Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 10/15/1991City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda CITY OF 76 Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members Judy Woods, President Steve Dowell Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr Jon Johnson Jim White October 15, 1991 Office of the City Clerk LA MAYOR: Dan Kelleher Steve Dowell Paul Mann City of Kent Office of the City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 15, 1991 Summary Agenda COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President Christi Houser Jon Johnson Leona Orr Jim White Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. NOTE: An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of y�. this page. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Proclamation - Recycle Week �: - �roc�a�eston --Human Services Month Proclamation - Domestic Violence Awareness and Prevention Month j2.,:. Proclamation - Red Ribbon Week 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Surplus Water Utility Equipment - Resolution 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes B. Bills C. Bill of Sale - Walnut Grove D. West Hill Park Acquisition E. Economic Development Corporation Appointments F. Winterbrook II Final Plat 4. OTHER BUSINESS A. Van Doren's Landing Final Plat B. Planned Unit Development - Ordinance C. King County/Metro Merger D. Mobile Home Park Code Amendments - Ordinance 5. BIDS A. Police Department Relocation and Remodel B. Library Furniture C. Interurban Trail 6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7. REPORTS' 8. ADJOURNMENT JLI r. ix PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) Proclamation - Recycle Week B) Proclamation - Human Services Month Y C)1' Proclamation - Domestic Violence Awareness and Prevention Month D)` Proclamation - Red Ribbon Week i, Kent City Council Meeting Date October 15. 1991 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS WATER UTILITY EQUIPMENT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: State law requires a public hearing be held on the disposition of water utility equipment after which the material can be declared surplus and offered for sale to the highest bidder. The Public Works Committee has recommended approval to declare the material a surplus. The City Clerk has published a notice of this hearing. 3. EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and memo andum'from the Public Works Director; resolution 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: C,ouneilmember moves!, Counciimember seconds that Resolution be adopted declaring the material surplus and authorizing the be of same to the highest bidder. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 2Ax PRESENT: PUBLIC WORKS COMIVIITTEE OCTOBER I, 1991 Jim White Leona Orr Steve Dowell Don Wickstrom Tom Brubaker Carol Morris Gary Gill Ed White John Bond Tony McCarthy Mr. and Mrs. Rust Don Rust Russ Stringham Authorization to Surplus Equipment Wickstrom explained that in order to dispose of surplus utility equipment we must hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution declaring the material surplus and offer it for sale to the highest bidder. The Committee unanimously recommended approval to hold the public hearing and adopt the resolution declaring the material surplus. Mrs. Rust commented about the disposition of the shelves in the old library. Tony McCarthy explained that we have had vendors submitting bids'to purchase the materials. Jim White asked about the old furniture from the three departments that moved into the Centennial Building. Tony McCarthy commented that other departments took those items that could be used. We received bids from used furniture dealers to purchase the remaining pieces of furniture. Jim White asked if the City has a written inventory of all the equipment and furniture. McCarthy stated that the departments have submitted lists of their furniture and equipment. As staffing levels and time permits, those will be inventoried. Speed Limit Changes During Construction - Canyon Drive Wickstrom explained that we are proposing to lower the speed limits on Canyon Drive from'40 to 30 MPH during the construction period. This ordinance will be on the Council's agenda for October 1. The Committee unanimously recommended approval to adopt the ordinance lowering the speed limits. Implementation of Street Occupation Ordinance Wickstrom distributed a draft list of recommended charges for those issues addressed in the street occupation ordinance. The proposed changes are based on what our administrative costs would be to issue the permit. Some of the charges shown on the listing are DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS September 25, 1991 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM RE: SURPLUS OF WATER UTILITY MATERIALS The Water Division is requesting authorization to surplus scrap materials, water meters, pipe and fittings that are no longer in use. Because the materials are part of the water utility, State law requires that Council hold a public hearing on disposition of the materials, adopt a resolution declaring them surplus and offer same for sale to the highest bidder. We are recommending the public hearing be held at your October 15th Council meeting at which time the resolution declaring the material as surplus would be presented for adoption. MEMORANDUM DATE: September 16, 1991 TO: Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works FROM: Jack Spencer, Fleet Manage sr�zC/ THRU: Tim Heydon, Operations Manager 7 SUBJECT: Surplus of Scrap Materials used by Water Distribution i am requesting we be allowed to surplus scrap materials used by Water Distribution and no longer of any use to the City. We have 223 water meters ranging•in size from 5/8 inch and 3/4 inch up to 6 inches. These have been replaced with new meters and are no longer in use. These meters are old and obsolete and cannot be rebuilt. The only alternative is they be sold for scrap. We also have 1000 to 1500 lbs. of old copper pipe and brass fittings. This is old material that has been replaced in the field and returned and stored at the operations yard. All this material should be put out for bid and sold by weight. This will be bid by the pound and weighed on a certified scale. l understand we must have Council approval to surplus this material. JS/map E086CO2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, determining that certain water system utility equipment is surplus to the City's needs, providing for the sale thereof, stating the consideration to be paid for the equipment, and authorizing the Director of Public Works to enter into a sales agreement with the highest bidder. WHEREAS, the City of Kent ("City") has in its possession certain equipment consisting of obsolete water meters and 1000 to 1500 pounds of old copper pipe and brass fittings which is no longer actively in use as part of the City's water system utility; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has determined that the City no longer has any use or need for such equipment; and WHEREAS, after giving public notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, the City Council held a public hearing on October 15, 1991, at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting and invited comments regarding the City's intention to surplus the above -mentioned equipment; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.94.040 requires that the City determine, after a public hearing, by resolution of the City Council that equipment originally acquired for public utility purposes is surplus to the City's needs and should be leased, sold or conveyed; NOW, THEREFORE, C THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The above -described equipment originally acquired for public utility purposes is now surplus to the City's needs and is not required for providing continued public utility service. Section 2. It is in the public's best interest that this surplus equipment be sold by bid to the highest bidder. Section 3. The consideration to be paid for this surplus equipment shall be in U.S. dollars in the form of cash or cashier's check. Section 4. The Director of Public Works is authorized to enter into an agreement with the highest bidder to effect the sale of the surplus equipment. 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 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 16, 1991 TO: Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works FROM: Jack Spencer, Fleet Manage THRU: Tim Heydon, Operations Manager SUBJECT: Surplus of Scrap Materials used by Water Distribution 1 am requesting we be allowed to surplus scrap materials used by Water Distribution and no longer of any use to the City. We have 223 water meters ranging in size from 518 inch and 314 inch up to 6 inches. These have been replaced with new meters and are no longer in use. These meters are old and obsolete and cannot be rebuilt. The only alternative is they be sold for scrap. We also have 1000 to 1500 lbs. of old copper pipe and brass fittings. This is old material that has been replaced in the field and returned and stored at the operations yard. All this material should be put out for bid and sold by weight. This will be bid by the pound and weighed on a certified scale. I understand we must have Council approval to surplus this material. JS/ma p E086CO2 CONSENT CALENDAR 3. City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember 1 seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through F be approved. Dis Acti 3A.� Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of October 1, 1991. 3B� Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through October 15, 1991 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 2:00 p.m. on October 22, 1991. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount Council Agen� Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington October 1, 1991 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Dowell, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr, White and Woods, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Assistant City Administrator Hansen, Personnel Director Olson, and Information Services Director Spang. Finance Direc- tor McCarthy and Parks Director Wilson were not in attendance. Approximately 90 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Council President Woods noted that Agenda Items 4E COMMUNICATION (SeaTac Boundaries) and 4F (Proposed SeaTac Sewer Extension) have been removed from tonight's agenda at the request of the City of SeaTac. Councilmember Johnson asked that Agenda Item 4E (King County/Metro Merger.) be removed from the agenda. Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher announced that Kathy Kolke of the Police Department has been selected as Employee of the Month for October. He noted that she is praised by her co-workers for her dedication and commitment to her job. Police Chief Crawford noted that Ms. Kolke goes the extra mile for the patrol officers and detectives, and is always very determined to find every bit of information available. Fie thanked her for her hard work and Mayor Kelleher presented her with the Employee of the Month. plaque. Crime Prevention Month. Mayor Kelleher read a proclamation declaring October 1991 as Crime Pre- vention Month in the City of Kent and urging all citizens, governmental agencies, public and pri- vate institutions, and businesses to increase their participation in cur community's crime and drug prevention efforts. National Night Out. Police Chief Crawford noted that Kent placed fourth in the National Night Out competition last year for cities under 40,000 population. He introduced Officer Dina Paganucci who noted that 11 neighborhoods in Kent had parti- cipated by giving neighborhood crime and drugs a going away party. She explained that a contest had been held and presented certificates to the winners: 1st place --Dawn Cless, 2nd place-- 1 October 1, 1991 PUBLIC Colleen Woodworth and Brooke Settle, and 3rd COMMUNICATION place--Charlet Carnagey. Metro Presentation. Mayor Kelleher introduced King County Councilmember and Metro Councilmember Greg Nickels. Nickels noted that a plan has been developed which contains immediate improvements in bus service, a high occupancy vehicle system, and a rail system which would connect the region from Everett to Tacoma. He said the rail system is the best, but most expensive, system. Julie Rodwell, Capital Project Coordinator with Metro, showed slides regarding the regional transit project and noted that the huge growth in the past 20 years has presented opportunities as well as problems. She noted that Metro is concerned about gas con- sumption, pollution, and special needs for the handicapped. She added that Metro has the largest vanpool program in the country, as well as carpool matching. She clarified for White that some high occupancy vehicle lanes require 3 people in the vehicle and some only 2, and that high density areas require three. She noted that because there are already tracks in place, commuter rail could be in use as early as 1996 or 1997 in South King County. Mayor Kelleher pointed out that it is important to have density near the rail stations in order to make the rail service feasible, and that there are presently proposals before Kent's Planning Commission to allow unlimited density within walking distance of our commuter rail sta- tion. Nickels stated that they hope to have a plan together early next year, with a vote possi- bly as early as fall of 1992. He added that the Metro Transit Subcommittee is recommending three funding sources: an increase in the local option sales tax, an increase in the motor vehicle excise tax, and extending the sales tax to gasoline. CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR K be approved. Orr seconded and the motion car- ried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of September 17, 1991. 2 October 1, 1991 HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) SANITATION Imperial Lane Short Plat. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale submitted by Imperial Builders, Inc. for continuous operation and maintenance of approxi- mately 240 feet of sanitary sewer constructed in the vicinity of S.E. 248th Street and 108th Avenue S.E. for the Imperial Lane Short Plat and release of cash bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) LeBlanc Gardens. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale submitted by Schneider Homes, Inc. for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 1,130 feet of water main extension, 1,091 feet of sani- tary sewer extension, 420 feet of street improve- ments and 567.feet of storm sewer improvements, constructed in the vicinity of S.E. 232nd and 100th Avenue South and 112th Avenue S.E. for the LeBlanc Gardens project and release of cash bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) 102nd Avenue Apartments. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale submitted by Larry L. Bramhall, DBA 102nd Avenue Apartments for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 916 feet of water main extension, 420 feet of street improvements and 28 feet of storm sewer improvements construc- ted in the vicinity of S.E. 236th and 102nd Avenue S.E. for the 102nd Avenue Apartments project and release of cash bond after expiration of the one- year maintenance period. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) East Hill Carriage and Antique Mall ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale submitted by Metropolitan Fed- eral Savings and Loan Association for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 218 feet of sanitary sewer constructed in the vicinity of 101st Avenue S.E. and South 260th Street for East Hill Carriage and Antique Mall. 3 October 1, 1991 STORM (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) DRAINAGE Dover Court Storm Drainage Outfall. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3003 authorizing condemnation for right-of-way in order to proceed with the storm drainage outfall project for the Dover Court area, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) CONTROL Cannon Drive - Change of Speed Limit. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3006 reducing the speed limit on Canyon Drive from 40 mph to 30 mph because of con- struction between Hazel Avenue South and 94th Ave- nue South. White noted that construction is due to begin in a few days. PRELIMINARY (ADDED OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4G) PLAT Westbrook Commerce Center Preliminary Plat. Progress is being made to accomplish the condi- tions which were part of the approval of the pre- liminary plat and obtain the necessary approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. However, more time will be required to obtain the approv- als and finish the work on the remaining condi- tions. The City of Kent's Subdivision Code allows for the Council to grant a yearly extension of a prelimi- nary plat, if progress is demonstrated towards accomplishing conditions of plat approval. Staff recommends an extension of one year for the Westbrook Commerce Center Preliminary Plat SU-86-2 to expire on October 6, 1992. JOHNSON SO MOVED. Woods seconded and the motion carried. FINAL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) PLATS Canterbury Final Plat. This meeting will consider an application for the Canterbury Final Plat No. SU-89-3. The property is approximately 4.34 acres in size and is located on the northeast corner of 100th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 248th Street. All con- ditions of the preliminary plat have been met. JOHNSON MOVED to approve Canterbury Final Plat No. SU-89-3. Mann seconded and the motion carried. 4 October 1, 19,91 FINAL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) PLATS Eastwood Final Plat. This meeting will consider an application for the Eastwood Final Plat No. SU- 89-1. The property is approximately 4.36 acres in size and is located on 100th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 244th Street. JOHNSON MOVED to approve Eastwood Final Plat SU-89-1. Mann seconded and the motion carried. (ADDED OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4H) Van Doren's Landing Phase I Final Plat No SU-87- 4. Staff requests that the Council set October 15, 1991 as the date for a public meeting to con- sider Van Doren's Landing Phase I final plat map. The property is approximately 104.5 acres in size and is located at the southwest corner of 228th Street and West Valley Highway. JOHNSON SO MOVED. Orr seconded and the motion carried. MOBILE HOME (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B) PARK CODE Mobile Home Park Code Amendments. This public AMENDMENTS hearing will consider revisions to the Kent Mobile Home Park Code. At the August 6, 1991 Council meeting, Council amended the Mobile Home Park Code and requested that the Planning Department meet with interested people and come back with any additional necessary amendments. Carol Proud of the Planning Department indicated that staff has met with mobile home park owners, and has further revisions to the Mobile Home Park Code. She stated that the owners had questions on the following items: setbacks on mobile home park boundaries, permit process, recreational vehicle issues, structure, variance procedures, and spacing requirements. She said that the amend- ments before the Council tonight address those concerns. Proud noted that with regard to set- backs, staff proposes to eliminate review by the Planning Department of mobile home park move -ins for non -conforming parks. She noted that regard- ing setbacks for accessory structures, the City will be using the Uniform Building & Fire Code standards, which give more flexibility as to what can be placed on an individual mobile space. She noted that the Building Department has developed an assistance brochure for park owners outlining procedures for a permit. She added that staff can 5 October 1, 1991 MOBILE HOME call up site plans on the computer to try to save PARK CODE owners the cost of surveying the sites. She ex - AMENDMENTS plained that they want to be able to verify tie - downs, etc. Proud explained that because of the way mobiles are being manufactured today, some people have spaces where a newer single -wide can't fit. She noted that staff proposes that when a park owner can demonstrate that the site is too small for anything but an RV, that the Building Official has the discretion to allow an RV to move in. With regard to the accessory structures, Proud noted that in going with Uniform Building Code stan- dards, there will be a considerable amount of flexibility for homeowners. She noted that she has incorporated existing appeal procedures with regard to the Building Official (Kent City Code 14.01), in case of a disagreement. She said the final item was spacing concerns and that by elimi- nating the concept of a mobile home lot and going with spacing in between the units, a lot of the concerns were eliminated. She said it will be measured solely on whether or not an accessory structure is combustible or not combustible, and the distance between units. Proud noted that staff recommends approval of the amendments to the Mobile Home Park Code with these modifications. