS included in the primary phase of the plan a question aimed at predicting residents' willingness to vote in favor of a tax increase to fund a cultural center. Results of the survey can be found in Section H - Market Research. Regarding the fundraising potential among local businesses and corporations, one interviewee noted that most Kent-based companies are either satellites of corporate home offices (based in Seattle) or else distribution- and/or warehouse-oriented businesses whose customers are generally outside Kent. These types of businesses have little local control over corporate philanthropy activities which are traditionally conducted from home offices. Moreover, companies whose customer bases are outside the community are likely to be difficult targets for capital fund contributions. Interviewees were asked which local organizations could play a significant role in a fundraising campaign for a cultural arts center. Both the Kent Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber Foundation were cited as potential players in a fundraising campaign. Some individuals were skeptical of these organizations' ability to raise substantial funds from the community. The Green River (College) Foundation was also mentioned as a potential fundraising partner if the College is to play a role in the facility's development. Green River Community College Discussions were held with representatives of the College administration, art departments, and the Green River (College) Foundation regarding the potential for Page 6 a joint development of an arts center in Kent. Green River representatives indicated their desire for a mid-sized performing arts facility of at least 1,200-1,500 seats to accommodate a wide variety of programs from lectures to performing arts events. The Green River (College) Foundation is the primary presenter of touring arts programs at the College. The Foundation also functions as a fundraising arm, having successfully raised a $1.75 million endowment for the college library. Green River Community College representatives indicated their interest in a partnership development for an arts center in Kent, though did express reservations regarding an off-campus location for a facility. Administrators suggested that the College might access State funds while the Foundation would conduct a private fundraising campaign. A target of up to $5 million in private funds was mentioned. Highline Community College AMS staff also met with representatives of Highline Community College to ascertain their potential interest in utilizing a new cultural facility in Kent. While the City of Kent is not in the Highline CC district, school officials noted that more Kent residents take classes at Highline than at Green River because of the proximity of the Highline site. The College has an active performing arts presenting program as well as course offerings in music and theatre. Ultimately, Highline would be interested in renting a Kent facility on an event-by-event basis, but would not be able to commit to a series of programs at an off-campus location. Because of the district boundaries, Highline Community College would not be interested in pursuing any joint development with the City of Kent. Proposed Mall Development AMS staff met with representatives of American Commercial Industries (ACI), a private development firm which has proposed a 1 million sq.ft. mall in downtown Kent. ACI is proposing to provide the City with 40,000 sq.ft. of free space in the mall to serve as a performing arts center. According to the proposal, an outside party (City or Non-Profit) would be responsible for furnishing and operating the facility. AMS did not pursue this option further at the direction of the city. Imperials Music& Youth Organization AMS interviewed representatives of the Imperials Music & Youth Organization. The Imperials operate a program of subsidized music classes and performing groups (ensembles, bands, orchestra) for young people in the South King County area, with a large number of participants who are Kent residents. The Imperials have been seeking a new home to house their educational and performing programs, and expressed interest in a joint development with the City of Kent. Palle 7 Greg Murray, Executive Director, has indicated his intent to provide a stable source of operating revenue at a jointly-developed arts center, as well as the potential of contributing capital funds towards a building's construction. Based on the success and growth of the Imperials' programs, the organization's willingness to participate as financial partner in an arts center project, the perception of a Kent location as ideal for program participants, and the synergy to be gained from a comprehensive program of music classes of an adjacent to a theatre, AMS recommends further exploration of the option of a joint development with the Imperials organization. Additionally, the Imperials have expressed their interest in expanding in the future to become a music conservatory by serving adults and pre-professional musicians as well as youth. The opportunities presented by the Imperials for a joint development with the City and the mutual benefits of such a partnership warrant further investigation and discussion. City of Kent Parks&Recreation Classes Representatives of the City of Kent's Parks & Recreation Department have indicated their need for additional classroom spaces to house classes in dance/exercise, painting and drawing, ceramics, and childrens art. Based on the current class offerings and space available, City staff asked AMS to investigate the potential of providing classroom space for city-sponsored classes in a new cultural center. Potential Leadership Interviewees were asked to identify other members of the Kent community who might play leadership roles in developing a cultural center in Kent. A list of the individuals whose names were suggested has been submitted to the City of Kent under separate cover. Several interviewees noted that residents of the Meridian Valley Country Club have Kent addresses and might also be good targets for fundraising. Most of the wealth in the Valley area is in the form of land, according to other interviews. Other Issues A host of other miscellaneous issues were introduced during the course of the interviews, some of which may bear relevance to the cultural center project. 1. A new vocational school has recently been accredited as a 4-year institution in Kent. Valley College may be looked at as a potential user of a new facility, and their progress should be monitored by the Task Force. Page 8 2. According to city officials, there clearly will be additional annexation in Kent's future, with City population expected to add up to 25,000-30,000 new residents within the next 5 years. 3. Kent School District officials have indicated that Kent Meridian High School is renovating their theatre. 4. $7 million of new Senior Housing will be constructed in downtown Kent over the next few years. Paae 9 II. MARKET AREA Demographic Analysis AMS conducted research into the demographic and psychographic composition of the City of Kent and the surrounding market area. For the purposes of analysis, the data were collected for two distinct areas. The 12rima market area is defined as the City of Kent and the immediately surrounding unincorporated areas. The secondary market area is defined as stretching west to the Puget Sound, north to Burien and Renton, east to the Soos Creek Plateau, and south to the Pierce County line. The population of both primary and secondary market areas has grown rapidly over the last 20 years and is projected to continue growing at a fast pace. In the primary market area, the 1990 estimated population is 108,999, projected to grow to 127,107 by 1995. In the secondary area, the 1990 population is estimated to be 466,993, with growth projected to raise the total to 528,539 persons by 1995. Looking at the 15 year period from 1980 through 1995, the growth of the city and environs is projected to increase by 63.1% as opposed to 44.6% for the surrounding region. POPULATION GROWTH 600,000 arm"h 198a1995 Primary: 63.1% 500,000 Secondary: 44.6% 400.000 MO.= Market 200.000 J J ® pftar 100.000 secondary 0 1970 Census 19M Camus 1990 Esdmate 1995 Proleaed Page 10 Ages of residents in the two areas are similar with a slightly younger population in the City of Kent than in the surrounding region. In Kent proper and its immediate sphere of influence, nearly 3017o of the population are under the age of 20 with a similar number between the ages of 30 to 44. The secondary market shows higher percentage of residents aged 55 and older than in the City of Kent. The median ages for the primary and secondary market areas are 31.8 and 32.7 years, respectively. AGE MAfiKEZ9HEA 9e A Pn y Primary.. 31.8 yrs Secondary Secondary: 32.7 yrs 30.00k 25.0% 20.0% 15.00k 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Under 20 20 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 55 55 Years Years Years Years Years and over Source:AMS Both primary and secondary markets show healthy median household income figures. In the City of Kent, the 1990 median household income is estimated to be $39,230 as compared to $38,000 for the secondary area. INCOME Median HH Income MARKET AREA ® Primary 30.0% Primary: 539.230 13 secondary Secondary: $38,000 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.00/0 ti. EM. v 5.0% e 0.0% Under $15.000 $25,000 535,000 550.000 $75,000 $15,000 to$24,999 to$34,999 to 549,999 to$74,999 or More Source:AMS Pa«e 11 In terms of education, residents of the primary market are slightly better educated than those of the surrounding region, with 18.26% of the primary market having completed 4 years of college as opposed to 17.49% of those residing in the secondary market area. EDUCATION 50.0% MARKET AREA 40.0% Primary 30.0% 0 Secondary 20.0% : . 10.0% MW 0.00/0 Elementary Some High High Some College School (9 - 11) School College Graduate Graduate Source:AMS Page 12 The market for the performing and visual arts is generally defined as people who have distinct socioeconomic characteristics, most easily identified by three demographic variables of age, income, and education. Numerous studies of markets for the arts dating from the early 1960s indicate that age, education, and income are clear determinants of attendance behavior. Persons over the age of 65 and under 18 tend to participate less as members of cultural event audiences, while upper educational and income levels tend to predominate among attenders. Traditionally, the most likely arts attenders have been defined as adults ages 25 to 55, college-educated with household incomes over $35,000. There is an additional "target market" to be found for cultural events among families with children for whom specific arts and cultural events can be targeted (e.g. children's theatre). The following chart illustrates the percentages of residents in the primary and secondary markets who fall into the "target market" categories: Target Market ELLmary Secondary Adults Age: 25 to 55 years 48.0% 47.5% Income: Over $35,000 57.8% 54.7% Education: College 18.3% 17.5% Grad. Families Age: 5 to 19 years 21.2% 20.4% Family Households 87.6% 88.0% Page 13 Another method of estimating potential audiences for the arts involves psychographic or "lifestyle" profiling of residents. Originally devised as a way of supplementing traditional demographic characteristics (age, race, sex, income, education), lifestyle profiling is extremely helpful in predicting attendance at arts events. The vast majority of residents in both the primary and secondary market areas fall into the categories of"Suburban Affluence" or "Suburban Middle Class." Comparable percentages are provided below: Lifestyle Characteristics Prima Secondary Suburban Wealthy 0.0% 1.4% Suburban Affluent 39.0% 31.2% Suburban Middle Class 47.9% 48.2% Town Middle Class 0.80/0 7.1% Suburban Lower Income 11.4% 8.5% The mix of residents suggests a strong potential to attend programs at a cultural center, and a likelihood that childrens', family, and community programs will draw significant support. The following chart illustrates the lifestyles of residents in the primary and secondary market areas compared to King County and the State of Washington. UFFSTvLES 50.0% MARKET AREA 40.00/b ® Primary Secondary 30.00/b E3 King County ® State 20.0% 10.0% Ikk 0.0% Suburban Lower Town Middle Suburban Suburban Income Class Middle Class Affluent Source:AMS Page 14 Market Research The City of Kent commissioned AMS in conjunction with Hebert Research of Bellevue, Washington, to complete 400 randomly selected telephone interviews with heads of households in the primary and secondary market areas. For a complete summary of the market research results, please see the companion report to this document: "Kent Center for the Arts: Demand Research" by Hebert Research. Some key findings of the survey include: * 55.4% of those surveyed indicated they had attended at least one live cultural event during the past year, while 27.7% attended three or more. While the participation rate of 55.4% is comparable to that of the communities surrounding Bellevue (57%), the frequency of attendance in the Kent market area is not as high as that seen in the Bellevue market area where frequent attenders (3 or more events) constitute more than 75% of all attenders. * 44.9% of the sample attended at least one exhibit while 17.5% attended three or more. * When asked the reasons for not attending more frequently, 40.1% cited lack of time or too busy to attend, 14.5% said they had no interest, and 6.5% would rather spend time with children. In the experience of the consultants, "lack of time" is the most commonly reported reason for not attending the arts more frequently in communities across the nation. However, the 6.5% figure for "would rather spend time with children" is higher than that observed in other cities. * When asked in which venues they had attended live events, the following locations were mentioned: Fifth Avenue Theatre 12.6% Seattle Opera House 12.2% Seattle Center 5.9% Tacoma Dome 5.4% Auburn Performing Arts Center 4.1°1c Renton Civic Theatre 4.1% Page 15 It can be noted from the above table that over one-third of those who are attending live events are currently traveling outside of the Kent primary and secondary market areas to do so with 36.1% of the sample reporting attendance at venues in Seattle and Tacoma. * When asked what types of events they would be likely to attend in Kent (on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being highest), average responses by the sample were as follows: Festival 5.9 Touring Group 5.7 Headline Concert 5.5 Regional Theatre 5.1 Children's Theatre 4.3 "Any Program" 5.7 While festivals are generally the most consistent "crowd-pleasers" and received the highest average score under the "likely to attend" category, the community's interest in theatre and children's theatre is not far behind. The consultants speculate that most survey respondents have not had much opportunity to attend regional or children's theatre programming at a nearby location, and that given a history of availability of such programs, the likely attendance rate would appear higher. * Respondents were also asked to indicate which factors are important in making a decision to attend a performing arts event. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being highest), the following factors were cited: Public Safety 7.9 Price 7.2 Parking 7.2 Freeway Access 5.6 There was very little difference observed between residents of the primary and secondary market areas with respect to the attendance variables noted above though residents of the City of Kent appear to be slightly more affected by price of tickets. Page 16 * Survey participants were asked whether or not they would support a tax increase to pay for a cultural center. While 35.9% of the overall sample answered yes to the question, when the sample is broken out into primary and secondary markets, 46.8% of the interviewees in the City of Kent indicated they would support a tax increase for a cultural facility as opposed to 44.2% indicating "no." Page 17 III. USER NEEDS AMS utilized two methods to obtain information regarding user needs for performing and visual arts facilities in Kent. An arts organization survey was mailed to non-profit cultural organizations and municipal arts agencies throughout South King County. The summary results of those surveys are presented here. SUMMARY OF ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY Attendance Orzanization Disci line Bud et Performances Total Average Venues Performing Arts Rainier Symphony Orchestra 512,000 9 1,216 180 Kentwood HS,Catrn 200 200 Faith Baptist Music Teachers Assoc. Music n/a l Saturday Market Festival S 18,550 30 3,000 100 4th&Smith NW Renaissance Poets Literary S1,300 3 135 45 Fairs Imperials Music&Youth Music S708,000 38 8,450 222 CAarbco,pAC Hall Rainier Chorale Music $17,000 4 700 175 Kentwood HS,Fairs Pzazz Dance Dance S5,300 21 7,550 359 Sumner PAC,Schools, Parks Kent parks Dept Events S5I1,000 21 6,395 305 EathwCenter, odcs Kentbwm Library Kent Parks Dept Festivals see above 4 69.500 17375 Commons. Golf Course Earthw Center Exhibitions Kent Arts Commission Visual Arts see above 1 25,000 Library Green River CC Gallery $4,550 7 28,000 4,000 Smith Gallery White Riv.Hist Soc Museum n/a ongoing 3,000 Auburn Neely Mansion Hist SIte n!a 3 2,000 6.660 Auburn Kent Valley Artists Visual Arts S5,000 8 "1,000s' Fairs,KVA Gallery, Sat Market Paae 18 AMS staff then conducted a half-day facilitated workshop with arts and cultural organization representatives and members of the Kent Arts Commission. A series of goals were determined to guide planning for an arts facility in Kent: * Provide cultural arts facilities to serve primary market residents Balance the needs of local cultural arts organizations * Provide support spaces to facilitate multiple uses (receptions meetings, social events) * Provide amenities to facilitate day-long use * Include secure exhibit space as feature of public spaces Workshop participants spoke of the need for a wide variety of spaces, with seating capacities in the range of 300, 500, 750, 1,200, and 1,500 seats. In general, it was felt that theatre spaces of more than 750-800 seats would not serve the arts organizations in the primary area since current audiences average close to 300 per event. At the close of the session, a consensus was reached to recommend a community cultural center with the following components: * 800-seat Multi-use Performing Arts Theatre proscenium stage seating on two levels to achieve intimate ambience for small audiences (500 orchestra, 300 balcony) * Black-Box Theatre/Rehearsal Room suitable for small performances (up to 125) * Exhibition Gallery adjacent to lobby with separate entrance * Educational Classrooms/Studios for City Programs 5 classrooms (dance/exercise, arts, crafts, ceramics) * Educational Classrooms/Studios for Imperials Music & Youth 4 rehearsal/classrooms, 10 instructional studios Page 19 IV. FACILITY PROPOSAL Goals & Objectives Our interviews, research, and discussions with representatives of local arts and community groups, community leaders and city staff have provided us with many insights into the needs and desires for a Cultural Center in Kent. Before making concrete proposals for facilities, it is appropriate to establish some aims for the proposed center. These aims, we believe, are incorporated into the following specific objectives: * Provide high quality visual and performing arts programs * Provide a wide range of local and touring arts programs and community events * Provide needed instructional spaces for City cultural arts classes * Cooperate with Imperials Music & Youth Organization to develop needed instructional spaces * Create opportunities for locally-produced performing arts programs Building Program Figures for each building component are given in net square feet. Two different multipliers have been utilized to account for actual gross built area. The gross square feet figure includes all necessary spaces not included in the net figures (circulation, wall thickness, building mechanical systems, etc.) A total building program of 75,652 gross square feet has been estimated. Pao-e 20 PROPOSED BUILDING PROGRAM Net Sq. Ft. THEATRE Performance Area Stage (including wings, apron, crossover) 4,240 Orchestra Pit (30 musicians) 600 Public Areas Seating (Orchestra-500, Balcony-300) 8,000 Lobby (6 sf/person) 4,800 Lobby Gallery (including storage) 21000 Restrooms 1,500 Concessions/Bars 200 Coat Room/Usher's Room 300 Catering Kitchen 150 Performer Support Dressing Rooms (2 @ 8 persons, 2 @ 4 persons, 2 @ 2 persons with showers/toilets, chorus room) 2,400 Green Room 350 Backstage Support Shops, Wardrobe, Set Shop 2,000 Black Box Technical Support 250 (no additional performer support - shared with large theatre) Control & Technical (lighting, sound, projection dimmer room, tech. storage, tech. office) 750 Loading Dock/Stage Door 200 Equipment Storage 500 Box Office 450 Management Offices/Founders Room 1.500 Subtotal 32.840 Gross Area (net/gross multiplier of 1.55) 50.902 ARTS CLASSROOMS Dance/Exercise Rooms (2 @ 40' x 60') (including storage and lockers) 4,800 Childrens Arts & Crafts (30' x 30') 900 General Arts & Crafts (2 @ 40' x 40') 3,200 Toilets 300 Reception Offices/Waiting Room 750 Meeting Room/Library 350 General Storage 500 Page 21 PROPOSED BUILDING PROGRAM (cont'd.) Net Sa.Ft. PERFORMING ARTS/MUSIC CLASSROOMS Music Rehearsal Room (40' x 45') 1,800 Ensemble/Classrooms (3 @ 30' x 30) 2,700 Instructional Studios (10 @ 10' x 10') 1,000 Toilets 300 Storage 1,750 Reception/Offices/Conference Room 2,250 Subtotal 20.600 Gross Area (net/gross multiplier of 1.25) 25,750 TOTAL GROSS BUILT AREA 55.652 Site and Planning Issues The land requirement for the building will vary according to the design concept. If a compact, two floor seating arrangement is used for the theatre, and administrative spaces and some service areas are located on a second level, the land area required for the entire program would be approximately 50,000 sq.ft., or approximately 1.25 acres. To this estimate must be added land for the necessary setbacks, in addition to an allowance of 15 to 25 percent for landscaping and outdoor areas. Therefore, a site of up to 2 acres would be the minimum sufficient for the building and its immediate surrounding areas. Parking According to City of Kent municipal code requirements, one parking space for every four fixed seats is required for the theatre, in addition to one space per every 100 sq.ft. of public assembly space. Accordingly, an 800 seat theatre will require 200 spaces, the 2,500 sq.ft. Black Box Theatre would require 25 spaces, the 14,000 sq.ft. of classrooms will require 140 spaces; allowing an additional 35 spaces to accommodate teachers, performers, and staff, brings the total parking requirement to 400 spaces. Assuming an average of 325 sq.ft. per parking space, the parking area will require approximately 130,000 sq.ft., or slightly more than 3 acres. Pace '_2 Site Selection Based on direction provided by the city and from information garnered during the course of the research, the consultant team evaluated a series of possible sites for a cultural center in Kent . The purpose of the site review process was not to select an ideal site for a cultural center, but to provide an analytical framework in which to consider the implications offered by various sites. Ultimately, the specific opportunities posed by a potential site will be the determining factors in site selection. Sites were evaluated with respect to four general categories: * Land Use & Zoning - Compatibility with land use pattern - Permitted by present zoning - Compatibility with General Plan * Access and Parking - Vehicle access from street - Service vehicle access - Proximity to public transit - Available land for parking - Proximity to amenities * Site Features - Size of site - Potential for future expansion - Noise intrusion - Flatness of site - Access to utilities - Image and visibility - Regional access - Ease of security * Construction Constraints - Construction access - Demolition and earthwork required Each site was rated either Good, Fair, or Poor on each of the attributes with summary rankings developed. A matrix summarizing the site review process is presented below followed by a map of the sites. Page 23 zm T m C ea 20 kil h T C � ¢ U W aci c ON E z m W L � Ls. � A t C] fY m E U E c L tnOczO Z c� W Iz it � c aii 15 C < C ., cC QD c7 cLC ,rLE2 V1 CV O C Crn yC� ....y j 0 ?� _ N O a O V "' L O O N r— 00< v U PaLje 24 . " Grwv.pn F3iver .i,r.nnnn-^ �nrvw ti v O v .. -.r 00 —j WO CD >v �N v N CD 0 CD to cn CD CD .�.v Fr �4 N V�`r Vim` m CD o � r m Burl. N. RR °Cc aRailroacl N Central C 167 /CD It should be noted that the ranking system utilized by AMS is biased toward new construction since sites have been rated for any required demolition and construction access. The three sites that scored the highest number of"Good" rankings were NorthWest Metal, Memorial Park, and Howard Manufacturing, two of which are currently occupied by commercial businesses who have expressed interest in relocating out of Kent (also an expressed desire of the City). The NorthWest and Howard sites are each approximately S acres which would be more than sufficient to accommodate a cultural center building and parking. (A 16-acre parcel would be sufficient to accommodate a proposed Regional Justice Center and a cultural facility if desired). The Memorial Park site is considered by many as relatively undesirable due to the traffic congestion along Central Avenue, although the site does provide an opportunity for mixed-use with retail or commercial space along Central. Based on discussions with the Task Force and city staff, there was a general consensus that the Kent Elementary School site, while ranking fifth, may offer an opportunity for development of a cultural center. The existing classrooms in the school building could serve the arts classroom needs of the proposed cultural center. The 3.6 acre Kent Elementary School site is insufficient to accommodate required parking. Alternatives might include acquiring additional land for parking or the use of shared parking (e.g. in the Centennial Building garage and City Hall parking lots). The Kent Elementary School building provides a distinct advantage in that its 15 existing classrooms would allow for phased construction of the new arts center, and in the future, some portion of the classroom space might be rented out for other school district or communitv use. Each of the St. Anthony's Church, Burlington Depot, and Kent Library sites would not be able to accommodate the building program as written, but either St. Anthony's or the Library could be looked at to accommodate one aspect of the cultural center on an interim basis, while the Depot could serve as an art or history display facility on an interim basis. Page 26 V. ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS The following estimate of probable construction costs is based on AMS's research with comparable facilities (existing, planned, or under construction) in the western U.S. Costs per square foot of construction vary from $210 in the theatre and theatre support spaces to $175 in the classroom "wing." A total project cost of$19,146,544 has been determined, excluding owner's costs and the cost of land. Element Gross sf Cost/sr Total Cost Theatre & Support 50,902 $210 $10,689,420 Arts & Crafts/Performing Arts Classrooms 25,750 $175 4,506,250 Subtotal $15,195,670 Site Development (landscaping, parking) 5% $759.784 Subtotal 515,955,454 Fees, Contingencies* 20% $3,191,091 Project Cost $19,146,544 * Fees include allowances for the following estimates: Architect 10-12010 Acoustician (Theatre only) 1-207o Theatre Consultant 1-2% Instructional Facilities Consultant 0.75-1.25% Project Administration 2-4% Additional costs may be incurred for site acquisition and development, particularly if there are complications on the site such as demolition, hazardous waste, access to utility services, etc. If structured parking is required, there will be additional costs since the project cost estimate assumes surface parking. Finally, there will be fundraising and pre-opening management expenses. Determining the cost for all of these components is almost impossible at this time since there is limited information about the site, available parking, project organization, or funding methods. In general, it would appear that up to S25 million may be required to complete the project. Paiie 27 VI. ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS Projected Schedule of Use Based on the results of AMS's research and analysis, a schedule of use has been projected for the 800-seat theatre in order to accurately predict costs of operation. A conservative schedule of use can be projected as follows: Projected Schedule of Use - Base Year Community Rentals Imperials Music & Youth 20 Rainier Symphony 4 Rainier Chorale 2 Pzazz Dance 4 Green River/Highline Community Colleges 16 Films 24 Conferences/Meetings 30 Other Community Rentals 10 Touring Events Music, Theatre, Dance, Variety 20 City Productions Parks & Recreation Department 15 Resident Theatre/Musical Theatre 48 TOTAL 193 As is noted in the chart above, some 20 events annually have been projected for "touring events" and 48 events under the category "resident theatre/musical theatre." In order that the Kent Cultural Center facility is utilized to the maximum extent possible, AMS recommends that the City of Kent pursue two courses to provide cultural events in the Center: Presenting and Producing. A Presenting Program would consist of 20 events each year drawn from local, regional, and touring cultural organizations. Sponsorships from local businesses and proceeds from individual and subscription ticket sales could help defray the costs of presenting so that the series would ultimately break-even while bringing regional audiences to the Center. Cooperative booking with other facilities in the region will help provide a wide variety of program types. Page 28 Based on interviews within the community, there is a clear sense that if a Center for the Arts is built, local producing organizations will come forth to perform in the space. AMS recommends that the City of Kent consider either directly sponsoring a community theatre/musical theatre company under the auspices of the Parks & Recreation Department, or issuing a request-for-proposals to the theatre and musical theatre companies in the region to consider becoming a resident company at the Center. In either case, some form of rental subsidy in exchange for a percentage of ticket sales could be negotiated to keep costs to the City at a minimum. A producing program would also be eligible for various grants from foundations, area businesses, and arts funding agencies (state and local arts councils, NEA). Estimated Costs of Operation AMS has arrived at an estimate of the staffing level, revenues and expenses required to operate the cultural facility during the first years of operation. An assumption has been made that the City of Kent would operate the Cultural Center based on their successful track record of operating other community facilities. Staffing costs are based on current City of Kent salary levels for comparable positions. The cost of instructional personnel for City of Kent class programs is not included since it is already incurred in the Parks & Recreation Department budget. The rent charged to the Imperials Music & Youth Organization is based on a charge of$.50/sq.ft. Projections of rental fees for the theatre spaces are based on comparable figures from similarly sized facilities and the mission of making the space affordable to local groups. The following table illustrates these projections. A net operating cost (before fundraising) of$142.880 has been determined. Pace 29 ESTIMATED COST OF OPERATION - BASE YEAR REVENUES Community Rentals (80 @ $400 avg.) $32,000 Conferences/Meetings (30 @ $800 avg.) 24,000 Touring (book transfer - 20 @ $500 avg.) 10,000 City/Production (63 @ $400 avg.) 25,200 Black Box-Miscellaneous Rentals (100 @ $100 avg.) 10,000 Concessions (net - $.35 per patron) 27,020 Box Office Surcharge (10% of tkt. price) 77,200 Reimbursement charges (est. $100/event) 19,300 Rent-Imperials Music & Youth Organization 79,000 Cultural Program Revenues (City estimate) 150.000 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES $45_20 EXPENSES Personnel Building Manager $45,000 Administrative Assistant 28,000 Program Coordinator 35,000 Program Assistant (part-time) 15,000 Technical Director (part-time)* 20,000 Secretary/Receptionist 25,000 House Manager (part-time)* 10,000 Art Studio Technician (part-time)* 10,000 Cultural Program Instructors (part-time)* 70,000 Subtotal $258,000 Benefits @ 20% 51,600 Subtotal $309.600 Building Costs Utilities (electrical, trash, water) @ $1.75/sq.ft. $133,000 Maintenance/Custodial 100,000 Administrative Overhead Marketing, office supplies, telephone, duplicating, staff development 50,000 Cultural Program Supplies 4.000 TOTAL OPERATING COSTS $596,600 NET OPERATING COST (before fundraising) $142,880 Page 30 Notes to Operating Cost estimates: * signifies costs that may be partially reimbursable from user fees 1. Excludes costs for performing arts presenting and producing programs - Presentation program is assumed to break even after first year - City-sponsored productions are assumed to be grant-funded 2. Presentation and producing programs are charged an imputed rental fee Pave -�1 VH. FINANCING STRATEGIES The following is a review of some methods which could be used to finance the development of a community arts center in Kent as a multi-use community and performing arts theatre. The preferred method or combination of funding sources will be dependent on the availability of grants and donations from government and the private sector. The purpose of this analysis is not to provide a detailed assessment of the feasibility of funding from any particular source, but to osp ition the project vis a vis current and projected funding alternatives. Public Sources The public funding situation at the present time is in a state of flux (and has been for several years). Federal deficit reduction plans are also impacting funding of public projects. Despite the deficit, federal cultural agencies have fared pretty well and the NEA, IMS. and NSF have all grown steadily if not spectacularly over the last few years. 1. Federal Government a. National Endowment for the Arts The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) provides grants to state and local arts agencies and non-profit arts/cultural organizations in several program categories. For the Kent Community Arts Center to qualify for NEA funding, an application would have to be submitted from a 501(c)(3) organization. Typically, a producing organization with professional paid staff, not a presenter, facility operator, or foundation can receive NEA funding. Four NEA programs may be relevant to the Kent Community Art Center project. The Design Arts Program provides funds for feasibility studies, planning, and design studies related to the renovation, rehabilitation, and construction of cultural facilities. No dollars are granted for actual capital costs, though the Kent Center might qualify for funding to complete planning and construction drawing stages leading up to the actual start of construction. The Local Arts Agency program occasionally funds capital costs for cultural facility projects. Funds would be applied for and granted to a designated local arts agency in the Kent region to specifically support the Arts Center project. Page 32 The Advancement Grant Program provides awards of up to $75,000 to non-profit arts organizations for Technical Assistance (as Phase I) and actual projects (Phase II) relating to the advancement of a particular arts group. While capital costs are generally not funded in this category, a primary user of the facility (Imperials Music & Youth Organization) might receive funds for organizational advancement directly related to the occupancy or use of a facility. The Challenge III Program offers grants of between $50,000 and $1 Million on a matching basis (3-to-1 new and increased dollars raised) to fund a variety of project areas including capital costs. Though capital costs are not a stated priority of the current Challenge grant round, a non-profit leasee, owner, or primary user of a cultural facility might qualify for a Challenge grant directly related to the occupancy of a cultural facility. b. Housing & Urban Development (HUD) The Department of Housing & Urban Development provides grants and loans only to large cities and metropolitan areas. The City of Kent receives HUD funds as an Entitlement City through the State Department of Community Development, funnelled through the King County Consortium. In 1990, Kent received $219,000 which funded projects ranging from home repair services in the downtown area to social and human services agencies and projects (Community Health Facility, Kent Valley Youth Services, Children's Therapy Center, Transitional Housing Facility, Community Clinic, YMCA Emergency Housing). In past years, HUD money has been used to fund sewer and sidewalk improvements in the downtown area. HUD is seen as an unlikely source of funds for a cultural facility. C. Economic Development Administration (EDA) The U.S. Economic Development Administration's Public Works Program provides funding for facilities owned by a unit of local government. EDA provides grants of up to $1 million on a 50150 matching basis with locally raised money. Total funds available in the State of Washington are 52-3 Million. The creation of year-round, permanent full-time jobs is the overall intent of the EDA's program. Spin-off jobs which can be shown to result from a certain project can be counted towards the project's cost-per-job ratio (typically, $10,000 in grant monies for each job created). These jobs would generally be created in the hotel and restaurant areas as a direct benefit from a cultural facility. In order for any community to receive EDA funding, the local (either city or county) unemployment rate must be at least equal to or higher than the national average. Currently, King County's unemployment rate is only 4.5%, while the State of Washington's is approximately 5.9%c, and nationally is 5.3%. Given these Page 33 circumstances and the stiff competition for funds from large job-creating projects in rural Washington, EDA funds would be difficult to access. 2. State of Washington a. Building for the Arts Program Currently a bill in the State Legislature would provide $20 Million statewide in capital funds for cultural facility projects. b. Department of Community Development Washington State Downtown Revitalization Program WSDRP is a statewide program to assist in revitalizing downtown business districts and commercial cores. Technical assistance is available. i. Parking and Business Improvement Area (PBIA) A PBIA is a local funding mechanism authorized by state law that allows property owners and businesses within a defined area to establish a special assessment district, with funds raised to support facilities and programs in the district. ii. Local Improvement District (LID) A LID is used to finance public improvements and facilities by distributing costs of improvements to surrounding property owners. The tool can finance parking lots, underground utilities, street furniture and lighting, parks and plazas, street trees/landscaping, and other public improvements. 3. County Government The King County Hotel/Motel Tax Funds is projected to generate up to $30 million over the next ten years to fund capital costs of cultural facilities. The City of Kent may be eligible for up to 1017c of these funds (in the neighborhood of $2-3 Million). 4. Local Government Through the primary market research conducted for this feasibility study, residents of Kent and the surrounding areas were asked whether or not they would support a tax increase to pay for a cultural center. From the overall sample, 35.9% indicated ves, 51.9% said no, and 12°1c didn't know. When looking at the responses according to primary (City of Kent only) and secondary market areas, the data show a more favorable outlook for residents' willingness to approve additional taxes for an arts center. In the primary market Paae 34 area, 46 8% indicated that they would support a tax increase while 44.2% said no, with 9.1% reporting they didn't know. In the secondary area, 33.30/c said yes, 53.7 no, and 12.7 didn't know. a. Utility Tax City financial officials have indicated that a 1% utility tax enacted by the City Council would generate approximately $1 Million annually which could be dedicated to the Arts Center project. There is a state regulation which puts a cap on utility tax at 601o; Kent's utility tax is currently 3.5% (except for garbage which is approximately 6.5%). b. Councilmanic Bonding Capacity Based on current assessed valuation, the Kent City Council has a councilmanic bonding authority totaling $8 Million with $3 Million reserved for specific projects. The remaining $5 Million could be approved by the Council to service debt on bonds for an Arts Center. C. Voted Bond Issue The Council could vote to place a bond measure on the ballot for the City of Kent. Recent history in Kent has seen a $7 million bond issue pass for Senior Housing (after failing once), and $12 million passed for Public Safety. d. Public Development Authority (PDA) A PDA can be created throuvh ordinance or resolution to undertake public projects in partnership with private interests. A PDA would require a vote of the populace to first form a PDA, and a second vote to assess a tax from the PDA to fund a specific project. The Kent City Attorney is investigating whether or not a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization can be a participant along with a public agency in a PDA. Private Sources 1. Local and Statewide Banks Federal officials contacted in the course of this study suggested that local and statewide banks would be prospective funders of an arts center project under the "Community Reinvestment" requirement of banks. Market-rate loans to local non- profit organizations helps financial institutions' standing with regulators and in the community itself. Pave 35 2. Private Foundations Several private foundations provide grants for capital projectsl. The James Irvine Foundation, while it does not provide funds to public agencies, does make grants in the program area of Cultural Arts to non- profit organizations for eligible capital projects. Some foundations such as the Kresge Foundation provide major capital grants (in the neighborhood of $200,000) once construction of a project is underway. The City of Kent should investigate further the wide range of private foundations both on a local and national level who provide capital construction funds. 3. Corporations While most corporations do not contribute towards capital projects, many individual elements of capital projects are eligible for funding. In Walnut Creek's new Regional Center for the Arts (opened October 1990), AT&T provided funding for listening devices for the hearing impaired. Other purpose-related grants of this nature should be explored by the City of Kent. 4. Capital Campaign AMS recommends that a fundraising feasibility study be undertaken of prospective ci donors to an arts/cultural facility in Kent to better estimate the potential of the private sector to raise funds for the project. lDirectory of Building and Equipment Grants (lst Edition), Research Grant Guides, P.O. Box 1214, Loxhatchee, FL, 33470, 1988. Pave 36 VIII. IMPLEMENTATION AMS Recommends that the following steps be taken to begin the development process for the cultural center project. Site Acquisition The city should conduct negotiations with appropriate land/building owners to determine the availability of and terms for acquisition of the various sites. The negotiation team for the City should include representatives from those departments that will use or impact the project, including Parks and Recreation, Finance, City Attorney, Public Works and City Administrator's Office. At least one member of the Mayor's Task Force as well as a representative of the Imperials Music & Youth Organization should also participate in at least the initial discussions. Project Management Fundraising An organization should be established to assume overall responsibility for overseeing the planning and development of the project. (A decision by City Council on this may be delayed until the outcome of the site negotiations is clear and further research and discussions are conducted with regard to the extent of City's participation in funding the building.) If a major capital fundraising campaign is anticipated, a specially-created "blue ribbon" nonprofit entity should be formed. This organization should have as its major task planning, organizing and implementing a capital campaign. A small (12 to 20 member) Board of Trustees should be composed of community leaders with a commitment to the project and a demonstrated ability to raise funds. Initially, the Mayor and Council would appoint a few (up to five) "incorporators" who would oversee the creation of a 501(c)(3) and appoint the balance of members to the Board. (The Mayor and Council may wish to retain ongoing oversight through one or two statutory appointments). It is essential that this Board be completely committed to the project and absolutely cohesive in their work. If private fundraising is anticipated to play only a minor role in funding the project, donations could be sought on an informal basis and an existing charitable organization used as a fiscal agent to provide tax exemption to donors. Pave 37 Technical Advisory Committee The primary role of the Technical Advisory Committee(TAC) would be to provide input to the architectural planning team on the physical and technical aspects of the building from a user's standpoint. The TAC would therefore be comprised of representatives of the principal prospective users of the facilities. Organizations to be represented might include: The Imperials Music & Youth Organization Cultural Arts - Parks & Recreation Department City Planning and Building Departments Rainier Symphony Kent School District Green River/Highline Community Colleges The TAC should be appointed by the Mayor and Council, and would meet frequently with the design team during the conceptual and design stages of the planning, responding to the team's proposed plans and designs. During the construction drawing and construction phases, the TAC would meet less frequently. Project Administration AMS recommends that responsibility for administration of the project be assumed by the City of Kent. A Project Administrator, experienced with planning and construction of theatres and cultural facilities, should be retained (either an individual or corporation). Following the city's recent experience with the new public library, the Project Administrator should be responsible to the City Administrator. One of the first tasks of the Project Administrator will be to retain the design team. AMS's experience with performing arts projects leads us to recommend that the architect, acoustician and theatre consultant be contracted separately, with each responsible to the City through the Project Administrator. Moreover, we believe that the acoustician and theatre consultant should be active participants in the selection of the architect. During the planning and construction, the Project Administrator's primary responsibilities will be cost control and project scheduling. Page 38 Appendix 1 List of Interviews Claudia Appell,Fine Arts Director,Kent School District Bernie Bleha,Arts Department Chair, Green River Community College JoAnn Brady, Chair, City of Kent Arts Commission Don Campbell, Chair,Kng County Arts Commission Ed Chow, City Administrator, City of Kent Patricia Curran, Chair,Kent Cultural Arts Center Task Force Steve Dowell, Councihnember, City of Kent City Council Parks Committee Gary Grant, Commissioner,Port of Seattle Jim Harris,Director, City of Kent Planning Department Betty Kalasurto,Development Officer,Highline Community College Daniel Kelleher, Mayor, City of Kent Christopher Leiper,Project Coordinator,American Commercial Industries, Inc. Hugh Leiper, Director of Finance,American Commercial Industries, Inc. Dee Moschel,President,Kent Downtown Association Greg Murray,Executive Director,Imperials Music& Youth Organization Richard Rutkowski, President, Green River Community College Paul Seely, Corporate Affairs, The Boeing Company Helen Smith, Green River Community CollegeFoundation Dennis Steussy, Student Affairs,Highline Community College Carolyn Tolas, Board Member,Kent School District Clark Townsend,Vice-President, Green River Community College Barney Wilson, Director, City of Kent, Parks&Recreation Department Dr.Judith Woods, President,Kent City Council AMS/A tSoft Management Services would like to thank the members of the Cultural Center Task Force and the staff of the City of Kent Parks & Recreation Department for their assistance throughout the project. Patrice Thorell and Patricia Curran are deserving of special recognition for their tireless efforts to envision a cultural center in Kent. Page 39 Appendix 2 Regional Performing Arts Facilities Facilitv Ca aci Auburn P.A.C. 1,080 Highline School District P.A.C. 850 Kentwood H.S. P.A.C. 500 Carco Theatre (Renton) 310 Renton Civic Theatre 304 Kent Senior Center 200 Highline Community College Lecture Hall 200 Theatre 150 Faith Baptist Church 200 Kent Commons 100 Kent Meridian H.S. (planned) 300 Page 40 i Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20, 1991 1 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PARK -- LOT 18 - NO. SHP-91-1 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set September 3 , 1991 as the date for a public hearing on a request to amend the Kent Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Environment from an existing conservancy designation to an urban environment. 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning_Commission (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not ecommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3G J Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20 , 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DOMESTIC ABUSE WOMEN'S NETWORK (DAWN) SHELTER FUNDING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to change the action taken by the City Council on June 4 , 1991, where approval was granted to fund DAWN's confidential shelter with a minimum of $10, 000. The June 4 action stated the shelter would be in Kent. New information has led the Council's Planning Committee to recommend removal of the stipulation that the shelter be in Kent. The new recommendation is that a minimum of $10, 000 be allocated to the Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN) to provide for the development of a confidential shelter in South King County. ' 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, letter dated July 24 , 1991 from DAWN and the Planning Committee minutes of August 6, 1991 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3H ITCITY OF LWI-OM CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 ®IIca� MEMORANDUM AUGUST 20, 1991 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: LIN BALL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: DAWN SHELTER ALLOCATION, COUNCIL' S PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND PRIOR APPROVAL On June 41 1991 the City Council allocated $10, 000 to DAWN to acquire a confidential safe shelter for battered women and their children. The Council ' s action was conditioned on the shelter being located within the City of Kent. On July 24 I received the attached letter from the Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN) regarding their search for a shelter site in the City of Kent. DAWN desired to locate its shelter in Kent, but has run into some difficulties which have caused them to look outside of the Kent city limits. DAWN requires a location within a single family neighborhood to ensure safety and anonymity of the shelter residents. The Kent Zoning Code limits the number of residents in a group home located in a single family neighborhood to 7 people including live in staff. The Dawn shelter will potentially house more than twice that many people. In their search for a suitable site, DAWN also explored the possibility of siting in a single family residence in a commercially zoned area where they would not be subject to the 7 person limit. However, they could not find a suitable site at a price that met their budget limitations. DAWN also cannot pursue any site for which a conditional use permit is required due to the necessity of a public hearing, which would eliminate the protection of confidentiality. DAWN has tried to find an appropriate site within the city limits but has found similar single family zoning code restrictions in Kent as in other south King County cities. While they will continue their search in Kent, they are expanding their search to unincorporated south King County where they can shelter more people in a single family zoned area. DAWN is asking the Council to reconsider its conditioning of the $10, 000 allocation on locating the shelter within the Kent City limits and continue to support the shelter. The shelter is a South King County shelter which will serve all of South King County including Kent residents. DAWN needs the City's $10, 000 in addition to funding from other South King County cities. Other MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 20, 1991 PAGE 2 cities are committing capital dollars to the project without siting limitations. The critical .thing is that the shelter be located somewhere in south King County to serve the residents of all the south county cities. There is currently no shelter of this type in this area of the county. On August 6th the Council Planning Committee recommended that the City Council amend its June 4th action to remove the contingency that the DAWN confidential shelter must be located in the City of Kent in order to receive the City' s $10, 000 in capital funds. Requested Action As per the Planning Committee's recommendation to the Council, amend the Council's June 4th action and remove the contingency that the DAWN confidential shelter must be located in the City of Kent in order