HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 03/17/1992 i !l nttl, .....
......
M..........
Y11Y1HtHkIMNWIMW�111NIN14l11114114111U9NIH....................... llllliN...........
11.31IIIIlu11111114.....IIV
aYNtl111MM7lfM11t11M11NNR 61Mp� 11tIMfp111N'mWCl1
.... . ., „..� .. .III .�..,�. .. ... „ ......w..,,..,. ...�.. ......... ,.w+.ww.•..
F11 M,...w..,�,.,...,
,
I ifl'If >a
I #` Hit
FKpi, I. I al ,
I �i�{Eu ryY,,• It
!1 J klryf Y
t �4R u9P T`
Iff, '90h. sift
i t EN �hE I�
I� Y •Ir't
� f�rt�Ikl I 'I � .
'! 1 wl dip p2lSt:
I� � Ei> J 1 .�' il' li i s�cl 1 r
� f/I h � �i �g 'I��F��{fj ,
I�i 9 ` F1' (j+` 'Yl�i�� IN4�� ri i ('JIt
�Itl
'kill:y
i�
s I it
IJI i-M'r
I1 C x .. uN Illlll 11 4e,uy
I�+ Ik �id I: J R'D {S I t I ,�J kl,ar f •1 k (4Nk I AHN 11,IIII!
.. .. I I I
it
1k o-1
ITT
t li
I T
l
1 !q R/fi3i� ! �, �� I I I III } '[1 f �{ 7 ! - i I ! y 4 I)y31i yi 1�9 iji 15< '' �I•
i gl i.. E4 1E I i° al S , 1 t II h 1 t 111 s , r r '�1�t ! J 7
I 9 Ss S ' y{ i k I' i Ij t l i 6 it tit
1
!it
< (S 1 s£u£ st! I 1A ITrl
R
aE�i`f ,.� IIk7�l l i.,yIIllly II•. '�I �
I' lifs r , ,I , w yp [r' 0 11 ':h
1 t S t����. '1l '1, �� HIIk' ��I� ,��
Mk a x E I >,. i I IJ A.I
ilk: it f ly9 £esilllt ' 1 '
i
jj ] J f I Jk j i�
t tS I�I
r1l 7 S�4i i , I 1
I IY 4iii(4«�a( � 9�it
fit[ li " I ,'d 11 I tl wr' t I ' li
t �I i�!r
F p!fr 13
JI-f,if' E+3{i
r 1F ))YP YYY 4 4 tf
g as � `pKpr..y g p p I r� p p� �^1'Wgy iyp 5 s¢I< !' ! N L F!a N & L,la�d 1.;i1�� l �. .,i��` i 1 p F b E iw.
z l)1 ypgwys, �IIea11 y �FI 1 tl f(f( 1/J(w�{'.�/JIpI , {{ram(rq=, I ,
(' < 1( 9 • T t Nl�I II�f II M ( �p 1, �i 4 Y
J£Of4 i
(��1II ( �I,Ii l3 III r ' I "I�II'I! �y�� ��i.,� '
I t II 1 u. J ! i �]�
d4�t�lfl I IiEy� ���
i R XI iE � tP IiP , rxu w • n .. EF Kik. I P
E�ellr I t a I t '!kl f s ! I 16 .@Nip% III I I zl i ii If li �.
'�, j4�fillif{I� S .a I I yl ' 1 I 2€i yJtjoi;
!k 4 I r 1.6?E 9i��l�I IIRI 9.1 1 r ;',I ,«�,. .�,....m .�... .. ........... .�.,. ' :I �'$ f t
} I II�II�y�lll�Iil Y� I Y i I 11 4{
It
; ,leli, kt ! III £1,
"
rill:
6k M
g t, jgpi i Eil
�. k4
>{ iy E I ..¢ ...I .��•w �,.�,..,t,,.:� I, our rwuuuuuumxunumunu�,wxuwrwnl. ,••u•11141 lul IIII IllllftlllHlilNp{11Mtli1MNEBBIpRYft9MY111�IN11��� ���•• i11
it
((y(#J [ E N14111p1lIHFTMRNpWM1YMg114i1{lillll 1 iN 111 II i 31t.
��'I�llrlklq�tM3�ilvlhl� tiN�f f�fsl 'o
a ! !:a!
,..;+ A — €it'pil t, I sl!,i„� I .. !f I,lll
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 17, 1992
Council Chambers
7: 00 p.m.
MAYOR: Dan Kelleher COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Christi Houser Jon Johnson
Paul Mann Leona Orr Jim White
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Proclamation - St. Patrick ' s Day
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
B. Bills
C. West Valley Highway Improvement Project - Release
Retainage
D. SR 515 (235th - 220th) Agreement with State - Water and
Sewer Relocation
E. King County Open Space Bond Budget Revisions
F. c- n ft !;.-i
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Hicks Short Plat Appeal (SP-92-2)
B. Downtown Zoning Plan (ZCA-90-6)
5. BIDS
A. Photocopier Service and Equipment
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7. REPORTS
8 . ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available in the City
Clerk's Office and at the Kent Library.
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of
this page.
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 - St. Patrick' s Day
J + '
J 1
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. City Council Action: Ji 1
Councilmember (,C i 1� moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through be approved.
�f
Discussion
Action 1,,
3A. Approval of Minutes.
' Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
1 ,
March 3 , 1992 .
YIB. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through March 16,
1992 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting
at 5: 30 p.m. on March 16, 1992 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Approval of checks issued for Payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Council Ager4a�
Item No. 3 A"-
Kent, Washington
March 3 , 1992
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Woods. Present: Councilmembers
Bennett, Johnson, Mann, Orr and White, City Administrator Chow,
City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works
Director Wickstrom, Assistant City Administrator Hansen, Police
Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Finance Director McCarthy, and
Information Services Director Spang. Mayor Kelleher, Council-
member Houser, Parks Director Wilson and Human Resources Director
Olson were not in attendance. Approximately 30 people were at
the meeting.
PUBLIC Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem Woods
COMMUNICATION announced that Barb Haney of the Police Department
has been selected as Employee of the Month for
March. She noted that Ms. Haney is Secretary to
the Detectives Unit, and that she is a hard
working and dedicated employee with top notch
customer service skills . Police Chief Crawford
said that she is a very valuable employee who is a
pleasure to work with, and that he and the detec-
tives appreciate her very much.