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. John Marshall, owner of Valley Manor Mobile Home Park, said Proud has done a fine job on this matter and asked for clarification on tie -down requirements. Assistant Fire Chief Berg said it is their intent to enforce the State statutes on that matter, and that they would look at tie -downs on units as they are being replaced. Proud noted for Marshall that during new construction when a mobile is being placed on a new lot, various utilities companies will come out and verify the location of the tie - down. Upon a question from Bill Doolittle, 412 N. Washington, Berg noted that mobile homes will indeed blow away, and that State statutes deal with the installation of mobile homes. There were no further comments and WOODS MOVED to close the October 1, 1991 MOBILE HOME public hearing. White seconded and the motion PARK CODE carried. JOHNSON MOVED to accept the revisions to AMENDMENTS the Mobile Home Park Code and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Orr seconded and the motion carried. ANNEXATION (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) East Hill Annexation. This date has been set for a public meeting with the petitioners of the East Hill Annexation. Those petitioners have been notified of this meeting. The Public Works Com- mittee has recommended proceeding with the annexa- tion with the boundary modification as recommended by the Public Works Director and authorizing the circulation of the 60 percent petition subject to the City's existing indebtedness. Wickstrom pointed out the boundaries and noted that the area involves 608.5 acres, has a population of approxi- mately 982, ar}d has a total assessed valuation of $4,700,000. City Attorney Lubovich explained that the City has received a petition for annexation from property owners of 10% of the assessed value of the proper- ty designated for annexation. He noted that the meeting tonight is to review the petition, review the boundary, determine whether or not to include the acceptance of City indebtedness, and to approve, modify or reject the petition. He pointed out that if the annexation petition is accepted by the Council, petitioners must then collect signa- tures from the owners of 60% of the assessed value of the property, and then a public hearing would be scheduled before the City Council. He said that the matter would go for SEPA review and to the Boundary Review Board, and following those reviews and the Council hearing, an ordinance may be adopted and submitted to King County. Wickstrom noted that the area contains a small parcel which has been split, and that the City proposes to expand the boundary to include the entire parcel, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. The Mayor urged the Council to consid- er amending the boundary to delete all land south of 272nd. WHITE MOVED that the City proceed with the annexation modifying the boundary as recom- mended by the Public Work,; Director and 7 October 1, 1991 ANNEXATION authorizing the circulation of the 60% petition subject to the City's existing indebtedness. Orr seconded. Johnson stated that the issue of annex- ation is a separate issue from whether or not a road is built in the future. Orr pointed out that this petition was submitted to the City by proper- ty owners in the area. Dave Chaplin, a resident of Tudor Square, spoke in opposition to the road, noting that if Kent annexes the property it would be easier to get the road through. Upon his question, Wickstrom stated that there is no small group of property owners that could carry 60% of the assessed value of the property. Ed Pilowski also spoke in opposition to the road, and reminded the residents of the area that if the area is annexed, they would have an opportunity to vote City Councilmembers out of office. Upon a question from Doug Drennan, the Mayor noted that the King County Assessor's Office determines the value of the property. Upon a question from John Kieffer, Assistant City Attorney Brubaker explained that the petition method is being used rather than the election method because that is what was presented to the City. He added that since the petition has been started, no other method can be used. Kieffer said he feels the reason for the annexation is to control the area for the 277th corridor. Upon other questions from Mr. Kieffer, Mayor Kelleher explained that funding for the 277th corridor has come from State grant money, City Councilmatic bonding capacity which all Kent residents would pay through their tax revenues, and LID mitigation agreements. Planning Director Harris explained that urban boundaries are designated only by King County, working with local jurisdictions, and that although Auburn has stated where they would like the boundaries, no official action can yet be taken. The Mayor said it is the City's policy to address any concerns about liabilities and to work to upgrade systems within any annexed areas. He also noted for Kieffer that no deals have been cut. In regard to actions by King County and the e October 1, 1991 ANNEXATION Soos Creek Plan, the Mayor said the City's posi- tion has been to pressure the County for lower densities than they have previously been authorizing in that area. Richard Loran, 27124 - 104th Avenue SE, stated that he has signed a no -protest agreement and asked whether that would be an automatic yes vote for annexation. Wickstrom said it has not been determined whether the existing agreements will be used. He also explained for Loran that the assessed value is a dollar amount. David W. Bevan, 11317 SE 269th, said that a large portion of the signatures came as a condition of connect- ing to the sewer system, not with the idea of putting a road on 277th. He said the general feeling is that this is aimed at putting in the road and that many people do not want it. Upon a question from Dowell, Wickstrom said that the annexation has nothing to do with how the road is financed or built. Dowell pointed out that whether the area is annexed or not makes very little difference as to the route or the cost of 272/277. He said it is possible that the City may annex the area and build a road, the City may annex the area and not build the road, the City may not annex and build the road, and the City may not annex and not build the road. He said the focus should be on what the citizens will have to pay for the annexation, rather than on whether or not there will be a road. Marie Shirett said people should look at the over- all view of the annexation and said it may bring many benefits. Laurie Muller, 10997 SE 284th, spoke against the road and said that if the peti- tion is approved tonight citizens will band together against it. Dowell pointed out that by incorporating these citizens into the City and providing police and fire service, the existing citizens of Kent will be taking on an obligation because the taxes coming in will not pay for the outgo. He said the annexation will cost current citizens of Kent $22,000 a year. The Mayor pointed out that densely developed areas cost less to serve than sparsely developed areas because they pay for themselves. 9 October 1, 1991 ANNEXATION Orr said the road and the annexation are two sep- arate issues, and noted that there can be benefits to annexation. She said that citizens inside the City limits have a say as to what happens in the City. She noted that she has supported that road because there is no better solution to traffic problems, and that the Council has made it very clear that they would support a limited access type of roadway rather than dense development around it, but the only way to assure that is to have some control over it. Richard Loran said that because of staff's comment that it is to the City's benefit to approve the annexation, the Council's decision will be biased. Johnson pointed out that the City is not promoting this annexation, and that people can choose whether or not to sign the petition. He said the road will be addressed in the future whether this area is annexed or not, and that the issue before the Council is whether or not to approve the 10% petition and give these citizens the opportunity to circulate a 60% petition. Mann voiced concern about when police and fire service would be expected for that area, what the impact would be on those departments, and how this would affect the $6 million budget shortfall. Brubaker noted that there is no specific time requirement, but that if after a certain number of months the peti- tion was not turned in, Council could call the process to a conclusion. Police Chief Crawford explained that he has not researched the effect on the police department, and Assistant Fire Chief Berg explained that the proposed area is within the boundaries of King County Fire District 37 and that the City provides fire service there under contract. Berg said the City presently collects $49,500 a year and that money would no longer be paid if the area were annexed although Kent would respond to the sane incid<snts. White pointed out that the Council passed a resolution declaring a moratorium on extending utilities outside City limits and the driving force for this annexation was so that utilities could be extended to this area. He said the ques- tion now is whether Council agrees to proceed with this and give citizens who do not live within the 10 October 1, 1991 ANNEXATION City limits of Kent the right to sign the petition or not sign it. He pointed out that if the area is not annexed to the City of Kent, the residents have no bearing on whether or not present Council - members continue to serve in office. Dowell pointed out that County Councilmember Nickels, who represents these citizens, said ear- lier tonight that in order to have mass transpor- tation, there must be more density. He added that if these citizens want a voice they should consid- er annexation as a possibility. There were no further comments and the motion car- ried. BUSINESS (PUBLIC HEARINGS - LICENSE U.S. Engines. The REVOCATION ing based upon K.C. not U.S. Engine has cribed therein. If Council must revoke Engines. ITEM 2A) City Council must make a find- C. 5.02.100 as to whether or committed any of the acts des - such a finding is made, the the business license of U.S. City Attorney Lubovich explained that the purpose of this meeting is to consider the facts relating to the proposed revocation of the business license for U.S. Engines based on code violations and other considerations. Thomas Cinko,Vice-President of U.S. Engines, Inc. noted that the City has filed charges against U.S. Engines for operating an engine installation center, for being out of code on the sign on the side of the building, and for an outside storage building. He stated that they have ceased operation and invited Councilmem- bers to visit the site. He indicated that it is their intent to use the facility for the remanu- facturing business. Lubovich noted that he has received a fax from the Attorney General's Office regarding complaints against U.S. Engines, Inc. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Carol Morris of the City Attorney's Office outlined the criteria to be used in determining whether or not to revoke the business license. She pointed out that this is a separate issue from whether or not violations are being committed now. Morris ex- plained for Dowell that the business was cited at 11 October 1, 1991 BUSINESS one time for operating without a business license, LICENSE but that they had applied again and after issuance REVOCATION of a license it was determined that they were still in violation of the code. Charlene Anderson of the Planning Department noted that violations date back to 1988 and that the Planning Department has tried to obtain resolution of the violations since that time. She noted that the violations relate to auto repair operations, outdoor storage, illegal signs, parking in aisles and maneuvring areas, and operation of another business called Automobile Engine Installation without a business license. She said the Planning Department has received numerous complaints about this operation and that there are numerous court cases pending. She noted that staff recommends revocation of the business license. Police Chief Crawford stated that the Police Department has been called to U.S. Engines on numerous occasions, but that since they did not see violations of criminal statutes, no reports were taken. Assistant Fire Chief Bera stated that in July 1991 an inspector observed five vehicles inside the business in the process of having engines exchanged. On September 20, inspectors observed Class 1, 2 and 3 flammable and combustible liquids being used, which are in violation of the building's occupancy class. On September 24 a letter was written to U.S. Engines telling them that in order to continue operation, the building would have to be upgraded to an H4 occupancy. Richard Chase of the Public Works Department stated that on July 1, 1991, the City received a citizen complaint about oil being dumped into the storm sewer at U.S. Engines, and that on July 3 he visited the site and observed a storm catch basin and drainage pipe contaminated with oily sludge. He said he explained to Tom Cinko that contribut- ing to pollution in any :storm or surface water facility within the City is against City Code. Chase said that on July 5 he wrote a letter of violation to Russ Segner, owner of the property, explaining the problem and requiring that the storm drain system near U.S. Engines be cleaned out within two weeks. He revisited the site on July 30 and observed a whitish stain around the 12 October 1, 1991 BUSINESS catch basin and whitish polluted water in the LICENSE bottom, and consequently contacted the City REVOCATION Attorney's Office. Thomas Cinko, Vice -President of U.S. Engines, explained that U.S. Engines, Inc. is located at 18403 East Valley Highway, and does have a busi- ness license. He noted that early in 1990 Michael Crossan started a facility in the back of U.S. Engines for troubleshooting and diagnosing only automobile engines that were remanufactured by them. After diagnosis the engines were sent out to a service center for repairs. Cinko said he attempted to resolve the matter, but that other matters came up such as the sign violation. He noted that the sign had always been there, but was not considered a problem until the other viola- tions were found. He said he immediately cor- rected the problem with signs on the road and the doors. He pointed out that at 18403 East Valley Highway they take up seven addresses, and lease over 18,000 sq. ft. He said he feels it is wrong to attack U.S. Engines' business license, and that they have ceased operations in the back. Cinko pointed out that Mr. Chase claimed that he was carrying 5 gallon buckets of oil to the front and pouring it into the drain. He noted that Russ Segner had the drain pumped out. Cinkc indicated that he is in compliance with Metro, Labor and Industries, and the Environmental Protection Agency, and provided copies of letters from them demonstrating his efforts to make things right. Cinko asked why he was not cited on 5/31/91 if he had flammable liquids. fie asked which business license is being attacked and said he would be happy to cooperate. He reiterated that the engine installation center has been closed. Cinko noted that he had been asked by the park owner to have employees park on the back side of the building, but because of the curb, he thought there might be a problem with the Fire Department, so he asked employees to pull up to the building. He said that has since been corrected. Cinko stated that he has no outdoor storage and urged Councilmembers to withhold their decision until they visit the site. WOODS MOVED to accept the documents sub- mitted by Mr. Cinko into the public record. 13 October 1, 1991 BUSINESS White seconded and the motion carried. LICENSE REVOCATION Russ Segner, representative and manager of the project, said he was not aware of all of the things brought up tonight, and asked that this matter be held off to a later time in order to present additional information. He explained that there is no problem between Mr. Cinko and the own- ership. James Ratcliffe, 3600 Meadow Avenue North, Renton, noted that there are other reasons to revoke the license beside the violations. He noted that he had problems dealing with U.S. Engines, and found out that there had been nine cases filed against them in King County Court from 1987 to 1991, 28 cases filed against them since March 1990 with Aukeen District Court, and 22 cases filed against them with the State Attorney General's Office. Ratcliffe said he was verbally abused by the company and had to have the dispute settled in court. He urged the City to stop the operation of the company. Mr. Cinko agreed that there had been a problem dealing with Mr. Ratcliffe regarding an engine, and said that 22 complaints is not a large amount considering that they have remanufactured approximately 220 automo- tive engines a month for the past four years. There was no further public testimony and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. White seconded and the motion carried. Upon Dowell's question, Anderson noted that the code provides for penalties for violations and that citations have been issued. Carol Morris pointed out that at every opportunity U.S. Engines' Attorney has delayed. She noted that the original citation was issued in March of this year, and it has been delayed that long with no resolution on the violations, and now additional violations have come up. She pointed out that the business has a license, which was issued in error, that they have numerous violations, and that the City Attorney's Office decided to bring the matter to the Council to make a determination as to whether or not to revoke the business license. She explained that violations would then be handled separately. Morris noted for Dowell that the business received a zoning permit in May of 1986, not a business license. The Mayor stated 14 October 1, 1991 BUSINESS that if there are any issues of substance to come LICENSE out, the public hearing should be reopened. Dowell REVOCATION asked Lubovich whether it would be detrimental to the applicant to have it known that his business license had been revoked, since there are many court cases in progress. He noted that by making a decision, the City might possibly be interfering with that process. Lubovich disagreed, and said the Council must make a determination based on the specific facts presented tonight, and that the other cases are separate issues. Anderson noted for Dowell that the operation of the engine in- stallation portion has been ceased, but not the general operation portion of U.S. Engines. Cinko pointed out that they have a business license for that. Morris explained that the business license revocation procedure states that if someone is operating in violation of the code, the business license is to be revoked, and that U.S. Engines is operating in violation of the codes. She said that it is not necessary to determine tonight whether the City has documented that violations are still occurring. Cinko pointed out that the code violations in question were against American Engine Installation, which is the facility that ceased operations, and that there are 37 employees there. He said they have been in business since 1988 in the production engine remanufacturing bus- iness, and that they comply with all codes. He said their attorney has nct asked the City Attor- ney or the court for extensions, but that at one court appearance it was mutually agreed to post- pone to a later date. Upon Woods question, Morris said she has in her file at least 3 letters from their attorney asking for extensions of time for code violations, and gave copies of the letters to Mayor Kelleher. Morris explained for Orr that if the license is revoked tonight, the business must cease operation immediately, they will have to bring violations into compliance, and they may apply for a business license at any time and the City can hold the application pending compliance with the codes and other requirements. Anderson noted that it normally takes three to four weeks to acquire a business license. Orr stated that it is a strange occurrence that suddenly everything 15 October 1, 1991 BUSINESS is in compliance and the Council has no way of LICENSE verifying that. Lubovich stated that he had just REVOCATION received a letter from U.S. Engines' attorney, James Gooding, seeking an extension of the pretrial conference scheduled for October 16, which has already been extended once. Cinko stated that he was not aware that his attorney had requested that extension. He explained that there were two businesses in one facility --American Engine Installation and U. S. Engines, and that it was American Engine Installation that was not in compliance. He said the business license for U.S. Engines is in compliance with code, that the installation service center was not in compliance. Cinko noted that this business employed four people and they have not worked for a week, and have told callers that that portion of the business will be closed. He suggested that the Council is being misled into believing that American Engine Installation is U.S. Engines, Inc. He said the accusations have gotten out of hand and urged the Council to view his facilities. WOODS MOVED to revoke the business license of U.S. Engines, Inc. Orr seconded. Woods noted that if there are two businesses, there should be two business licenses and that it appears that there have been specific on -going code violations. She stated that six staff members have spoken tonight on this issue, and that she does not believe they fabricated the information. She emphasized that there have been numerous violations and that the business had been reminded several times to correct the violations. Upon a question from Mann, Assistant Fire Chief Berg said that the document Mr. Cinko presented to Council dated May 31, 1991, is an in-service inspection done by the Fire Department. He said that the violations were observed by the inspec- tors and were separate from that inspection. He noted that the observation of the engines exchange occurred in July and in September an inspector observed the flammable and combustible liquids usage. He noted for Dowell that he is speaking of U.S. Engines, in the exchange area. Berg noted that all code violations were addressed to U.S. Engines because they were doing business at 16 October 1, 1991 BUSINESS that location, and that he was not aware of LICENSE American Engine Installations. Anderson noted for REVOCATION the Mayor that American Engine Installations does not have a business license. Upon White's ques- tion, Cinko stated that the President of U.S. Engines is Michael Crossan and that there is no owner of the installation facility. He said that the stockholder in U.S. Engines is Michael Crossan, and that American Engine Installations was doing business for U.S. Engines as a warranty repair facility, and that Michael Crossan owns it, if anybody. WHITE MOVED to make all documents a part of the record. Woods seconded and the motion carried. The motion to revoke the business license of U.S. Engines then carried. 6. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) Towing and Impound of Vehicles. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3004 setting out procedures as to when a vehicle may be impounded without prior notice, with notice, and how the impound is to occur. Cars will be towed when abandoned. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) Expansion of Parking Enforcement Aide Duties. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3005 allowing the Parking Enforcement Aide to cite and authorizing the towing of illegally parked vehicles. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) RECREATION Parkside Wetlands Purchase. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an earnest money agreement in the amount of $118,000 to purchase Lots 1 through 6, and one in the amount of $13,500 to purchase Lots 18 through 25, Block 22, Interurban Heights, 3rd Section, as part of the West Hill Parkside Wet- lands project, and AUTHORIZATION for the Parks Department to continue to acquire the individual parcels within the project site, staying within the $200,000 budget. This action was approved unanimously by the Parks Committee at their Sep- tember 24 meeting. 17 October 1, 1991 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through October 1, 1991 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 4:45 p.m. on October 8, 1991. FINANCE Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 9/17-9/30/91 Date 109887-110357 Check Numbers $976,528.32 Amount 10/4/91 01161710-01-162426 $619,808.94 REPORTS Administrative Reports. City Attorney Lubovich pointed out that the Council packet contains his report on the"impact of the Fair Housing Act of 1988 Amendments regarding limitations on the num- ber of bedrooms in developments, as requested by the Mayor. Assistant City Administrator Hansen announced that there will be a meeting regarding the regional justice facility at 7:00 p.m., October 3rd, at the West Hill Fire Station, and urged Councilmembers to attend. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 9 �J Brenda Jacob r, C�rIC Deputy City F1` 18 Kent City Council Meeting Date October 15, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WALNUT GROVE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale submitted by Kerr -Built Inc. for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 1,066 feet of water main extension, 1,020 feet of sanitary sewer extension, 1,802 of street improvements and 1,542 of storm sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of South 242nd and 94th Avenue South from the Walnut Grove development and release of cash bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period. 3. EXHIBITS: Vicinity map r�lr RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NOYES 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. 3CJi F T I l 1. SUBJECT: WEST HILL PARK ACQUISITION Kent City Council Meeting Date October 15, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to acquire Lots 3, 14, and 15, Block 1, Burkland's First Addition, except the north 30.07 feet of Lot 3 for a West Hill neighborhood park. 3. EXHIBITS: Sales agreement with promissory note, letter from Barney Wilson 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee, Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended /' /\\' 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $74,500 plus 4.55% per annum interest SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1997 CIP funds ($500 down payment from 1991 West Hill CIP budget 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember DISCUSSION: ACTION: econds Council Agenda Item No. 3D4 MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- Subject: DR. KRONISCH WEST HILL PROPERTY - FISCAL NOTE C ator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 08/28/91 at 1627. THE PARKS DEPARTMENT PRESENTED A COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM DR. KRONISCH OFFERING TO SELL THE CITY HIS 2 1/2 LOTS ON WEST HILL FOR A FUTURE PARK SITE. THE PARKS DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT THERE ARE NO CURRENT FUNDS AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE THE LOTS. IBC APPRECIATES DR. KRONISCH OFFER TO SELL HIS LOTS AS A FUTURE PARK BUT RECOMMENDS STAYING WITHIN THE CURRENT BUDGET. THE ONLY FUNDING FOR WEST HILL IS CURRENTLY BEING USED TO PURCHASE PARKSIDE WETLANDS. DURING THE 1992-1997 CIP PROCESS, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT PRIORTIZED NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AS #20 AND WEST HILL PARKS AS #23. WITH THIS LOWER RATING, FUNDS ARE NOT CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN THE PLANNED CIP WHICH HAS NO SOURSE OF FUNDING DO TO A DOWNTURN IN THE ECONOMY. THOUGH DR. KRONISCH HAS OFFERED A DEFFERED PAYMENT PLAN OF $75,000 IN 5 YEARS AT A REDUCED INTEREST RATE OF 4.55%, THE IBC RECOMMENDS AGAINST APPROVAL. SURELY THE CITY CAN COME UP WITH THIS SMALL AMOUNT BUT AT WHAT IMPACT ON OTHER PROJECTS AND PROCESSES. OUR CURRENT REVENUE PROJECTIONS SHOW THE CITY MUST COVER A 6 MILLION DOLLAR GENERAL FUND SHORTFALL IN 1992 AND WE CAN NOT PROJECT A TURNAROUND IN OUR 4 YEAR FORECAST. TO HELP COVER FOR THIS SHORTFALL WE HAVE RESCINDED A NUMBER OF 1991 BUDGETED CIP PROJECTS AND HAVE NOT FUNDED ANY GENERAL CIP PROJECTS FOR 1992. THIS IN ADDITION TO A HIRING FREEZE AND OTHER DEPARTMENT CUTS. REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT with EARNEST MONEY PROVISION This contract controls the terms of the sale of real property. Please read carefully before signing.) Agreement between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation, whose mailing address is 220 4th Ave. S, Kent, Washington 98032, ("Buyer"), and David H. Kronisch, M.D. and Mary Ann Kronisch, husband and wife, whose mailing address is 3001 53rd St. SE, Auburn, WA 98002, ("Seller"), entered into in Kent, Washington, this day of , 19 Received from Buyer, the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) in the form of a purchase order as earnest money in partial payment of the purchase price, along with a promissory note for $74,500 due February 2, 1997 (copy attached), as payment on the purchase price of the following described real estate, which Buyer agrees to buy and Seller agrees to sell, located in King County, State of Washington, and legally described as follows: Lots 3, 14 and 15, Block 1, BURKLAND'S FIRST ADDITION, according to the plat recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, page 28, in King County, Washington, EXCEPT the North 30.07 feet of said Lot 3. The above -referenced purchase order will be converted to check upon acceptance by Seller and approval by the Kent City Council. PURCHASE PRICE The total purchase price is Seventy -Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) payable under the terms of the above -referenced promissory note. [X] CONTINGENCIES: This agreement is contingent upon acceptance of its terms by the Kent City Council and upon Seller's performance of all inspection requirements listed under Item 8(J). 1. SELLER'S REPRESENTATIONS: Seller represents: (1) [ ] that the property is connected to a: [ ] public/community water main [ ] well [ ] public sewer [ ] septic tank [ ] cesspool [ ] gas main [ ] electrical power [ ] telephone [ ] cable t.v. [X] none of the foregoing. (IF WELL OR SEPTIC TANK IS CHECKED, THE WELL OR SEPTIC TANK PROVISIONS, ITEM 8(G) BELOW, ARE PART OF THIS AGREEMENT), (2) [ ] that there is a condominium or Home Owner's fee, (3) [ ] that the property contains lease or encumbered items identified as ( ] hot water tank(s) [ ] heating system ( ] other (4) [ ] that all electrical wiring, heating, cooling, and plumbing systems will be in normal working order at the time Buyer is entitled to possession, (5) [ ] that he knows of no material structural defects, (6) [X] that Seller will maintain the property and yard in present or better condition until time of agreed possession, (7) [ ] that share in light and/or water companies and associations, if any, shall be included in the sale, unless noted, (8) [X] that Seller has no knowledge or notice from any governmental agency of any violation of laws relating to the subject property except: 2. TITLE: Seller to provide title insurance at closing, to be issued by Northwestern Title, 1201 3rd Ave., Suite 1410, Seattle, WA 98101. Title to the property is to be free from all encumbrances or defects except (i.e., ULID, etc.): N/A Encumbrances to be discharged by Seller shall be paid from Seller's funds at the date of closing. The following shall not be deemed encumbrances or defects: Rights reserved in federal patents or state deeds; building or use restrictions consistent with current zoning, other than government platting and subdivision requirements; utility easements; other easements not inconsistent with Buyer's intended use; and reserved oil and/or mineral rights. 3. CLOSING COSTS AND PRO -RATIONS: The cost of escrow shall be shared equally between Buyer and Seller, except those fees which are expressly limited by Federal Regulation, Seller shall pay for excise tax and revenue stamps. Taxes for the current year, rents, interest, Association, Condominium and/or HomeOwner's fees, water and other utility charges, if any, shall be pro -rated as of date of closing unless otherwise agreed. 4. CLOSING OF THE SALE: WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE FOR THIS AGREEMENT, this sale shall be closed on OR BEFORE I9_, which shall also be the termination date of this agreement. When notified, the Buyer and Seller will deposit, without delay, in escrow with Curran Escrow Co, Kent, Washington 98032, all instruments and monies required to complete the transaction in accordance with this agreement. Closing, for the purpose of this agreement, is defined as the date that all documents are executed and the sale proceeds are available for disbursement to the Seller. 5. POSSESSION: Buyer shall be entitled to possession on [X] closing, or [ ] . Sel 1 er agrees to pay the Buyer the sum of $ for each day of possession beyond the date of agreed possession. (Said payment shall be the sole responsibility of the Seller, due on demand.) 6. SELLER REPRESENTATION'S AND WARRANTIES: It is the Seller's obligation at its sole cost and expense to comply or ensure compliance with, and for matters arising out of all federal, state, foreign and local laws or administrative orders with respect to environmental conditions existing on the closing date including, without limitation, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Spill Compensation and Control Act, and the Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act, with respect to the purchased property. Such obligation, and any liability that Seller may have for any breach thereof shall survive the closing. In the event Buyer discovers or determines or is notified about existence of any environmental condition (including, without limitation, a spill, discharge or contamination) that existed as of and/or prior to the closing date or any act or omission occurring prior to the closing date, the result of which may require remedial action pursuant to any law or may be the basis for the assertion of any third party claims, including claims of governmental entities, Buyer shall promptly notify Seller thereof and Seller shall, at its sole cost and expense, proceed with due diligence and in good faith to take the appropriate action in response 3 thereto. In the event that Seller fails to so proceed with due diligence and good faith, the Buyer may, at its option, proceed to take the appropriate action and shall have the rights to indemnity as set forth below. 7. SELLER'S INDEMNITIES: Seller agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Buyer, against and in respect of, any and all damages, claims, losses, liabilities, judgments, demands, fees, obligations, assessments, and expenses and costs, including, without limitation, reasonable legal, accounting, consulting, engineering and other expenses which may be imposed upon or incurred by Buyer, or asserted against Buyer, by any other party or parties (including, without limitation, a governmental entity), arising out of or in connection with any environmental condition existing as of and/or prior to the closing date, including the exposure of any person to any such environmental condition, regardless of whether such environmental condition or exposure resulted from activities of Seller or Seller's predecessors in interest. This indemnity shall survive the closing and be in addition to Seller's obligation for breach of a representation or warranty as may be set forth herein. 8. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: This agreement is subject to the following additional provisions: (A) CONVEYANCE (1) If this is for conveyance of fee title, title shall be by Warranty Deed free of encumbrances except those noted in Paragraph 3 above. (2) If this agreement provides for a sale by real estate contract, Seller and Buyer agree to execute a real estate contract for the balance of the purchase price on Real Estate Contract Form , a copy of which is hereby tendered to the parties hereto, or such other form as attached hereto, and the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference. Said contract shall provide that title by conveyed by Warranty Deed. (3) If said property is subject to an existing contract, mortgage, deed of trust or other encumbrance which Seller is to continue to pay, 4 Seller agrees to pay said contract, mortgage, deed of trust or other encumbrance in accordance with its terms, and upon default, Buyer shall have the right to make any payments necessary to remove the default, and any payments so made, shall be applied to the payments next falling due on the contract between Seller and Buyer herein. (4) If this agreement is for sale and transfer of vendee's interest under existing real estate contract, the transfer shall be by Buyer's assignment of contract and deed sufficient in form to convey after title is acquired. (B) TITLE INSURANCE Buyer is authorized to apply for a preliminary commitment for a standard form Buyer's policy of title insurance to be issued by such title insurance company as the Buyer may designate. Said preliminary commitment, and the title policy to be issued shall contain no exceptions other than those provided fdr in such standard form and encumbrances or defects noted in paragraph 3 hereof. If title cannot be made so insurable prior to the closing date called for herein, unless Buyer elects to waive such defects or encumbrances, this agreement shall be terminated. (C) GENERAL PROVISIONS SQUARE FOOTAGE: Unless otherwise expressly stated to the contrary on the reverse hereof, any square footage as to the building or lot used by Seller or any real estate agent in marketing said property are understood to be approximations and are not intended to be relied upon to determine the fitness or value of the property. Buyer has personally observed the property and has reached its own conclusion as to the adequacy and acceptability of the size of property based upon said personal inspection. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. THERE HAVE BEEN NO VERBAL OR OTHER AGREEMENTS WHICH MODIFY THIS AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES THE FULL UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN SELLER, BUYER AND AGENT. (D) CONTINGENCY CLAUSE If CONTINGENCIES paragraph on page one herein has been filled in, it is agreed that Seller may keep the property on the market and continue to 5 show it until the contingency has been met or waived by Buyer. If prior to that time, Seller receives another acceptable offer to purchase the property, he shall give Buyer notice of his intent to accept the new offer. Seller's written notice shall be personally delivered to Buyer, or sent by certified mail to Buyer's address on the front side of this agreement. The specified number of days shall commence on the day after delivery or, if mailed, then on the third day following its deposit into the mail. In either case, said specified days shall expire at midnight of the last day unless that day is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, in which event, it shall expire at midnight the next business day. If within said specified days, written notice from Buyer that said contingency has been met or waived is actually received by Seller or Listing Agent, or is delivered to Seller's address on the front side of this agreement, Buyer's right to purchase hereunder shall continue in accordance herewith. In the event that Seller does not receive such notice from Buyer within the specified number of days, 'then this agreement shall be terminated. BUYER'S CONTINGENCY MAY ONLY BE WAIVED BY WRITTEN NOTIFICATION TO SELLER THAT BUYER HAS REMOVED THE CONTINGENCY. (E) DEFAULT AND ATTORNEY'S FEES If the Seller defaults in his or her contractual performance herein, the Buyer may seek specific performance pursuant to the terms of this agreement, damages, or recision. If the Buyer seeks damages or recision, the earnest money, upon demand, shall be returned in full to the Buyer. If the Buyer defaults in its contractual performance herein, the earnest money, upon demand, shall be forfeited to the Seller and shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for default available to the Seller. In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney's fees. (F) INCLUDED ITEMS The following items are included in the sale unless noted otherwise: linoleum, window screens, screen doors, plumbing and light fixtures (except floor, standing and swag lamps), attached television antennas, attached carpeting, trees, plants and shrubs in the yard, built-in 11 appliances, shades, Venetian blinds, curtain rods, all attached bathroom fixtures, attached apparatus and fixtures, awnings, ventilating, heating and cooling systems, attached irrigation equipment, and any oil or other fuel on hand at time of possession, unless otherwise specified. (G) CASUALTY LOSS If prior to closing, improvements on said premises shall be destroyed or materially damaged by fire or other casualty, this agreement at option of the Buyer shall become null and void. (H) INSPECTIONS Seller understands that BUYER MAY REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY COMPLY WITH THE HOUSING CODE and other governmental requirements of the city or county in which it is located. BUYER ALSO REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING INSPECTIONS: [ ] Pest [ ] Electrical [ ] Heating [ ] Septic Tank [ ] Plumbing [ ] Soil Survey [ ] Roof [ ] Well Water COST OF INSPECTION: Seller agrees to pay, in advance, upon request of Buyer, costs of any of the above inspections. OBLIGATIONS TO MAKE REPAIRS: Seller understands that as a result of any city, county or other inspections, he may be required to make repairs to the property in order to comply with the housing code whether or not a sale is completed under this agreement. (I) NOTICE TO SELLER, PURCHASER, AND AGENT/BROKER This form contains customary provisions for an agreement for the purchase and sale of residential real estate. The Buyer makes NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND that this form, or any of its provisions, is intended to meet the factual and legal requirements of a particular transaction, or that it accurately reflects that laws of the State of Washington at the time you enter the agreement. THIS AGREEMENT HAS SIGNIFICANT LEGAL AND FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES AND YOU ARE ADVISED TO SEEK 7 INDEPENDENT LEGAL AND FINANCIAL COUNSEL REGARDING THESE CONSEQUENCES. (If you do not understand the effect of any part, consult your Attorney before signing. Federal law may impose certain duties upon Brokers or Signatories when any of the signatories receive certain amounts of U.S. currency in connection with a real estate closing.) 9. AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE: Seller hereby acknowledges receipt of copy of this agreement. Buyer offers to purchase the above property on the above terms and conditions. Seller shall have until a.m./p.m., , 19 to accept this offer by delivering a signed copy thereof to Buyer. BUYER'S PRESENT ADDRESS: City of Kent 220 4th Ave. S Kent, Washington 98032 Phone (Work) By Dan Kelleher Its Mayor Phone (Work) 10. SELLER'S ACCEPTANCE: October 10 , 19 91 Seller agrees to sell the property on the terms and conditions specified herein. Seller acknowledges receipt of a copy of this agreement, signed by both parties. [ ] Seller's Counter Offer made herein or attached hereto, is made a part of this agreement by reference. Buyer shall have until 5:00 a.m. 631 December 1 19 91 within which to accept same. SELLER""7 C11 David H. Kronisch, M.D. SELLER Cl l � / C*A Mary Ann ronisch Phone (206) 735-0131 r, Seller's Address: 3001 53rd Street SE Auburn, WA 98002 11. BUYER'S RECEIPT: A true copy of the foregoing, signed by Seller is hereby received on OaA—O,� , 197(. Buyer c tic .,d Its �2 9 PROMISSORY NOTE $74 500.00 Rent, Washington October_, 1991 For value received, the undersigned, City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation_ promises to pay to the order of nnrl wi fP and LCEV 1u n. the marital community comprised thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, at Kent, King County, Washington, or at such other place within the United States of America that the holder hereof may designate in writing to the Mayor of the undersigned city, the sum of Seventy -Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($74,500), due and payable on the second day of February, 1997. Interest on this note shall accrue at the rate of 4.55 per cent (4.55%) per annum. The indebtedness evidenced by this note arises out of the purchase of the following described real property, located in King County, Washington: Lots 3, 14, and 15, Block 1, BURKLAND'S FIRST ADDITION, according to the plat recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, page 28, in King County, Washington, EXCEPT the North 30.07 feet of said Lot 3. Upon failure to pay this note when due or in the event of bankruptcy of any of the parties hereto, it is agreed that this note shall, at the option of the holder, become immediately due and payable for the unpaid balance hereof, less a proportionate amount of unearned interest. After maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, this note shall continue to bear interest at 4.55 per cent (4.55%) per annum. The holder hereof may, without notice and without releasing the liability of any party hereto, grant extensions or renewals hereof from time to time and for any term or terms. The holder hereof shall not be liable for or prejudiced by failure to collect or for lack of diligence in bringing suit on this note or any renewal or extension. The maker hereof may prepay this note without penalty in whole at any time or in part from time to time prior to the maturity date. Any such prepayment, if so received, shall be applied first to all accrued interest and the balance thereof to principal. All parties hereto waive protest and agree that, in the event a default occurs and this note is placed with an attorney for collection, each party shall be responsible for payment of his or her own attorney's fees and costs. The jurisdiction and venue of such suit shall be Washington. The words "any shall, in addition to the sureties and guarantors of in the Superior Court of King County, party hereto" or "all parties hereto" undersigned city, include endorsers, this note. CITY OF KENT by Dan Kelleher, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT October 10, 1991 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Barney Wilson��1 PREPARED BY: Helen Wickstrom SUBJECT: WEST HILL PARK ACQUISITION (DR. KRONISCH SITE) Dr. David Kronisch and his wife, Mary Ann, have offered to sell 2- 1/2 lots on West Hill for a small park. He will sell the property, assessed at $92,900 for $75,000 with $500 down and the balance due February 2, 1997. Interest on the note shall accrue at the rate of 4.55 percent (4.55%) per annum which is two percent below the best rate the City can obtain. In his letter offering the property for sale, Dr. Kronisch states that he formerly practiced medicine in the West Hill Plaza Shopping Center and had purchased the property to build his own medical clinic. Since retiring six years ago, he has noticed a degeneration of the area and feels revitalization of the area is mandatory. Since children cross his property to get to Sunnycrest Elementary, he feels it would be a great start to revitalizing the area by creating a small park for the area. For that reason, he will sell the property below market value and delay receiving payment for over five years. Both the Parks Committee and the Operations Committee unanimously voted to acquire this site. A map of the area is attached. Attachment Kent City Council Meeting Date October 15, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPOINTMENTS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointments to the Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors as follows: 1) Morgan Llewellyn to replace Ted Knapp, whose term has expired. Mr. Llewellyn's term will become effective immediately and continue through December 1991. 2) Ron Banister to replace Walt Ramsey, whose term has expired. Mr. Banister's term will become effective immediately and continue through December 1993. 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 3 7 EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ None SOURCE OF FUNDS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember DISCUSSION: ACTION: moves, Councilmember econds Council Agenda Item No. 3E4 MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMB S FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ` DATE: OCTOBER 5, 1991 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF MORGAN LLEWELLYN TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL BOARD OF DIRECTORS I have recently appointed Morgan Llewellyn as a member of the Kent Economic Development Council Board of Directors. Mr. Llewellyn will replace Ted Knapp whose term has expired. Mr. Llewellyn's term as a Director will become effective immediately and continue through 12/91. I submit this for your confirmation. DK:jb MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCI PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS D FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR�`��—`--�^� DATE: OCTOBER 5, 1991 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF RON BANISTER TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL BOARD OF DIRECTORS I have recently appointed Ron Banister aS a member of the Kent Economic Development Council Board of Directors. Mr. Banister will replace Walt Ramsey whose term has expired. Mr. Banister's term as a Director will become effective immediately and continue through 12/93. I submit this for your confirmation. DK:jb 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date October 15, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WINTERBROOK II FINAL PLAT NO. SU-89-6 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set November 5, 1991 for a public meeting to consider Winterbrook II Final Plat Map. The property is approximately 3.15 acres in size and is located on the north side of South 272nd Street, 500 feet east of 41st Place South and directly south of Cardiff Street. 3. EXHIBITS: None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $_ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember DISCUSSION: ACTION: moves, Councilmember seconds Council Agenda Item No. 3F A 7 Kent City Council Meeting Date October 15, 1991 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: VAN DOREN'S LANDING FINAL PLAT NO. SU-87-4 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the final plat map for Van Doren's Landing SU-87-4. The property is approximately 103.2 acres in size and is located west of West Valley Highway and south of South 228th Street. All conditions of the preliminary plat have been met. r 3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo, map and City Council minutes of 1/19/88 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: Councilmember � moves, Councilmember econds approve the staff's recommended approval for Van Doren's Landing Final Plat, SU-87-4. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4A X CITY OF 1_O\Lril r�s�amge:t CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM October 15, 1991 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: VAN DOREN'S LANDING FINAL PLAT #SU-87-4 On January 19, 1988 the City Council approved the Van Doren's Landing Phase 1 Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-87-4, a 30-lot industrial preliminary subdivision plat. The site is approximately 103.2 acres in size and is located west of West Valley Highway and south of S. 228th Street. The property is zoned M-1, Industrial Park. Seventeen conditions were part of the Council's approval. The applicant has now complied with these conditions as listed below. Staff recommends approval of this final plat application. PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be provided to all lots; detailed plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. 2. The applicant shall construct a 12-inch diameter water main on 64th Avenue S. from S. 228th Street to the southern boundary of the plat. The water main construction on all other internal streets shall loop into the main, on West Valley Highway, on 64th Avenue S. (the extension noted herein) and on S. 228th Street. The minimum main size except where otherwise noted, shall be such as to meet fire flow requirements as established by the Kent Fire Department. In no event shall the mains be less than eight -inch in diameter. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. Both domestic and fire flow service shall be extended to each lot. 3. The applicant shall provide a storm drainage system to service all lots; detailed plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. 4. Except where noted otherwise, all streets shall be fully improved, and shall be asphalt paved with cement concrete curb and gutter; and shall have a minimum right of way of 60 feet and a curb -to -curb width of 36 feet:. VAN DOREN'S LANDING FINAL PLAT SU-87-4 OCTOBER 15, 1991 PAGE 2 5. The applicant shall dedicate to the City an 80-foot-wide right of way for 64th Avenue S. from S. 228th Street southerly to the east/west centerline of Section 14. Southerly of said east/west centerline, said right of way dedication shall be the westerly 40 feet of the plat, or less as the parties shall agree. The north/south alignment of 64th Avenue S. right of way shall be such that its centerline shall coincide with the westerly plat boundary from the southwest corner of the plat to the east/west centerline of Section 14; thence northerly to the intersection point of the right of way centerline of S. 228th Street with the southerly projection of the existing right of way centerline of 64th Avenue S. 6. The applicant shall execute a no -protest LID covenant for the construction of 64th Avenue S. Said covenant shall acknowledge that the estimated assessment therefore is $1,201,252.55 ($899,336.24 street and $301,916.31 sewer and water) and that the property is specially benefitted to said amount. Should the LID be formed prior to the recordation of this plat, the applicant shall deed to the City upon demand, the respective right of way for 64th Avenue S. Should, for some reason, the LID not be successfully formed, the applicant shall then fully improve 64th Avenue S. with asphalt pavement (44 feet wide within the 80 foot right of way except at S. 228th where it will be 59 feet wide to accommodate a left -turn pocket, and 22 feet wide within the 40 foot right of way), cement concrete curb and gutter, storm drainage, street lighting, cement concrete sidewalks and other related appurtenances. 7. No vehicular ingress or egress shall be permitted to West Valley Highway except as denoted on the preliminary plat map for Lots 6 and 7 of Block One. 8. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the necessary right of way so that the southerly half street right-of-way width for S. 228th Street shall be 40 feet or less as the parties shall agree as measured from the centerline of the existing pavement. 9. The south half of S. 228th Street, as measured from the centerline of the existing pavement, shall be improved with pavement and cement concrete curb and gutter such that the following road sections will exist upon completion thereof: VAN DOREN'S LANDING FINAL PLAT SU-87-4 OCTOBER 15, 1991 PAGE 3 From To Lane West Valley Highway S. 64th Avenue 5 lanes (2 westbound, 2 eastbound) and 1 two-way left turn lane. Westerly limit of Plat S. 64th Avenue 3 lanes (1 westbound, 2 eastbound) plus a left -turn pocket at 64th Avenue S. Said left-hand turn lane may either be continuous_or a median with appropriate left-hand turn pockets as approved by the Engineering Department. The applicant shall overlay the westbound lane of S. 228th Street which lies westerly of 64th Avenue S. The thickness of said overlay shall be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated heavy truck/traffic loadings of this development. 10. Dedicate to the City for street purposes 20 feet of property parallel to and abutting West Valley Highway such that the new half street right of way is at least 50 feet as measured from its centerline for the entire frontage of the property. Should an LID be formed for the improvement of West Valley Highway prior to the recordation of this plat, the applicant shall then deed to the City upon demand the respective right of way. 11. The applicant shall execute a no -protest LID covenant for the improvement of West Valley Highway with pavement widening cement concrete curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks, street lighting, underground power, and other related VAN appurtenances. Included in said LID covenant shall be the acknowledgement that the estimated assessment for such improvement is $696,667.30 and that the property is specially benefitted by the improvements in said amount. Should the LID not be successfully formed, the applicant shall improve West Valley Highway with either a continuous left-hand turn lane or a median with appropriate left- hand turn pockets as approved by the Engineering Department from S. 228th Street to the southerly limit of the plat frontage thereon, the addition of a southbound lane from S. 228th Street to S. 234th VAN DOREN'S LANDING FINAL PLAT #SU-87-4 OCTOBER 15, 1991 PAGE 4 Street, the installation of an acceleration lane from S.. 234th Street to the southerly limits of the plat frontage on West Valley Highway, the installation of curb and cement concrete sidewalk along the entire plat frontage on West Valley Highway, the installation of street lighting, storm drainage and other related appurtenances. 12. The centerline of S. 234th Street shall coincide with the westerly extension of the existing S. 234th Street. 13. Street lighting to City standards shall be provided on all streets including S. 228th. 14. Street signs, stop signs, and lane markings shall be furnished and installed by the applicant to City standards. 15. Cement concrete sidewalks shall be installed along the south side of S. 228th Street.and both sides of all other internal streets reflected on the face of the preliminary plat map. 16. Applicant shall execute a signal participatory agreement for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of S. 228th Street and 64th Avenue S. 17. The developer/owner shall provide a paved bicycle trail to the city within the Puget Sound Power and Light "O'Brien right of way" extending from West Valley Highway to 64th Avenue S. extended. The developer shall obtain the necessary plans and document approval from Puget Sound Power and Light to allow such a bicycle trail. The bike trail shall meet City standards and be paved a minimum width of ten feet. Following installation of the bicycle trail, the City of Kent shall have the obligation to maintain the bicycle trail. If an agreement cannot be made with Puget Sound Power and Light to allow a bicycle trail development, the developer/owner shall provide bike lanes on S. 228th Street. Additional right of way shall be deeded to provide a minimum five foot bicycle lane on each side of the street for the entire frontage along S. 228th Street. JPH/mp:c:su874fp.mem SEE AREC. DETAIL1860989001� VAN DOREN S �,NDING A PORTION OF THE N.E. 1/4 AND THE S.E. 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TWP. 22 N., R. 4 E.. W.M. 1/16 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT 4F.?, NON 14 ORNER5 89"O9'14 E 936,94' 40' TO BE DEDICATED`:E A3• R�C2�.ISO. 228th ST_ _ _ _ _ FOR R/W � IT br•3A cz b _ __ i0 CRY OF KENT 2 G I Cd C9________________ 159.I55 --------------------------------- w T. F �F____________ ° C4 iV I I I] SIDEWALK. SLOPE AND 40' LANNSCAPE !1m �''��LANDSCAPE UTIC" EASEMENT TO CITY OF KENt EASCNEN'. 3 _ 20.43' ^ j EASEMENI• 'r min m e0 =bn 32562 Sr Z R-170' -n'2 'K 1 —3 J.I' ACRt' IN89'07'54' W _ Iza.ae y L-61.4] mI —31.41220271 SF. 1 5.24 ACRES -15' NOEWALK, SLOPE AND A b n UTILITY EASEMENT � r m TO CITY OF KENT I I 31 /J b 0 N I 5 89'07'36' E OI 525.70' 3 j N _ I W 140 LANDSCAPE r--EASEMCNi• b I n Q I I / N I i L I Q a . c co I 1-4 225607 SF. 3ip' I 5.20 ACRES F— oEl d II i 10 Z2 09 V4'24 W 1317.02' CORNER a N.E. 1/4 n w 5 195224 ,ry 159 >M1' b Oc) 402708 SF. 9 24 ACRES 3 7 b ° - rs07'36 E 1-5 BI IA7 SI ♦'f 4C �: E9 O b b ------------------z.�ir 305.00' OO' 26, 01' I _ N 9TG7'36 W 395.00' dwJ' D IA °6°s 164.9r ♦--- °,. ems. 25' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT- S 87073C E a �°2 P 40' LANDSCAPE L—EASEMENT• 2-10 0 2-9 i 102564 S F. 2.35 ACRES e/ 959708 S.F. , 2.20 ACRES i C/\ ' SIDEWALE, SLOPE AND illJtt EASEMENT 1 —� ] GTY OF KENT l^' i S 6507'36� E y 5 89'07]6 E 7 314.94' 360.00 30 �' _ _ I -22.69' b SOUTH LINE_fT 4 OF THE N.E. 1,. 2-7 2-8 n b n -LANDSCAPE EASEMENT TO BIRTCHER VDL LAND PARTNERSHIP, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. bI' AN DOREN'S LANDING FINAL PLAT #S V -874 '1 �Oa+L LIEN Ifi u1,w NOT TO SCALE 100 eo a 100 2.0 SCALE 'r • 1W 40' 10' EA' TO JT, O ill > 1 S 8707O6' E I JQ 249.59Lli 5' SIDEWALK 7a? AND UTILITY EASEMENT " t K. - TO CITY OF KENT'' 1-7J� 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 1 oz TO CRY OF KENT `V LEGEND O - FIND. MONUMENT IN C'SE 0 - SET MONUMENT IN C E L - ARC LENGTH p - DELTA (R)- RADIAL BEARING INN). NON -RADIAL REARING • - RESAR AND CAP SET ESM inc. 941 Pa9ElL AVENUE 9.W- SURE 'M RENTON, WA INOTON 96066 PHONE (2061 2 -5036 AT AN_ 16 1991 JOB NO. 467-01-592 BRAWN BNB R. WARD SHEET 4 OF 5 I; VAN DOREN'S LANDING A PORTION OF THE N.E. 1/4 AND THE S.E.•1/4 OINGT SECTION 14, TWP. 22 N.. R_ 4 E.. W.M. KIN CITY OF KENT 1-1 S. 228th Si. I I LANDING WAY 1-5 10 E. ? _ EA:#.ME I TO 0i OF KENT rr r r S 090]'36' E SEE pAcEE y o 5 On 17'J6 E R I b ry r1 ti 2-10 ^� 2-9 bn +025]e.] S.F. ,,] 950]0.0 5 F. 2 Q' I 1 ; 2.35 ALRES 2.20 ACRES 40 LA.NOSCAPE VC 40LANDSCAPE EA5EUENT• I b EASEMENT• —p _ V 5' SDE,AA,XT4 I 866' �y r ,.,r rl cn EASEMENT 1 '��J f r S B40J'36' E S 0907'36" E 7. 5' '173 5�. _ 70 CITt GF KENT v/ 1 / 1It ' _ _ _-- _ _ -- 360.G0__ _ _ —� _ _ __ — .. _3'S nC-ES 22.69 114.94 \ r -i I / 20 I.ANOSCAPE 3C' 30' 1 —7 Q / I SWM LiNEJ EASEMENT'J� </Y� 2 r _ 'f IF_411 N. E.li4 2-8 I V / 12997A SF. ` —7 (\ 2.98 ACRES CD n 117000.0 S.F. zm 102354 S.F. 2.69 ACRES 235 ACRES n IS n V b EASEMENT. L• J 0 �� J 250.00' > n N m O i S 0907'3fT E S 8T07'36' E n (n 314.93' J60.00" lyf s 1-8 _b 3 r'L =+ •8]555.6 S.F. b o v a i — 4.Jt :. _ ACRES 2 5 y/ N 2 m 12539.1 S.L S 102353 S.F. b n 2.5a AC. ES 2,35 ACRES 10 SLOPE n of N 5153.1� E(R) o EASEMENT iN n rr Jfi_]6' N\\^SE ohs TO CI'/ OF KENT 12 I i C. S 09'L]'J6 E 54493' S 03CJ']6 E `BO GO' _,' C,Qr 20\� \`_ --------------------- LANDSCAPE 6i Z0'1 wn C •LANDSCAPE EASEMENT i6 314.9 J' ZI:\ 120 3 o.GO' BIRTCHIER PARTNERSHIP AND SUCCESSORS ARM ASSIGNS, ' r c I t000' 04 20 71 f � 2-2 A, u. m 14E196 `_ 40 LANDSCAPE Si 2-4 36 AC=Fa _ EASEMENT." •.w, 93A095.F _ _ 2-1 4.44 ACRES ,J' .ORAM SSLOPE A SF EASEMENT UTILITY EASEMENT 2E7 ACRES LG Cttt OF KENT TO CITY OF KENT z 4) �a4 IAYe l I 5 59"06'Si E J1.41' 20' DRAINAGE DISTRICT 54. 93' r}t 62' rCONOEMNAT10N SC. 32912. ' r 323,72' J48 75' II 5 B9"02'OJ E b/L.4i I 20� 3 40' LANDSCAPE mOOr� 5 99'0?'03" E 662.14' EASEMENT• 2—Z 'o'^� EA SLOPE JJ EASEMENT IT 'm .tl ..]. i0 Cltt OF NENT r 159704 S.F. �p b 6] ACRES M1m 20' SIOEWALN, SLOPE (:� 40 LANDSCAPE_ AND UTILITY EASEMENT V 2_-1 1 EASEMENT• L. �0 CITY OF KENT ,c} C) 6.. 