to receive the City' s $10, 000 in capital funds. The motion would be amended to state that a minimum of $10, 000 be allocated to the Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN) to provide for the development of a confidential shelter in South King County. LB/slc: 81391mem.dwn Enclosure cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Domestic Ahuse July 24, 1991 2 (� Womcn's Nchvork t Servint; South PLAM9114G DEPAXMFJIT Dint;County my OF KENT . Referral/Shelter L i n B a l l Advocacy City of Kent Counseling 220 4th Avenue South P.O. Box 1521 Kent, WA 98032 Kent,WA 98035 Dear Lin : C)f!ice: 852-5529 DAWN' s search for a property to establish a confidential shelter for battered women and their children has been underway since June . We are working with a Kent real estate company and have looked at many properties . When DAWN began the search for a shelter site , our plan was to locate in Kent . However , the zoning restrictions for Group Homes , combined with our need for a large, single family home in good condition, that is within DAWN ' s capital budget, has made finding a viable property within the Kent City limits an impossibility . Of necessity we have expanded our search to include unincorporated areas in south King County. The action taken by the Kent City Council on June 4 , 1991 , authorizing $ 10, 000 for DAWN' s purchase and improvement of a shelter property, was contingent on the shelter being located within Kent' s City limits. The opportunity for DAWN to use Kent ' s funds is in jeopardy, due to the lack of suitable property and zoning that would allow for operating a group home . DAWN cannot become involved in a site that would require a conditional use permit, due to the need for confidentiality of the location. I would like to request that the Kent City Council reconsider their limitation on the shelter ' s location. The shelter is intended to serve all of south King County and would serve Kent. residents , as DAWN' s programs have done since 1981 . �u� Z 41991 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY Of KENT Lin Ball July 24, 1991 Page 2 To update you on 'our capital campaign, the City of Tukwila has allocated $15, 000 toward shelter capital , without siting limitations . The City of SeaTac has recommended, through its Community Development 'and Community Services committees , $15, 000 toward shelter capital ; also without siting limitations . (The final vote will be in August ) . I would like to discuss Kent' s possible amendment of the action authorizing capital funds at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Linda Rasmussen Executive Director CITY OF tv l�1LV L' CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE August 6 , 1991 4 : 45 PM Committee Members Present City Attorney' s Office Christie Houser Roger Lubovich Jon Johnson, Chair Carol Morris Leona Orr Planning Staff Other City Staff Laurie Anderson Alana McIalwain, Administration Lin Ball Sharon Clamp Guests Jim Harris Margaret Porter Bill Doolittle Anne Watanabe Kent Morrill Linda Rasmussen, DAWN Don Rust, Bagman Cafe Russ Stringham, Hungry Bear DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WOMEN ' S NETWORK (DAWN_ FUNDING (L. Ball) Lin Ball stated on June 4 , 1991 the City Council allocated $10, 000 to DAWN to acquire a confidential safe shelter for battered women and their children. The Council ' s action was conditioned on the shelter being located within the City of Kent. DAWN has been having difficulty finding a suitable site in Kent due to the zoning restrictions for group homes. They have explored the possibility of a single family residence in a commercially zoned area in Kent but have not been able to find a suitable site. The most desirable location for the shelter is a single family neighborhood, which helps to ensure the safety and anonymity of the shelter. While they will continue their search in Kent, they are expanding their search to unincorporated south King County where they can shelter more people in a single family zoned area. Lin pointed out that the shelter has always been proposed as a south King County shelter, so the critical thing is that it be located somewhere in south King County. The Human Services Commission and staff recommend amending the City Council ' s June 4 action to remove the contingency that the DAWN confidential shelter be located in the City of Kent in order to receive the City ' s $10 , 000 contribution. Councilmember Orr MOVED to approved the recommendation to remove the requirement that the DAWN shelter be located within the city limits of Kent. Councilmember Houser SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. This item will be forwarded to the City Council on August 20, 1991. Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CLOSED CIRCUIT TV SYSTEM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with Reliable Security Services for installation of a television security system at the City Shops. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Public Works Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3I0( DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 14, 1991 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council r� FROM: Don Wickstrom \ b RE: Closed Circuit TV System The contract for this closed circuit TV system for the City's Operations Building was awarded to Reliable Security Systems in May for the bid amount of $13 , 362 . This project is one portion of the City Shops Security Improvements and put in place a TV camera monitoring system of the Shops inside yard and the back employee parking lot. The system consists of three motion detection cameras, a monitor and tape recorder. It is recommended the contract be accepted as complete. J. iS 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20 , 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KENT SPRINGS TRANSMISSION MAIN 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with Robison Construction for the Kent Springs Transmission Main project and release of retainage after receiving the state releases. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Public Works Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO k 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. 3J1-#, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 14, 1991 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City council FROM: Don Aickstrom,- RE: Kent Springs Transmission Main This project replaced approximately 6,925 feet of the Kent Springs Transmission Main between 108th Avenue S.E. to 132nd Avenue in the vicinity of S.E. 274th Street. The contract was awarded to Robison Construction, Inc. in September of 1990 for the bid amount of $1, 056, 666. The final construction cost is $1, 115, 226. It is recommended the project be accepted as complete and the retainage released after the City has received the State releases. Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: L. I.D. 327 - WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with Merlino Construction for construction of LID 327 - West Valley Highway Improvements and release of retainage after receipt of the state releases. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Public Works Director 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 DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3K�( DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 14, 1991 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom � RE: L.I.D. 327 - West Valley Highway Improvements from West Meeker Street to South 212th Street This construction project provided for street widening of West Valley Highway between Meeker Street to S. 212th Street to provide a minimum of five lanes. Included also were street lighting improvements, signal system improvements, undergrounding of electrical facilities, various water and sewer main improvements, intersection improvements at Meeker Street and overlay between James and Meeker. The contract was awarded to Gary Merlino Construction for the bid amount of $3 , 117,788 in 1989. It is recommended the project be accepted as complete and the retainage released after receipt of the State releases. Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20 . 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ROSEMARY GLEN II 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale submitted by Novastar Enterprises for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 238 feet of water main extension and 752 . 6 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of 96th Place South and South 228th Street for the Rosemary Glen II development and release of 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 REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Age da Item No. 3L 1 r . r:r teRIEN g �' _ I x _ f 2 i I .rn_ r ROSEMARY GLEN II v I G I N I T "him MAF Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: REITH ROAD GUARDRAIL --- -------- 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works ' Committee and approved by IBC, Authorization to transfer $10, 000 `, from the Frager Road Guardrail Project to the Reith Road Guardrail Project for construction of an additional section of guardrail on Reith Road in the vicinity of 45th Place, 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES _ FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3M)� Public Works Committee August 6, 1991 Page 6 196th Corridor Wickstrom .explained we have received notice from TIB of a grant for design of the 196th Corridor and we are requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Reith Road Guardrail Wickstrom explained that we had previously budgeted funds to place guardrail on a section of roadway on Reith Road. Vehicles are missing the guardrail and going over the edge. He requested authorization to transfer additional funds from the Frager Road Guardrail project and to construct additional portions of guardrail on Reith Road. The Committee unanimously agreed. Guiberson Street Reservoir Since the property owner concerned with this item had to leave the meeting early,' this item was rescheduled for the next agenda. Budget Wickstrom explained that Finance had expressed concern that the Public Works Department had proposed increasing revenue rather than cuts to meet the budget call. The material included in the packet detailed the additional cuts the Department would propose. Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20. 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPOINTMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Berne Biteman to the Kent Board of Adjustment. lyi, 04 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 seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 30, MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCI PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR -- DATE: AUGUST 13, 1991 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF BERNE BITEMAN TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT I have recently appointed Berne Biteman to the Kent Board of Adjustment. Mr. Biteman will replace Bob Jarvis, who resigned. Mr. Biteman is a former Kent City Council member, he was Chair of the Council's Public Safety Committee, and was instrumental in establishing Kent s recycling program. Mr. Biteman's term will begin immediately and continue through 2/92. I submit this for your confirmation. DK:jb cc: Walter Flue, Board of Adjustment Chair Board of Adjustment members Jim Harris, Planning Director Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE GRANT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant of $45,153 for the period July 1 , 1991 to June 30, 1992, and authorization to amend the 1991 Budget by adding of the grant amount of $22,576. This amount will be a reimbursement for General Fund salaries. The balance of $22,577 will be included in the 1992 Budget. 3 . EXHIBITS: IBC Fiscal Note 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended X Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 30 J MTLLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN HPDesk print. 1. ----------------------------------------- F '-ject: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE GRANT - FISCAL NOTE (,_ -ator: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 07/19/91 at 1342 . 'THE DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE IS REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF THE WASHINGTON .TRAFFIC, SAFETY COMMISSION GRANT OF $45, 153 FOR JULY 1991 TO JUNE 1992 . -THIS 'AMOUNT IS 11. 49% LESS THAN THE LAST GRANT. THE COMMISSION HAS ALSO NOTIFIED ,THE CITY THAT FUNDING FOR THE 1992-1993 PERIOD WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 20% LESS DUE TO A LEGISLATIVE VOTE TO REDUCE FUNDING EACH BIENNIUM. THIS NOTICE WILL ALLOW CITIES TO PLAN AND BUDGET FOR THE REDUCTION IN FUTURE YEARS . WITH DIMINISHING STATE & FEDERAL FUNDING IN A TIGHT FINANCIAL YEAR, THE IBC RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT WHICH WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT THE GENERAL FUND WITH REIMBURSEMENT OF SALARIES & OTHER RELATED TASK FORCE COSTS. THE IBC RECOMMENDS A 1991 BUDGET CHANGE OF $22 , 557 WITH THE REMAINING $22 , 576 TO BE BUDGETED FOR THE JANUARY TO JUNE PERIOD OF 1992 . Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20 , 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: Judy Woods absence from City Council . 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval offrequest by Council President Judy Woods for excused absence fro 'August 20th and September 3rd City Council meetings. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from President Woods. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3P K MEMORANDUM TO: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DATE: AUGUST 15, 1991 SUBJECT: ABSENCE FROM COUNCIL Since I will be unable to attend the City Council meetings scheduled for August 20, 1991 and September 3, 1991, I would like to request an excused absence from those meetings. JW.jb i Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20, 1991 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: WALNUT GROVE FINAL PLAT NO. SU-90-2 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the final plat map for Walnut Grove Plat SU-90-2 . The property is approxi- mately 6. 1 acres in size and is located east of 94th Avenue South, west of 96th Avenue South, south of South 241st Street, and north of South 243rd Street. All conditions of the preliminary plat have been met. 1. (�,L I of.L1, '-,k `- a i, j t-',.L1 T t.l'` e rt 6L V .l(L [°✓l t.,.. i � ,d��Ct=cLc y_? U �J A-( 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, map and City Council minutes of June 5, 1990 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: ` 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1 �SO , Councilmember ��s 'L _ moveJ, Co-Wncilm' ember-F to approve the staff's recommended approvefor Walnut Grove Final Plat SU-90-2 . G �'- � ¢ ,_ DISCUSSION• ACTION: u Council Agenda Item No. 4A X CITY OF J"L22 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MOT MEMORANDUM August 20, 1991 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: WALNUT GROVE FINAL PLAT SU-90-2 On June 5, 1990 the City Council approved the Walnut Grove Preliminary Subdivision No. Su-90-21 a 22-lot single family residential plat. The site is approximately 6. 1 acres in size and is located east of 94th Avenue S. , west of 96th Avenue S. , south of S. 241st Street, and north of S. 243rd Street. The property is zoned R1-7 . 2 and R1-9 . 6 single family residential. A number of conditions were part of the Council 's approval. The applicant has now complied with these conditions as listed below: A. Prior to recordation of the final plat: 1. Comply with all applicable SEPA conditions. 2 . Provide detailed engineering drawings, obtain City approval of them, and either bond for or construct the following: a. Provide gravity sanitary sewer service to all lots. Main line sewer extensions shall be made from 94th Avenue S. and S. 241st Street southerly to S. 242nd Street and then easterly along S. 242nd Street to 96th Avenue S. Also extend sanitary sewers to southeast corner of the subject property to allow a future extension easterly along S. 243rd Street. b. Extend City water to provide adequate domestic and fire flows to service all lots. Minimum six-inch water mains are required. Loop system from S. 241st Street and 96th Avenue S. to connect with water main at 94th Avenue S. and S. 242nd Street. Also extend water main to southeast corner of the subject property to allow future connection with the water main on S. 242nd Street and 96th Avenue S. (extended) MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AUGUST 20, 1991 Page 2 C. All interior streets and cul-de-sacs (i. e. proposed S. 242nd Street shall be fully improved with asphalt pavement 32 feet in width for S. 242nd Street, and 28 feet in width for the cul-de-sac, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drainage system, street lighting, underground utilities and related appurtenances. Minimum curb return radii shall be 45 feet for cul-de-sacs and 25 feet at other street intersections. Provide street name signs for all streets shown on the plat map. 3 . Dedicate all necessary property for the construction of road improvements as required in the SEPA conditions and plat conditions. Grant all necessary on-site and off-site easements for the construction and maintenance of the utility improvements required under SEPA and as noted above. NOTE: The barricade that exists at 96th Avenue South and South 241st Street shall not be removed without express authorization of the City Engineer following notice to surrounding residents and opportunity to comment. B. Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of any development permit for any lot: Construct all on-site and off-site improvements required as SEPA conditions and plat conditions. C. Prior to the issuance of the first development permit, including the grade and fill permit for any road improvements: Record with the King County Department of Records the tentative lot line adjustment for the Franks and McGrew property. JPH/mp: c: SU902CC.MEM P0 I n 10,18 SF 1 I 0 g7225 SF 8960 SF 8960 JS m 013 V ^off CO AiUN1TY 1 73 I IPA 90 S / 10.69 F I 78RF 7 S 5 77 70 13 3 �t a U ap�-� I c 7570 �F,2 72507220 SF `F 720 SF 8700 S9801 SF 2�om r 4 ..6 5 0 6 0 9ts7 F. 83885E I 5 70 73 36 \ \I P 38 ji P OPOSED S 242NO STR ET I _ QI �— 40 - 36 T 35 2 I 60 7 '^ SF I s1 9750 SF 9800 SF 14 I C 77 61 60 3 }' 70 122 10.065 F 10,76? S - - - - 16 0 0� �— 1 SD ES T /� M I / /1 17 = 18 19 13.960 SF 652 SF 12,220SF 125 117 eye M o � PP C� 15' SD EASEMENT FOR B10FILTRATION DITCH APPLICATION NAME: Walnut Grove NUMBER: SU-90-2 REQUEST: ilea Plat 22 Lot 5 SIDE PLAN 1� Not to Saa�L June 5, 1990 1. . ' ANNEXATION minimum lot size) for the Mortenson Annexation No. AZ-88-2 . The property is approximately 9 acres in size and is located in the vicinity of. 98th Ave. S. and S . 218th Street. PRELIMINARY (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) SUBDIVISION Walnut Grove Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-90-2 . This meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of conditional approval of an application by Kerr-Built, Inc. for a 22-lot single family residential preliminary subdivision. The property. is approximately 6 . 1 acres in size and is located east of 94th Ave. S . , west of 96th Ave. S . , south of S . 241st Street and north of S . 243rd Street. JOHNSON MOVED to approve the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to adopt the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval of the Walnut Grove Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-90-2 with seven conditions. White seconded and the motion carried. HUMAN SERVICES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) Human Services Roundtable 1990-91 Legislative Agenda. ENDORSEMENT of the 1990-91 Human Services Roundtable Legislative Agenda which contains the Roundtable' s priorities for the 1991 biennial session. The Legislative Agenda is developed around the Roundtable ' s adopted action agenda. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) Crime Prevention. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of a contribution to the D.A.R. E. program from Hattie and David Dennis. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Lewd Conduct Ordinance. APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 2926 amending Ordinance 2545, KCC 9 . 02 . 34 , relating to lewd conduct by adding language to conform with case law. FIRE (BIDS - ITEM 5A) Hazardous Materials Response Vehicle. Two bids were received on May 8 . The bid received from Hackney & Sons, Inc. at $56, 934 plus tax and delivery charge of $2 , 500 is within budget and was the low bid submitted. The vehicle meets all specifications, 15 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20, 1991 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: SOOS CREEK RESOLUTION -RELATING TO URBAN GROWTH AND ROAD ADEQUACY INKING COUNTY 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: -4 proposed resolution has been reviewed by the Council's Planning r and Public Works Committee5and by the Planning Commission. The two committees and the Planning Commission recommend different levels of service for roads and arterials. The Commission recommends level of service "D" while the two Council committee recommend level of service "E" . Traffic Engineer Ed White explained that Le ,7el of Service "D" is characterized by very slow speeds and bumper to bumper traffic , and that Level of Service "E" is near what is commonly called a parking-lot situation. He said that Level of Service "E" is the minimum tolerable by drivers and that Level "F" is unacceptable to most drivers . He noted For Jim White that he would recommend Level of Service "E" since "D" would be an impractical goal to achieve . The Mayor clarified that by adopting this resolution with the Level of Service "E" , the City is +selling the County not to allow development on 016t major east/west arterials; until after Level of Service "E" has been achieved. 5. UNbu zxz r'ISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NOX_ YES FISCAL PE NNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE UIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACT N: ` In Councilmember r� moves, Councilmember 1 A' t ®seconds to approve/-reject/-vx)djfy the Soos Creek resolutionrwith the level of service of DISCUSSION• J� ACTION: ° LA Council Agenda Item No. 4B CITY OF L"L[! LSV ZS CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 Utter¢c�sa MEMORANDUM August 20, 1991 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: LAURI ANDERSON Ll�ok SENIOR PLANNER RE: SOOS CREEK RESOLUTION At the City Council meeting on June 18, Mayor Kelleher presented a draft resolution regarding urban growth and road adequacy in the Soos Creek planning area. He referred this resolution to the Planning Commission and Planning Committee for review. The Planning Commission and Planning Committee have now had the opportunity to review the resolution. The Planning Commission endorsed the resolution, but recommended a significant change: that adequate level of service be redefined to "D" from "E. " The Planning Committee endorsed the resolution, but with the original level of service "E" intact. The Public Works Committee has also considered the resolution. Their recommendation, like that of the Planning Committee, was for approval at level of service "E. " Action requested is approval, modification, or rejection of the Soos Creek resolution. If approved, the resolution will be forwarded to the King County Council. LA/mp:soosresl Attachment cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom RESOLUTION NO . A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington , relating to urban growth and road adequacy in south King County . WHEREAS , the City of Kent is concerned about the current and projected rate of growth for. the Soos Creek planning area ; and WHEREAS , many of the residents who reside in the Soos CreeIr area now commute to the areas of employment using roadways through and around the City of Kent ; and WHEREAS , the City of Kent wishes to support land use planning policies , and service/infrastructure development policies which will result in concim-ency between such policies as required by the State Growth Management Act ; and WHEREAS , such concurrency, as it relates to transportation planning , can only be defined as land use plans and roads development plans which, when implemented, will ,result in an "adequate" level_ of transportation service within the planning area ; and WHEREAS , the Ci.ty of Kent asserts that an "adequate" roads/transportation level of service is defined as level of service "E" or better; and WHEREAS , already approved development in the Soos Creek area wi_11_ severely impact: already congested roads to the extent that the level of service on major east/west arterials will be level of service "F" or worse; and WHEREAS , Kent traffic engineers have projected that unacceptable service levels stemming from the development patterns previously allowed in Soos Creek might not improve to level of service "E" even if the 277th/272nd corridor project is constructed; and 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 ; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. . That the City of Kent requests that the King County Council support the concept of new east/west arterials to serve already-approved development and alleviate current congestion . Section 2 . The City of Kent requests that- the King County Council. support the concept of land use zoning provisions in the Soos Creel: Plan which will preclude new urban development within the Soos Creel: Planning area until. such time as the roads and arterials which serve such development are improved to level of service "E" . 2 Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1991. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1991 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERIC 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 sooscr. res 3 CITY OF L"LD CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 u��va�aA MEMORANDUM July 10, 1991 MEMO TO: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR g �W FROM: LAURI ANDERSON, SENIOR PLANNER RE: DRAFT RESOLUTION RELATING TO URBAN GROWTH AND ROAD ADEQUACY IN SOUTH KING COUNTY The Planning Commission reviewed the draft resolution relating to urban growth and road adequacy in South King County at their workshop on July 8 . They generally supported the intent of the resolution and had only one concern: they were adamant that level of service "E" is not an adequate road service standard for the Soos Creek Planning Area. They suggested that the resolution be revised to state in Section 2 : Sec. 2 . The City of Kent requests that the King County Council support the concept of land use zoning provisions in the Soos Creek Plan which will preclude new urban development within the Soos Creek Planning area until such time as the roads and arterials which serve such development are improved to level of service "D" . Although most Commissioners felt that even level of service D would not be adequate on a long term basis, they agreed that LOS D was better than LOS E and might even be achievable. Please give me a call at extension 3390 if you have any questions. LA/mp: a:resol cc: Planning Commission Members City Council Members James P. Harris, Planning Director Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Kent Planning Commission July 22 , 1991 Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that appropriate fees for design review be added to the fee structure review being undertaken now by the Administration. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Martinez hoped that the development community would continue to participate and give input to the staff regarding the Design Review Guidelines Handbook. SOOS CREEK RESOLUTION Lauri Anderson presented a memo addressed to Mayor Kelleher which expressed the Planning Commission' s suggestion that the Soos Creek Resolution be revised to state in Section 2 : Sec. 2 . The City of Kent requests that the King County Council support the concept of land use zoning provisions in the Soos Creek Plan which will preclude new urban development within the Soos Creek Planning area until such time as the roads and arterials which serve such development are improved to level of service "D". Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the Planning Commission enter the memo dated July 10, 1991 from Lauri Anderson to Mayor Kelleher, which represents the feeling of the Commissioners present regarding the Soos Creek Resolution, into the record. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. PUD ORDINANCE Lauri Anderson said that when the RUGG petition was submitted, there was a request in that petition asking that the City look at the issue of attached, single family units in Planned Unit Developments in single family zoning districts. City Council has directed the Planning Commission to do that. The Commissioners will discuss the issue at the August workshop and asked staff to be very clear as to what the issues and concerns are. PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Chair Faust said there will be a Planning Commission retreat on September 7 and asked the Commissioners to let her know if there are topics they want to discuss. 5 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JULY 165 1991 PRESENT: Jim White May Miller Leona Orr Jerry Hayes Steve Dowell Jan Storment Don Wickstrom Johnie Nall Tom Brubaker Jack Spencer Gary Gill Neldon Hewitt Tony McCarthy Leland Fingerson Paul Scott Kathleen Pace Ed White Cliff Craig Tim Heydon Priscilla Farris Bill Doolittle Don Wickstrom reviewed the 1992 budget cut proposals and proposed budget with the Committee. The Committee raised several questions concerning Equipment Rental . Six Year Transportation Plan Ed White addressed the "priority" array of the annual element projects and explained that the numbering system did not necessarily relate to the order in which the projects would be completed. Staff and funding availability would be determining factors. Jim White asked if James Street Safety Improvements could be moved up. Ed White stated that it could be moved up on the TIP but there probably would not be CIP funds committed for the project any sooner. Jim White stated that the City has made a significant commitment to the citizens that we would try to move it along. Ed White stated he would be meeting with the citizens later this month. Jim White asked about the status of the Crow Road Bypass. Wickstrom stated the developer is attempting to secure financing. They wanted to open the development in the spring of 1992 . Wickstrom clarified for the Committee that the Council action being sought is to pass a resolution adopting this Six Year Plan and another action is being requested to amend the SEPA ordinance which currently identifies the 1981 Six Year Plan. We would be seeking to amend the SEPA ordinance to identify the latest Council-adopted version of the Six Year Plan. Urban Growth and Road Adequacy Wickstrom stated this proposed resolution was presented by the Mayor at a recent Council meeting. Orr stated that the Planning Commission wanted the level of service to be "D" . There was Public Works Committee July 16, 1991 Page 2 discussion that this proposed resolution defines an adequate level of service as "E" and the Comprehensive Plan states "D" . Orr stated she felt this resolution was presented as a means for the citizens to better understand the City' s intention for the 277th Corridor. The public perceives that the City will immediately allow development along the 277th corridor once . built. This resolution is intended to show that the City only is attempting to alleviate the existing transportation problems and not open up a new area for development. White questioned whether level of service "D" would be reasonable. Orr commented that if the City changed its Comprehensive Plan that all intersections have to be at a level of service "D" , the concurrency part of the Growth Management act would effectively shut all building down in the city. "E" is probably more realistic. The committee unanimously recommended approval of the resolution as written. Union Pacific Railroad Crossings Wickstrom distributed a tentative schedule supplied by the Union Pacific Roadmaster of construction of the crossing improvements. They anticipate beginning the work in the Kent area on August 1 . They will be using concrete rather than rubber for the crossings. Guiberson Street Reservoir Wickstrom presented a landscape plan and estimate for landscaping at the Guiberson Street Reservoir. The cost of maintaining this would be approximately $8 , 000 a year._ and would require adding temporary help to the vegetation maintenance staff. Wickstrom stated he is still concerned with the budget cuts and the existing policy of not replacing any vacant positions and how this will affect his maintenance staffing levels. White suggested that perhaps we should consider holding off on this project for a year. This will be placed on the agenda for discussion on August 6 at which time the property owners can be notified. CITY OF ,1(01< V '�y1°Im;'rea CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE July 2 , 1991 4 : 45 PM Committee Members Present Guests Jon Johnson, Chair Emile Ghantons Christie Houser Sami Aoun Leona Orr Planning Staff Lauri Anderson Margaret Porter Lois Ricketts Fred Satterstrom 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. SODS 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 � 1 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 ' s 2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 61 1991 PAGE 2 SOOS CREEK RESOLUTION (L. Anderson) At the July 2 , 1991 'meeting, the Planning Committee endorsed a resolution dealing with road adequacy standards in the Soos Creek planning area. The Planning Commission reviewed this resolution the next week and endorsed it with the recommendation that level of service E be improved to level of service D. Councilmember Orr stated the Public Works Committee felt level of service D is not obtainable and that level E is more logical and realistic. Chair Johnson suggested at tonight' s City Council meeting, under Soos Creek Plan other business, adding wording to Section 2 of the resolution stating that service level E would have to be achieved prior to any future development in a Phase I unincorporated area. Councilmember Orr MOVED to reapprove the resolution as written with level of service E and to have Chair Johnson' s recommended additional wording to Section 2 be incorporated into the resolution. Councilmember Houser SECONDED. Motion carried. GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE (L. Anderson) Lauri Anderson distributed a bulletin on the Growth Management Act of 1990 and 1991 giving a complete summary of where the legislation stands to date. She pointed out that three state hearings boards have been formed that will hear appeals of local comprehensive plans which will go to them in 1993 . The Governor now has the authority to impose sanctions if local governments fail to meet the goals of the act. The Growth Management Committee met through March 1991. They requested all City departments come together at a mid-manager level to develop a comprehensive city-wide strategy for meeting the requirements of the Growth Management Act. This mid-level managers group has been working on an outline of tasks, identifying the departments that will be responsible for preparing the information, and setting out a timeline. The goal for completion is early September at which time the information will be presented back to the Growth Management Committee, the Mayor, and the City Council. As a city, Kent is mandated to identify and regulate critical areas (wetlands, steep slopes, etc. ) , and to designate and regulate agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands. The City has requested that the September 1 deadline be extended to March 1992 with the hope to have more formal information ready to present by November. Ms. Anderson stated it is important to have community participation and backing for the city-wide comprehensive plan. Staff has been reviewing a model used by the City of Redmond where videos are produced and distributed to community groups rather than holding large public meetings which often do not get people' s attention. The City of Redmond has had Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20. 1991 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION ACTIONS TO HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANT SITES -- SAL ION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Council Planning Committee's recommendation of approval of the Historic Properties resolution. The Planning Committee endorsed this resolution at its August 6 meeting. The resolution will enable staff to review the potential demolition of structures that are already listed on the City's historic site inventory. s 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, resolution, Exhibit A - Kent Historic Sites Inventory, Planning Committee minutes of July 16, 1991 and August 6, 1991 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO k YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember movunciimember�. second for adoption ..._.. of H storical Properties Resolution No. DISCUSSION• i ACTION: ;,N"�' +{� �` 1` —o Council Agenda Item No. 4C V CITY OF W1�n CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 V&R7RvTk MEMORANDUM August 20, 1991 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: LAURI ANDERSON R SENIOR PLANNER RE: HISTORIC PROPERTIES RESOLUTION At their meeting on August 6, the Planning Committee endorsed a resolution reaffirming the City' s SEPA policies with regard to historic preservation and establishing the procedures for Planning Department notification of proposed demolition or destruction of certain historically significant properties within the City. Currently, the City has policies in its Comprehensive Plan which support historic preservation. These policies are reaffirmed in Section 1 of the resolution. Section 2 of the resolution adopts the list (mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan) of properties which may have historic and cultural significance for the City. The Planning Department has maintained this list for several years. Section 3 of the resolution states that the Planning Department should be notified of actions for demolition or destruction of potentially historic properties (as identified on the list) , to allow for review of such actions under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) . Such a review would occur under the City' s already-adopted SEPA Ordinance which contains a specific policy (12 . 12A. 510D) promoting the preservation of important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage, and the City's already-adopted Comprehensive Plan policies which address historic preservation as mentioned above. Section 4 of the resolution outlines the criteria the Planning Department would use to make separate, written findings on properties subject to the SEPA conditioning and approval. These criteria were taken from the draft historic preservation ordinance which the Department has been working on for several months, following the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Committee which was convened last year. This draft ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the coming months and will come before the City Council for final approval. MEMO TO MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AUGUST 20, 1991 Page 2 The action before you tonight is approval, modification or rejection of the attached resolution. LA/mp:hp3 Attachments cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Laura Yeats, Planner RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to historic preservation and the State Environmental Policy Act, setting forth the City's SEPA policies with regard to historic preservation; preliminarily identifying certain properties of historic and cultural significance which may be worthy of preservation; and establishing the procedure for Planning Department notification of proposed demolition or destruction, to allow for review and possible conditioning under these SEPA policies. WHEREAS, the City of Kent has preliminarily identified certain properties within its jurisdiction that may have historic and cultural significance for the community; and WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Department is in the process of developing a historic preservation ordinance for the City which will provide site nomination and designation criteria for historic properties and specify preservation standards and enforcement procedures; and WHEREAS, in the interim period before any controls are adopted by ordinance, these properties which have been preliminarily identified for historic preservation may be in danger of demolition or destruction; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43 . 12) and the City-adopted SEPA Ordinance (Ordinance 2667, codified at Kent City Code (KCC) Chapter 12 . 12A) allow City decisionmakers to exercise substantive authority to condition or deny proposals on the basis of compliance with SEPA policies; and WHEREAS, the Kent SEPA Ordinance (12 . 12A. 510 D) already contains a specific policy promoting the preservation of important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage; and WHEREAS, the Kent SEPA Ordinance also adopts by reference the policies in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as providing additional support for the exercise of SEPA substantive authority in the approval process, which additional policies are more specific with regard to the historic preservation; and 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Department desires to exercise its authority to review demolition or destruction of these properties under the above mentioned SEPA policies and to contact the owners of property on the preliminary list to discuss historic preservation options; and WHEREAS, the present permit approval process does not always allow for Planning Department review; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Historic Preservation Policies. The following historic preservation policies, in large part specifically adopted by reference under the City' s SEPA ordinance (Ordinance 2667, codified at Kent City Code (KCC) Chapter 12 . 12A) , shall provide the basis for the City's exercise of SEPA substantive authority in the conditioning and approval of requests for demolition or destruction, consistent with the City' s objective of preserving Kent' s cultural and historic heritage. The City shall: 1. Develop and maintain a list of all important historical sites and buildings within Kent; 2 . Ensure that sites and buildings of cultural and historical significance have high priority for preservation; 3 . Encourage the restoration and designation of historical/cultural sites and buildings through public and private cooperation; 4. Encourage that access to historical and cultural sites be made available to the general public through public and private cooperation; 5. Preserve existing areas of unique scenic, cultural, historical or natural interest; and 6. Attempt to protect and otherwise prevent the destruction of features of historical and cultural significance of properties on the list of historic site and buildings by working with individual property owners to assist, encourage and provide incentives to preservation. Section 2 . Adoption of Preliminary List. Consistent with Policy No. 1 above, the City hereby adopts the list of properties on Exhibit A to this Resolution as a preliminary list of properties within Kent that may have historic and cultural significance for the community. The list shall be known as the Kent Historic Sites Inventory. 2 Section 3 . Review by Planning Department of Demolition or Destruction Proposals for Properties on Preliminary List. The approval process for demolition permits or any proposal for destruction of properties on the Kent Historic Sites Inventory shall be changed to allow Planning Department review and possible conditioning of permits for properties contained on the preliminary list, all in a manner consistent with all general ordinances and Kent' s adopted SEPA and historic preservation policies as set forth herein. Section 4 . Findings on Historic significance to be Made in the Review Process. Prior to the conditioning and approval of any demolition or destruction of property on the preliminary list on the basis of the policies in Section 1 herein, the Planning Department shall make separate, written findings on the historic and cultural significance of the property, and specifically state the policy and basis for any exercise of such substantive authority under SEPA. Such findings shall compare and determine the property' s historic significance on the following preservation designation criteria: (1) That the object, improvement, site, landscape, or district is more than forty years old and possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and: (a) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history; or (b) is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history; or (c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, style, or method of architectural design, landscape design or construction, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history; or (e) is an outstanding work of a designer or builder who has made a substantial contribution to the art; or (2) Cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past forty years shall not be considered eligible for designation. However, such a property will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that meet the criteria set out in Section 4 . (1) above or if it is : (a) a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or 3 (b) a .building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for its architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or (c) a birthplace, grave or residence of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or (d) a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or (e) a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner (or) as part of restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or (f) a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; or ' (g) a property achieving significance within the past forty years if it is of exceptional importance. 4 Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1991. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 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 ly \ histpres2 5 EXHIBIT A KENT HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY original Townsite Sites and Buildings still in use Kent King Cty Address . A Photo No. No. Name 1 Y 57 , 5611 Charles Marlowe House 722 N Alvord Y 57H J.A. Oliver House 746 N Hazel I K. E. Erickson House 714 N Hazel Y 551i .1 y G0 , 451I W. Boundy (Eaton) House 322 Hazel Ave 5 Y 44II Mrs. Berg House 347 N Hazel 4711 Young House 438 N Prospect Y Robert Young House 426 N Prospect .7 Y 46II 413 N. Prospect 8 Y 58 I . P. Calhoun House 9 Y 55 , 5311 Baldwin (Little) House 623 E James KC-0627 Atwood Bungalow 602 Jason Ave 10 Y 29 N Jason Ave 11 Y 48H II.W. Rader House 414 N Jason 12 Y N Clark 13 Y 491I I . B. Churchill House 412 N Clark I Y 1.75 617 Temperance 15 Y 19S 16 Y 53II Marshall Ilouse 421 N State 17 Y 59 , 15AH KC-0149 E .W. Bereiter (Keck) 855 E Smith House 43II Homer Clark House 623 E Smith 18 Y 203 E Smith 79 Y 3-5A Burdic , s ?0 Y 95 , 5411 KC-0159 I . C. Clark Ilouse 120 N Kennebeck 21 Y 16-1.7AH Judge Dalton Ilouse 520 S Kennebeck y 421I Bier House 506 Vandevanter. 2'f 1; ]' Manson 11.32 E Chicago Y 4 y 3811 DC . Hoffman Ilouse 448 Alpine Way 25 Y 73 , 2AII KC-0079 Dr . Owen Taylor 300 Scenic Way (Curran) House 26 Y 72 , 1AII KC-0050 I .'1'. Alvord (Drake) 302 Scenic Way Ilouse 2 y 3 7 IT KC-01.57 II .M. Shaffer (Frazier) 458 Scenic Way �7 Mouse 1 lCe historic Register Or. ,inal Townsite 28 Y 71, 36I1 KC-0049 A. N. Berlin (Irwin) 424 Scenic Way House 29 Y 3511 KC-0158 T.N . Berlin (Martinez) 412 Scenic Way S House 30 Y 341-I Coffin/W.H. Overlock 406 Scenic Way House 31 Y 3211, 3311 Dow / Anderson house 310 Scenic Way 32 Y 31H W. L. Fulp/W.M. Morrill. 304 Scenic Way House 33 Y 3911 Fetterley house 603 S Bridges 34 Y 102 , 30I1 KC-0129 Berlin Brothers ' Store 100 Railroad S (Dragness) 35 Y 14AH ICC-0153 Northern P a c i f i c Meeker and Railroad (Burl . ) Depot 36 Y 84 , 26 - KC-0128 Carnation Co . (Oliver 119 1st Ave 29H Box, Stokley) 37 Y 88 ICC-0051 M.M. Morrill Bldg. 201 1st Ave S (Stewart ' s) -3. 89 is Naden Bldg. (Rottle ' s) 205-207 1st Ave S 39 Y 6-12AI-I M. R. Hardy Bldg. 211 1st Ave S 40 6-12A1I Adolf Neibling Bldg. 213 1st Ave S .11. 6-1.2AH Bereiter Bldg . 215 1st Ave S .12 Y 6-12AH llempy Bldg . 219 1st Ave S 43 6-12AII Louis hardy Bldg 225-229 1st Ave S ,14 Y 90 KC-0051 G u i b e r s o n B l d g . 235-231 Ist Ave S (Tyson ' s) 45 Y Harman Rice Bldg. 218-222 1st Ave S (Antiques) 4C 2S 328 S 1st Ave 11"7 Y 3S 340 S 1st Ave ;1f3 97. , 1.II KC-0151 Ida/Charles C:ui_berson 323 S 1st Ave House ,1 211 Td .t4. Reynolds- (louse 41.9 ].st Ave S 50 y Courneya house 316 2nd Ave S 1 Y 5S 410 S 2nd Ave '>> Y 420 S 2nd Ave 53 y 511 (laden (louse 53G S 2nd Ave 5-11 Y 6I1 :Ienkins House 626 S 2nd Ave 135 Y 5AII St . Anthony Catholic 31.0 3rd Ave S Church 1,6 4AI1 ICC-0152 Chicago Milwaukee St . 331- 3rd Ave S Paul Depot 2 I<ent Historic Register Original Townsite 57 Y 1011 Overlock House 503 S 3rd 58 Y 911 J .J. Crow House 515 3rd Ave S 59 Y III] Judge Madsen House 618 S 3rd Ave 60 Y 711 Rev. Jay Bolvee House 630 S 3rd Ave 61 2A Valley Elementary W of S 4th at Titus School 62 Y 151I Chittenden Mouse 333 S 5th Ave (3 Y BS 503 S 5th Ave 64 Y 7S Misner Mouse 509 S 5th Ave 65 Y 96 , 5011 Farmer John Nelson 431 E Meeker Townhouse 66 Y 5111, 5211 Penberthy Block 409 - 413 E Meeker 67 1.3AH KC-0054 Boul.dron Building 214-220 W Meeker 6,II Y 2 , 2511 KC-0077 F. Arney (Arney Bros . ) 302--304 W Meeker St Bldg. (Joyful Sound) 69 3 Rodney Arney Bldg. 308-31.2 W Meeker St (Stewart Jwlry) Y 4 , 24II 1\'C-0078 odd Fellow ' s 13ui.lding- 316 W Meeker St IOOF (Hoffman ' s) 11 5 Cavanaugh hardware 324 14 Meeker. St Bldg. (Ben Franklin Store) -72 612311 KC-0148 E . L. Merrifield house 424 W Meeker St (Edline-Yahn Funeral. home) 73 Y Rasmussen Blacksmith 303 W Meeker St Shop /4 Y 2211 KC-0053 W . H . Davies (Leeper) 512 W Meeker IIouse 75 Y 2111 Pozz.i. Bros . `Pi ansfer 635 W Meeker 76 Y 2011 KC-01.56 P. Rasmussen (Straub) 711 W Meeker House 7 7 Y 9 , 1711 L.V. , Moll & Clark 908 W Meeker St Grocery 78 ICC-0636 Biggins Residence 1038 W Meeker 79 6A Gonnason Building 215 E Titus (Western Sign)80 Y 1.5S 61.6 W Titus 81 Y 626 W Titus Titus Y 311 Lysander-Smith House 214 W Willis 83 Y 411 Rev . Arney House 234 W Willis 114 Y 111I Alex Playf.ord IIouse 422 W Willis 3 K( Historic Register Original Townsite 85 Y 12H Whitehurst House 624 W Willis 86 Y 13II Leroy Titus House 704 W Willis 531 6th. Ave S 87 Y 9S 8II Y 19FF Simplex Bed Co. (Howard 421 6th Ave N Mfg. ) 89 Y 12S KC-0624 Maddox House 24 S Naden 0 90 KC-0625 fisher House 3 S Naden 20 S Naden 91 Y lOS 92 Y 1411 Alvord (Sells) House 332 S Naden 903 W Harrison 93 y 14S 94 Y I<C- Desmet House 909 Harrison St 0623A 95 Y 18H KC-01.30 Madison (W. Nelson) 203 W Madison House 96 Y KC-0635 Harmon House 121 Thompson c: newtowns . rev 4 KENT HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY. North of James Street Sites and Buildings still in use Kent King Cty Photo No. No. Name Address 97 • Y 23 KC-0244 Orillia School 7103 S 180th St 98 y 24 Farner Tin Shop and House 7209 S 180th St 99 Y KC-0614 Burlington Northern Farm 18201 80th P1 S (Christian Bros . ) 100 KC-0639 Kent Highlands House II 4219 S 216th 101 Y 19 KC-0613 Pat Flaherty (Biggar) House 4854 S 216th 102 KC-0633 Voogt Farm II 20833 Frager Rd _03 KC-0608 Voogt Farm 21061 Frager R ; 04 Y 20 KC-0612 E. Emerson (Greene) House 21839 Frager Rd S ' 05 18 KC-0147 Maddoxville Landing Eastside of Green a.k. a . Van Doren ' s Landing River approx. State Register between S 216th and S 220th 106 KC-0602 Dvorak House and Barn 22262 Russell Rd i_07 16 KC-0009 D. F. Neely (Soames) House 23691 Russell Rd State Register SOS KC-0642 United Asset Property 23222 Russell Rd 09 K. B. Anderson House 808 W. Morton 110 Y 51 Root House S . of 21255 76th S on 4th Ave S 11 48 KC-0237 G.W. Burke House 21404 E Valley Hwy -12 KC-0631 Mauritsen Residence 21703 .84th Ave S 1.3 Y 53 Wm. & Fred Stephenson House 21823 E Valley Hwy 14 49 KC-0132 Peter Saar Cemetary N. side of S . 