CONSENT WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR I be approved. Mann seconded and the motion car-
ried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of February 18 , 1992
and the Special Council meeting of February 6,
1992 .
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
South Central Street Widening ADOPTION of
Ordinance No. 3033 authorizing staff to proceed
with condemnation for right-of-way on two parcels
in order to proceed with the South Central Street
widening project, as recommended by the Public
Works Committee.
STREET (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
VACATION ADDED ITEM
Parkside Walkway. Joe Hembree, 25208 - 36th Place
South, noted that last year residents of the area
asked that their walkway be made smaller or be
removed. He said that the City has enlarged it to
the point that cars can drive down it, and has
1
March 3 , 1992
STREET taken so much land from the residents of 37th
VACATION Place that they are moving because there is not
enough space in their yards. He said the City has
spent over $20, 000 on a walkway that is used
approximately 8-12 times a week. He noted that
there is now a street light in his back yard, and
asked the Council to reconsider Resolution 1257 .
Wickstrom explained that this was a proposed vaca-
tion of a portion of a pathway and in lieu of
vacating it, Council asked Public Works to improve
it. He noted that the City gravelled it, put in
street lights because of a concern about darkness,
and moved fences, and that the total cost of the
improvements was between $5, 000 and $6, 000.
White agreed to add this issue to the Public Works
Committee agenda for March 17 . He noted that the
meeting will be held at 2 : 00 p.m. and Hembree said
he will attend. White noted that some residents
had built their fences in the right-of-way and
that they were moved to the property lines.
Hembree noted that although the fence is only one
month old, it is already full of graffiti. He
asked the Council to consider closing the walkway.
Byron Beck stated that he had originally petition-
ed to close the easement, and that he feels the
improvements have been good. He said more people
have been attracted to the walkway since it is no
longer dangerous . He expressed concern that there
is no crosswalk nor any signs from the pathway
across Military Road, noting that children ride
their bicycles out onto Military. He said signs
are needed to slow drivers down because they can-
not see the children. He added that since the
light has gone up, the fence and three cars have
been painted near it. He suggested spray painting
the fence monthly because of the graffiti. He
also said he will attend the next Public Works
Committee meeting.
2
March 3 , 1992
STREET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B)
UTILITY Street Utility. The public hearing on formation
of the street utility and implementation of the
street utility rates was opened at Council ' s last
meeting and continued to this meeting for addi-
tional public comment thereon. At the February 18
meeting the Director of Public Works presented the
street utility proposal along with its associated
rates, the necessity for same and the improvements
targeted for funding. The Director also noted
that the street utility rate impact is to be off-
set somewhat by the proposed elimination of the
City' s utility tax on the utility bill of its
water, sewer and drainage customers.
Woods declared the public hearing open. Bill Joy,
28183 - 109th Avenue SE, noted that the cost of
the 272nd/277th corridor will range between $16
and $30 million, and that people who live outside
the city limits of Kent will be asked to fund a
large portion. He asked how the funds which will
be eliminated from the tax on water and drainage
will be replaced. He also pointed out that the
City Attorney recently informed the Councilmembers
that they could now communicate with opponents or
proponents of the 272nd/277th corridor, and urged
them to study the draft environmental impact
statement, supporting documents and comment
letters. He also suggested holding a public forum
to assure all of the objectives of the project are
met. Barry Broxson, 28255 - 105th Avenue SE, said
that the 272nd/277th corridor will get traffic up
to East Hill, but will not alleviate existing
problems in Kent. He asked how the city can
justify a tax on Kent citizens for a road that is
completely outside the city limits. He agreed
that the city should study this thoroughly to
avoid future legal problems. He also asked how
the city can justify heavy truck on 272nd/277th,
as noted in the draft EIS - page 83 , which would
bring traffic from I-5 through the valley and up
East Hill to Kent-Kangley Road, which can barely
handle the present automobile traffic. Wickstrom
explained that without the road, the congestion on
Kent ' s city streets would be even worse, and that
studies show the road would provide significant
benefits within the city. He also noted that the
3
March 3 , 1992
STREET EIS will be presented to the Council for direction
UTILITY as to whether or not to proceed, and at that point
technical people will be in attendance to address
questions about the corridor. Lubovich clarified
that the city can build the road with the County's
concurrence, and that the key question is the
power of condemnation. He offered to further re-
search the issue, and Woods asked that Mr. Broxson
be informed as to the results of the research.
White noted that he had read a letter to the
editor alleging that this corridor would be a
truck corridor, but that he was not aware of that.
Wickstrom said it has never been proposed as a
truck corridor. Johnson said there is no question
that trucks would use it, and that they cannot be
prohibited from using it just as they use Kent-
Kangley, Benson, or any highway.
John Kiefer, 11048 SE 274th, noted that there must
be some kind of mitigation for the residents of
the area. He pointed out that on advice of the
previous City Attorney, Councilmembers have not
been able to listen to concerns regarding this
project. Johnson explained that since City Attor-
ney Lubovich issued a contrary opinion, he has had
discussions with opponents and proponents on the
issue and has read the EIS and related correspon-
dence and testimony. He added that as a citizen
he is concerned that there are a lot of county
people driving through the city causing accidents
and fatalities. He questioned whether the people
who are in opposition to this project are willing
to use transit or carpools as an alternative.
Kiefer noted that no provision has been made for
high occupancy vehicle lanes or light rail . He
said such provisions should be made now, not in
the future, and suggested having more public
hearings on the issue.
Harlan Bull, 20601 - 100th Avenue SE, asked
whether the ordinance will specify what project
the funds will be spent on and what happens to the
funds before the project is ready. He also said
he would like to see a sunset clause in both ordi-
nances . White noted that he intends to look at
the possibility of a 10-year sunset clause and at
4
March 3 , 1992
STREET using the utility for specific projects. He
UTILITY invited everyone to attend the Public Works Com-
mittee meetings at 2 : 00 p.m. on the first and
third Tuesday of each month. Lubovich clarified
that the ordinance as drafted does not single out
any particular project which the funds would be
used for, and that it would not approve or disap-
prove the corridor project. Connie Baesman , 10206
SE 224th, voiced concern about the statement the
city would be making by funding a street utility
in support of the corridors at this time. She
agreed that traffic problems exist and that the
corridor is one solution, but said more alterna-
tives should be considered. She said the costs
and environmental effects need to be known, and
urged the Council to look further into this issue.