5' SIDEwALN�_+ I SEE DETA,L 'C RI J9.0]' " .Q a yE EASEMENT rREC A 3569C690GI 1 1 7 c` TO CITY OF RENT j S B9'02'03" E 372.78' �. i' it e`a.G,. N P9"44'49' E (R) 7.10.0S 69'02'03' E I?F)S?' IO' DRAINAGE DISC. 3 ESM inc. CONDEMNATION SC. 32912. -- VAN DOREN'S LANDING FINAL PLAT 1pe 50 p pD oo C LEGEND Y41 POWELl A`/FNUE s w., wire +CO p AND. r C"','E, lE rTON, WASNINCIDN 9e0" - 7-4 I 0 _ A5c La NU+.11 r ..5E RHONL' [a0a] x3n-aexe i - RC LtwGT.I i_ P RADIAL DEAN iNG DATE: AUGUST, +990 JOELTA OB NG. 46]-01 -B92 4 (AR - NON-RAA,ND APR IST GRAWN BY: R. WARO SHEET 5 OF 5 0 - REOAR M+D CAP SET VAN DOREN'S LANDING A PORTION OF THE N.E. 1/4 AND THE S.E. 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TWP. 22 N., R. 4 E., W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT n SEE DETAIL -A- IN REC. / 5609089001 —\ 1 '16 COflNER • LANDSCAPE EASEMENT TO BIRTCHER VCL LAND I PAq TNERSHIP. ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. 9 'L0 I LANOSCAIT / C50 I�EASEMENT J9.52—1337 ' } ^o/ t N PSt'SCi' E 2$j 2 1 I'$ R-1A L-g3.a3' S� I t too ]O 0 100 200 �. N CORNER QUARTER T - 1- SIDEWALK AND UlUTY EASEMENT TJ C::Y OF KENT ,2 / N6q, s 4-3 I W 6�y y u" - `10' H C DEDICATEE _ TO THE CITY OF KEtii FOR R/W PURPOSES a. �' R �J 2111240 ASF. 2.55 ACHES '-a 1 m w`T > O SEE DETAIL -B' PER REC. A B609069091 / 129 �W 4-2 j F' y 2Lo ' J• 78329 5 SE I.BC ACRES A )y] b Y 9'3y. A r Q ll: 1 \_ 40 LANDSCAPE gyp. y 5n\� 5 pC N o O EASEMENT ISO \ \ �� \\♦, 4-4 ED ,0♦16•�\ i" \ 1038ACRESF ?} o ; t056265.F. `AO' LANDSCAPE \ 4—G �, a 2.42 ACRES 13' SIDEWALK EASEMENT \ (� \ AND UTILITY b - J 667516 SE `" ^ J� EASEMENT `♦ sJ♦ TO CITY OF KENT s.♦♦♦ °i E, 1J: AC.RF.S ♦ ♦ C`A O S 4150'1S W (R) ♦ �1➢1 �. ♦♦ TO 00. ��� S E 15 IANOSCAPE Q I d L'-� V) IOO.CO' ( S3427 —11 I 3-4 �PBBz. RV - ------------ —c' - DO O ' 2A0.10' 273.60' al.a0' 96636 S.E �� 00' n = 2.22 ACRES ,6 S 26'1]'17 WAR) f CO .F d ao.00• �___ �_ _ AP. oR 675.20' p N B40J'35 w m 61 ' . \I — e<ockt.3 3-3 "l 3-2 152I17 S.F. I 95703.7 S.F. 1.72 ACRES 1.10 ACRES S BT04'24' E 1317.C2' VAN DOREN'S LANDING FINAL PLAT #SU-87-4 NOT TO SCALE __- 15' LANDSCAPE I EASEMENT _ I I N p V I r1OI Q ��Im b 3-1 m p °9496 S.F. F--'-il S5' aO.IaO• ;fioACRES Ia0'II UIjIPL ATT=J LEGEND 0 - SET MONUMENT IN C 'E L - ARC LENGTH G - DELTA (R)- BAOIAL BEARING (NR)- NON -RADIAL BEARING • - REEVI AND CIP SET —� N W. CONNER N.E. 1/d sE 1/a C' ESM inc. 941 POWEl.1 AVENUE S.W.. SURE 100 R N. WA911NGI Y.00] PHONE []OE] u BM2e ........»...»»—.............«....................,.r.wwmwreuu rvssvurr+,.v.,..,.,...................... ............,.......,v. a e,:rv...... nau rvue,•�,,......,:.,.,..w..a.«uuumv.r+....w.�m�a� January 19, 1988 STREET VACATION (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H) Waterman street Vacation - Gibson Request. APPROVAL of a 90-day time extension for the payment of fees for the Waterman street vacation, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. Council previously authorized an extension to December 15, 1987. TRAFFIC CONTROL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J) No Parking Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2766 establishing a no parking zone on 101st Avenue S.E. from S.E. 256th to S.E. 260th. ANNEXATION POLICY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K) Annexation Covenants to Comply with Zoning Requirements._ ADOPTION of Ordinance 2767 supporting Resolution 1150 which sets forth certain annexation policies which require that owners covenant that the proposed areas will be consistent with the land use comprehensive plans within the City. PRELIMINARY PLAT Van Doren's Landing Phase 1 - Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-87-4. This is a public meeting to consider the H;=_aring Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval of a 30-lot industrial preliminary subdivision The subdivision is located at the southwest corner of 228th Street and West Valley Highway. W00DS MOVED to adopt the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to concur with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. ANNEXATION ZONING East Hill Community Well Annexation No. 2 - Carey - APPEAL Appeal. This is a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommended zoning for the property located east of 112th Avenue S.E. Carey Appeal extended to 114th Avenue S.E. approximately and north of S.E. 244th extended. The appeal was filed by William J. Carey. The Hearing Examiner recommends zoning of R1-9.6, single family residential (9600 square fet minimum lot area). White noted that the Carey family has asked that this item be continued to the meeting of March 1st, and SO MOVED. Biteman seconded and the motion carried. ANNEXATION ZONING East Hill Community Well Annexation No. 2 - Berg - APPEAL strom Appeal. This is a public hearing. to consider an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommended zoning Bergstrom Appeal for the property located at 25219 113th Avenue S.E. The appeal was filed by 'lichael Bergstrom of Construc- - 4 - Kent City Council Meeting Date October 15. 1991 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider amending the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations of the Kent Zoning Code. This amendment eliminates the PUD regulations in RA, Residential Agriculture, and R1, Single Family Residential zones. 3. 4. 5. rip EXHIBITS: Staff memo, ordinance, Planning Commission minutes of 8/26/91 and staff report RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended, SOURCE OF FUNDS: NO X YES Not Recommended 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember �.�_' seconds to adopt Ordinance amending the Planned Lnit.Develop- ment (PUD) and the Kent Zoning Code, eliminating PUD RA, Residential Agricultural, and R1, Single Family Residential Zones, as recommended by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION: rt4W*10-)NkF Council Ageyda Item No. 4B CITY OF ��1S�J JS 'Ir' n yea CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM October 15, 1991 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: LAURA YEATS QUILICI, PLANNER RE: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE On August 26, 1991, the Kent Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider alternatives for revising the Planned Unit Development regulations of the Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.04.080. The Planning Commission recommends an amendment to the ordinance which eliminates the opportunity for a planned unit development to occur in the RA, Residential ,,Agricultural and R1, Single Family Residential zoning districts. LYQ/mp:a:pudord.mem Attachments cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, amending the Planned Unit De- velopment regulations of the Kent Zoning Code, Kent City Code Sections 15.02.332 and 15.04.080. WHEREAS, in June of 1990, the City Council received a petition from a group of interested citizens (Responsible Urban Growth Group (RUGG)), requesting that the City Council take action in order to stop high density housing from overburdening the City's infrastructure and ability to provide adequate services; and WHEREAS, in consideration of RUGG's proposal, the Cit Council formally directed the Planning Commission on July 16, 1991 to evaluate the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations and investigate possible Code revisions, including amendment of those portions of the Kent Zoning Code applicable to townhouses in single family zoning districts; and WHEREAS, in response to this direction, the Kent Planning staff investigated and prepared a report on the Planned Unit Development regulations, which included these Zoning Code amendment alternatives; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 1991 the Kent Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the alternatives for revising the PUD regulations and recommended that the Zoning Code be amended to eliminate Planned Unit Developments in the RA, Residential Agricultural and the R1, Single Family Residential zoning districts; NOW, THEREFORE, 0 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Kent Zoning Code (Ordinance 1827, 2404) Section 15.02.332 of the Kent City Code (K.C.C.) is amended as follows: 15.02.332 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Planned Unit Development is a ((i-esidentia )) development built under those i provisions of this code which permit departures from the conventional siting, setback and density requirements of other sections of this code in the interest of achieving superior site development, creating open space and encouraging imaginative design by permitting design flexibility. Section 2. K.C.C. Section 15.04.080 is amended as follows: 15.04.080 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -- PUD General Purpose. The intent of the PUD is to create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design, and protect and enhance natural and community features. The process is provided to encourage unique developments which may combine a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. By using flexibility in the application of development standards, this process will promote developments that will benefit citizens that live and work within the City of Kent. A. ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE PERMITTED. PUD's are permitted in all zoning districts with the exception of the A-1, Agricultural RA, Residential Agricultural and R1 Single Family Residential zones. 2 9 B. PERMITTED USES. 1. Principally Permitted Uses. The principally permitted uses in PUD' S shall be the same as those permitted in the underlying zoning classifications. 2. Conditional Uses. The conditional uses in PUD's shall be the same as those permitted in the underlying zoning classification. The conditional use permit review process may be consolidated with that of the PUD pursuant to procedures specified in section F below. 3. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and buildings which are customarily incidental and subordinate to a principally permitted use are also permitted. 4. Exceptions. ((a. in single fa iily residential zening e: staeked) residential units Ek PUD. b,)) In residential PUD's of ten (10) acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted in the Neighborhood Convenience District. C. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following development standards are minimum requirements for a Planned Unit Development: 1. Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size requirements of the districts outlined in the zoning code shall not apply to PUD's. 2. Minimum Site Acreage. Minimum site acreage for a PUD is established according to the zoning in which the PUD is located, as follows: 3 Zones Minimum site Acreage Multifamily (MRD, MRG, MRM, MRH) None Commercial, Office and Manufacturing Zones None 3. Minimum Perimeter Building Setback. The minimum perimeter building setback of the underlying zone shall apply. Multifamily Transition Area requirements shall apply to any multifamily developments (K.C.C. Section 15.08.215), except where (specifically exempted by Administrative Design Review (K.C.C. (Section 15.09.045) The Hearing Examiner may reduce building separation requirements to the minimum required by Building and Fire Departments according to criteria set forth in subsection F(1) of this ((ehapt-�)) section. If an adjacent property is undevelopable under the Kent City Zoning Code, the Hearing Examiner may also reduce the perimeter building setback requirement ((may -be waived by the r)) to the minimum standards in the Kent Building and Fire Codes. 4. Maximum Height of structures. The maximum height of structures of the underlying zone shall apply. Multifamily Transition Area requirements shall apply to any multifamily developments (K.C.C. Section 15.08.215), except where specifically exempted by Administrative Design Review (K.C.C. Section 15.09.045). The Hearing Examiner may authorize additional height in CC, GC, DC, CM, Ml, M2, and M3 zones where proposed development in the PUD is compatible with the scale and character of adjacent existing developments. 5. Open Space. The standard set forth herein shall i apply to PUD residential developments only. Each PUD shall provide 4 a minimum of 35 percent of the total site area for common open space. In mixed -use PUD's containing residential uses, thirty-five (35) percent of the area used for residential use shall be reserved as open space. I For the purpose of this section, open space shall be defined as land which is not used for buildings, dedicated public right-of-ways, traffic circulation and roads, parking areas, or any kind of storage. Open space includes but is not limited to: i privately owned woodlands, open fields, streams, wetlands, severe development areas, sidewalks, walkways, landscaped areas, gardens, court yards, or lawns. Common open space may provide for either active or passive recreation. Open space within a PUD shall be available for common use by the residents, tenants and/or the general public, depending on the type of project. 6. Streets. If streets within the development are required to be dedicated to the City for public use, such streets shall be designed in accordance with the standards outlined in the Kent Subdivision Code and other appropriate City standards. If streets within the development are to remain in private ownership and remain as private streets, the following standards shall apply: a. Minimum Private Street Pavement Widths for Parallel Parking in Residential Planned Unit Developments. No Parking Parking Parking One Side Both Sides (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) One -Way Streets 20 29 38 Two -Way Streets 22 31 40 5 The above minimum widths may be modified upon (review and approval by the Kent Fire Chief and the Kent Traffic Engineer providing they are sufficient to maintain emergency access !and traffic safety." A maintenance agreement for private streets (within a PUD shall be required by the Hearing Examiner as a (condition of PUD approval. b. vehicle Parking Areas. Adequate vehicular iparking areas shall be provided. The required number of parking (spaces may vary from the requirements of K.C.C. Chapter 15.05 and ;shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner based upon a parking need ,assessment study submitted by the applicant and approved by the 1iPlanning Director. vehicular parking areas may be provided by on -street parking and/or off-street parking lots. The design of such parking areas shall be in accordance with the standards outlined in K.C.C. Chapter 15.05. C. One-way Streets. One -Way loop streets shall be no more than 1,500 feet long. d. on -street Parking. On -street parking shall be permitted. Privately owned and maintained "no parking'" and/or "fire lane" signs may be required as determined by the Kent Traffic Engineer and Kent Fire Department Chief. 7. Pedestrian Walkways. Pedestrian walkways shall be constructed of material deemed to be an "all weather surface" by the Public Works Director and Planning Director. 8. Landscaping. a. Minimum perimeter landscaping of the underlying zone shall apply. Additional landscaping shall be required as provided in Chapter 15.07 and 15.08.215 of the Kent City Code. b. All PUD developments shall ensure that parking areas are integrated with the landscaping system and C1 a provide screening of vehicles from view from public streets. Parking areas shall be conveniently located to buildings and streets while providing for landscaping adjacent to buildings and pedestrian access. . C. Solid waste collection areas and waste reduction/recycling collection areas shall be conveniently and safely located for on -site use and collection, and attractively site screened. 9. signs. lne 51yL,- 15.06 shall apply. lo. Platting. If portions of the PUD are to be subdivided for sale or lease, the procedures of the Kent Subdivision Code as amended shall apply. Specific development standards (lot size, street design, etc.) shall be provided as outlined in K.C.C. Section 15.04.080(E). 11. Green River Corridor. Any development located within the Green River Corridor Special Interest District shall adhere to the Green River Corridor Special Interest District Regulations. 12. View Regulation. View regulations as specified in K.C.C. Section 15.08.060 shall apply to all PUD's. 13. Shoreline Master Program. Any development located within 200 feet of the Green River shall adhere to Kent Shoreline Master Program regulations. D. DENSITY BONUS STANDARDS. The density of residential development for PUD's shall be based on the gross density of the underlying zoning district. The Hearing Examiner may recommend a dwelling unit density not more than twenty (20) percent greater than permitted by the underlying zone upon findings and conclusions that the 7 llamenities or design features which promote the purposes of this subsection, as listed below, are provided: 1. open space. A four (4) percent density bonus may be authorized if,at least ten (10) percent of the open space is in concentrated areas for passive use. Open space shall include significant natural features of the site, including but not limited to fields, woodlands, watercourses, permanent and seasonally wetlands. Excluded from the open space definition are the areas �iwithin the building footprints, land used for parking, vehicular i� (circulation, right-of-ways and areas used for any kind of storage. 2. Active Recreation Areas. A four (4) percent density bonus may be authorized if at least ten (10) percent of the site is utilized for active recreational purposes, including but not limited to jogging/walking trails, pools, children's play areas, etc. Only that percentage of space contained within laccessory structures that is directly used for active recreation purposes can be included in the ten (10) percent active recreation requirement. 3. Storm Water Drainage. A two (2) percent density bonus may be authorized if storm water drainage control is accomplished using natural on -site drainage features. Natural drainage feature many include streams, creeks, ponds, etc. 4. Native Vegetation. A four (4) percent density bonus may be authorized if at least fifteen (15) percent of the ;(native vegetation on the site is left undisturbed in large open areas. 5. Parking Lot Size. A two (2) percent density bonus may be authorized if off-street parking is grouped in areas of sixteen (16) stalls or less. Parking areas must be separated from other parking areas or buildings by significant landscaping in 8 excess of Type V standards as provided in K.C.C. Section 15.05.070. At least fifty (50) percent of these parking areas must be designed as outlined above to receive the density bonus. 6. Mixed Housing Types. A two (2) percent density bonus may be authorized if a development features a mix of residential housing •types. Single family residences, attached single units, condominiums, apartments, and townhomes are examples of housing types. The mix need not include some of every type. 7. Project Planning Management. A two (2) percent density bonus may be granted if a design/development team is used. Such a team would include a mixture of architects, engineers, landscape architects, and designers. A design/development team is likely to produce a professional development concept that would be consistent with the purpose of the regulations. These standards are thresholds, and partial credi is not given for partial attainment. The site plan must at least meet the threshold level of each bonus standard in order for density bonuses to be given for that standard. E. APPLICATION PROCESS. The application process includes the following steps: informal review process, State Environmental Policy Act, community information meeting, development plan review, and public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. i 1. Informal Review Process. An applicant shall (meet informally with the Planning Department at the earliest possible date to discuss the proposed PUD. The purpose of this ,meeting is to develop a project that will meet the needs of the (applicant and the objectives of the city as defined in this ordinance. 9 u 2. SEPA. The State Environmental Policy Act, regulations, and City SEPA requirements shall be completed prior to !development plan review. 3. Development Plan Review. After informal review and completion of the SEPA process, a proposal shall next be reviewed by City staff through the development plan review process. Comments received by the project developer under the development review process shall be used to formalize the proposed development prior to being presented at a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 4. Community Information Meeting. a. - A community information meeting shall be required for any proposed PUD located in a residential zone or within 200 feet of a residential zone. At this meeting the applicant shall present the development proposed to interested residents. Issues raised at the meeting may be used to refine the i PUD plan. Notice shall be given in at least one (1) (publication in the local newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Written notice shall be mailed first class to all property owners within a radius of not less than two hundred (200) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property being subject to the application. Any alleged failure of any property owner to �Ilactually receive said notice of hearing shall not invalidate the !proceedings. �i b. Non-residential PUD's not located within I200 feet of a residential zone shall not require a community information meeting. 