212 St. between Valley Freeway, & 92nd Ave. S . '. y II / NJAMES .REV KENT HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY South of James Street Sites and Buildings still. in use Kent King Cty k Photo No. No. Name Address 115 67 KC-0243 Kent Cemetary 1005 Reiten Rd Hillcrest Burial Park 16 KC-0492 Leigh (Albrecht) House 10446 SE 244th _17 KC-0821 Aivord T Bridge Over Green River at Kent on 78th Ave S and S 258th St. 18 Clinton Farm 24322 - 94th Ave.S 1.9 KC-0238 Ponnson House 8103 S . Central Ave . y ._ / SJAMES .REV 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 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 16, 1991 there is no way to protect the structure, nor is there any way of being informed that a demolition is happening. The proposed resolution would request departments to contact the Planning Department regarding such demolitions so that staff could contact the property owner to discuss the possibility of historic preservation or alternatives to the action. There is no legal means to either delay the permit or stopping the action. If staff were notified that a permit had been requested, that knowledge would help keep the inventory list up to date. Ms. Morris stated that the city has preliminarily identified certain properties, but the term "preservation program" should not be used. If passed, staff could let people know that when the ordinance is in place, there would be certain tax advantages to the owners. Some owners may use the time allowed them from the date of notification until the ordinance is in place to speed up whatever action they had intended for the property. Councilmember Orr moved that the Planning Committee recommend this resolution be brought back on August 6 for final approval and be on the consent calendar August 6. Chair Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5 : 45 p.m. PC0716 6 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1991 PAGE 3 a terrific response to this approach. Another idea is to bring in a facilitator at a large public meeting forum and give citizens the opportunity to tell the City what they see for the community. Jim Harris commented that evening public meetings often are not productive because of the low public turnout. He commented the City of Redmond's idea catches public interest and makes them more comfortable in working with the city on issues. " Councilmember Houser commented the idea of tying it into the town hall is a good idea, and Jim Harris suggested Alana McIalwain relay that comment to the mayor. Councilmember Orr also agreed that these are all good ideas for encouraging public participation. SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (SAMP) (A. Watanabe) Ms. Watanabe explained the city of Kent, City of Auburn, King County and the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers are currently developing a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for wetlands within the Mill Creek Basin. A SAMP is a comprehensive plan that identifies which wetlands are appropriate for development and those which should be preserved, enhanced, or restored. The goal is to issue a comprehensive plan as well as a regional permit. Permits are now issued on a site by site basis. If someone wants to fill in less than an acre of wetland, they are covered by Nationwide Permit 26 which the Corps of Engineers administers, but they would also have to deal with the local government. If someone wants to fill in more than an acre of wetlands, not only do they still need to deal with the local government, but they also obtain a Corps 404 permit. Because the Corps 404 process takes years in some cases, there has been some attention on trying to do all the planning up front. The Planning and Public Works Departments are currently attending meetings with other agencies to make scientific assessments of these wetland areas and to develop management recommendations. A public workshop will be held on August 28 at Auburn City Hall at 6 : 30 p.m. The target for a regional permit and a completed plan is September 1992 . RESOLUTION FOR NOTIFICATION ACTIONS TO FIISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT SITES (L. Anderson) On July 16 the Planning Commission endorsed a resolution establishing standards for Planning Department notification of proposed actions to certain historically significant properties within the City. Ms . Anderson stated that upon receiving additional information from the Department of Ecology, it became clear that the City does, in fact, have a regulatory mechanism, SEPA, to look at historical sites. At the suggestion of Carol Morris, the resolution has been revised to outline what this authority entails . The revised resolution states that the City of Kent has adopted SEPF policies which will give us the authority to regulate historic CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1991 PAGE 4 structures.. We have comprehensive plan policies adopted telling us to preserve historic sites, and we have preliminary sites that might have historic significance. The revised resolution recommends we reaffirm those comprehensive plan policies and say these are the policies we would look to when considering action, demolition or destruction under SEPA. Ms. Anderson explained that policies #1-5 on page 2 are taken verbatim from the comprehensive plan, and policy #6 is a modification of a comprehensive plan policy saying we can delay action on a property for up to two months to discuss alternatives. The Law Department felt we should attempt to protect properties and prevent their destruction by working with individual property owners, not by delaying action for a specified time period. Section 2 asks that a preliminary list be adopted, and a review be conducted by the Planning Department of demolition or destruction proposals. The last section has to do with how we would approach a review through SEPA. Before we would make a recommendation under SEPA, we would need to do findings, mini historic reviews on properties, as they come in. The criteria listed for these reviews were taken from the draft interlocal agreement with King County that came out as result of the Historic Preservation Committee' s work. The revised resolution itself is stronger. The City will use its SEPA authority to look at actions to these properties and make conditions or approve permits based on findings. Councilmember Houser MOVED to accept the revised resolution. Councilmember Orr SECONDED. Motion carried. ADDED ITEMS SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS Since the City of Kent is in the process of considering a change to the ordinance regarding the use of sandwich board signs, the Committee felt that .Don Rust' s August 18, 1991 court date for sign violations be put in abeyance until the Planning Commission comes back with a recommendation on how to regulate sandwich board signs on private property. Councilmember Houser MOVED to recommend to the City Attorney' s Office, if they cannot get a continuance to Don Rust' s August 18, 1991 court date, to drop the case. Councilmember Orr SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Johnson MOVED to recommend the issue of sandwich board signs on private property be referred to the Planning Commission for resolution. Councilmember Orr SECONDED the motion adding at the earliest possible date. Motion carried. A ✓' �? YJ ° Kent City Council Meeting �a f,�,�{'1�� �;,�� �•� r Date August 20 1991 `�.;` ��`�•.' Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING CITY CLERK AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS 2 . UMMARY STATEMENT: In response to the Warner Group' s anagement tudy, City Administration-*ii implementing a transfer of the City Clerk' s Office from the Finance Department to the "Office of the City Clerk" reporting to Administration. The City Clerk 's 6ffice is currently categorized as a subordinate department to the Director of Finance and Personnel . W A-jet-R*@%%-fie City has separate directors and departments ,for Personnel and Finance. Additionally, Electronic Data Processing, (now Information Services) is also structured as a subordinate department a�sd reports to the Director of Finance and Personnel . In implementing the transfer of the City Clerk to an Office of the City Clerk reporting to Administration, an ordinance was drafted establishing separate departments for Finance, Personnel (which is renarr�e� Human Resources Department pursuant to the Warner Group add ) , Information Services, and the Office of the City Clerk toireflect the existing structure as well as the changes j4ff:AW with regard to the City 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinance Clerk ' s office. Lubovich noted that when preparing the ordinance removing the City Clerk' s Office from the Finance Department , he also implemented structure changes which will be required for f0¢0{Qi"jf recodfication of the City Code . He exphined that the reason the other departments were addressed is that the present ordinance provides that all of those departments ybo are A under T �" `tr The Mayor c arified that even though the the D�z`� Finance -��=R�_�_ . y Office of the City Clerk will report to Administration, it will be a separate office and not a part of Administration. 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1 Councilmember ul ✓ moves, Councilmember �� seconds adoption of Ordinance restructuring the departments of Finance, Human Resources, Information Services, and the Office of the City Clerk. DISCUSSION• y ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4D A i �I I ORDINANCE NO. j AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, repealing Ordinance 1809 , 1927 , 1212 , 1926, and 2408 relating to the Offices of Finance, Personnel, Electronic Data Processing, City Clerk, and other finance- related functions, and further creating the III Departments of Finance, Personnel, Information Services, and the Office of the j City Clerk. WHEREAS, Ordinance 1809 passed by the Kent City Council lon January 2 , 1973 established the position of Director of Finance and Personnel ; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 1926 passed by the Kent City Council on June 2 , 1975 abolished the position of City Treasurer, and established the position of Supervisor of Treasury Accounting in its place; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 1809 was amended by Ordinance 1927 i I ;1passed by the Kent City Council on June 2 , 1975 adding the l'� position of Supervisor of General Ledger Accounting; and I WHEREAS, Ordinance 2408 passed by the Kent City Council !! on June 6, 1983 added Kent City Code Section 2 . 16 . 160 to the ' provisions relating to the Supervisor of Treasury Accounting; and WHEREAS , the organizational structure created by these I ordinances are out of date and the various offices related to these ordinances have changed significantly enough to require �I i i I I ' that their structure be modified to establish separate departments for Personnel, Information Services, Finance; and WHEREAS, the City retained consultants recently who recommended that the City Clerk' s position be relocated to serve l under the City Administrator; NOW, THEREFORE, I i THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: j Section 1. Ordinance 1809 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington creating the position of Finance and Personnel Director, designating those departments of the City which shall report to the Director, describing the duties of the office and qualifications of the Director, and providing for the salary of the position. " is hereby repealed. Section 2 . Ordinance 1926 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington abolishing the position of City Treasurer and providing that the Supervisor of Treasury Accounting shall perform those duties previously performed by the City Treasurer; and repealing Ordinance No. 1601 of the City of Kent. " I its hereby repealed. III Ii 2 II i Section 3 . Ordinance 1927 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 2 of Ordinance 1809 of the City of Kent. " is hereby repealed. Section 4 . Ordinance 2408 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington relating to the checks drawn to the order of or received by the City of Kent; authorizing the Supervisor of Treasury Accounting to impose a j' service fee in the amount of ten �I dollars ($10) on checks dishonored by a drawee bank; adding a new section 2 . 16. 160 to the Kent City Code. " is hereby repealed. i II Section 5 . Ordinance 1212 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington changing the office of the City Clerk from an j i elective to an appointive position. " his hereby repealed. I Section 6. Chapter 2 . 12 is hereby added to the Kent City Code entitled the "Finance Department" , numbered as follows: 2 . 12 . 010. DEPARTMENT AND POSITION CREATED. There is , hereby created the Finance Department and the position known as I 3 I I i I� i i I I I the "Finance Director" who shall be the department head in charge of the Finance Department. I I 2 . 12 . 020. The following functions will report to the I Finance Director: A. Financial Services I I, B. Customer Services i �I I i �i 2 . 12 . 030 . GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS . The Finance lDirector is responsible for the management of the City' s i investment and debt portfolios and supervises each of the I subordinate functions reporting to him or her in the performance I of duties as summarized below. 1 . Financial Services. a. Assist the City Administrator in budget preparation and monitoring. �I b. Maintain the accounting system in accordance j with recognized practices and standards. C. Maintain the payroll system. "i d. Exercise control of accounts payable. 2 . Customer Services. a. Collect all City funds including providing billing and customer service responsibility for utilities, special assessments, traffic violations, and others as directed by the i City Administrator. b. Provide meter reading and related functions. i I C. Monitor the operations of services provided �l to other City departments as directed by the is City Administrator including purchasing, 4 i I� i i i printing, and building maintenance operations. 3 . Other duties as directed by the City Administrator. 2 . 12 . 040. APPOINTMENT. The Finance Director shall be appointed by and serve at the and pleasure of the City Administrator. 2 . 12 . 050. QUALIFICATIONS . The Finance Director must be a graduate of a recognized college or university with a major emphasis in financial administration and/or accounting. He or she must have at least five years experience in the field. it 2 . 12 . 060. SALARY. The salary of the Finance Director ( shall be that as established in the annual City budget. I Section 7 . There is added a new chapter, Chapter 2 . 13 , to the Kent City Code entitled "Human Resources Department" , I numbered as follows: 2 . 13 . 010 . There is hereby created the Human Resources Department and establishing the position of Human Resources Director in accordance with the Kent City Policy Manual . it 2 . 13 . 020 . DUTIES. The Human Resources Director shall i � i create an effective working relationship between the Human j i Resources Department and all other City departments, 'perform and supervise all of the personnel functions in accordance with the Kent City Policy Manual, and make all periodic reports to the City Administrator. I 5 i �I ICI i i i 2 . 13 . 030. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES: Subject to the provisions of 2 . 13 . 020 above, the general powers and duties of the Human Resources Director shall be: (a) Develop appropriate personnel policies and I procedures for all departments of the City. (b) Act as equal opportunity officer and actively administer the Affirmative Action Program of the i City. (c) Perform all personnel functions as established in the Kent Policy Manual and as may be directed from time to time by the City Administrator. (d) Perform other duties as directed by the City Administrator. 2 12 . 040. APPOINTMENT: The Human Resources Director ( shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the City Administrator. i 2 . 13 . 050 . QUALIFICATIONS . The Human Resources Director must have the equivalent to graduation from a recognized college { or university, with a major emphasis in the field of Personnel Management, MPA is preferred. The Director must have at least five (5) years of experience in personnel-related work. 2 . 13 . 060. SALARY: The salary of the Human Resources Director shall be that as established in the Annual City Budget. Section 8 . Chapter 2 . 16 is hereby added to the Kent j I City Code entitled the "Information Services Department" , numbered as follows: I � 6 I i 2 . 16. 010. DEPARTMENT AND POSITION CREATED. There is hereby created the Information Services Department and the position known as the "Information Services Director" who shall be the department head in charge of the Information Services Department. 2 . 16. 020. GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS . The Information Services Director is responsible for the management of the City's computer programs and has the following general powers and duties: 1. Directs the activities of the Information Services iI Department with the responsibility to provide technological leadership in City information systems planning, implementation and support programs. �! 2 . Directs the development and maintenance of long 'i range information processing plans and budgets. j 3 . Acts as a contact person with user departments j responding to and analyzing their inquiries. i 4 . Directs, and assists in the professional development of personnel . 5 . Perform other duties as directed by the City j li Administrator. 2 . 16 . 030. APPOINTMENT. The Information Services i Director shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the I� City Administrator. i 2 . 16. 040. QUALIFICATIONS. The Information Services Director must be a graduate of a recognized college or university with a major emphasis in computer science, mathematics, business I 7 ! i I I I ! administration or a related field. He or she must have at least five years experience in the field. . 2 . 16. 050. SALARY. The salary of the Information Services Director shall be that as established in the annual City budget. Section 9. Chapter 2. 14 is hereby added to the Kent City Code entitled "City Clerk" , numbered as follows: 2 . 14 . 010. POSITION CREATED. There is hereby created a position known as the City Clerk, who shall perform such duties , as required for a non-charter code city under state statute, and Many other additional duties which the City Council or the City IiAdministrator shall require. The Office of the City Clerk shall �Inot be a separate department, but rather shall be a function reporting directly to the City Administrator. ! I 2 . 14 . 020 . GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS . The City Clerk i' shall plan, organize, and direct the activities and functions of the City Clerk' s office in accordance with state laws and city j ordinances; serve as legal custodian of the City ' s official public records and seals; supervise and participate in the preparation, distribution, and retention of City Council minutes, agendas, and other documents and materials, and provide all duties as prescribed by state law. I � 2 . 14 . 030. APPOINTMENT. The City Clerk shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the City Council . The City Clerk shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. 1 8 I j II I I 2 . 14 . 040. QUALIFICATIONS. The City Clerk must have a combination equivalent to: college-level training with specialized course work in public or business administration or related field and three years of increasingly responsible municipal experience involving public contact and records I :lmanagement. jI i 2 . 14 . 050. SALARY. The salary of the City Clerk shall 11be that as established in the annual City budget. 1� 'I Section 10. SAVING CLAUSE. Ordinance Nos. 1809 , 1927, 1212 , 1926, and 2408 , which are repealed by this ordinance, shall ;; remain in force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. I I ' II Section 11. RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION. Any act llconsistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of i ( this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. j I Section 12 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take I I effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. i i Ij I. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 'i I 'I ATTEST: I I BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK �j !I j li I 9 II' I 'I Ij 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20, 1991 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The King County Council has determined that there is a need to establish new regional justice center facilities and has begun consideration for the development of sites, including p��ro� pposed sites in the City of Kent. °' -�r--Eourt�ii"COptstrt2ratrorr' - resolutionVgiving qualified endorsement to proposed sites in Kent submitted by private owners for consideration for selection of a regional justice center. 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed resolution 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X_ YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ None SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: y ,r, 10'Y1., r�. Councilmember moves, Councilmember ;, i seconds rhj .r7 adoption of Resolution "j ,.' giving qualified endorsement to certain sites for selection of a regional justice center. DISCUSSION• it ACTION• ! Council Agenda Item No. 4E X �--- - _ . ............................. ....... � ........ , ........ . : :� Regional Justice Center Site Proposal j \ ^ / Submitted b/ ƒ The City of Kent, Washington ! { } { / ( C » _ \ [ ƒ ® } � ¢ ( \ [ ! � [ } [ t : ƒ § ƒ � $ \ � \ ) } ' \ � � € ƒ • : 4 § $ y . . } � [ \ ( \ � } } � . |: : { CITY OF ƒ % . % \ ƒ � m � t : . CITY OF )00ar1T Dan Kelleher, Mayor Edward Chow, Jr., City Administrator The City of Kent Celebrates Its First 100 Years VRjn17U Arthur Wallenstein, Director Department of Adult Detention King County Correctional Facility 500 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-2332 Dear Mr. Wallenstein, Enclosed is the City of Kent ' s response to your July 22, 1991 Request for Site Alternatives for the proposed King County Regional Justice Center. As you know, the City of Kent has followed this process with great interest. As proposed, the Regional Justice Center has potential as part of our vision for the revitalization of our downtown area. The . growth, prosperity, and economic vitality of our downtown neighborhood is one of the City' s top priorities. While we do not have any sites which are City owned, we do offer information on three sites which in combination with City owned property are consistent with our plan for the City. We endorse all three sites equally. In your review of these materials please keep in mind that this is a qualified endorsement. The City of Kent supports the concept of a Regional Justice Center within our downtown, but we must reserve the right to evaluate any site chosen by King County for this facility and to negotiate mitigation which is in the best interest of the City. By way of explanation, we have developed a complete response to your RFP for each site. Additional materials developed by the site owners have been submitted in the form of appendices. Please feel free to contact Lynda Anderson of . my staff for any further information which you may need. She can be reached at 849- 4011. Sincerely, Dan Kelleher, Mayor rj crfp 1 KENT DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE/525 41h AVE. NO.. /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-4497/TELEPHONE (205)859-4011 /FAX 9 859-3324 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, granting qualified endorsement of privately owned sites for regional justice center site selection. WHEREAS, King County has determined that there is a need to establish new regional justice center facilities in order to meet the increased demand on the current criminal justice system; and WHEREAS, the King County Council, on July 15, 1991, resolved to begin consideration of sites outside the city limits of Seattle for the establishment of regional justice facilities ; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 1991, King County has called for cities to submit responses to a request for proposal for information on potential sites that have been identified for site selection of regional justice center facilities; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Kent hereby gives qualified endorsement to those certain sites located within the City of Kent submitted by private owners for consideration for selection for a regional justice center, which sites are particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2 . In providing this qualified endorsement, the City of Kent reserves the right to enter into negotiations with King County for any site chosen within the city limits of the City of Kent with regard to impacts that may result from the development of such a facility within the City. Section 3 . This qualified endorsement is conditioned upon King County's compliance with all aspects of the State Environmental Policy Act in locating such a facility within the City of Kent. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1991. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1991 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 2 f 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 crimjus2 .res 3 �1.M V11pA Y REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL PROPOSAL OUTLINE I. Jurisdiction: City of Kent A. Submitted by The Honorable Dan Kelleher, Mayor B. Contact: Lynda R. Anderson 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 Phone: (206) 859-4011 C. Site Recommendation Approval Process: The site recommendation approval process for each of the three proposed sites would be identical. The first step in the approval process would be the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination. After the determination is made, the applicant for the subject site would attend a "predevelopment meeting" with members of the affected City departments, where City requirements would be the discussed. After the predevelopment meeting, applicant would be ready for building permit submission. Building permit approval takes approximately 40 to 60 days, assuming the application meets City standards and no problems arise or revisions are required. 1 EMT.,. Lq REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL II . Legal NADEN & MEEKER AREA A. Address, legal description: 1. 924 W. Meeker (Parcel #2422049102) Section 24-22-41 Tax Lot 102 Land Use: DC-2 , Downtown Commercial 2 Property under negotiation to purchase. 2 . 918 W. Meeker (Parcel #2422049104) Section 24-22-41 Tax Lot 101 Land Use: DC, Downtown Commercial Property under negotiation to purchase. 3 . 908 W. Meeker (Parcel #2422049042) 910 W. Meeker (Parcel #2422049040) 914 W. Meeker (Parcel #2422049039) Section 24-22-41 Tax Lots 39, 40 and 42 . Land Use: DC-21 Downtown Commercial 2 . Property under negotiation to purchase. 4 . 108 S. Naden (Parcel #2422049103) Section 24-22-41 Tax Lot 103 Land Use: DC-2 , Downtown Commercial 2 . Property under negotiation to purchase. 5 . 206 S. Naden (Parcel #) Lot 1 E. H. Naden' s Garden Tracts, Section 24-22-4 Land Use: M2 , Limited Industrial. Property under negotiation to purchase. 6 . 216 S. Naden (Parcel #) E i of Lot 3 , E. H. Naden' s Garden Tracts, Section 24-22-4 Land Use: M2 , Limited Industrial. Property under negotiation to purchase. 7 . 212 S. Naden (Parcel #6000000022) West 150 feet of the North 120 feet of the SE ; of NW ; of Section 24-22-4 E, W.M. , portion of the W i of Lot 2 E. H. Naden' s Garden Tracts. Land Use: M2 , Limited Industrial. 2 REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL 8 . 218 S. Naden (Parcel #6000000020) Portion of the W k of Lot 2 , E. H. Naden's Garden Tracts, Section 24-22-04 . Land Use: M2, Limited Industrial. Property under contract to purchase. 9 . 226 S. Naden (Parcel #6000000030) Tract 3 , E. H. Naden' s Garden Tracts unrecorded westerly 160 feet, Section 24-22-4 . Land Use: M2 , Limited Industrial. Property under contract to purchase. 10. 240 S. Naden (Parcel #6000000040) Tract 4 , E. H. Naden's Garden Tracts, Section 24- 22-4 . Land Use: M2, Limited Industrial. Property under contract to purchase. il. 310 S . Naden (Parcel #6000000050) North �, Tract 4 , E. H. Naden' s Garden Tracts, Section 24-22-4 . Land Use: M2 , Limited Industrial. Property under negotiation to purchase. 12 . 318 S. Naden (Parcel #6000000051) Section 24-22-4, Tax Lot #51. Land Use: M2, Limited Industrial. Property under contract to purchase. 13 . 3182 S. Naden (Parcel #6000000052) Section 24-22-4 , Tax Lot #52 . Land Use: M2 , Limited Industrial. Property under contract to purchase. 