She pointed out that the Puget Sound Council of
Governments recommended this with an HOV lane, but
that the proposal before the Council does not pro-
vide for that. She distributed copies of a letter
to the City from Chris Leman of the Institute for
Transportation and the Environment which states
that Kent needs to look at the total picture and
at alternatives. She said that people would be
willing to accept a road if other alternatives are
considered and it is determined that a road is the
best solution. She added that if a road is the
best answer, it should be done properly.
Gay Fournier, 28261 - 108th Avenue SE, pointed out
that while county residents drive through Kent,
they also shop in Kent, and suggested that every-
one work together on this issue. She voiced con-
cern about five-lane roadways entering two-lane
roadways and asked how and when that will be coor-
dinated. She stated that she feels traffic will
be increased from the intersection of the proposed
corridor and Kent-Kangley to Highway 18 . She won-
dered whether the Council should be assessing a
street utility tax when they are not sure whether
they can legally build this road in the county or
not, and said that the King County Attorney ' s
opinion is that the City cannot build the roadway
or condemn land in the county. Bill Joy noted
that there is a park-and-ride lot in Kent and that
Kent would like to have a train station downtown.
He questioned why the parking lot and train
5
March 3, 1992
STREET station would be necessary if the city is not
UTILITY going to bring traffic to them. Rhonda Taylor,
12418 SE 273rd Place, asked whether other cities
have similar utility taxes and whether businesses
within Kent will be at a disadvantage. Wickstrom
explained that Renton has a tax of $4 . 35 per
employee per month, Bellevue has a tax of $3 , 35,
and that Kent' s is proposed to be $1. 90. He added
that Kent would also eliminate the utility tax on
sewer, water and drainage, and clarified that the
taxes in other cities are not for limited terms.
Mann pointed out that the Council will be holding
their retreat on March 13 and 14 and asked that
they be provided with a history of the 272nd/277th
corridor and all the information they need to have
on it.
Upon a question from Laurie Muller, 10997 SE
284th, Wickstrom explained that the utility tax is
being absorbed by the respective utilities and is
being dropped from customers bills. He said that
because of the growth the city has experienced,
the utilities are healthy and can absorb it.
Muller urged the Council to postpone the tax until
all information has been analyzed. She noted that
300 people had attended a meeting on the draft
EIS . Woods clarified that no action is being re-
quested tonight, that this issue is scheduled to
go back to the committee if Council concurs. Dave
Heutchv, 20925 SE 287th, noted that the turnpike
theory is that no matter how many roads are built,
they will fill up. He said that 272nd/277th will
fill up and could lead to higher density develop-
ment and that yet another road will have to be
built. He urged the Council to look at alterna-
tives. He also stated that there is more to
building a road than money, such as costs to the
environment, the quality of life, and the people
impacted. He said the Council is in a position
now to determine what they want in the future.
Barry Broxson noted that Wickstrom had recently
addressed annexing part of East Hill and had said
it has nothing to do with this road. Broxson said
it would cost thousands of dollars to annex the
area and asked whether that had been factored in
when determining the tax. John Kiefer wondered
whether $1. 90 per employee per month will solve
6
March 3 , 1992
STREET the problem or whether it will have to be raised
UTILITY in the future. Connie Baesman stated that she
feels the entire planning process should be worked
on at the county and city level because it needs
to be changed to meet modern standards. Wickstrom
noted for Gay Fournier that the street utility
affects only people within the city, and that
people outside the city limits will not see a
change except for a rate reduction on the drainage
utility. He also explained for her that the $1. 90
charge is one-half of the previous operating bud-
get of the street department. Fournier asked
where the annexation proposal stands today and
Johnson explained that the annexation was initi-
ated by the residents of the area, therefore it is
up to them to bring the city a petition and that
they have not done so. Wickstrom noted that all
comments and questions and answers will be a part
of the final EIS and that it is available to Coun-
cilmembers if they desire to read it. Fournier
said that putting the corridor in will worsen
traffic and invited each Councilmember to visit
the area. She said that if a road does go in, it
should be done properly and with foresight.
There were no further comments and WHITE MOVED to
close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the
motion carried. White noted that this area con-
tinues to grow and said that additional roads
should be looked at thoroughly and done correctly.
He challenged the people in the audience to come
up with alternatives and said the city will
explore them, adding that this issue will be dis-
cussed as long as it takes. He invited everyone
to attend the Public Works committee meetings and
MOVED that this issue be referred back to the Pub-
lic Works Committee. Orr seconded and the motion
carried.
Woods pointed out that the Council retreat is held
one day a year and that while Council may receive
the information Mann requested, it is unlikely
they will spend a great deal of time discussing it
at the retreat. She said they are prepared to
discuss it at another time. She noted that the
retreat will be held this year at the West Hill
Fire Station.
7
March 3 , 1992
DRAINAGE (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
Drainage Utility. The public hearing on the pro-
posed drainage utility rate modification was
opened at Council 's last meeting and continued to
this meeting for additional public comment there-
on. At the February 18 meeting the Director of
Public Works presented the drainage rate proposal,
the necessity for same and the 1992 improvements
targeted for funding. The Director also noted
that the drainage rate increase is offset by a
proposed water rate reduction and the absorption
of Metro ' s 1992 sewer rate increase.
Upon White ' s question, Wickstrom noted that only
the 1991 rates would be adopted at this time.
Woods declared the public hearing open. Ted
Nixon, 911 E. Temperance, spoke in opposition to
this tax, noting that the City has failed in its
obligation to maintain its existing roads and im-
prove safety for its pedestrians. He stated that
he does not believe the City should pursue the
277th corridor, noting that it has overshadowed
other road improvement programs in the City. He
pointed out that recently the Council authorized
spending $250, 000 to further study the 277th cor-
ridor, and that the City has been assessing devel-
opers for the corridor over the past several
years, but they claim to have no money to upgrade
pedestrian safety and sidewalks. He said that if
the Council enacts this assessment, they will
again demonstrate how out of tune they are with
the public. There were no further comments from
the audience and WHITE MOVED that the public hear-
ing be closed. Orr seconded and the motion car-
ried.