5. Public Notice and Hearing Examiner Public Hearing. The Hearing Examiner shall hold at least one (1) public j hearing on the proposed PUD and shall give notice thereof in at 10 U least one (1) publication in the local newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Written notice shall be mailed first class to all property owners within a radius of not less than two hundred (200) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property being subject to the application. Any alleged failure of any property owner to actually receive said notice of hearing shall not invalidate the proceedings. 6. Consolidation of Land Use Permit Processes. The PUD approval process may be used to consolidate other land use permit processes which are required by other sections of this code. The public hearing required for the PUD may serve as the public hearing for conditional use permit, subdivision, shoreline substantial development, and/or rezoning if such land use permits are a part of the overall PUD application. When another land use permit is involved which requires City Council approval, the PL shall not be deemed to be approved until the City Council has approved the related land use permit. In the event that a public hearing is required for any of the above categories of actions, the Hearing Examiner shall employ the public hearing notice requirements for all actions considered which ensures the maximum notice to the public. 7. Hearing Examiner Decision. The Hearing Examiner shall issue a written decision within ((_`eurteen (1-4T)) ten (10) working days from the date of the hearing. Parties of record will be notified in writing of the decision. The decision is final unless notice of appeal. is filed with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of receipt by the developer of the decision. 8. Effective Date. In approving a PUD, the Hearing Examiner shall specify that the approved PUD shall not take I effect unless or until the developer files a completed development 11 n permit application within the time periods required by the Kent I City Code as set forth in section ((b)) q below. No official map I or zoning text designations shall be amended to reflect the approved PUD designation until such time as the PUD becomes effective. F. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Upon receipt of a complete application ((, as ietermined by the Planning I D.ireet&r--,)) for a residential PUD, the Planning Department shall review the application and make its recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether to grant, �I deny or condition an application based upon the following review criteria: 1. Residential Planned Unit Development Criteria. a. The proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial effect upon the community and users of the development which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot -by -lot development and shall not be detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. b. Unusual environmental features of the site shall be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to ,benefit the development and the community. C. The proposed PUD project shall provide areas of openness by using techniques such as clustering, separation of building groups, and use of well -designed open space and/or landscaping. d. The proposed PUD project shall promote variety and innovation in site and building design. Buildings in groups shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but contrast shall be provided throughout the site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building scale and orientation. 12 e. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when construction will be in phases. 2. Non -Residential Planned Unit Development criteria. a. The proposed project shall have a beneficial effect which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot -by -lot development and not be detrimental to present or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the Comprehensive plan. b. Unusual environmental features of the site shall be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to benefit the development and the community. c. The proposed project shall provide areas of openness by the clustering of buildings, and by the use of well -designed landscaping and open spaces. Landscaping shal promote a coordinated appearance and break up continuous expanses of building and pavement. d. The proposed project shall promote variety and innovation in site and building design. It shall encourage the incorporation of special design features such as visitor entrances, plazas, outdoor employee lunch and/or recreation areas, architectural focal points and accent lighting. e. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when construction will be in phases. G. TIME LIMITS. 1. Application for Development Permit. The applicant shall apply for a development permit no later than one (1) year following final approval of the PUD. The application for (development permit shall contain all conditions of the PUD ,approval. 13 9 2. Extensions. An extension of time for development permit application may be requested in writing by the applicant. Such an extension may be granted by the Planning Director for a period not to exceed one (1) year. If a development permit is not issued within ((ene)) two years (((e-r-ighteen menth ineluding extension) ) ) , the PUD approval shall become null and void and the PUD shall not take effect. H. Modifications of the Plan. Requests for modifications of final approved plans shall be made in writing and shall be submitted to the Planning Department in the manner and form prescribed by the Planning Director. The criteria for approval of a request for a major modification shall be those criteria covering original approval of the permit which is the subject of the proposed modification. 1. Minor Modifications. Modifications are deemed minor if the following criteria are satisfied: (a) No new land use is proposed; and (b) No increase in density, number of dwelling units or lots is proposed; and (c) No changes in the general location or number of access points is proposed; and ` (d) No reduction in the amount of open space is proposed; and (e) No reduction in the amount of parking is proposed; and (f) No increase in the total square footage of structures to be developed is proposed; and (g) No increase in general height of structures is proposed. Examples of minor modifications include but are not limited to lot line adjustments, minor relocations of buildings 14 a or landscaped areas, minor changes in phasing and timing, and minor changes is elevations of buildings. 2. Major Modifications. Major adjustments are those which, as determined by the Planning Director, substantially change the basic design, density, open space or other similar requirements or provisions. Major adjustments to the development plans shall be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner may review such adjustments at a regular public hearing. If a public hearing is held, the process outlined in K.C.C. Section 15.04.080(F) shall apply. The Hearing Examiner shall issue a written decision to approve, deny, or modify the request. Such a decision shall be final. The decision may be appealed to the City Council by the filing of written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Developer's receipt of the Hearing Examiners decision. section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or subsection of this ordinance, or the validity 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 4. 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. 15 DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 1APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of APPROVED the day of (PUBLISHED the day of . 1991. 1991. , 1991. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy Of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of (Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 16 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 1991. The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Faust at 7:00 P.M., August 26, 1991, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Faust, Chair Gwen Dahle Christopher Grant Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Greg Greenstreet PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner Laura Yeats, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF JULY 22 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Haylor MOVED that the minutes of the July 22, 1991 meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - ZCA-91-1 Laura Yeats presented the staff report on Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) which are a provision within the Zoning Code to allow creativity and flexibility in site design. PUDs are permitted in all zoning districts except the A-1, Agricultural, zone at this time. In all districts, the principally permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses are the same as those in the underlying zoning district with two exceptions: A. In single family residential zoning districts (RA and R1), attached side -by -side (not vertically stacked) residential units may be permitted in a PUD. B. In residential PUDs of ten (10) acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted in the Neighborhood Convenience District. Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 At issue is whether the City should encourage the development of attached units in single family zoning districts as stated in exception "A". The following major changes were made to the PUD ordinance in 1987: A. The review time was shortened by allowing other land use processes to be consolidated with the PUD review. B. The requirement that each residential PUD consist of all housing types was dropped in favor of a density bonus incentive that encourages a mix of housing types. C. Density bonuses were made much clearer than before. It was unanimously recommended by the Planning Committee that the City council adopt the revised PUD ordinance and it went into effect in August of 1988. since the adoption of the new ordinance, one PUD has been approved and is now under construction. PUD regulations establish the following minimum development standards: A. PUDs in RA and R1 districts must be a minimum of 5 acres. B. The minimum perimeter building setback of the underlying zoning district applies. In addition, if a PUD proposed in an RA or R1 district includes attached units, the Multifamily Transition Area setback requirements apply. C. The maximum height of the underlying zoning district applies. In addition, if a PUD proposed in an RA or R1 district includes attached units, the Multifamily Transition area height requirements apply. D. Residential PUDs must provide a minimum of 35 percent of the total site area for common open space. E. PUDs are not required to meet the minimum lot size requirements of the underlying zoning district. This provides flexibility in site design by allowing units to be clustered together which aids in the provision of additional amenities such as common open space, preservation of unique natural features and on -site storm water drainage control. F. The density of the PUD is determined by the gross density of the underlying zoning district. However, the Hearing Examiner can recommend up to 20 percent greater density if the PUD 2 Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 proposal provides amenities or design features as outlined in the PUD Density Bonus Standards. In October, 1989, the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Single Family Housing cited "attached singles" as a viable alternative to the detached dwelling in meeting the changing trends in households and homeownership. These residences earn the title "attached singles", rather than multifamily, by their ability to coexist and/or harmonize with single family detached homes. In June of 1990, the City Council received a petition from the Responsible Urban Growth Group (RUGG) requesting that the City Council consider revisions to the PUD ordinance which would require all housing units to be detached, single family units. Attached, side -by -side units would no longer be allowed. The following alternatives to the existing PUD regulations were developed to address the concern over multifamily development (attached singles) in the RA and R1 Single Family zoning districts. A. Increase the minimum site acreage for RA and R1 zoning districts. B. Modify the exception to ensure harmony with adjacent single family neighborhoods. For example, the number of attached units per structure or the number of attached units as a percentage of total units could be limited. C. Establish site design guidelines if attached units are incorporated in single family PUDs. This would establish guidelines for site configuration of attached units. D. In RA and R1 zones, eliminate Density Bonus Standard #6, Mixed Housing Types, which states that "a two percent density bonus may be authorized if a development features a mix of residential housing types". E. In RA and R1 zones, develop a new Bonus Standard allowing attached units and/or increased density when specific amenities are provided. These amenities could include additional landscape buffers, additional five percent open space, perimeter lots which would be permanently retained as single family detached units, or attached units with staggered floor plans to emphasize individual units. F. Remove "Exception - All which allows attached units in single family zones. 3 Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 G. No change to existing PUD regulations. H. Eliminate PUDs in RA and R1 single family residential zones. This would, however, eliminate the potential for providing a mix of housing types which was a goal of the PUD. Arnold E. Hamilton, 25410 113th Avenue SE, Kent, asked why we were talking about allowing multifamily in R1 zoning, which is single family. He feels that this gives developers the opportunity to cram more houses into smaller areas. Chair Faust asked Mr. Hamilton which of the alternatives he preferred. Mr. Hamilton said he was in favor of alternative H. Kevin Flatt, 11224 SE 256th Street, Kent, agreed with Mr. Hamilton that R1 is for single family detached dwellings and attached single units seem to be a violation of the atmosphere of single family residences. Since the mix need not include every type of housing, there is a distinct possibility that there could be no single family at all in PUDs. He felt that the open space would be land that was simply unusable. Mr. Flatt recommended alternative H. Chair Faust asked if Mr. Flatt would consider, as an alternative, limiting the number of multifamily structures that could be built in a PUD and making sure that they were clustered toward the middle of the PUD. Mr. Flatt felt that that sounded better, but there was still no assurance that there would be genuine open space that was usable. He felt that the potential for abuse still existed. Commissioner Haylor asked if Mr. Flatt felt the PUD would be a good idea in multifamily areas. Mr. Flatt said it was an excellent idea for multifamily zoned areas. Jim Orr, 24909 114th Avenue SE, Kent, said he does not support alternatives A, B, C, D, E or G for the following reasons. By increasing the minimum site acreage, the potential for PUDs in Kent would be decreased now, but as annexations occur, people living in single family zones could find themselves with multifamily neighborhoods. Allowing buildings up to four units in size hardly fits in with single family and could not be considered low density single family. Alternative C would help protect existing single family neighborhoods, but would still add more multifamily to a City that is near 70 percent multifamily now. Eliminating the Density Bonus doesn't go far enough to protect existing neighborhoods. He doesn't believe there is any need for further density increases no matter what amenities are provided. Alternative H would be his first choice and alternative F would be his second choice. 4 Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 Commissioner Ward asked if Mr. Orr had any suggestions to provide an alternate in the R1 area and if he felt one of the reasons we haven't had PUDs in the past is because of general feeling in the community that no deviation from R1 zoning would be publicly received. Mr. Orr felt that the reason there were no PUDs in the past is because developers have been too busy building apartments. Now that there is no apartment land left, PUDs are the next alternative. Commissioner Grant asked Mr. Orr if he had any feelings on lot size. Mr. Orr felt that lot size should be no less than 7,200 square feet. Commissioner Haylor asked if Mr. Orr felt a PUD in his neighborhood would lower the value of his home. Mr. Orr felt it definitely would. Chair Faust asked if Mr. Orr was saying he didn't want PUDs at all in single family areas, even if all the homes are single family homes. Mr. Orr felt that when homeowners buy 7,200 square foot lots, they want other homes in their neighborhood to be on minimum 7,200 square foot lots. Steve Babbitt, 945 E. Maple Street, Kent, thought the Planning Department had done a very thorough investigation in presenting their report. He disagreed with everyone who spoke before him. He was very much in favor of flexibility in guidelines for developers provided there is a design review. His preference was alternative C. He was very much in favor of 5,000 square foot lots and felt that some of the most attractive areas of any town are the older, historical areas where lot sizes are very small. He felt that alternative A would, in effect, outlaw PUDs because there are not that many 10 acre sites left in Kent. He also pointed out other alternatives besides those mentioned, such as small lot singles, zero lot line subdivisions, cluster subdivisions, and accessory units. Elbert R. Sanders, 10925 SE 244th Street, Kent, asked if a PUD could be approved which would allow single family housing to be torn down and if a PUD puts more family units in an amount of acreage than single family, single house units would. Lauri Anderson of the Planning Department said a PUD could be 5 Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 approved that involved the tearing down of single family, just as any development could be approved that might eliminate an already existing structure. In answer to the second question, Ms. Anderson said that a PUD allows the density based on gross acreage, rather than net acreage, so the potential is there for more units. Mr. Sanders supported alternative H. When he moved to Kent, he felt the mix was supposed to be 70% single to 30% multifamily. He wanted a quality of life in a single family, established neighborhood that gave his family certain services that you come to expect from that. This quality of life has eroded so far that he cannot live here any more. People must have enough room to live. He felt that if the parcel size were increased to ten acres, you could do a lot more planning and could provide more facilities for the people. Chair Faust asked if Mr. Sanders would be in favor of design guidelines to make sure the units at least look like single family and to encourage diversity. Mr. Sanders did not feel he could support this because of the density of family units that would be put in a given acreage. Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Grant MOVED that the Planning Commission adopt alternative H which would eliminate PUDs in RA and R1 single family residential zones. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Grant pointed out that four of the five people who spoke were in favor of alternative H. Also, a year ago, over 1,600 people signed a petition that said they wanted all housing units to be detached, single family dwelling units, no longer allow attached side -by -side units and establish a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Commissioner Morrill asked staff if they knew how many 10 acre sites there are now in the RA or R1 zoning districts which could potentially be PUD sites. Ms. Yeats said that in R1 there are 35 sites of 5 acres or more and 11 sites that are 10 acres or more. In RA there are 34 sites that are 5 acres or more and 19 sites that are 10 acres or more, but many of those are on the valley floor and may not be suitable for residential development because of wetlands. Chair Faust stated a preference for alternative F. She felt that would prevent multifamily in single family areas, but would still L Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 allow a developer some flexibility to create a single family neighborhood using the landscape and creativity in putting the houses on the land. Commissioner Grant's motion to adopt alternative H was carried. PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Regarding the Planning Commission Retreat on September 7, James Harris told the Commissioners that it will begin at 8:00 A.M. and will be held in the Senior Center. There will be a facilitator who will lead the Commission through some exercises to get them geared into some common goals. Chair Faust pointed out the importance of this retreat because of the number of new Commissioners. The retreat will help them understand what the Commission is for and how it fits into the world at large. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Haylor MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, James P. Harris, Secretary 7 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 26, 1991 II. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ISSUE The Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a provision within the Zoning Code intended to promote diversity and creativity in site design and to protect and enhance natural and community features. It is a flexible process designed to promote developments that will be beneficial to Kent citizens. Current regulations permit PUDs in all zoning districts except A-1 Agricultural. In all districts, the principally permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses in PUDs are the same as those in the underlying zoning district with two exceptions: A. In single family residential zoning districts (RA and R1) attached side by side (not vertically stacked) residential units may be permitted in a PUD. B. In residential PUDs of ten (10) acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted in the Neighborhood Convenience District. At issue is whether the City should encourage the development of attached units in single family zoning districts as stated in "A" above. In mid-1987, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that a new PUD ordinance be adopted. The Council referred this recommendation to the Planning Committee. In April of 1988, the Planning Committee formed a citizen committee to review the Planning Commission's draft ordinance. The major recommended changes to the ordinance can be summarized as follows: A. Review time shortened. A PUD application can be approved by the Hearing Examiner without moving on to the City Council except on an appeal. Also, other land use processes, such as conditional use permits, may be consolidated with the PUD review. 1 B. Housing mix. The requirement that each residential PUD consist of all types of housing was dropped in favor of a density bonus incentive that encourages a mix of housing types. C. Density bonuses more refined. The process for determining residential density bonuses is better defined and the design objectives of PUDs are clearer than before. On July 19, 1988, the Council's Planning Committee unanimously recommended to the full Council that the PUD Citizen Advisory Committee's proposed draft of the PUD ordinance be adopted. The Council accepted the recommendation on August 16, 1988 and Ordinance 2802 was adopted. since the adoption of the new ordinance, one Planned Unit Development, Dover Place, has been approved and is now under construction. The development consists of 38 detached single family homes and common open space. In June of 1990, the City Council received a petition from the Responsible Urban Growth -Group (RUGG) which requested that the City Council consider revisions to the PUD ordinance as follows: A. Require all housing units be detached, single family units. No longer allow attached, side -by -side units. B. Establish a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. On July 16, 1991, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to look at the Planned Unit Development regulations in terms of the existing provision that allows attached townhouses to be constructed in single family zoning districts. III. EXISTING PUD REGULATIONS Purpose and objectives: Chapter 15.04.080 of the Kent Zoning Code states: "The intent of the PUD is to create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design, and protect and enhance natural and community features. The process is provided to encourage unique developments which may combine a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. By using flexibility in the application of development standards, this process will promote development that will benefit citizens that live and work within the City of Kent." N The balance of this report will only address the potential of a PUD in the RA, Residential Agricultural, and R1, Single Family Residential, zoning districts. Development standards: As previously mentioned, the principally permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses of the underlying residential zoning district apply to the PUD. The PUD regulations establish minimum development standards for the following: Site acreage• PUDs in RA and R1 districts must be a minimum of 5 acres. Perimeter building setback: The minimum perimeter building setback of the underlying zoning district applies: RA R1 Front yard: 20 ft. 20 ft. Side yard: 15 ft. 5 ft. Rear yard: 20 ft. 8 ft. Side yard(corner): 20 ft. 15 ft. In addition, if a PUD proposed in an RA or R1 district includes attached units, the Multifamily Transition Area setback requirements apply: A. The setbacks relate to the classification of the adjacent street. 1. On an arterial or collector street, the minimum setback is 20 feet and the average is 40 feet. 2. On a local access street, the minimum setback is 20 feet and the average is 30 feet. B. If the multifamily proposal abuts a Single Family zoning district, the setback is a minimum of 20 feet and an average of 40 feet. Maximum height• The maximum height of the underlying zoning district applies --two and one-half (2z) stories not exceeding 35 feet in the case of the RA and R1 zoning districts. 3 In addition, if a PUD proposed in a RA or Rl district includes attached units, the Multifamily Transition Area height requirements apply: The maximum height of any structure within a Multifamily Transition Area shall not exceed two stories or 25 feet at the minimum setback line. The building height may be increased one foot in height for each additional foot of horizontal setback from the minimum setback line, up to the maximum limit for the underlying zoning district. Open space: Residential PUDs must provide a minimum of 35 percent of the total site area for common open space. Minimum lot size: Planned Unit Developments are not required to meet the minimum lot size requirements of the underlying zoning district. In residential PUDs, this provides flexibility in site design by allowing dwelling units to be clustered together on smaller lots. Flexible site design aids in the provision of additional amenities such as common open space for both active and passive use, preservation of unique natural features, and on -site storm water drainage control, among others. Density: The density of a Planned Unit Development is determined by the gross density of the underlying zoning district. However, the Hearing Examiner may recommend up to 20 percent greater density if the PUD proposal provides amenities or design features as outlined in the PUD Density Bonus Standards. Bonuses can be attained with the provision of active and passive open space, on -site storm drainage control, and retention of native vegetation, among others. Density Bonus Standard #6 - Mixed Housing Types, allows for a two percent density bonus if a development features a mix of residential housing types. Single family residences, attached single units, condominiums, apartments, and townhomes are examples of housing types. Additional development standards for street paving widths, pedestrian circulation, landscaping, signs, view protection, shoreline use, etc., are addressed in the appropriate City of Kent regulations, i.e., Zoning Code, Subdivision Code, Shoreline Master Program and the Green River Corridor Special Interest District. n IV. ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS The Report of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Single Family Housing (October, 1989) cites "Attached Singles" as a viable alternative to the detached dwelling in meeting the changing trends in households and homeownership. These residences earn the title "attached singles", rather than multifamily, by their ability to coexist and/or harmonize with single family detached homes. When attached singles are developed as townhouses (horizontally, not vertically stacked units), there are ways to develop them to "fit" within a single family neighborhood. One method is to design the residence so that it takes on the character of a large estate home. Multiple entrances and garages can be offset and/or disguised. Another method is to make each individual unit distinct by staggering the floor plans to make it clear from the street where one unit ends and the next begins. V. ALTERNATIVES AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The following is a list of alternatives to the existing PUD regulations to address the concern over multifamily development (attached singles) in the RA and R1 Single Family zoning districts. The alternatives may be considered separately or in combination with one another. Each of the alternatives has the objective of meeting the stated purpose of the Planned Unit Development. Alternatives A through E assume that the exception allowing attached dwelling units in Single Family zoned PUDs is retained and/or modified, while Alternative F suggests the exception be removed from the regulations. A. Increase the minimum site acreage for RA and R1 zoning Districts. This alternative would retain the exception allowing attached dwellings in single family zoned PUDs, but would reduce the potential for this type of development to occur. The existing minimum required is 5 acres. If the minimum site acreage was increased to 10 acres, this would reduce the number of parcels available for development of a PUD. B. Modify the exception to ensure harmony with adjacent single family neighborhoods. Sample exception: P 1. In single family residential zoning districts (RA and R1) attached side by side (not vertically stacked) residential units may be permitted in a PUD provided: a. The number of attached units is limited to 50 percent of the total units, and b. Attached units are not to exceed four units per structure. By limiting the percent of attached singles to occur, the PUD will attain the scale and character of low -density, single family neighborhoods, yet provide the desired mix of housing types to meet a variety of needs. Limiting the size of structures to contain only two or three units each minimizes the bulk of structures and also aids in attaining a low -density, single family environment. C. Establish site design guidelines if attached units are incorporated in single family PUDs. The existing PUD regulations permit attached units in single family districts, but the regulations do not establish guidelines for site configuration if attached units are going to be incorporated. The Multifamily Transition Area guidelines begin to address site layout by increasing the setbacks and requiring the height of the buildings to be lower at the setback line (the maximum height of any structure within a Multifamily Transition Area cannot exceed two stories or 25 feet at the minimum setback line.) Example site design guideline for attached units: 1. If the proposed PUD abuts a single family neighborhood, the attached units shall be limited to the interior of the lot and shall be screened by detached units around the perimeter of the PUD. This type of transition from detached units to attached is consistent with the general zoning pattern or gradient of less dense to more dense housing types. D. In RA and R1 zones, eliminate Density Bonus Standard #61 Mixed Housing Types. The existing Density Bonus Standard states that "a two percent density bonus may be authorized if a development features a mix of residential housing types. Single N. family residences, attached single units, condominiums, apartments, and townhomes are examples of housing types. The mix need not include some of every type." This bonus not only encourages the development of attached units, but also allows increased density, which may not be appropriate for single family zoning districts. E. In RA and R1 zones, develop a new Bonus Standard allowing attached units and/or increased density when specific amenities are provided. Attached dwellings can often be developed at a lower cost and, therefore, the developer may find it desirable to provide additional amenities or design features to obtain this increased density. In this alternative, the "Exception All would be deleted and a new Bonus Standard would be included. Example Bonus Standard: In RA and R1 zoning districts, attached units may be permitted if any combination of the following amenities or site design features are provided: 1. Additional 10 foot landscape buffer between attached units and adjacent single family uses outside the PUD. 2. Additional 5 percent open space for common use. 3. The perimeter lots of the PUD to be permanently retained as single family detached units. 4. Attached units to have staggered floor plans to emphasize individual units. F. Remove "Exception - A.".... the provision that allows attached units in single family zones. This alternative would eliminate any potential for attached units in RA or R1 zoning districts, possibly defeating the City's intent to allow flexibility and a mix of housing types through the PUD regulations. It is conceivable that with the removal of the exception, horizontally stacked units (townhouses) would rarely be considered even with the density bonuses. As the multifamily residential zoning districts allow vertically stacked units (which would likely result in a higher density than horizontally stacked units), the potential 7 developable units permitted outright in the multifamily residential zoning districts (excluding MR-D), could exceed the units attainable through the density bonus for providing a mix of housing types in a PUD. In such cases, the developer would be unlikely to build townhomes if he/she were seeking maximum densities. G. No change to existing Planned Unit Development regulations. This alternative would allow the potential for a Planned Unit Development to remain as it is presently. A PUD could occur in all zoning districts (except A-11 Agricultural) and PUDs in the RA and R1 zoning districts could incorporate horizontally stacked units (attached singles) into the development. H. Eliminate Planned Unit Developments in RA and R1 single family residential zones. This alternative would retain the Planned Unit Development provisions for all multifamily, commercial and industrial zoning districts within which attached units could occur. It would, however, eliminate the potential for providing a mix of housing types through attached units in the RA and Ri zoning districts, as well as all of the other advantages of the PUD, including the preservation of unique environmental features, provision of more affordable housing, and other amenities like passive and active open space. LY/ljh:pudregs.rpt E] Kent City Council Meeting Date October 15, 1991 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY/METRO MERGER 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the recommendation of the City Council Planning Committee not to support the proposed King County/METRO Merger. This recommendation was made on September 17, 1991. 3. EXHIBITS: Memo, Council Planning Committee minutes of 9/17/91 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended M EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember ,, seconds to adopt the Council Planning Committee's recommendation not to support the proposed King County/METRO Merger. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4C`X. CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM October 15, 1991 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED KING COUNTY/METRO MERGER At their September 17, 1991 meeting, the Council's Planning Committee voted to recommend that the full City Council go on record as opposing the proposed King County/METRO merger. After discussion by the Committee, it was felt that the proposed merger was different from that which was agreed upon by the City of Seattle and suburban cities at the earlier Summit meetings. FS/mp:a:merger cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES September 17, 1991 4:45 PM Committee Members Present Christie Houser Jon Johnson, Chair Leona Orr Planning Staff Sharon Clamp James Harris Margaret Porter Fred Satterstrom Other Guests Bill Doolittle Linda Van Nest Judy Woods, Council President KING COUNTY/METRO MERGER (J. Johnson) City Attorney's Office Roger Lubovich Carol Morris Other City Staff Norm Angelo May Miller Chair Johnson stated that the Suburban Cities Association has taken the position that it will not now support the King County/Metro merger. He stated that if the vote on the merger fails, the suburban cities, City of Seattle, and King County would have to get together and agree on new language prior to the state legislature convening. There needs to be some common language which could be taken to the state legislature for them to pass a law merging the two entities. If the legislature fails to deal with the issue, then Judge Dreyer will make the final decision. Councilmember Orr MOVED and Councilmember Houser SECONDED a motion to recommend that the City Council take a position against supporting the King County Metro merger. Motion carried. The Committee directed that this item go to full council on October 1 under other business. HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (L. Ballj No report was given. Kent City Council Meeting Date October 15, 1991 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CODE AMENDMENTS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Amendments to the Mobile Home Park Code include revisions related to accessory structures, and appeal procedures for Building Official decisions. At the October 1, 1991 Council hearing, Council also approved amendments that would allow recreational vehicles in mobile home parks as permanent dwelling units. The City Attorney's review of the amendments related to recreational vehicles has revealed potential conflicts with state law on the subject, so these amendments have been further revised. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance ; Memo from City Attorney's Office 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning/Law (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember -+ seconds to adopt Ordinance as revised by the City Attorney's Office, amending the Mobile Home Park Code. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Age{zda Item No. 4D M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: City Attorney s Office DATE: October 10, 1991 RE: Mobile Home Code Amendments As originally drafted, the suggested amendments to the Mobile Home Code permitted recreational vehicles to be placed in nonconforming mobile home parks as permanent dwelling units" under certain circumstances. A review of the law in the State of Washington on the subject of mobile homes and recreational vehicles has disclosed that while both are licensed by the state, only mobile homes are constructed and regulated as permanent dwelling units. In addition, there are detailed standards for installation of mobile homes, which require that installers also be certified by the state. According to the people at the Department of Labor and Industries, the reason no similar installation regulations exist for recreational vehicles is because they are specifically not intended to be, nor are they built to be, permanent dwelling units. The Department has grave concerns about any local regulation that would sanction recreational vehicles as "permanent dwelling units," since they consider this to have the effect of legalizing a safety hazard. As a result, this Office has corresponding concerns about City liability. Keeping in mind the intent of the proposed amendments, this Office re -drafted the appropriate sections to permit mobile home park owners the option of allowing recreational vehicles to stay or be located within the mobile home park, subject to certain fire separation standards. References to the use of recreational vehicles as "permanent dwelling units," or the description of any procedures for the review/approval by City staff of the permanent installation of these vehicles have been deleted. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to mobile home parks, amending the Mobile Home Park Code, on accessory structures and nonconforming mobile home park standards; Kent City Code Sections 12.08.071 and 12.08.380. WHEREAS, mobile home park owners in the City of Kent met with members of the City Council to discuss the most recent amendments to the Mobile Home Park Code (Ordinance 2990); and WHEREAS, the park owners' concerns were thereafter communicated to City staff, and it was agreed that the recent iii amendments would pose difficulties for park owners to observe and' City staff to administer and enforce; and WHEREAS, these concerns prompted City staff to present revisions to the recent amendments and make additional changes to I the Mobile Home Park Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Section 12.08.071 of the Mobile Home Park' Code, Chapter 12.08 of the Kent City Code (K.C.C.) (Ordinance 2077, as last amended by Ordinance 2990) is amended to read as follows:) 12.08.071. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE -- Any structure on an interior mobile home lot or site that is appurtenant to the principally permitted mobile home or nonconforming recreational vehicle. For purposes of non -conforming mobile home parks carports and porches open on three sides shall not be considered accessory structures. Section 2. K.C.C. Section 12.08.380 of the Mobile Home Park Code is amended to read as follows: 12.08.380. NONCONFORMING MOBILE HOME PARR 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 development standards required herein, said parks shall be considered legal nonconforming uses. The following minimum standards shall apply to the placement or relocation of individual mobile homes and recreational vehicles within! nonconforming mobile home parks and to the construction,' of accessory structures. 1) A site plan drawn to scale that shows the perimeter park boundaries, the dimensions and ((ef-- all ,)) the location of all existing mobile homes, accessory buildings, carports and porches, utility hookups and internal roadways shall be submitted in conjunction with permit appli- cation for placement or relocation of individual I 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 2 the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 501A, section 4-2.1.1 as adopted by reference in the K.C.C. ((fir)) section 13.02.080 for required standards. Lot coverage requirements need not apply. See diagram 12.08.380-2. is eur-rently net in as sp-Pified in this eeda and mar V h, t the —ema t mebile l heffte 1 at—=a;� appreval by 1 • ) ) 3Z Recreational vehicles shall be allowed in a' nonconforming mobile home park under the following, circumstances: a. A recreational vehicle may be relocated on an individual mobile home space that is occupied by a similar unit at the time of adoption of the; nonconforming standards- - 3 b. The existing mobile home space cannot be used for a mobile home due to the minimum setbacks specified in diagram 12.08.380-2. All recreational vehicles in nonconforming mobile home parks shall be placed in a location which complies with the separation requirements specified in Diagram 12.08.380-2. ( (Any iiiebile hence let within a neneenfermimg mebile heme—pare that Bees net meet minima —let —size mshile—heme— let —for - purpeses efreleeating mobile h.en. es f>))4) No nonconforming mobile home park boundaries shall be expanded nor shall any additional mobile home lots be created as a result of these provisions. Any new expansion shall be subject to the provisions of the; Mobile Home Park Code. 5) Appeals of any Building Official decision with regard to placement or relocation of a mobile home recreational vehicle and/or accessory structure arej subject to the appeal procedures specified in K.C.C. Chapter 14.01. Diagram 12.08.380 - 2 Minimum NONCONFORMING Mobile Home Park Separations Reference: NFPA 4-2.1.1/Kent Municipal Code Ghapter Title 13. The following example illustrates the minimum separation; 4 standards for the placement of mobile homes/manufactured homes in nonconforming mobile home parks. MINIMUMS 10' SIDE TO SIDE 8' END TO SIDE II 61END TO END i 6' DIAGONALLY 1 �--- 6' - I i i i l 10' � I ------------------------------ (Interior Park Driveway) Any portion of a mobile home/manufactured home shall not'i be located closer than 10 feet side to side, 8 feet end,; to side, 6 feet end to end horizontally or 6 feetl diagonally from any other mobile home/manufactured homer recreational vehicle or community building. No portion of a mobile home/manufactured home can encroach on an internal driveway. 5 The site plan must reflect adjacent park spaces and separations between units and accessory structures and roads. Additional permits and review may be required by other 1 agencies or City departments as a result of the placement of a mobile home/manufactured home. -1�� have further the r n , t t 8F)9 n NOTE: Upon approval of the Building Official' construction of an approved two-hour fire resistive wall' may decrease required separation distances. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance 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. M section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1991. APPROVED the day of , 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 City of Kent as hereon indicated. mobUe.ord (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 7 r Kent City Council Meeting Date October 15. 1991 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT RELOCATION AND REMODEL 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held on September 10, 1991, with three bids received. The low bid, submitted by AGCI, Inc. of Kent, exceeded the project budget by approximately $130,000. The shortfall has been remedied through minor budget adjustments, accepting 2 alternative - deducts: 1) emergency generator @ $17,800; 2) Armorcoat windows @ $8,500 and by reducing interior furnishings by $90,000. The project will now balance with existing appropriations. 3. EXHIBITS: Bid summary sheet 4. RECOMMENDED BY: IBC/Public Safety/Finance/Operations/Police Administration (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO—>< _ YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $1 340 274 including tax ($1 238 700 w/o tax SOURCE OF FUNDS: CIP and seized assets previously allocated 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: n; Counc.ilmember moves!, council tber to award the construction contract to AGCI General Contractors of Kent, accepting alternate bid deducts #4 (generator) and #6 (Armorcoat), in the amount of $1,340,274 Incl. tax. DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A Kent Police Library Remodel Project Bid opening Summary From: M.P. Sweeney, Administrative Lieutenant Date: September 23, 1991 ----------------------------- At 2:15 p.m. on September loth, City Clerk Jacober opened bids for the Police Library Remodel Project. AGCl/Armstrong-Gilthvedt Construction of Kent (610 South Central, Suite B; 852-2049) was the low bidder. 14 firms requested bid documents, 3 firms bid at the following costs, I hold 60 day 5% bid bonds for each bid: AGCI, Kent Hoffcon, Tacoma Sunset -Pacific, Tacoma Total Bid: $1,265,000 $1,386,666 $1,455,000 Alternates: (- deducts) 1. Lockers - 41500 -21500 -20,200 2. Windows -36,000 -37,305 -39,700 3. Wainscot -9,100 -10,955 -8,500 4. E-Genset -17,800 -18,800 -20,600 5. Fencing -23,400 -37,178 -40,400 6. Armorcoat -8,500 -8,200 -41000 Alt. Totals: -99,300 -114,938 -133,400 The city has 60 days from bid opening to execute a contract with the low bidder if a responsive bid subject to background and reference checks. The contract deadline date is November 8th! 1. SUBJECT: INTERURBAN TRAIL Kent City Council Meeting Date October 15, 1991 Category Bids 2, SUMMARY STATEMENT: Five bids were received on October 8, 1991 for the Interurban Trail project. Tucci & Sons, Inc., , submitted the low base bid in the amount of $449,110. The ",,;department and engineer recommend acceptance of the base bid, plus Alternate 4 and Alternate 5A(2)b, for a total contract award of $593,430. The project is within budget. 3. EXHIBITS: Letter from Barney Wilson, Letter from ORB 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Department The ORB Organization (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $593,430 SOURCE OF FUNDS: King County Open Space Bond proceeds 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to -award the Interurban Trail contract to Tucci & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $593,430. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Age cya Item No. 5C' CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT October 10, 1991 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Barney Wilson, PREPARED BY: Helen Wickstrm NV� SUBJECT: INTERURBAN TRAIL Bids were opened on October 8 for completion of the Interurban Trail. Five bids were received, with the low bid coming from Tucci & Sons, Inc. of Tacoma, Washington. This project will complete the Interurban Tail between Smith Street in Kent and 285th Street in Auburn. The project is funded from the King County Open Space Bond program and the bid is within budget. i�11�9ilu�ui�:i9 Tucci & Sons, Inc. $ 449,110 Base Bid (33,180) Alt. #4 - Deduct log barriers 177,500 Alt. #5A(2)B - Add 10' clear concrete deck bridge (over the wetland south of 277th) $ 593,420 Total Golf Landscaping $ 553,700 Base Bid (14,000) Alt. #4 - Deduct 232,000 Alt. #5A(2)B - Add $ 771,700 Total Ohno Construction Co. $ 554,000 Base Bid (27,657) Alt. #4 - Deduct 273,000 Alt. #5A(2)B - Add $ 799,343 Total Mayor and City Council October 10, 1991 Page Two Lakeridge Paving $ 549,607 Base Bid (15,707) Alt. #4 - Deduct 305,550 Alt. #5A(2)B - Add $ 839,450 Total Continental Sports $ 964,765 Base Bid Surfaces (48,000) Alt. #4 - Deduct 361,300 Alt. #5A(2)B - Add $1,278,065 Total Although there was a wide ay,range of bids, ORB has verified with Tucci & Sons that they are comfortable with their bid. We recommend that a contract be awarded to Tucci & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $593,420. CCT-10-1991 13:1e FPOM THE ORB OR13ANIZATIGN INC TJ 93987-*�i<SA20 P.01iEu 5W3EN30 oXs.EIL 4:303M4[gr.ALN=RE.A►.wJ?=4C20N-9 ARCHITECTS a PLANNERS' ENGINEERS 0 October 10, 1991 City of Kent Department of Parks and Recreation 220 South Fourth Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Helen Wickstrom, Superintendent Parks Administration Project: Interurban Trail Project - 1991 Smith Street in Kent South to 285th Street in Auburn b. Subject: Bid/Proposal Analysis and Recommendation Dear Helen: On Tuesday, October 8, 1991 at 10:00 AM (PST), Bid Proposals were received for construction of one of the last remaining links in the Interurban Trail System - for that portion beginning at Smith Street in downtown Kent and extending south over 2.6 miles to 285th Street in Auburn, except for the Green River Bridge Crossing. Five (5) Proposals were received prior to the closing time of 10:00 AM. One (1) additional proposal was delivered some 12-14 minutes after the closing time and was treated as "non- responsive." A full copy of the Bid Tabulation Sheet is in your possession and has not been forwarded herewith. The proposal requirements included a "Base Bid Breakdown", a series of seven (7) DEDUCTIVE Alternate Bid Items to accommodate possible high bid amounts; and eight (8) part ADD Alternate Bid Item for various bridge configurations and materials of construction for a "Pedestrian Foot Bridge" over a major wetlands area south of 277th Street. Only one (1) of the eight (8) bridge possibilities may be accepted. Additionally, four (4) Unit Price Bid Items were requested for possible use, where necessary, during the construction process. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, Washington 98055-2977 / (206) 226-3522 / FAX (206) 226-9115 OCT-10-1'E91 1-7:19 FROM THE DREI IN PIC C " �E-'�83r aerOEi F'.Ct ,t City of Kent October 10,1991 Page 2 Of the s estimate forhle work. Those amounts afive re as follows: were responsive and were well below OR Ba, se Bid 1. Tucci & Sons, Inc. $449,110 $549,607 2. Lakeridge Paving $553,700 3. Golf Landscaping, Inc. $554,000 4. Ohno Construction Co. $964,765 5. Continental Sports Surfaces ORB's Estimate $695,484 As you can see, the first four (4) bids are below ORB's estimate. They are as follows: ueiow Es mate 1. Tucci & Sons, Inc. <$246,374> <35.4%> 2. Lakeridge Paving .4$145,877> <209%> 3. Golf Landscaping <$141,784> <20.38%> 4. Ohno Construction <$14L484) <20.34%> Due to the favorable proposals received, the seven (7) deductive Alternate Bids do not need to be considered. It is, however, necessary to add a Pedestrian Foot Bridge from those eight (8) possibilities defined by Alternate Bid No. 5. Based upon the preference advanced by representatives of both the City of Kent and the Auburn Parks Departments, a 10-foot wide configuration with concrete deck forms the basis of analysis. (Refer to Alternate Bid 5A(2)b as manufactured by the Continental Bridge Company.) The comparative bridge proposals were as follows: Bridge (10 Ft. Wide/Concrete 1. Tucci & Sons, Inc. $177,500 <22.4%>* 2. Lakeridge Paving $305,550 33.5%* 3. Golf Landscaping $232,000 1.3%* 4. Ohno Construction $273,000 19.2%* ORB's Estimated Cost $228,880** * In comparison to ORB estimate ** This is actually for a wood surface. (i`10 estimate for concrete surface) OCT-10-1991 13: 19 FP.CM THE C iFB OROPNIZATICN INC. Tri 85S_158--:k:kgn-20 P.O-; Cl4 City of Kent October 10, 1991 Page 3 In order to bring this Projects construction costs comfortably below the available construction dollar level, as we currently understand them to be, ORB is recommending that the City elect to accept Alternate Bid No. 4, a deductive alternate which deletes all log barriers from the Project. The barriers are located predominantly between Meeker Street and Willis Street, but not totally. These barriers could be easily reincorporated back into the project at a later date. The following provides a comparative recap of the foregoing: TLSCCI LAKERIDGE GOLF OHNO ORB 1. BASE BID $449,110 $549,607 $353,700 $554,000 $695,494 2. ALT BID NO 4 DELETE LOG BARRIERS <33,180> <15,707> <14,000> <27,657> <10,552> 3. ALT BID NO 5 $177,500 $305;550 $232,000 $273,000 $228,8N Bridge Type B 10 feet wide with Conc deck 5A(2)b (Continental Bridge) $593,430 $839,450 $771,700 $799,343 $913,812 COMPARISON w1TH ORB ESTIMATE <35%> <8.1%> <15.50/0> <12.594'> 0.0% On the basis of the foregoing analysis, ORB is recommending an award of the General Construction Contract to the firm of: Tucci & Sons, Inc. 4224 Waller Road Tacoma, Washington 98443 (206) 922-6676 State License Number 223.01-TU-CC-15*379NO Michael A. Tucci, President We recommend an award in the amount of $593,430.00, as outlined above, plus acceptance of the four (4) Unit Price Bid items. Upon completion of your review, and concurrence and the City Council's approval, ORB stands ready to assist the City in the preparation of draft copies of the proposed construction contract. it is our current understanding that the City Council will be reviewing the bids/analysis and proposed contract recommendation at their next meeting on Tuesday, October 15, 1991, OCT-17-1991 13:20 FF.iiM THE OPP ORGRAIENTIOhl :r!C ____ _ City of Kent October 10, 1991 Page 4 the foregoing recommendation, please feel free to call. Should you have any questions relating to Sincerely, LeRoy V.'%,RdL 4 project Manager /mps 9=\BADANALLDC CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESI B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ✓D. %l PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTE F. PARKS COMMITTEE i G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - Budget CITY OF KENT 1992 COUNCIL BUDGET CALENDAR COUNCIL RETREAT SESSION 2/28 Current Financial Status and Outlook COUNCIL REGULAR 4/2 Review 1992 Budget & CIP Calendar/Process Preliminary 1992 and beyond Financial Forecast COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5/7 1st Quarter Financial Report Update 1992 Budget Process COUNCIL COMMITTEES 6/4 - 7/16 Review Departmental programs, goals and 1992 Budget Objectives DEPARTMENTS MEET WITH ADMINISTRATION (Council invited) 7/15 - 7/30 Review 1992 budget request COUNCIL REGULAR 7/16 Public Hearing on 1992-1997 CIP Proposed Public Use Hearing on 199.2 Budget priorities COUNCIL REGULAR 8/6 Adopt 1992-1997 CIP COUNCIL WORK SESSION (8:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M.) 8/8 2nd Quarter Financial Report Updated Financial Forecast Departmental Presentations of 1992 Budget Cuts Council Prioritizes 1992 Budget Cuts COUNCIL WORKSHOP AND MEETING 8/20 Results of Council Prioritization of Budget Cuts Proposed Public Use Hearing on Budget Receive Council Balancing Instructions COUNCIL WORKSHOP 9/17 Budget update on implementing 1992 Budget Objectives COUNCIL WORKSHOP 10/15 Review 3rd Quarter Financial Report Overview of 1992 Preliminary Budget COUNCIL WORKSHOPS 10/15 - 11/12 Review 1992 Preliminary Budget COUNCIL REGULAR 11/5 Public Hearing on 1992 Budget COUNCIL REGULAR 11/19 Adoption of Budget and Tax Levy Ordinance COUNCIL REGULAR 12/3 Adoption of the Final Adjustments for 1991 PRESENT: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 1, 1991 Jim White Leona Orr Steve Dowell Don Wickstrom Tom Brubaker Carol Morris Authorization to Surplus Equipment Gary Gill Ed White John Bond Tony McCarthy Mr. and Mrs. Rust Don Rust Russ Stringham Wickstrom explained that in order to dispose of surplus utility equipment we must hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution declaring the material surplus and offer it for sale to the highest bidder. The Committee unanimously recommended approval to hold the public hearing and adopt the resolution declaring the material surplus. Mrs. Rust commented about the disposition of the shelves in the old library. Tony McCarthy explained that we have had vendors submitting bids to -purchase the materials. Jim White asked about the old furniture from the three departments that moved into the Centennial Building. Tony McCarthy commented that other departments took those items that could be used. We received bids from used furniture dealers to purchase the remaining pieces of furniture. Jim White asked if the City has a written inventory of all the equipment and furniture. McCarthy stated that the departments have submitted lists of their furniture and equipment. As staffing levels and time permits, those will be inventoried. Speed Limit Changes During Construction - Canyon Drive Wickstrom explained that we are proposing to lower the speed limits on Canyon Drive from 40 to 30 MPH during the construction period. This ordinance will be on the Council's agenda for October 1. The committee unanimously recommended approval to adopt the ordinance lowering the speed limits. Implementation of Street Occupation ordinance Wickstrom distributed a draft list of recommended charges for those issues addressed in the street occupation ordinance. The proposed changes are based on what our administrative costs would be to issue the permit. Some of the charges shown on the listing are PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 1, 1991 PAGE 2 that charged by the City of Seattle. Staff is still working on those items to determine the proper fee for Kent. Wickstrom stated this is being presented to the Committee for their review at this time and it will be brought back before the Committee for approval. Dowell asked about the length of time the permit was good for. Wickstrom commented it would depend upon what the application was for. For instance, a banner might be for a week's period while a sandwich board permit could be good for one year. Russ Stringham asked about a second sign or whether a business owner is limited to one sign. Wickstrom stated that each application would have to be reviewed on its own merit since some locations could support a second sign while others could not. Jim White asked if this applied to all real estate signs. Wickstrom replied that the ordinance referred to all signs in the public right of way. Stringham commented that if the permit fee for real estate signs is $75 the real estate companies will go ahead and put them up and let the City take them down. Carol Morris stated that if this turns out to be a problem, the present ordinance could be amended to include a provision setting penalties for certain companies that continue to violate. Stringham asked how the dimensions were determined. John Bond stated that the ASHTO site criteria was used. Ed White added these are nationally recognized standards. Dowell asked if the people on Meeker street would be charged for their awnings. Wickstrom commented that the ordinance does address that use but we do not propose to go out on the streets to police it. However,.if a complaint is brought to our attention, we will have to address it based on the ordinance. Stringham raised questions about the requirement of an indemnity bond and would a sandwich board permit require a bond. He stated this would incur more cost for the business owner. The certificate of insurance will add another $200 a year to his insurance costs. He wondered why both would be required. Carol Morris explained that each application would have to be reviewed on its own merits as each piece of property is unique. It was noted that the condition on destruction of any confiscated signs should be consistent with the ordinance. Jim White asked that this proposal be submitted to the real estate people and downtown businesses for their comments. He stated he is concerned about the costs from a business standpoint but on the other side the City has the costs of administering the ordinance and the potential liability. Dowell commented that the public has to be aware that when Council adopts ordinances such as this to meet specific needs, they are going to have to support the costs involved. often times these ordinances require departments to take on extra tasks for which they have either no staff or funding. Jim White asked this be brought back to the Committee in a couple of weeks.