14 . 320 S. Naden (Parcel #6000000060) Section 24-22-4 , Tax Lot 60. Land Use: M2 , Limited Industrial. Property under contract to purchase. 15 . 324 S. Naden (Parcel #6000006062) Section 24-22-4 , Parcel #62 . Land Use: M2, Limited Industrial. Property under contract to purchase. 3 i w..1111M1 Y REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL 16. 332 S. Naden (Parcel #600000061) South portion of Tract 6, E. H. Naden Is Garden Tracts, Section 24-22-4 . Land Use: M2 , Limited Industrial. Property under contract to purchase. 17 . 330h S. Naden (Parcel #600000070) Tract 71 E. H. Naden's Garden Tracts, Section 24- 22-4 . Land Use: M2, Limited Industrial. Property under negotiation to purchase. 18 . Naden Greenbelt area Section 24-22-41 Tax lot 56 . REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL B. MAPS 1. Photographs 2 . Topography 3 . Zoning 4 . Notations QCD .Do uoo a�®o �— � N—FHOMDS6N AVE �� _000 _ El 0 O �JL --� ------ 2— UNCOLN If IC RAILROAD 1- / PIFF <— o U d N. 6TH. AV °a ❑ 1 � C� 11L�1'J1 �� i 0 0 Op $ p ` Q� cw `� ❑ I I n � CDoaf � JJr STH. AVE. o lr O LIL D CPU tin �I N. 4TH. AVE. I OQL7 odd 6 �orl �� _ _ I �o ❑ O I irn Po 0 0 ❑o �� ND AVE a -� � `J �,�,� aao� 00 a o a o q 7 a c El �-- ��a Gpq U, i�0 ❑ 1� N. 1ST. AVE. ❑ o ° 0 flQ Q P Qo o ii�RLINGTON 0 NORTHERN R.R. RAILROAD AVE. / � 1 t o 0 1 0 0 ❑0 d O r ❑ ll Ll o. [� o —^ LENTRA RVE Tc C-1 ❑ o I ` I �� L n F z 0 cn 0 0 r I `•f Y v� ' ' '� 1 \ 4l� f I ti� )Yr }�R alto- i•. t('T 1 � it � � i Y�i ..� �� �, .i•f 41, , i e.M�JY REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL C. Property History 1. Previous and current land use: Long term vacant and residential. 2 . Prior documentation on site: a. Previous EIS 's: None b. Other proposed uses: Submitted in 1991 as a proposed site for the Kent Senior Citizen Housing Project. D. Current Ownership 1. Bernard Johnson 2 . Kevin J. Rice 3 . New Life Properties 4 . Fred Wing, Jr. 5 . Al Tennent (dba New Life Properties) 6. Morales (?) 7 . Donald Johnson 8 . Robert J. Schmidt 9 . Robert L. Petersen 10. Jack Fisher 11. Harry A. & Cleta Frink 12 . John E. Piper 13 . Brent 0. Morgan 14 . Ruby L. Williamson 15. David Ball 16. Tim Finley 17 . Ray E. /Mary E. Weidert 18 . City of Kent, Property Management E. Appraised Value or Asking Price: 1. $115, 000 2 . 87 ,500 3 . 300, 000 4 . 65, 000 5. 320, 000 6. 237, 000 7 . $120, 000 8 . 90, 000 9 . 267 , 500 10 . 257 , 000 11. 210, 000 12 . 115 , 000 13 . 70, 000 REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL 14 . 115, 000 15. 65, 000 16. 80, 000 17 . 98 , 500 18 . N/A 330, 880. 8 square feet at $7. 89 per square foot: Total of $2, 612 , 500. REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL FOURTH AND JAMES A. Address, Legal Description: 1. 401 N. Fourth (Parcel #2422049111) PORTION NW a OF NE ; & NE ; OF NW h BEGINNING AT NORTH ; CORNER OF SECTION, TH E 351.78 FT THE S 00- 16-00 W 522 FT TO TPOB TH N 89-46-55 W 823 FT M/L TH S 00-24-40 E TO NLY ETC. 60 FOOT SPUR TRACK IN N i OF STR 24-22-04 BET TRAMSEYS ADD & FORMER CM STP & P RR CO S MAIN R/W INCL 18 FT STRIP LY ELY OF NLY PROD OF W IN OF ALLEY ETC. o O Q q op 'O❑d�OcIli C��Q� � Q �_^ � � LJ S. NAM N V D I LIN � Q � � ❑ Q° � �OLN o Q o o O 1 o opq QO Ek) ODuo _ D IFIC RAILROAD ; — / 7-1 N. H. AV .. J / oa ❑ u� 30 CD LID 1020 00 STH. AVE.-- EJd 9� �J L co C2� �a �Q E N. 4TH. AVE. / a OQCd d0 �� 00 � � A I Cd CDC N O O ❑ L__� ❑ ❑❑ Z � rD m o 0 0 N ❑ �n ❑o d� N. ND RVE � L� �)� aoQ90 0 0� Qb� �� � � ❑ � ° °L7aL7�� 1[1Y71]] Q C.Y � I �0 ❑� �1 N. 15T. AVE. L� o _ D flEa 00 �° a 'S�LINGTDN C-1 o � �� u a ❑ n O y NORToERN R.R. -- L RILRORD AVE. f o �00 0 0° t6 ❑ ❑ o a.Q j o o o❑ �❑❑ o � 4 °� a a �] °[bo0,0000 CENT RR RVE ❑ Q (\ 0 ❑�; r 9 r � z 0 r � x 0 0 ti n' F ` �� t r'` G �y i k..; •• l pp t y Y a. I lep ri I 1 7�w 14 IN , i aY F{Fp, t R � IITy 4y��` 1 `R`R4 i/ [T ..EMIT REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL C. Property History 1. Previous and Current Land Use: Agricultural use prior to 1936. Current use is sheet metal manufacturing. 2 . Prior Documentation On Site: a. Previous EIS ' s: None b. Other Proposed Uses : None D. Current Ownership: Northwest Metal Prod Co. Div Noll Mfg Co PO Box 10 Kent WA 98031 E. Appraised Value or Asking Price: 9 . 8 acres: $6, 534 , 000. w.M V11NiY REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL FIRST AND SMITH A. Address, Legal Description: 1. 310 N. 4th (Parcel #7142800020 & 7142800021) Blk 1, Lots 3-10, 1/2 4-6 2 . 330 N. 4th (Parcel #) 223 W. Smith (Parcel #714800135) 3 . 321 W. Smith (Parcel #7142800025) Blk 21 1/2 of lot 71 1/4 lot 8 4 . 301 N. 1st Avenue (Parcel #7142800160) Blk 3 , lot 7 5. 311 N. 1st Avenue (Parcel #7142800165 & 7142800170) Blk 3 , lot 7 6 . 317 N. 1st Avenue (Parcel #) Blk 31 lot 9 7 . 319 N. 1st Avenue (Parcel #7142800171) Blk 3 , lot 10 8 . 321 N. 1st Avenue (Parcel #9825700055) Blk 3 , lot 11 9 . 327 N. 1st Avenue (Parcel #7142800180 & 7142800185) Blk 31 lot 12 10. First Avenue Alley 201x360 ' 11. Temperance Street 12 . City Parking Lot 13 . First Avenue 601x360 ' �— ed[� MY D04 �tt7 � 1n} oopCD °� '��0p3 FHAMysGNIAi _sw a o S. NADEN AV �� ❑ I I LINCOLN q J / Do ❑ [30 VE �{ I 00 Q a o49 17u o pd CS OO =---- /\� RAILROAD � pxqIFIC 212 U d N. H. AVE.- _ o °a D 1 a a �� I \ a❑ I I 30oCl r O 8 \ Q q° I ❑ I D Qo� 5TH. AVE. Io y LLJJ CA I � N. 4TH. AVE. % I n opd, 70 El I inn � C7 ° oED N. 15T. AVE. EfO lr' Lj 0 0 017 00 00 u _ rI N NORTHERN R.R. r--- - ----�-� f p� �� o ❑ 0 - RILRORD AVE. I T5 ❑ / 0 C7 D '— .� ll r 4 — \CE NTRR n AVE o l � � [ - I Q aF -f L-f L t� n Y r t7 z .. o -3 0 0 G i � I }} r ]� r •'� 'ti i � 1' ' I. ( l a � f �✓ Jry.i i I ( � I A. S �f � 1 r I 1 r ti l y ;IiFy 1 h ) 1 '1 1 .I ! r + t LW REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL C. Property History 1. Previous and current land use: Prior to 1940 was Ramsey Farm, and farm support such as storage and housing. Current use: Street, parking, alley and business. 2 . Prior documentation on site: a. Previous EIS ' s: None. b. Other Proposed Uses: Same as above. D. Current Ownership: 1. SeaFirst National Bank 2 . Leo C. Brutsche 3 . Security Pacific Trust 4 . JSWJ Partners 5 . Edd Laville 6 . Richard Cormack 7 . Richard Cormack 8 . Silvestri Investment Co. 9 . Silvestri Investment Co. 10. through 13 . City of Kent E. Appraised Value or Asking Price: 457 , 097 square feet (10. 49 acres) . Price negotiable. REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL III . Applicable Land Use Plan A. Land Use Plan For Proposed Site: 1. Current and potential changes in zoning: The current zoning on this site includes both DC-21 Downtown Commercial, and M2 , Limited Industrial. Both of these zones include "municipal uses and buildings" such as the Justice Center as principally permitted uses. Although the zoning in the downtown area is currently under review by the Planning Commission, proposed changes would not preclude the Justice Center use, but would in fact enhance the multi-use nature of Kent' s downtown area. 2 . Local jurisdiction' s vision for use of these properties: The City of Kent' s Downtown Comprehensive Plan targets the Meeker and Naden site for both Business Park and Mixed Use development. The Business Park designation, covering the southern portion of the property, promotes limited industrial, office and commercial uses. The Mixed Use designation, covering the northern portion of the site, is designed to foster retail, office, and multifamily residential uses. B. Land Use Plan for Surrounding Properties 1. Zoning The current zoning on surrounding properties includes both M2, Limited Industrial and DC, Downtown Commercial. The purpose of the M2 district is to provide areas suitable for a broad range of industrial activities whose characteristics are of a light industrial nature. Permitted uses include such things as manufacturing or articles, products and merchandise, printing, warehousing and distribution facilities, and administrative and executive offices which are part of a predominant industrial operation, along with associated retail and service uses. The purpose of the DC district is to provide a place and create environmental conditions which will encourage the location of business, civic and recreation activities which will benefit and contribute to the vitality of a central "downtown" location. Permitted uses include retail establishments, REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL offices, restaurants, and hotels/motels. Although the zoning in the downtown area is currently under review by the Planning Commission, proposed changes would not be incompatible with the Justice Center use, but would enhance the multi-use nature of Kent's downtown area. 2 . Local Jurisdiction' s Vision for Use of These . Properties: The city of Kent' s Downtown Comprehensive Plan targets the surrounding area for both Business Park and Mixed Use development. The Business Park designation, covering the area to the south and east of the Meeker and Naden property, promotes limited industrial, office and commercial uses. The Mixed Use designation, covering the area to the north of the site, is designed to foster retail, office, and multifamily residential uses. Mmrx..._ REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL III. Applicable Land Use Plan A. Land Use Plan For Proposed Site: 1. Current and Potential Changes in Zoning: The current zoning on this site is M2 , Limited Industrial. Permitted uses in this zoning district include "municipal uses and buildings" such as the Justice Center. Although the zoning 'in the downtown area is currently under review by the Planning Commission, proposed changes would not preclude the Justice Center use, but would enhance the multi-use nature of Kent' s downtown area. 2 . Local Jurisdiction' s vision For Use of Proposed Site: The City of Kent ' s Downtown Comprehensive Plan targets the 4th and James site for both Industrial and Mixed Use development. The Industrial designation, covering the eastern portion of the property, promotes general industrial uses. The Mixed Use designation, covering the western portion of the site, is designed to foster retail, office, and multifamily residential uses. B. Land Use Plan For Surrounding Properties 1 . Zoning: The current zoning on surrounding properties includes both M2 , Limited Industrial and DC, Downtown Commercial. The purpose of the M2 district is to provide areas suitable for a broad range of industrial activities whose characteristics are of a light industrial nature. Permitted uses include such things as manufacturing or articles, products and merchandise, printing, warehousing and distribution facilities, and administrative and executive offices which are part of a predominant industrial operation, along with associated retail and service uses. The purpose of the DC district is to provide a place and create environmental conditions which will encourage the location of business, civic and recreation activities which will benefit and contribute to the vitality of a central "downtown" location. Permitted uses include retail establishments, offices, restaurants, and hotels/motels. Although the zoning in the downtown area is currently under review by the Planning Commission, proposed changes would not be incompatible with the Justice Center use, but would enhance the multi-use nature of Kent' s downtown area. REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL 2 . Local Jurisdiction' s vision for Use of These Properties: The City of Kent' s Downtown Comprehensive Plan targets the surrounding area for both Industrial and Mixed Use development. The Industrial designation, to the east of the site, promotes general industrial uses. The Mixed Use designation, to the west and south of the site, is designed to foster retail, office, and multifamily residential uses. In addition, the area to the northeast of the proposed site is designated as Community Facility. This property is already developed as the Kent Commons, a community recreational facility. rlit= REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL III . Applicable Land Use Plan A. Land Use Plan For Proposed Site: 1. Current and Potential Changes In Zoning: The current zoning on this site includes both DC-1, Downtown Commercial, and M2 , Limited Industrial. Both of these zones include "municipal uses and buildings" such as the Justice Center as principally permitted uses. Although the zoning in the downtown area is currently under review by the Planning Commission, proposed changes would not preclude the Justice Center use, but would in fact enhance the multi-use nature of Kent' s downtown area. 2 . Local Jurisdictions ' s Vision for Use of Proposed Site: The City of Kent's Downtown Comprehensive Plan targets the 1st and Smith site for both Industrial and Mixed Use development. The Industrial designation, covering the northern portion of the property, promotes general industrial uses. The Mixed Use designation, covering the southern portion of the site, is designed to foster retail, office, and multifamily residential uses. B. Land Use Plan For Surrounding Properties : 1. Zoning: The current zoning on surrounding properties includes both M2 , Limited Industrial and DC, Downtown Commercial. The purpose of the M2 district is to provide areas suitable for a broad range of industrial activities whose characteristics are of a light industrial nature. Permitted uses include such things as manufacturing or articles, products and merchandise, printing, warehousing and distribution facilities, and administrative and executive offices which are part of a predominant industrial operation, along with associated retail and service uses. The purpose of the DC district is to provide a place and create environmental conditions which will encourage the location of business, civic and recreation activities which will benefit and contribute to the vitality of a central "downtown" location. 15 w.M{�j1Wl Y REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL Permitted uses include retail establishments, offices, restaurants, and hotels/motels. Although the zoning in the downtown area is currently under review by the Planning Commission, proposed changes would not be incompatible with the Justice Center use, but would enhance the multi-use nature of Kent's downtown area. 2 . Local Jurisdiction's Vision for Use of These Properties: The City of Kent' s Downtown Comprehensive Plan targets the surrounding area for both Industrial and Mixed Use development. The Industrial designation, to the north and west of the site, promotes general industrial uses. The Mixed Use designation, to the south and east of the site, is designed to foster retail, office, and multifamily residential uses. In addition, one area to the southeast of the proposed site is designated as Community Facility. This property is currently being developed as the new Kent Library. REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL IV. Local Jurisdiction' s Requirements A. Applicable Building Requirements: As mentioned previously, the current zoning on this site includes both DC-21 Downtown Commercial, and M21 Limited Industrial. Development standards for the DC-2 portion of the site include: 1. Height restriction Four stories or 60 feet. The Planning Director may grant one additional story in height. Building heights in excess of five stories may be granted by the Planning Commission. 2 . Setbacks, parking, etc. Minimum lot size: Minimum lot of record Maximum site coverage: 100 percent Setbacks: No setbacks are required except as required by landscaping or if off-street parking is provided on site. Parking: Required parking is determined per square footage of use. For example, one parking space is required for every 250 sq. ft. of office. Parking requirements for the jail portion of the Justice Center would be determined by the Planning Director. In the DC-2 zone, parking requirements may be reduced by as much as 50 percent. Landscaping: . Three feet of landscaping between building and sidewalk front or street trees is required. For parking areas of more than 20, 000 sq. ft. , 10 percent of the area must be landscaped. Landscape islands are required at the ends of all parking rows. Development standards for the M2 portion of the site include: 1. Height restriction Two stories or 35 feet in height. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four stories or 60 feet there shall be added one additional foot of yard for each one foot of additional building height. The Planning Director may approve one additional story. Building heights in excess of five stories may be granted by the Planning Commission. REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL 2 . Setbacks, parking, etc. Minimum lot size: 20, 000 square feet Maximum site coverage: 65 percent Setbacks: Required front yard setback is related to the classification of the adjacent street and may be from 30- 40 feet. Side yards must have an aggregate width of 10 percent of the lot width, but the aggregate need not be more than 30 feet. No side yard shall be less than 10 feet. The side yard setback on a corner lot also relates to the classification of the adjacent street and may be from 30-40 feet. No rear yard setback is required. Parking: Required parking is determined per square footage of use. For example, one parking space is required for every 250 sq. ft. of office. Parking requirements for the jail portion of the Justice Center would be determined by the Planning Director. Landscaping: 15 feet front yard landscaping is required. 10 feet side yard landscaping is required. For parking areas of more than 20, 000 sq. ft. , 10 percent of the area must be landscaped. Landscape islands are required at the ends of all parking rows. B. Mitigation 1. Specific Potential Impacts or Issues: Increased traffic in the downtown area may be the most significant potential impact of the Justice Center at this site. Two clusters of large trees are present which may merit preservation. In addition, there are some structures on the site which may have historical significance, although no formal designations have been made. 2 . Propose Alternative Mitigation Requests and Potential Improvements: Traffic mitigation measures would depend on the specific site design proposed. The City reserves the right to negotiate the specifics of the mitigation measures at the time the site and site plan are determined. w.M I�110P1� REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL IV. Local Jurisdiction' s Requirements A. Applicable Building Requirements As mentioned previously, current zoning on this site is M2 , Limited Industrial. Development standards include: 1. Height restriction Two stories or 35 feet in height. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four stories or 60 feet there shall be added one additional foot of yard for each one foot of additional building height. The Planning Director may approve one additional story. Building heights in excess of five stories may be granted by the Planning Commission. 2 . Setbacks, parking, etc. Minimum lot size: 20, 000 square feet Maximum site coverage: 65 percent Setbacks: Required front yard setback is related to the classification of the adjacent street and may be from 30- 40 feet. Side yards must have an aggregate width of 10 percent of the lot width, but the aggregate need not be more than 30 feet. No side yard shall be less than 10 ' . The side yard setback on a corner lot also relates to the classification of the adjacent street and may be from 30- 40 feet. No rear yard setback is required. Parking: Required parking is determined per square footage of use. For example, one parking space is required for every 250 sq. ft. of office. Parking requirements for the jail portion of the .Justice Center would be determined by the Planning Director. Landscaping: 15 feet front yard landscaping is required. Ten feet side yard landscaping is required. For parking areas of more than 20, 000 sq. ft. , 10 percent of the area must be landscaped. Landscape islands are required at the ends of all parking rows. B. Mitigation 1. Specific Potential Impacts or Issues: Increased traffic in the downtown area may be the most significant potential impact of the Justice Center at this site. In addition, there is a structure on the site which may have historical significance, although additions have been made to it and no formal designation has been made. REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL 2 . Proposed Alternative Mitigation Requests and Potential Improvements: Traffic mitigation measures would depend on the specific site design proposed. The City reserves the right to negotiate the specifics of the mitigation measures at the time the site and. site plan are determined. REGIONAY. JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL IV. Local Jurisdiction's Requirements: A. Applicable Building Requirements: As mentioned previously, the current zoning on this site includes both DC-1, Downtown Commercial, and M2, Limited Industrial. Development standards for the DC-1 portion of the site include: 1. Height restriction Four stories or 60 feet. The Planning Director may grant one additional story in height. Building heights in excess of five stories may be granted by the Planning Commission. 2 . Setbacks, parking, etc. Minimum lot size: Minimum lot of record Maximum site coverage: 100 percent Setbacks: No setbacks are required except as required by landscaping or if off-street parking is provided on site. Parking: No off-street parking is required. Landscaping: 3 feet landscaping between building and sidewalk front or street trees is required. For parking areas of more than 20, 000 sq. ft. , 10 percent of the area must be landscaped. Landscape islands are required at the ends of all parking rows. Development standards for the M2 portion of the site include: 1. Height restriction Two stories or 35 feet in height. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four stories or 60 feet there shall be added one additional foot of yard for each one foot of additional building height. The Planning Director may approve one additional story. Building heights in excess of five stories may be granted by the Planning Commission. , 2 . Setbacks, parking, etc. Minimum lot size: 20, 000 square feet Maximum site coverage: 65 percent Setbacks: Required front yard setback is related to the classification of the adjacent street and may be from 30- 40 feet. Side yards must have an aggregate width of 10 percent of the lot width, but the aggregate need not be 1 REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL more than 30 feet. No side yard shall be less than 10 feet. The side yard setback on a corner lot also relates to the classification of the adjacent street and may be from 30-40 feet. No rear yard setback is required. Parking: Required parking is determined per square footage of use. For example, one parking space is required for every 250 sq. ft. of office. Parking requirements for the jail portion of the Justice Center would be determined by the Planning Director. Landscaping: 15 feet front yard landscaping is required. 10 feet side yard landscaping is required. For parking areas of more than 20, 00o sq. ft. , 10 percent of the area must be landscaped. Landscape islands are required at the ends of all parking rows. B. Mitigation: 1. Specific Potential Impacts or Issues: Increased traffic in the downtown area may be the most significant potential impact of the Justice Center at this site. There is also a small wetland (palustrine emergent) on the northwestern corner of the site. 2 . Proposed Alternative Mitigation Requests and Potential Improvements: Traffic mitigation measures would depend on the specific site design proposed. The City reserves the right to negotiate the specifics of the mitigation measures at the time the site and site plan are determined. REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER SITE PROPOSAL THE FOLLOWING C. RELATES TO ALL THREE PROPOSED SITES C. Propose Areas of Potential Cooperation and/or Operation Efficiencies: The City of Kent and the surrounding area are in a period of transition. With an eye to the future, Kent is in the final stages of. completing a major rezoning project. This plan will move the downtown area toward a greater density of land use and a more urban look. Our intention is to promote development as an urban activity center which is consistent with the placement of a building such as the proposed King County Regional Justice Center. We also believe that this type of land use is consistent with the land use intent of the King County Council under the "Not Net Loss Resolution. " The sites which we have identified in this document are consistent with our plan for future development. In preparation for future change, Kent is about to undertake an extensive study of our infrastructure needs which should help us plan for urban growth well into the next century. Our Request for Proposals on this project should be released in the next several weeks. Parking, fireflow, water/sewer, and drainage are areas of potential cooperation and operational efficiency which would serve both the Regional Justice Center and future development which will follow . This is a challenging process and we recognize that there will be some changes in the character of the downtown neighborhood. There may be some discomfort as some residences and schools relocate. It is important that our City Center continue to attract community and cultural activities. As Kent is already a regional transportation hub for south King County, a major point for potential cooperation is the sponsorship of a cultural and preforming arts center. The City of Kent has used long-term planning as an investment in our future. The cooperative placement of the Regional Justice Center presents an opportunity for meeting the needs of the King County Criminal Justice System and the future goals for development of the City of Kent. Kent City Council Meeting Date Auctust 20 , 1991 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (EDC) ORDINANCE AND% CHARTER AMENDMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 4i"75 (Office recently received a letter from Preston Thorgrimson, bond counsel , on a recent bond issuance for the EDC, with an attached Attorney General ' s Opinion regarding the EDC' s appointment of directors. The opinion b*t4t-al-}g- states that. vaity ouncil should not be in a position of appointing its own members to serve on the board. However, &uncilmembers may serve ex-officio on the EDC as long as some mechanism forcplacement o the board is utilized rather than discretionary appointments by the Eou cil . A mechanism suggested, b in the Attorney Ge eral '� opin .on*Ws the "most senior members" rof the council . The `ordinance and amended charter for the EDC incorporates this mechanism. for apRoint ent, of councilmember directors. The Operations Committee",',approved the spcl-o`se`d with a modification that the Mayor appoint non- ouncilmember directors subject to Council confirmation rather than,;fi Council make then`appointment. This suggested modification is incorporated..,,, , k-�, , t;ea�d% c' 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinance, charter, letter from Preston Thorgrimson, Attorney General ' s Opinion 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Attorney' s office, EDC Board, Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X _ YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ None SOURCE OF FUNDS: i w' 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember ��' moves, Councilmembe-r ���' `tAZ secondgs adoption of Ordinance h'' `' " amending the appointment procedures of directors of the EDC and amending the EDC charter to incorporate said amendments. DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4F X 5400 Columbia Center PREsroN 701 Fifth Avenue T HORG RI M SON Seattle,WA 98104-7078 SH I DLER Telephone:(206)623-7580 GATES & ELLIS Facsimile:(206)623-7022 ATTORNEYS AT LAW MA R 12 1991 March 8 , 1991 C/TY OF= f(crV C'Ty CLEr?k James White Chairman, City of Kent Economic Development Corporation City Hall 220 4th Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 Re: Appointment of Members of the Economic Development Corporation Dear Jim: As you know, our firm has for some years served as bond counsel for the City of Kent Economic Development Corporation (the "EDC") . The EDC is a public corporation created by the City of Kent pursuant to Chap. 39 . 