WHITE THEN MOVED to refer this matter back to the
Public Works Committee for a committee recommenda-
tion thereon. Orr seconded and the motion car-
ried.
PUBLIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
SAFETY Bicycle Safety Advisory Committee CONFIRMATION
of the Mayor ' s appointments to the Bicycle Safety
Advisory Committee, in accordance with Resolution
1298 , dated December 3 , 1991 as follows:
8
March 3 , 1992
PUBLIC Phil Miller as an Ex-officio member. His term
SAFETY will begin immediately and continue through
12/31/92 .
Two year terms:
John Steich Eric Leiper Ed Johnson
Ed Morton Sandy Couter
Their terms will begin immediately and continue
through 12/31/93 .
One year terms:
Neil McQuage Larry Stougard Randy Danioth
Steve Babbitt Laurie Sundtedt
Their terms will begin immediately and continue
through 12/31/92 .
Mann added that Police Chief Crawford is an Ex-
officio member whose term begins immediately and
expires on 12/31/92 .
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
DEPARTMENT Contract with the City of Algona. AUTHORIZATION
for the Mayor to sign an agreement with the City
of Algona contracting for the services of Captain
Dennis Byerly to serve as Interim City of Algona
Police Chief for a period not to exceed 180 days .
FIRE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
DEPARTMENT Sale of 800 MHZ Trunked Radio System and Mobile
Data Terminal System. AUTHORIZATION to negotiate
with Valley Communications Center for the sale of
the 800 MHz trunked radio system and the mobile
data terminal system. When the 800 MHz trunked
radio system and the mobile data terminal (MDT)
system projects were approved, it was done with
the knowledge that the initial implementation
would not fully meet the operational needs of the
Police and Fire Departments. The intent of pro-
ceeding with the projects was to provide essential
backbone system components that could be expanded
in the future. It was also the intent that the
systems would be implemented in a manner compati-
ble with the regional philosophy for public safety
communications. It was anticipated that future
9
March 3 , 1992
FIRE funds generated by selling air-time on the
DEPARTMENT systems, or the systems themselves, would be used
to accomplish this work. Valley Communications
Center has completed a background engineering
study evaluating the efficacy of 800 MHz trunking
technology and MDT' s for all of its users. This
effort has concluded that Kent ' s systems provide
the best foundation for a system to serve the
Valley Com user agencies.
Transfer of the system to Valley Com ownership
would have a number of advantages to the City of
Kent. Obviously, funds generated from the sale
could be used to complete the Police and Fire
Departments ' equipment inventory and provide other
emergency communications equipment that was omit-
ted in the projects initially due to limited
funds. It would also allow Kent to again be in
the position of being a system "user" instead of
being the system "operator" , lessening our admin-
istrative load. Further:
* Kent would become an equal owner in a larger and
more capable system. Coverage of a Valley Com
system or regional system would be very benefi-
cial to us. We would never be able to license
or afford a system of this capability on our
own.
* Kent would greatly improve our ability to com-
municate with all our neighboring jurisdictions,
particularly in major emergencies or disaster
situations.
* As a co-owner, Kent would only need to contri-
bute our share to on-going and replacement
costs, rather than being exposed to this cost
individually. Even though the City would still
have direct costs related to maintenance and re-
placement of our own equipment inventory, we
would share in these costs for fixed-end equip-
ment.
* Our opportunity to receive funds from the Coun-
ty' s funding measure are improved since we
clearly are showing our willingness to cooper-
ate in regional plans .
10
March 3 , 1992
FIRE Any agreements resulting from these negotiations
DEPARTMENT would be returned to Council, through the appro-
priate channels, for approval .
The Public Safety Committee recommends approval by
the Council to authorize the Fire Chief to proceed
with negotiations with Valley Communications Cen-
ter for the sale of the 800 MHz trunked radio
system and the mobile data terminal system.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Use of Public Safety Facilities for Temporary
Emergency Backup Dispatch. AUTHORIZATION to nego-
tiate with Valley Communications Center for the
use of existing public safety facilities for tem-
porary emergency backup dispatch uses. During an
emergency that affects Valley Communications Cen-
ter' s facilities, disruption of critical public
safety communications and dispatching services
could occur. Under such emergency conditions, the
Center may need to temporarily relocate dispatch
personnel in order to continue service. By having
a pre-established and equipped emergency backup
location, this transfer can be accomplished with
the minimal disruption to emergency dispatch ser-
vices.
Valley Com is beginning the process of defining
their functional and operational needs for such an
occurrence. They have approached the Fire Depart-
ment to discuss the possibility of accomplishing
this level of service protection by reaching an
agreement for the use of Fire or Fire/Police fa-
cilities in a time of need. It is anticipated
that agreements can be reached with Valley Com
that will meet their needs to continue essential
communications services while not adversely
impacting Kent ' s ability to operate. Any agree-
ments resulting from these negotiations would be
returned to Council, through the appropriate chan-
nels, for approval .
The Public Safety Committee recommends approval by
the Council to authorize the Fire Department to
negotiate an agreement with Valley Com for the use
of existing Public Safety facilities for temporary
emergency backup dispatch uses .
11
March 3 , 1992
FIRE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
DEPARTMENT Radio Transmitter and Antenna Space Agreements.
AUTHORIZATION to negotiate agreements with inter-
ested governmental entities for radio transmitter
and antenna space at the City' s Cambridge public
safety radio site. When the Cambridge radio site
was constructed for Kent' s public safety 800 MHz
radio system and mobile data terminal (MDT) sys-
tem, it was designed in a way to allow the City of
Kent to expand its radio services at the site
while still allowing for the leasing of space to
other entities. It was also designed in such a
way as to allow the site to be incorporated into a
region-wide radio system design.
At the present time, the Port of Seattle is inter-
ested in negotiating an agreement to locate radio
equipment at the site of its new 800 MHz trunked
radio system. This system is of the same technol-
ogy and fully compatible with Kent ' s system. Con-
currently, technical discussions are being held
with other governmental entities, including King
County, to evaluate the site as part of a county-
wide radio system design. It is also anticipated
that other public safety users may request use of
the space in the future. Coordination of agree-
ments for use of this site will aid in the forma-
tion of region-wide communications capabilities.
Any agreements resulting from these negotiations
would be returned to Council, through the appro-
priate channels, for approval .
The Public Safety Committee recommends approval by
the Council to authorize the Fire Department to
negotiate and manage any agreements for the place-
ment of radio equipment at the Cambridge site.
HUMAN (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
SERVICES Human Services Commission. CONFIRMATION of the
COMMISSION Mayor ' s appointment of Lucyle Wooden as a member
of the Kent Human Services Commission. She will
represent the User of services category and will
replace Alla Mironyuk who resigned. Her appoint-
ment will begin immediately and continue to
1/1/94 .
12
March 3 , 1992
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills Approval of payment of the
bills received through February 28 , 1992 after
auditing by the Operations Committee at its
meeting at 5 : 30 p.m. on March 2 , 1992 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
2/15-2/28/92 115278-115594 $ 886, 250 . 96
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/5/92 01168930-01169654 $ 645, 946. 04
REPORTS Council President. Woods noted that the Suburban
Cities meeting will be held in Auburn on
Wednesday, March iith.
Woods distributed copies of a proposed ordinance
granting qualified endorsement for the location of
a regional justice center in the City of Kent.
WHITE MOVED to approve Resolution No. 1310 . Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
Planning Committee Orr reported that Part I of
the Community Participation Program will be com-
pleted very soon and has been very successful . She
noted that Part II of the program will be held on
Wednesday, March 11, at 7 : 00 p.m. at Kentwood High
School Performing Arts Theater with a visioning
session, that on Thursday, March 12 , there will be
a lecture entitled, "Designing Communities of
Place" at the Kent Senior Center at 7 : 00 p.m. , and
that there will be a presentation of Kent ' s vision
on Saturday, March 14 at 11 : 00 a.m. at the Kent
Senior Center. She noted that Planning Director
Harris has additional copies of this schedule if
anyone would like one.
Administrative Reports Finance Director McCarthy
distributed packets of budget information to the
councilmembers for them to review and take to
their retreat. He went over the information,
pointing out that investments earned 5 . 1% in
13
March 3 , 1992
REPORTS January, and 4 . 9% in February, but that the older
investments are still earning good rates. He
noted that increasing the penalty on parking cita-
tions is being considered, and that he is working
with the Law Department to collect on foreclo-
sures. He added that he has been working with a
financial advisor regarding the possibility of re-
financing some long term debt. He said the
January revenue chart indicates that the City
should consider extending the hiring freeze. He
noted that department heads have been asked to
look carefully at their budgets so as not to over-
spend. McCarthy noted that half of the utility
tax is based on electricity, and that since the
winter was warm, they may have overestimated the
utility tax. He noted that building permit
activity has not picked up, but that recreation
fees were ahead and golf course revenue looks
good. He noted that the City is ahead in some
ways and behind in others, but that they ended the
year with $1, 240, 843 more than expected. White
suggested cautious optimism, and asked whether the
City has hired anyone. McCarthy explained that
the budget approved the hiring of one police
officer and one firefighter, and that the
Executive Committee has approved two positions in
Public Works. He explained that positions are
being looked at on an individual basis.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 45 p.m.
i�
Brenda Jacober, CMC
City Clerk j
14
�;� + ', ✓ / � '�, Kent City Council Meeting
Date March 17 . 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works..
Committee, ccept as complete the contract with Signal Electric
`for the West Valley Highway Signal Improvements at S. 212th and
S. 190th Streets and release of retainage after receipt of the
releases from the state,
3. EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes
4. RECOMMENDED BY:Unanimous vote of Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MARCH 3, 1992
PRESENT: JIM WHITE JIM HANSEN
JIM BENNETT JILL VANNEMANN
PAUL MANN JERRY MCCAUGHAN
DON WICKSTROM RAUL RAMOS
TOM BRUBAKER GEORGE HOLLOWAY
GARY GILL DON RUST
ROGER LUBOVICH MR. & MRS. RUST
ED WHITE CONNIE EPPERLY
TONY MCCARTHY SHARON WEST
Wheel Chair Ramps
Mr. Holloway presented slides depicting wheel chair ramps and
deteriorated sidewalk sections throughout the downtown area which
present obstruction to travel by disabled and handicapped persons.
The list of the locations was presented to the Committee who asked
the Public Works Director to review and report back.
Parking Ordinance
The revised ordinance was presented to the Committee. Jim Bennett
raised questions about deleting the 3 hour parking in the downtown
during the holiday season. He was concerned that limiting the
parking to two hours in the downtown area would be detrimental to
getting people to come downtown to shop. Ed White mentioned that
there is unlimited parking available in the municipal lots and the
rationale of the two hour limit was to make spaces available for a
larger turnover of vehicles. Jim Bennett indicated he still had
concerns about it and it was decided this would be presented to the
downtown merchants for their input. The increase in the penalty
fee was discussed. Jill Vannemann mentioned it costs approximately
$15 to process a parking ticket if it is not appealed. If
appealed, it costs about $50 to process. The Committee expressed
concerns about a $20 parking ticket being detrimental to
rehabilitating the downtown. It was suggested this also be brought
before the downtown merchants.
West Valley Highway Signal Improvements
Wickstrom informed the Committee that this project was part of our
West Valley Highway Improvement project and installed new signals
at S. 212th and S. 190th Streets. Wickstrom recommended the
project be accepted as complete. The Committee unanimously
recommended approval.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
February 28, 1992
TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT S. 212TH
AND S. 190TH STREETS
The WVH Signal Improvement project included the installation of new
controllers, cabinets, mast arm signal poles, detection equipment
and emergency vehicle preemption equipment for the traffic signals
on WVH at the intersections of S. 212th and S. 190th Streets.