84 RCW. After reviewing the proceedings for recent issuances of bonds on behalf of Heinz Streng and the Baer Family Partnership, we realized that the method currently used by the Kent City Council to appoint some members of the EDC board of directors is inconsistent with a 1983 ruling of the State Attorney General ' s office. Basically, the Attorney General ' s position is that a city council should not be in the position of appointing its own members to serve on the board of directors of a public corporation like the EDC. This letter is intended to explain the Attorney General ' s position and to suggest how the City might modify its EDC ordinance to be consistent with that position. A copy of the Attorney General ' s opinion is enclosed. City Ordinance No. 2419 , as amended by Ordinance No . 2433 and Ordinance No. 2592 , authorizes the appointment of five members to the EDC Board of Directors, three of whom are City Council members, and provides that replacements of those Board members shall be appointed by the City Council. Kent ' s arrangement violates the guidelines laid down in an Attorney General ' s Opinion from 1983 The Opinion answers in the affirmative the following question: Anchorage • Bellevue • Portland • Spokane • Tacoma • Washington,D.C. A Partnership Including A Professional Corporation James White March 8 , 1991 Page 2 In creating a public corporation in connection with the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds under chapter 39 . 84 RCW, may a municipality provide in the ordinance creating the corporation that one or more positions on the board of directors shall be filled by a member or members of the governing body of the subject municipality serving ex officio? AGO 1983 , No. 17 , at I. In Kent' s ordinances, Board members who are City Council members are said to serve ex officio, " but they are actually appointed to the Board by the City Council . No criteria are set forth in the ordinances for designating which City Council members are to serve on the Board of the EDC. City Council members on the Board serve "ex officio" only in the sense that they may serve only so long as they remain members of the City Council. At the end of the Opinion, there is a "caveat" applicable to Kent ' s situation: Exercising the authority granted to it by RCW 39 . 84 . 040, , . . it is our opinion that in creating a public corporation in connection with the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds under chapter 39 . 84 RCW, the governing body of a municipality may provide in the ordinance establishing the corporation that one or more positions on its board of directors shall be filled by a member (or members) of that governing board serving gx officio. Our caveat, in turn, is this : If the number of members of the governing body who are to serve, ex officio, on the board of directors is less than the total number of members of the governing body, the ordinance should also, itself, state the criteria for determining which members of the governing body are also to serve as directors of the corporation. Otherwise, the possibility of characterizing the selection process as tantamount to an appointment would exist . . . . AGO 1983 , No. 17 , at 7-8 (footnote omitted) . The footnote omitted from this passage suggests examples of criteria that may be used for establishing, by ordinance, which members of the governing body will sit on the board of a public corporation: "the one, two or three most senior members, or those with the longest terms still to serve . etc. " AGO 1983 , No . 17 , at 8n. James White March 8, 1991 Page 3 There are seven members of the Kent City Council, three of whom have been appointed to the Board of Directors of the EDC. As I read the ordinance creating the EDC, the City Council is free to choose any of its seven members for the EDC Board. Moreover, nothing in the ordinance requires that the City Council appoint any City Council members to the EDC. The original appointments included three City Council members, and this custom seems to have been continued. Kent can correct this situation by expanding the EDC Board to include all members of the City Council, but that would probably be unwieldy. The alternative is to determine some criterion for which a certain number of Council members would be ex officio members of the Board: the most senior members, for example, or the members of a particular committee of the Council that is relevant to EDC business . I would be happy to discuss this issue further with you or with the City Attorney. If you wish, I could make a brief presentation about this issue to the Council. . It might be appropriate to raise this issue in an executive session. While this is not a matter of great urgency, it would be a good idea to modify the EDC procedures to conform with the Attorney General ' s opinion. Let me know how we can help you proceed in dealing with this issue. Very truly yours, PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS y David O. Th mpson DOT:mkj K:\dot\96000-40.000\2nLWHITE.OVB Enclosure cc: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney 1arie Jensen, City Clerk J AUG 1 >^ 1983 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNE-Y GENERAIJ LARRY M. CARTE'" CITIES AND TOWNS - -COUNTIES - - PORT DISTRICTS - - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT--BONDS--INCOMPATIBLE OFFICES--MEMBERSHIP ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC CORPORATION Exercising the authority granted to it by RCW 39 . 84 . 040 a municipality, in creating a public corporation in connection with the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds under chapter 39 . 84 RCW , may provide in the ordinance establishing the corporation that one or more positions on its board of directors shall be filled by a member ( or members ) of its governing body serving ex officio ; however , if the number of members of the governing body who are to serve , ex officio , on the board of directors of corporations is less than the total number of members of the governing body, the ordinance should also , itself, state the criteria for determining which members of the governing body are also to serve as directors of the corporation . August 18 , 1983 Honorable Robert V. Graham State Auditor Legislative Building Cite as : Olympia , Washington 98504 AGO 1983 No. 17 Dear Sir : By letter previously acknowledged you requested our opinion on the following question : "In creating a public corporation in connection with the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds under chapter 39 . 84 RCW, may a municipality provide in the ordinance creating the corporation that one or more positions on the board of directors shall be filled by a member ( or members ) of the governing body of the subject municipality serving ex officio? " We answer your foregoing question in the affirmative for the reasons set forth in our analysis . henERO't VM' Attorney General Temple of Justice.Olympia. Washington 98504 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENF \L Honorable Robert V. Graham 2 AGO 1983 No . 17 ANALYSIS The legislature , by its enactment of chapter 300 , Laws of 1981 , authorized cities , towns , counties and port districts of this state to issue industrial development revenue bonds and otherwise engage in projects for the purpose of facilitating economic development and employment opportunities within the state . That legislation is now codified as chapter 39 . 84 RCW . The underlying basis for the enactment of this law was a companion constitutional amendment which was submitted to , and approved by, the voters at the November 3 , 1981 election and is now designated as Wash. Const . , Art . XXXII , § 1 (Amendment 73 ) . In addition , it is also to be noted at the outset that both the constitutional amendment and the legislative enactment were drafted in light of the provisions of § 103 (a ) of the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1954 , as amended , relating to the issuance of tax exempt obligations ( including industrial development revenue bonds ) by a state , a territory, or a possession of the United States or any political subdivision thereof. As a consequence , primarily, of this last noted point , the legislature , in § 3 of the act ( now codified as RCW 39 . 84 . 030 ) provided for the formation , by those municipalities desiring to utilize the law, of public corporations . For ease of immediate reference we quote , in full , the provisions of that section of the law: " ( 1 ) For the purpose of facilitating economic development and employment opportunities in the state of Washington through the financing of the project costs of industrial development facilities , a municipality may enact an ordinance creating a public corporation for the purposes authorized in this chapter . The ordinance creating the public corporation shall approve a charter for the public corporation containing such provisions as are authorized by and not in conflict with this chapter. Any charter issued under this chapter shall contain in substance the limitations set forth in RCW 39 . 84. 060 . In any suit , action , or proceeding involving the validity or enforcement of or relating to any contract of the public corporation , the public corporation is conclusively presumed to be established and authorized to transact business and exercise its powers under this chapter upon proof of the adoption of the ordinance creating the public corporation by the governing body . A copy of the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Honorable Robert Graham 3 AGO 1983 No. 17 ordinance duly certified by the clerk of the governing body of the municipality shall be admissible in evidence in any suit, action , or proceeding . " ( 2 ) A public corporation created by a municipality pursuant to this chapter may be dissolved by the municipality if the public corporation : ( a ) Has no property to administer , other than funds or property, if any, to be paid or transferred to the municipality by which it was established ; and ( b ) all its outstanding obligations have been satisfied . Such a dissolution shall be accomplished by the governing body of the municipality adopting an ordinance providing for the dissolution . " (3 ) The creating municipality may, at its discretion and at any time , alter or change the structure , organizational programs , or activities of a public corporation , including termination of the public corporation if contracts entered into by the public corporation are not impaired . Any net earnings of a public corporation, beyond those necessary for retirement of indebtedness incurred by it , shall not inure to the benefit of any person other than the creating municipality . Upon dissolution of a public corporation , title to all property owned by the public corporation shall vest in the municipality . " In addition , by § 4 ( now RCW 39 . 84 . 040 ) , the legislature provided that : " The ordinance creating a public corporation shall include_ provisions establishing a board of directors to govern the affairs of the public corporation , what constitutes a quorum of the board of directors , and how the public corporation shall conduct its affairs . " Your question involves the implementation in this last quoted section of the law and ( repeated for ease of reference) asks : " In creating a public corporation in connection with the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds under chapter 39 . 84 RCW, may a municipality provide in the ordinance creating the corporation that one or more positions on the board of dirctors shall be filled by a OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Honorable Robert V. Graham 4 AGO 1983 No. 17 member (or members ) of the governing body of the subject municipality serving ex officio? " In turn , as we understand it , -he reason for your request is a concern as to the possible applicability of two overlapping common law doctrines--the doctrine of incompatible public offices and the rule, summarized in McQuillan , Municipal Corporations , § 12 . 75 , that public officers may not appoint themselves to another office . cf. , our informal memorandum opinion to you of April 15, 1983, copy enclosed; and see also , such prior formal opinions as AGO 59-60 No . 157 ( fire district commissioner may not be appointed district secretary) ; AGO 63-64 No. 92 ( county commissioner may not appoint himself chairman of the local civil defense council ) ; and AGO 1973 No. 25 (city council member may not serve as city firefighter) . There are, however, two further propositions which also bear on your question . First , in order for either of the foregoing common law doctrines to apply there must be two separate public offices involved . And secondly, since both of those sanctions derive from the common law - - and not from a statutory enactment--either or both of them may be overridden by specific legislation. Accord, RCW 4. 04. 010 which, in describing the extent to which common law prevails in our state , reads as follows : "The common law , so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States , or of the state of Washington nor incompatible with the institutions and condition of society in this state , shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this state . " Let us , therefore , turn first to the question of whether a position on the board of directors of a public corporation , when created pursuant to such an ordinance as you have described , nevertheless constitutes a separate public office . In our previous opinions applying the doctrine of incompatible offices we have consistently used the following five element test of what constitutes a "public office" : " ' . . . five elements are indispensable in any position of public employment, in order to make it a public office of a civil nature : ( 1 ) It must be created by the Constitution or by the legislature or created by a municipality or other body through authority conferred by the legislature; ( 2 ) it must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power of government , to be OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Honorable Robert '� . Graham 5 AGO 1983 No. 17 exercised for the benefit of the public ; ( 3 ) the powers conferred and the duties to be discharged must be defined , directly or impliedly, by the legislature or through legislative authority ; ( 4 ) the duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power , other than the law, unless they be those of an inferior or subordinate office , created or authorized by the legislature and by it placed under the general control of a superior officer or body; (5 ) it must have some permanency ind continuity and not be only temporary or occasional . '" Here, the first , third, fourth and fifth of those elements would appear to us to be present . A public corporation established pursuant to chapter 39 . 84 RCW, supra , is, by the express terms of that law, created by a municipality through authority conferred by the legislature; its powers and duties are defined by the same law, in RCW 39. 84. 080 ; its functions , while not independently performed, are nevertheless within the ambit of element ( 4 ) because it is , in the sense of that part of the rule , a subordinate entity under the control of the governing municipality; and, finally, it has more than merely a temporary or occasional existence . When we turn to element ( 2 ) , however , we are initially confronted with the following language of the final sentence of RCW 39 . 84 . 060 , codifying § 6, chapter 300, Laws of 1981, supra: of . . A municipality shall not delegate to a public corporation any of the municipality ' s attributes of sovereignty, including, without limitation, the power to tax, the power of eminent domain, and the police power . " On the other hand, it seems to us at least arguable that this element of the above-stated test is nevertheless also present because of the nature of at least some of the powers which have been granted directly to a public corporation by the legislature itself in RCW 39. 84. 080, codifying § 8 of the subject act . That , it will be noted, is the same section as we cited to show the presence of element ( 3 ) ; i . e. , the possession of powers and duties defined , directly or impliedly, by the legislature or through legislative authority. 1 Accord , Oceanographic Commission v. O ' Brien, 74 Wn . 2d 904, 447 P. 2d 707 1968 ) and cases cited therein. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENE" L Honorable Robert V. Graham 6 AGO 1983 No. 17 However, if this last noted provision of the law is deemed to be sufficient to cover both of those elements of a public office to be present a further issue then is presented under the above-noted common law doctrines : Is the position of director of a public corporation truly a separate public office under an ordinance ( such as is referred to in your question ) adopted pursuant to RCW 39. 84. 040, supra, which states that one or more positions on the board of directors of the corporation shall be filled by a member (or members ) of the governing body of the subject municipality serving ex officio? Arguably, at least, it is not . Rather, the ordinance in question could well be viewed as merely imposing additional functions on those members of the governing body who also serve , ex officio , as directors of the corporation . For , as defined in Black ' s Law Dictionary, Rev. Fourth Ed. , at ,page 661 , the term "ex officio" means , simply: "From office; by virtue of the office; without any other warrant or appointment than that resulting from the holding of a particular office . " The inference to be drawn from that definition is that rather than actually holding two separate offices an individual serving ex officio may, instead , be deemed to be holding only a single office with additional duties or functions . But even if that analysis is also deemed to be faulty--and the position of director of a public corporation under chapter 39 . 84 RCW is considered to be both a " public office " and one which is separate and distinct from the basic office held by a member of the governing body of the creating municipality, we next must consider another point . Where a particular individual holds a second office ( assuming that it is one) ex officio , he clearly does so by virtue of his occupancy of the first , or primary office--and not as a consequence of any appointment to that second office or position . Likewise, he continues to 'hold the second office or position , by operation of law , for as long as he also occupies the first or primary office. Therefore , under an ordinance such as you have described , there would be no appointment-removal procedure to trigger either of the two common law doctrines with which you are concerned . Once such an ordinance has been adopted the governing body of the creating municipality would not thereafter be appointing some or all of its own members to directorships on the corporation or thereafter removing them from those directorships . Instead , consistent with the ex officio concept ( even if two OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Honorable Robert Graham 8 AGO 1983 No. 17 corporation . 2 Otherwise , the possibility of characterizing the selection process as tantamount to an appointment would exist and , to that extent , undermine the overall rationale upon which our conclusion (as above stated) is based. This completes our consideration of your question . We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to you . Very truly yours, KENNETH O. EIKENBERRY Attorney General L . A STI Senior Deputy Attorney General mg Enclosure 2 E . g . , the one , two or three most senior members , or those with the longest terms still to serve, etc . III li i' �I ORDINANCE NO. I I I I AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to the City of Kent Economic Development Corporation; amending Ordinance 2419 , as amended by Ordinance 2433 , and as last amended by Ordinance 2592 , relating to the appointment and term of office of the directors of the City of Kent Economic Development Corporation. I; j WHEREAS, Ordinance 2419 , adopted August 1, 1983 , ; created the City of Kent Economic Development Corporation; and ii 'i WHEREAS, said Ordinance 2419 established a new Chapter 1112 . 18 in the Kent City Code; and I� I WHEREAS, Ordinance 2419 was amended by Ordinance 2354 + adopted November 7 , 1983 renumbering Section 12 . 18 to 12 . 28 ( during an interim revision of the Kent City Code which has not libeen fully effectuated resulting in a conflict of numbering in i provisions and; � WHEREAS, Ordinance 2419 was further amended by Ordinance 2592 adopted November 18 , 1985 amending the provisions y relating to the term of office of directors of the City of Ken Economic Development Corporation and; WHEREAS, said appointment provisions are in conflict with an opinion of the State Attorney General ' s Office as it relates to councilmembers serving on a board of an Economic Development Corporation, NOW, THEREFORE, I I I I I ' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . Ordinance 2433 , entitled: "AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington relating to the City of Kent Economic Development Corporation; renumbering Chapter 12 . 18 Kent City Code to Chapter 12 . 28 Kent City Code. " is hereby repealed. I Section 2 . Section 1 of Ordinance 2419 as amended by I Ordinance 2592 is hereby amended and renumbered to Chapter 12 . 18 i i as follows : i 12 . 18 . 010. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CREATED. For the purpose of facilitating economic development and ( employment opportunities within the City of Kent ("City") , there i fis created the City of Kent Economic Development Corporation (the "corporation") to exist under the authority of and for the purposes authorized by Chapter 300, Laws of 1981, codified as Chapter 39 . 84 RCW, as the same may be amended from time to time ("Chapter 39 . 84 RCW") . The Corporation shall operate under Chapter 39 . 84 RCW and under the provisions of the charter, on file with the City Clerk and by this reference incorporated i herein, which the City is authorized to and does issue to the ( Corporation and by this ordinance is approved. The City reserves the right, by ordinance, in its discretion and at any time to alter or change the structure, organizational programs or activities of the Corporation including dissolving the j ( Corporation if the contracts entered into by the Corporation are not impaired. Any net earnings of the Corporation beyond those I 2 I U� necessary )tedness incurred by it shall not a son other than the City. Upon dissol e to all property owned by the Corpt Lne City. 12 . 18 . 020 . BOARD OF DIRECTORS ESTABLISHED. There is established a Board of Directors ("Board") composed of five members to govern the affairs of the Corporation. The Board of Directors shall consist of three councilmembers serving ex- officio and tXg in non-councilmembers whose appointments shall be as set forth below. The Board shall be subject to the Open Public Meetings Law of the State. A majority of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting meetings, and all actions taken by the Board other than adjourning a meeting for lack of a quorum shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of members of the Board. The Board shall conduct the affairs of the Corporation but may delegate administrative and managerial duties to employees of the Corporation. The Board shall have authority to employ its own staff and independent professional consultants to carry out its duties, provide for their compensation and the compensation of members of the Board, designate one or more depositories, provide for reimbursement for expenses, provide for Board meetings, the principal office of the Corporation and other matters necessary for the operation of the Corporation. The powers and limitations of the Corporation shall be as set forth in Chapter 39 . 84 RCW and other applicable law. 3 II it li i 12 . 18 . 030. DIRECTORS APPOINTED - VACANCIES. A. ( (The c l l w per-Sens are appei .te the Pesitien Name Type of a,. .,'" nt 1. Tim isahy - la _be 2 . Tee=le• -- Geuneilmember 3 Bernie-Biteman Geune lfae,..ber 4 . Miehael Miller Neneeuneilmember S. 13ee=Pewers N l ) ) I - Non-councilmember directors shall be appointed by the Mayor subject to confirmation by the City Council. The term of office for non-councilmember directors shall be for four years. ( (exeept i }}zzzcc-di reefer pesibens 2 and 4 shall be firstI rr 1-.i .�.1. L. .Bess than twenty fe ..}lam_^ n.7 the year terms, �����r z�,ur .,� 1 .,r ,,,,, ng pes�tens shall be^fer feur -year terms. Th ^aft, r-) ) - I The ( (_ -- s tc number "`) ) non-councilmember directors be i appointed biennially as the terms of their predecessors expire o f e ( (and shall. se�--�-ge f years) ) . The anniversary date for non-councilmember directors for designation of terms I shall be the end of the public corporation' s fiscal year. Councilmember directors serving on the Board shall be comprised of the three most senior councilmembers serving on I the Kent City Council . ( (Subjeet te the right ef the City n l + 1 ..,be of the Beard__e Direeters f t.ha Gerperatien by reselutien, the ) ) Councilmember directors of the Board serving by reason of the public office which they hold shall serve until they ( (resign-frem the-Beard-er) ) no longer occupy that public office or are no longer the most senior councilmembers available to serve. 4 i I i i I -+ •• ^^^^ ' subiect to City Council B. The May �`eune confirmation, shall fill vacancies of non-councilmember seats in ithe Board of Directors for the remainder of the unexpired term by jian appointing resolution. Should a councilmember director refuse j: to serve on the Board then the next most senior councilmember who has not refused to serve shall serve on the Board. C. Notwithstanding ( (KC-E '-�- A. and B. , above, members of the Board shall continue as members of the Board until their positions are filled ( (by the jt youncil) ) as set forth 1Iherein. This Section ( ( GC 2 . 28 . 