The project was awarded to Signal Electric, Inc. for the bid amount
of $308 , 389 on July 3 , 1990. The final construction cost is
$305, 071. 02 . It is recommended this project be accepted as
complete.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date March 17 . 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: AGRFEMTNT WITH WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
- TRANS 0RTATPiON-FOR SR 515 FROM S.E. 235TH-220TH
2 . SUMMARY ST EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
.-Committee, ,t&uthorization for the Mayor to sign the agreement
with WSDOT for relocation of water and sewe
r lines within the
limits of the State SR 515 project( f
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes, copy of
WSDOT agreement
4. RECOMMENDED BY: unanimous vote of Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO >� YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D4\
Public Works Committee
March 3 , 1992
Page 2
Agreement with WSDOT - SR 515 Widening
Wickstrom explained that we have just received an agreement from
the State for the relocation of the City' s water and sewer lines
that are within the limits of their SR 515 from S.E. 235th to S.E.
220th street improvement project. The City would reimburse the
State for the construction work and estimated cost is $101, 698.
Wickstrom stated the funds have been budgeted. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval for the Mayor to sign the
agreement.
Parking on 5th
Connie Epperly stated she has been working with the traffic
division on the parking problem on 5th. She stated that the
apartment residents have plenty of parking but are still parking on
the streets. She stated that Carol Morris of the City Attorney' s
office had advised that the City of Seattle had an ordinance
allowing permitted parking. She requested that such an ordinance
be prepared for the situation on 5th. The Committee requested that
a draft of such an ordinance be prepared for their review.
Street Occupation Permit
Don Rust stated he thought that Condition #7 on the permit was to
have been amended allowing things to be attached to the signs as
long as the attachments did not extend the approved sign size.
Wickstrom acknowledged that was the case and the permit form will
be revised.
Driving Range
Jim Bennett referred to the drainage problem at the City' s driving
range. He commented that the Parks Department has spent a great
deal of money trying to correct the problem and asked Wickstrom if
his department would look at the overall drainage system for the
area and recommend solutions.
Admok Washington State Duane Berentson
I/ Department of Transportation Secrei,w,of rxisp°"°°""
V
District 1
153.'5 S_1 301n Puce
Bellevue. Washington 9F3007-653F>
(MG)SG2-4000
i March 2, 1992
City of Kent
220 4th Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
Att: Mr. Merrill Vesper
SR 515 CS 1741
SE 235th to SE 220th
City of Kent
Agreement UT 0333
Mr. Vesper:
Enclosed are two originals of the above referenced agreement for signature by the City
of Kent. Please have both originals signed on behalf of the City and return both signed
originals to this office for final execution by the State. Please expedite the signature of
the agreement as rapidly as possible, as this project is scheduled to go to ad on March
16, 1992.
Do not fill in the date at the top of the front page of the originals, as this will be filled in
at the time of execution by the State.
Upon final execution by the State one of the originals will be returned to the City for
your records.
If you have any questions or need further information contact Curt Bronson at (206)
562-4263.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Mahlum
Acting Dist. Utilities/
Developer Services Engineer
CB:cb
Attachments
- ORGANIZATION NVI) \D1*
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION City of Ker.l
AGREEMENT 220 4th Ave Sai.t "
WORK BY STATE—ACTUAL COST Kent, WA 9f;032
AGREEMENT NUMBER SECTION/LOCATION
J� �:'t` �� ". SR 515
STATE ROUTE CONTROL SECTION DISTRICT SE 235th t0 SE 22,C- l
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER
515 1741 1
ADVANCE PAYMENT AMOUNT
$ 14,861 .35
This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 19
between the STATE OF WASH INGTON, Department of Transportation. acting by and through the Secretary of Transporta-
tion, by virtue of Title 47 RCW, hereinafter called the "STATE", and the above named organization, hereinafter called the
"UTILITY."
WHEREAS, the STATE is planning the construction or improvement of the State Route shown above, and in connection
therewith it is necessary to remove and/or relocate or construct certain UTILITY facilities as set forth in the attached plans,
and
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best public interest for the STATE to include the necessary items of work for
relocating and/or constructing the UTILITY's facilities in the STATE's construction contract, and
WHEREAS, the STATE is obligated for the relocation of facilities where the UTILITY has a compensable interest in its
facilities and right-of-way by virtue of being located on easements or UTILITY owned right-of-way, the UTILITY is obligated
to reimburse the STATE for any relocation costs required for facilities not on easements or UTILITY owned right-of-way.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms,conditions, covenants and performances contained herein, or attached
and incorporated and made a part hereof, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1 The UTILITY agrees, upon satisfactory completion of
GENERAL the work involved, to deliver a letter of acceptance which
, Volume 6, shall include a release and waiver of all Idture claims or
Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual
Chapter 6, Section 3, Subsection ] (FHPM Volume
, and demands of any nature resulting from the performance of the
P work under this AGREEMENT.
amendments thereto, determine and establish the definitions
and applicable standards for this AGREEMENT and pay- 11
ment hereunder, and by this reference are incorporated PAYMENT
hereby and made a part of this AGREEMENT for all in-
tents and purposes as if fully set forth herein. An itemized estimate cost for work be performed
by the STATE marked Exhibit "B" is attached hereto, and
The STATE, as agent acting for and on behalf of the by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT.
UTILITY, agrees to do the work in removing, relocating
and/or constructing the UTILITY facilities, in accordance The UTILITY, in consideration of the faithful perform-
with and described in the specifications marked Exhibit "A" ance of the work to be done by the STATE, agrees to relm-
and plans marked Exhibit "C" attached hereto, and by this burse the STATE for the actual direct and related indirect
reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. cost of all work which is the financial responsibility of the
UTILITY as defined in Exhibits "A" and "B".
Plans, specifications and cost estimates shall be pre-
pared by the STATE in accordance with the current State of Partial payments shall be made by the UTILITY, upon
Washington Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and request of the STATE, to cover costs Incurred. These pay-
Municipal Construction, and adopted design standards, un- ments are not to be more frequent than one (1) per month. It
less otherwise noted. The STATE will incorporate the plans is agreed that any such partial payment will not constitute
and specifications into the STATE's project and thereafter agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and that, at
advertise the resulting project for bid and, assuming bids are the time of final audit, all required adjustments will be made
received and a contract is awarded, administer the contract. and reflected in a final payment.
The UTILITY hereby approves the plans and specifica- The UTILITY agrees to pay the STATE the "Advance
tions for the described work as shown on Exhibits "A" and Payment Amount" stated above within 20 days after the
"C„ STATE submits its first partial payment request to the
UTILITY. The advance payment represents approximately
The UTILITY may, if it desires, furnish an inspector on fifteen (15) percent of the estimate of cost for which the
the project. Any costs for such inspection will be borne solely UTILITY is responsible, and covers costs incurred by the
by the UTILITY. All contact between said inspector and the STATE in the initial stages of the project. The advance pay-
STATE's contractor shall be through the STATE's repre- ment will be carried throughout the life of the project with
sentatives. final adjustment made in the final payment.
III VIII
EXTRA WORK RIGHT OF ENTRY
In the event unforeseen conditions require an increase in The UTILITY hereby grants and conveys to 0
the UTILITY's cost obligation of 25 percent or more from STATE the right of entry upon all land which the UTILIT
that agreed to on Exhibit "B", this AGREEMENT will be has interest, within the right of way of the highway, for the
modified by supplement AGREEMENT covering said in- purpose of improving and/or constructing said highway.
crease. As noted in Exhibit "A" the UTILITY will, after relo-
In the event it is determined that any change from the cation and/or adjustment of their facilities, execute and de-
description of work contained in this AGREEMENT is re- liver to the STATE a quit claim deed removing all UTILITY
quired, approval must be secured from the UTILITY prior to interests from within the STATE's right of way.
the beginning of such work. Where the change is substantial, Upon completion of the work outlined herein, all future
written approval must be secured. operation and maintenance of the UTILITY's facilities shall
Reimbursement for increased work and/or a substantial be at the sole cost of the UTILITY and without expense to
change in the description of work shall be limited to costs the STATE.
covered by a written modification, change order, or extra IX
work order approved by the UTILITY. EASEMENT, PERMIT OR FRANCHISE
IV The STATE will issue the UTILITY an easement, per-
SALVAGE mit or franchise, as provided in Exhibit"A", for those UTIL-
All materials removed by the STATE shall be reclaimed ITY facilities which remain on or cross the STATE's right of
or disposed of by the STATE and shall become the property way following completion of the work outlined herein.
of the STATE. If the UTILITY desires to retain these mate- X
rials,and the STATE concurs, the UTILITY shall reimburse LEGAL RELATIONS
the STATE an amount not less than that required by the
FHPM 6-6-3-1. The UTILITY shall indemnify and hold the STATE
V and its agents, employees, and/or officers harmless from and
BETTERMENTS shall process and defend at its own expense any and all
claims, demands, suits at law or equity, actions, penalties,
If adjustn:ent of the UTILITY's facilities does consti- losses, damages, or costs, of whatsoever kind or nature,
tute a betterment as defined in FHPM 6-6-3-1, the better- brought against the STATE arising out of, in connection
ment credit will be included in the estimate of cost. with, or incident to the execution of this AGREEMENT
VI and/or the UTILITY's performance or failure to perforr
ACCRUED DEPRECIATION any aspect of this AGREEMENT. Provided, however, that
such claims are caused by or result from the concufrent neg-
If adjustment of the UTILITY's facilities does involve a ligence of (a) the UTILITY and (b) the STATE, its agents,
credit due for the accrued depreciation of the facility being employees and/or officers, this indemnity provision shall be
replaced, this value will be included in the estimate of cost. valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of
the UTILITY, and Provided further, that nothing herein
VII shall require the UTILITY to hold harmless or defend the
COMPLIANCE STATE, its agents, employees and/or officers from any
The UTILITY agrees to comply with all applicable re- claims arising from the sole negligence of the STATE, its
quirements of the STATE which shall be in accordance with agents, employees, and/or officers.
the Utilities Accommodation Policy, Chapter 468-34 WAC, No liability shall attach to the STATE or the UTILITY
and amendments thereto, and said policy and amendments by reason of entering into this AGREEMENT except as ex-
are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this AGREE- pressly provided herein.
MENT for all intents and purposes as if fully set forth
herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above written.
a
xExrr ?�,� " N DEPARTII�NT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Title: By.
Date:
DOTFur. 224-062
Rcviwd 8/86 QX A-175
AGREEMENT UT 0333
EXHIBIT "A"
SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Relocate City sewer lines from Sta. 109+61 to Sta. 113+43 . 9 at
State expense as cost of cure. Relocate water and sewer lines
from Sta. 72+70 to Sta. 102+90 and from Sta. 114+84 . 9 to Sta.
121+00 at City expense.
WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY STATE
Exhibit "C" Sheet 1 of 13 for vicinity map.
Exhibit "C" Sheet 2 & 3 of 13 for Summary of Quantities
Exhibit "C" Sheet 4 & 5 of 13 for Utility Structure Notes
Exhibit "C" Sheet 6 of 13
1 EA 8" Gate Valve
1 EA Remove & Replace Existing Hydrant
292 LF DI Pipe for Water Main 8 In Diameter
55 LF DI Pipe for Water Main 6 In Diameter
1 EA Service Connection
9 EA Relocate Water Meter
1 EA Abandon Water Service
10 EA Valve Box & Cover
8 EA Adjust Manhole
Exhibit "C" Sheet 7 of 13
2 EA Remove & Replace Existing Hydrant
160 LF DI Pipe for Water Main 8 In Diameter
7 EA Valve Box & Cover
2 EA Relocate Water Meter
1 EA Service Connection
2 EA Abandon Water Service
Exhibit "C" Sheet 8 of 13
1 EA Sewer Cleanout
673 CY Trench Excavation
481 LF Testing Sewer Pipe
70 LF PVC Sewer Pipe 6 In Diameter
411 LF PVC Sewer Pipe 8 In Diameter
39 CY Structure Exc Cl B Incl Haul
13 , 620 SF Shoring & Cribbing or Extra Exc Class B
53 CY Gravel Backfill for Pipe Bedding
. 5 CY Concrete Cl 3000
2 EA Abandon Existing Manhole
2 EA Connect to Existing Manhole
1 EA Special Shallow Manhole
2 EA Manhole 12 Ft to 20 Ft, 48 In Diam, Type 1
1 EA Drop Connection
1 EA Service Connection
EXHIBIT "A" A-1 UT 0333
Exhibit "C" Sheet 8 of 13 (Continued)
1 EA Abandon Water Service
1 EA Adjust Manhole
1 EA Relocate Water Meter
3 EA Adjust Valve Box
1 EA Valve Box & Cover
Exhibit "C" Sheet 9 of 13
399 CY Trench Excavation
659 LF Testing Sewer Pipe
395 LF PVC Sewer Pipe 8 In Diameter
264 LF DI Pipe for Sewer Pipe 8 In Diameter
25 CY Structure Excavation Cl B Incl Haul
8 , 085 SF Shoring & Cribbing or Extra Exc Class B
51 CY Structure Excavation Cl B Incl Haul
0. 4 CY Concrete Cl 3000
1 EA Abandon Existing Manhole
4 EA Adjust Manhole
1 EA Connect to Existing Manhole
3 EA Manhole Under 12 Ft, 48 In Diam, Type 1
Exhibit "C" Sheets 10 & 11 of 13
Utility Profiles
Exhibit "C" Sheets 12 & 13 of 13
Utility Details
WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY CITY
None for this agreement
ENGINEERING & REVIEW
The State will forward to the City any guarantee or warranty
furnished as a normal trade practice in connection with the
purchase of any equipment, materials, or items used in the
construction of the project.