990 C. ) ) shall apply in the event of the expiration of a term of a non-councilmember director iior in the event that a member of the Board ( (afg3-(�) ) serving Ilby reason of the public office which is held no longer occupies I no n Ijthat public office. Nothing in this Section ( (KEE 12�noG G ) ) ( shall impair the right of the City Council to remove any non- j 1councilmember of the Board. i 12 . 18 . 040 . FINANCIAL INTERESTS PROHIBITED. It shall be illegal for a director, officer, agent or employee of the Corporation to have directly or indirectly any financial interest in any property to be included in or any contract for property, services or materials to be furnished or used in connection with !, any industrial facility financed through the Corporation. Violation of any provision of this section is a gross misdemeanor ' under state law. I � I Section 3 . CHARTER AMENDED. The charter of the City of Kent Economic Development Corporation is hereby amended consistent with the changes herein as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 5 it I i Section 4 . RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION. Any act iconsistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed. 1 . Section 5. 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: j BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK I APPROVED AS TO FORM: j , ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of , 1991. APPROVED the day of 1991- i PUBLISHED the day of , 1991 • I I i 6 i I i I II EXHIBIT.A CHARTER OF CITY OF KENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ARTICLE 1 Name The name of this public corporation is City of Kent Economic Development Corporation. ARTICLE 2 Duration The period of duration of this public corporation is perpetual. ARTICLE 3 Purpose The purposes of this public corporation are to facilitate local economic development and employment opportunities in the City of Kent (the "City") to the full extent and by any means permitted by Chapter 300 , Laws of 1981, codified as Chapter 39 . 84 RCW, of the State of Washington ("Chapter 39 . 84 RCW") , and. by Washington Constitution Article XXXII , Section 1, as now in effect and hereafter amended, both collectively referred to in this Charter as the "Local Economic Development Act of 1981, " and to act on behalf of the City as an authority and an instrumentality thereof within the meaning of Section 103 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1954 , as amended, and the Treasury regulations and Internal Revenue Service rulings issued pursuant thereto, for the specific public purposes authorized by the Local Economic Development Act of 1981. ARTICLE 4 Powers The public corporation shall have all of the powers granted to public corporations by the Local Economic Development 1 Act of 1981, as now in effect and hereafter amended, including all powers necessary or incidental to specific powers granted thereby, and subject to any limitations stated therein. ARTICLE 5 Limitations on Authority This public corporation shall be subject to all limitations set forth in Chapter 39. 84 RCW of the State of Washington, including the following limitations on its authority: 5. 1 General. It is not a municipal corporation or political subdivision within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington. It shall neither have nor be delegated any attributes of sovereignty, including but not limited to the power to tax, the power of eminent domain and the police power. It shall not receive or accept gifts or loans of any money or property from any municipality. 5. 2 Prerequisites to the Issuance of Revenue Bonds. It shall not issue revenue bonds unless: a. The issuance is approved by both the City and the public entity having jurisdiction in the territory in which the proposed industrial development facility lies; and b. The board of directors has made a finding that in its opinion the interest paid on the bonds will be exempt from federal income taxation. 5. 3 Nature and payment of Revenue Bonds . All revenue bonds issued by it: 2 a. Shall not be deemed (i) to constitute a debt of the State of Washington, of the City or of any other municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, subdivision or agency of the State of Washington or (ii) to pledge any or all of the faith and credit of any of those entities; b. Shall be payable solely from both revenues derived in any manner as a result of the industrial development facilities funded by the revenue bonds and money and other property received from private sources ; and C. Shall contain on the face of each bond statements to the effect that (i) neither the State of Washington, the City or any other municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, subdivision or agency of the State of Washington is obligated to pay the principal or interest thereon; (ii) no tax funds or governmental revenue may be used to pay the principal or interest thereon; and (iii) neither any or all of the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Washington, the City or any other municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, subdivision or agency thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or the interest on the revenue bond. 3 5. 4 obligations Generally. It may incur only those financial obligations which will be paid from revenues received pursuant to financing documents providing funds to pay or secure debt service on revenue bonds, from fees or charges paid by users or prospective users of the industrial development facilities funded by the revenue bonds, or from the proceeds of revenue bonds. ARTICLE 6 Board of Directors 6. 1 Power. The affairs of the public corporation shall be governed by a board of directors. 6. 2 Number and Qualifications . The entire board of directors shall consist of not less than five persons designated by the City as provided in section 6. 3 of this article and who may be public officials of the City serving ex officio. No person having any interest prohibited by Article 7 here of shall serve or be eligible to serve on the board of directors. m1. b 6. 3 Designation and Term. ____ _ ` }'"' v= cxxc initial beard ef direeters shall be J erdinane nated in the The initial beard e'f direetors--shall b divided in e tea-classes, with ene elass designated te serve until: the end ef th-e—gublie r } ' , seeend fiseaq- year-, 4 year. "iz-hereafter, the G •t shall ,a .7...., -e-i } • per-sensto sueeeed these a } of feur years. The board of directors shall consist of three councilmember directors and as many non- councilmember directors as may be appointed by the Mayor subiect to City Council confirmation. Terms of office of non-councilmember directors shall be divided as equally as possible into two classes of four year terms with the terms of each class expiring biennially. The anniversary date for non- councilmember directors for designation of terms shall be the end of the public corporation' s fiscal .year. Each director shall serve for the term to which he/she is designated and until his/her successor is designated and qualified, exeeP—that :., publie e€€ieial of the Cite FF shall 7 serve fera t-ermTenger than his er her term e f effiee as a piiblie e€iieial serving em eff-leie shall: be filled as previded in this artiele. Councilmember directors serving on the Board shall be comprised of the three most senior councilmembers serving on the Kent City Council . Councilmember directors of the Board serving by reason of the public office which they hold shall serve until they 5 no longer occupy that public office or are no longer the most senior councilmembers available to serve. 6. 4 Removal. The City Council may remove from office any or all non-councilmembers of the board of directors for any reason unexpiredthe N 6. 5 Vacancies. Any non-councilmember vacancy occurring in the board of directors and any directorship to be filled by reason of an increase in the number of non- councilmember directors of this public corporation shall be filled by mayoral appointment subject to confirmation by the City Council G4t-j�-. A person designated to fill a vacancy shall serve for the unexpired term of his/her predecessor in office. A person designated to fill a new directorship shall serve for a term for as p �7evided in the luti 'a= which he/she is designated. Should a councilmember director refuse to serve on the Board then the next most senior councilmember who has not refused to serve shall serve on the Board. 6 . 6 Quorum. A majority of the board of directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The act of a majority of the directors present at a 6 meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the board. ARTICLE 7 Prohibition of Interest No director, officer, agent or employee of this public corporation shall have, directly or indirectly, any financial interest in any property to be included in or any contract for property, services, or materials to be furnished or used in connection with any industrial development facility financed through this public corporation, and no person having any such interest shall be eligible to serve as a director, officer, agent or employee of this public corporation. ARTICLE 8 Financial Statements . Books and Records The financial statements, books and records of this public corporation shall be reviewed annually by the City, which shall have access thereto at all times . ARTICLE 9 Bylaws The board of directors shall adopt bylaws to govern the activities and internal affairs of this public corporation not inconsistent with this Charter. ARTICLE 10 Amendments The City in its discretion and at any time may by the passage of an ordinance amend or repeal the Charter and bylaws and change or terminate the programs and activities of the public 7 corporation if such action does not have the effect of impairing any contract with this public corporation. ARTICLE 11 Dissolution The net earnings, if any, of this public corporation beyond those necessary for retirement of indebtedness incurred by it shall not inure to the benefit of any person other than the City. The City may by the passage of an ordinance dissolve this public corporation if it has no funds or property to administer except those, if any that are to be paid or transferred to the City and all of its outstanding obligations have been satisfied. Upon dissolution of this public corporation, title to all property owned by it shall vest in the City. ARTICLE 12 Designation of Initial Office and Agent for Service of Process The address of the initial office of this public corporation is 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032-5895 and its agent for service of process at that address is the Secretary of the public corporation. APPROVED by Ordinance No. 2419 adopted by the City on August 1, 1983 and by Ordinance adopted by the City on August 1991. EDC2.doc 8 f � � V � �3 i ,f � , �� � " w -- ' . .� n r._ I i _ j" 1 .,A; �� ,` '' z i THE SUNSET PROPOSAL To the Honorable Kent Mayor and City Council. i•iembers, The Sunset Motel proposes to offer its, facilities of 49 roomy including 29 complete kitchenettes to the homeless winter program of the city of Kent .and South King County. our estimated total bed space is approximately 250 people depending on family size. Greater Victorious Church has consented to provide reasonable day- care. r We're initiating King County's first hotel. on-site case management, which will include daily work searches and other services for all residents. The goal of the Sunset Proposal is to aid employable residents in becoming self-sufficient. Currently hotel voucher recipients are not required to do job searches, leaving them no incentive to attempt to better their situation. Beginning September 15, 1991 the Sunset Notel will be in a nonth-long Renovation Benefit Drive, where a number of our rocn:s will be rented for $60.00 nightly with a imentar�, lr.:l.far: ;J Paranta Breakfast (potato pancakes) . The purpose of this drite is to generate interest in the Sunset Proposal and to renovate our :lotel rooms. There is the Aloha Motel on the North side of Seattle and now there is the Sunset in Kent. Following the Renovation Benefit Drive, we will be offering, all our rooms at $50.00 nightly ( $2450.00 daily, $73,500.00 ronthly or $441,000.00 for 6 months) . These rates include on-site caae nanagenent and other. services. We would like a study session with Kent officials to further explore this proposal. Thank you, Elgin Jones, P.R. for Sunset Kent City Council Meeting Date August 20, 1991 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: CANYON DRIVE LEFT TURN LANES AND GUARDRAIL REHABILITATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held on August 19 . The Director of Public Works will review the bids received and make a recommendation as to award. 3 . EXHIBITS• 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5A x DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 20, 1991 TO: Mayor Kelleher And City Council FROM: Don WickstromL%� RE: Canyon Drive Left Turn Lanes and Guardrail Rehabilitation D.A. Zuluaga Construction, Inc. submitted the low bid in the amount of $726, 074. for this project. The bid exceeds the available funding; thus, we are further analyzing the bid and funding sources before making a recommendation of award. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE4��rC+ '; E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE ,�`� G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AUGUST 6, 1991 PRESENT: Jim White Ed White Leona Orr Ed Chow Steve Dowell Carol Proud Don Wickstrom May Miller Carol Morris Jerry Hayes Gary Gill Jerry McCaughan Richard L. Costanzo, Safeway; Phil Davidson, Tollefson-Davidson Properties; Hal Eden, Carlson/Ferrin Architects; David Markley, TSI: Robert Crittenden, TSI; Dan Balmelli, Barghausen; Arthur Martin, Alex Cugini; Jerry Crawford, Jack Cosby, Warren Secord, Russ Stringham, Lyle Price. Langston Landing Jim White stated it had been brought to his attention there were access problems associated with the development. He indicated he had asked staff to see if they could work out solutions to the problem. Ed White explained the development is proposing to have access off Meeker between the Firestone Tire Store and Family Circle Drive-In. Ed White demonstrated that the main access to the development is on Washington with two driveways. An additional right-in, right-out driveway is proposed for Meeker Street access. Staff is recommending a 24-foot wide driveway access on Meeker with two radii that are spiral in order to accommodate emergency vehicles. Easements on both sides of the access would be required. Jim White asked about the impact of this on the driveway into the Tire Store. Ed White stated it is suggested the two driveways into the Tire Store be combined into one large one to provide access into the entire site. The large vehicles could still get into the furthest bay. David Markley stated there were a couple of issues being discussed with this project. one of the primary questions is the access off Meeker. Another relates to the turning radii being required at the entrances off Washington and another relates to the depth of the entrance "throat" into the shopping center. The City has required 50-foot radii at the entrances be designed into the plan. Mr. Markley stated this is appropriate if there is a high volume or predominance of truck traffic. There will be truck traffic coming in and out but will not be the predominant traffic. He continued that the State guidelines indicate 30-foot radius is appropriate when the predominant type of vehicle is a single unit vehicle. He Public Works Committee August 6, 1991 Page 2 stated he felt the 30-foot radius is appropriate for several reasons. One is that the 50-foot radius allows higher speeds into the driveway. One of the entrances is right in front of the Safeway entrances and exits. Additionally, a 50-foot radius is quite a distance for a pedestrian to cross. He summarized that they feel the 30-foot radius adequately accommodates the times the large tractor/trailer trucks are entering and no through traffic is affected because accel/decel lanes will be constructed on Washington. Mr. Markley addressed the entrance "throat" item. The City is requiring a 100-foot depth to the entrance throats. The entrance immediately in front of the store is designed with a 96-foot throat. The second entrance is designed for 84-feet. While the 100-foot throat is a desirable goal; however, Mr. Markley contended there would be no more than two cars in the throat during the peak volume period. Even if there were four cars in the entrance there would be only need for 80-feet. He stated he felt the storage is provided even though less than the 100 feet being required by the City and he felt there would be very little, if any, potential for vehicles to back onto the street. Mr. Markley stated the development is requesting that left turns off Meeker into the site be allowed. The left turn volumes off Meeker into the site are forecasted to be 40 vehicles per hour. He stated he felt the access could be designed to force the right-out, preclude left turns out and allow the left turns in and retain the driveways as proposed. Mr. Markley suggested, since there is no history of problems with left turns off Meeker, a conditional approval allowing left turns in and if safety problems or accidents occur then a revised solution will be accomplished. He continued they concur that theoretically left turns can be a problem but there is no evidence of that and in many cases it never materializes. He concluded they are requesting that the radii be reduced to 30- feet from 50-feet, that the throats be allowed to be slightly less than 100-feet, and that a conditional approval for left turns off Meeker be allowed and if a problem is identified that all parties get together and design a solution to meet a specific problem. Markley further explained the right-out only design for Dowell . Orr asked about the traffic volumes on Meeker and whether there were left turn lanes. She expressed concerns about the traffic backing up on Meeker when cars are attempting to make a left. Public Works Committee August 6, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Secord who is the owner of the Tire Store stated that he would not be able to get the large vehicles into the end bay with the proposed driveway redesign. Also he would not be able to get the large tractor trailers into the back part of his property. There was considerable discussion regarding access into Mr. Secord's business. Mr. Doolittle supported the 50-foot radius on the driveways. He suggested the landscaping and sidewalks be eliminated. Jim White stated he was concerned about the left turn in off Meeker. Ed White stated he was concerned what would occur as a result of the stacking of vehicles attempting to make a left turn into Langston's Landing off Meeker. Mr. -Markley stated the stacking would occur whether the left turns were allowed or not. If they can't turn left off Meeker they will go on down to the left turn pocket to turn on Washington. He added that when the vehicles are turning left at the light there is no opposing traffic except those turning right off Washington onto Meeker thus natural gaps would occur. Wickstrom stated if the left turn were prohibited the vehicles would go down to Willis and enter the development from Washington. It is a question of how much additional traffic you would put on Meeker and how far that would back up. Gill stated that when they were videotaping the area, there were drivers getting so frustrated with the lack of left turn pockets at West Valley, they started turning into the oncoming lanes and driving for several hundred feet in the opposing traffic lane to cut back over into the left turn pocket. Orr commented she thought the DNS prohibited left turns. Wickstrom stated the DNS states right-in and right-out unless the Public Works Department approves otherwise. Orr questioned whether they were discussing something they could not change. Wickstrom clarified that the DNS says right-in and , right-out subject to the Department approving otherwise. If the Department approves right-in, right-out only, the Council would be acting on an appeal of an administrative decision. Jim White asked if widening Meeker Street was a possibility. Mr. Davidson stated it had been explored and the cost was prohibitive. Ed White added that Meeker Street is currently a substandard street with 10-foot lanes. The City has previously listed Meeker Street widening as a project on our TIP but the problem is monetary. What The City is proposing is an attempt to get the traffic off the substandard street on to a facility that is more able to accommodate the traffic. West Valley has 11-foot lanes, has a two way left turn lane and has an accel-decel lane on the west side and with this development would have one on the east side as well. Public Works Committee August 6, 1991 Page 4 Don Wickstrom suggested that he be allowed to review the left turn proposal by the developer before any decision is made. It appears that the left turn off Meeker has become the primary issue. Jim White asked that the concerns of Mr. Secord' s business be kept in mind when reviewing any proposal. Dowell suggested the matter be scheduled for the August 20 Council agenda and if the issued is resolved by that time, it can be removed from the agenda. Leona Orr added that the City already has a problem with driveway widths into parking lots and shopping centers. She asked that these driveways be large enough that the trucks and vehicles can get in. Mr. Davidson said he concurred with that and he would make sure they are wide enough. The Committee unanimously concurred that the matter be placed on the 8/20 Council agenda and if resolution is reached before that time, it will be removed from the agenda. Extension of Utility Services Jim White stated he was suggesting that we allow the extension of utilities if an annexation has been initiated for a given area. Orr said she would not support anything that would contribute further to the transportation problems. Morris asked if White wanted the extension allowed for any property. White asked if it could be done for single family and not for multifamily. Morris replied not unless there was a rational distinction to be made between single family and multifamily. Orr asked if there were any guarantees that the Boundary Review Board will approve an annexation even if we have all the signatures. There was clarification of zoning on areas that are annexed into the City. Orr stated she would like to see single family homes built but if the City can't extend services to one classification without extending to another she would. be hesitant to open it up until the urban boundaries are designated. Dowell asked what options were available. They are: wait until the annexation is complete or put in a well. However, the well could only be for one home. A community well could only be developed if the City gave a release that we would not service the area. White stated maybe now is the time to find out if our annexation agreements are valid. White asked that Carol Morris prepare an amended resolution, incorporating Orr 's concerns, and bring it back before the Committee. Orr added that it could possibly include conditions that we have the required signatures and the 10% petition presented. Public Works Committee August 6, 1991 Page 5 Street Occupation ordinance Carol Morris stated that at the last Planning Committee meeting some people were expressing their concerns with sandwich board signs and the problems resulting from the Planning Department' s enforcement of the zoning code. Carol continued that she had indicated if the sandwich boards were placed on public right of way the Planning Department shouldn't even be dealing with them and that the Public Works Department has jurisdiction over the public right of way. The Zoning Code addresses only private property. Dowell asked if that meant you could put signs on public property. Morris stated that if we allowed such use we should assess the person who is using the public right of way. The ordinance she has prepared gives Public Works Department authority to review the type, size and location of signs. The ordinance also addresses indemnification, insurance problems, illegal signs, assessment of fees, and revocation of permits. It was determined that the ordinance did not establish criteria for the sign or permit fees. Don Rust stated he had suggested a committee be established consisting of staff and interested citizens to work this out rather than establishing another regulation on the books. He wanted to be able to provide input into the development of the ordinance. Jim White stated he has previously asked the Chamber of Commerce numerous times to develop a committee to address this sign ordinance. But nothing has been done there either. Stringham commented that no support had been marshaled previously to change the ordinance. There is now a group of several business owners who are concerned with this. Stringham stated he had presented over 20 signed copies of regulatory review requests to Jon Johnson. Jim White asked that the costs and sign criteria be included in the ordinance and it be brought back before the Committee on August 20. Mr. Rust suggested that all signs, including real estate signs, be tagged so they can be identified as legal signs. It was determined that Mr. Rust's sign problem had to be addressed through the Planning Committee since his sign is on private property. Dowell suggested that the responsibility for signs be left in the Planning Department rather than splitting the responsibility. Carol repeated that the Zoning Code addresses use of private property and is administered through the Planning Department. The ordinance she has prepared deals with signs in public right of way which should be administered through . Public Works Department unless a decision is made that the Planning Department administer that as well. Jim White asked that Carol Morris prepare the appropriate ordinance so that a Director does not have to be reviewing sign applications and that the fees and criteria be specified in the ordinance. This matter will be brought back before this Committee at their next meeting. Public Works Committee August 6, 1991 Page 6 196th Corridor Wickstrom explained we have received notice from TIB of a grant for design of the 196th Corridor and we are requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Reith Road Guardrail Wickstrom explained that we had previously budgeted funds to place guardrail on a section of roadway on Reith Road. Vehicles are missing the guardrail and going over the edge. He requested authorization to transfer additional funds from the Frager Road Guardrail project and to construct additional portions of guardrail on Reith Road. The Committee unanimously agreed. Guiberson Street Reservoir Since the property owner concerned with this item had to leave the meeting early, this item was rescheduled for the next agenda. Budget Wickstrom explained that Finance had expressed concern that the Public Works Department had proposed increasing revenue rather than cuts to meet the budget call. The material included in the packet detailed the additional cuts the Department would propose.