The State shall supply as-built drawings to the City on mylar
sheets upon completion of the project.
The State shall conduct a field review of each constructed
facility with representatives of the City, and shall further
require all punch list items to be corrected to the satisfaction
of the City and the State prior to placing each facility in
service.
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
The City is responsible for all costs to perform the Group 5-
Water and Group 6-Sewer work as detailed in Exhibit "B" , Exhibit
of Costs, of this agreement. Actual costs will be based on bids
received for those items. The State is responsible for the costs
involved in Group 1 Sewer work as detailed in Exhibit "B" of this
agreement as a cost of cure.
EXHIBIT "A" A-2 UT 0333
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Pages 59 to 70 of the contract Special Provisions are attached
hereto as ATTACHMENT A TO EXHIBIT "A" and by this reference made
part of this agreement.
PERMIT OR FRANCHISE
The Utility shall apply for and the State shall convey the
necessary statutory permits or franchise pursuant to Chapter
47 . 44 RCW required for installation of such facilities that
remain on or cross the State highway right of way.
EMERGENCY REPAIRS
Prior to City acceptance of the State contractor work, if there
is a need for emergency repair and the State's contractor is
unable to perform such repair in a timely manner, the City shall
have permission to enter upon State property and complete said
emergency repair. Emergency repairs are defined as work
performed by City or State forces to stabilize; remove immediate
hazards or dangers by cutting and capping water mains; plugging,
pumping and/or re-routing sewers to avoid health hazards; and
restoring immediate utility services to customers in the area.
Upon completion of any emergency repairs by either the State or
City, a determination of financial responsibility will be made.
If the City and State can not agree as to who is financially
responsible for any emergency repairs, both parties agree to
submit the dispute for arbitration.
BETTERMENT
NONE
SALVAGE
NONE
EXHIBIT "A" A-3 UT 0333
ti Kent City Council Meeting
Date March 17. 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY OPEN SPACE BOND BUDGET REVISIONS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to adjust the three King
County Open Space Bond budgets as follows to reflect the actual
King County bond allocations and distribution of 1990 interest
earnings in the amount of $149, 851.
Project Current Budget Adjustments Revised Budget
Green River Trail $ 964 , 115 ($661839) $ 897, 276
Interurban Trail $1, 082 , 096 $78,785 $1, 160,881
Lake Fenwick Trail $1, 466, 484 ($11, 642) $1,454,842
Total $3 , 512 , 695 $304 $3,512,999
3 . EXHIBITS: Fiscal Note
4. RECOMMENDED BY:Parks Committee 2/18/92 (unanimous)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: O YES X
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended.
�� Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Age sia
Item No. 3E
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
bject: INTEREST REALLOCATION ON OPEN SPACE BOND ISSUE - FISCAL NOTE
eator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 03/10/92 at 1125.
THE PARK DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING THE REALLOCATION OF INTEREST ON THE KING
COUNTY OPEN SPACE BOND ISSUE PROJECTS. THE BUDGET FOR THE THREE PROJECTS:
GREEN RIVER TRAIL, LAKE FENWICK TRAIL, AND INTERURBAN TRAIL INCLUDED AN
ESTIMATED INTEREST AMOUNT OF $152 , 469 OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. THE
ACTUAL 1990 INTEREST ALLOCATION IS $149 , 851 WITH ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS TO
BE RECEIVED IN FUTURE YEARS.
IN ORDER TO KEEP BUDGET CONSISTENT WITH NEEDS AND CURRENT KING COUNTY PLANS,
THE PARK DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE CURRENT INTEREST ALLOCATION FROM
THE GREEN RIVER TRAIL AND LAKE FENWICK TRAIL PROJECTS TO THE INTERURBAN TRAIL
PROJECT WHICH IS MOVING ON A FASTER TRACK THAN THE OTHER TWO PROJECTS.
FUTURE YEARS INTEREST COULD BE REALLOCATED TO THESE TWO PROJECTS.
THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THIS BUDGET CHANGE SINCE IT HAS NO NET
BUDGET IMPACT AND HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PARK COMMITTEE.
A,
l'
�A M1uIJ
i' Kent City Council Meeting
Date 3-17-92
Category Consent
SUBJECT: 1993 Local Development Block Grant (CDGB) Program
Policies
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
r, h: z I
Authori c*�April 7, 1992 ' et-t ; the date for a public hearing on
the 1993 Local Development Block Grant (CDGB) Program
Policies.
EXHIBITS• none
RECOMMENDATION OF: Planning Committee
(Planning Committee, Staff
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ None SOU
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Council memAeL
Discussion:
Action:
Agenda. 317
Kent City Council Meeting
Date March 17 . 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: HICKS SHORT PLAT APPEAL (SP-92-2)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider an appeal by
Gregg W. Ward and Ellen Royal Ward of the Hicks Short Plat No.
SP-92-2 . The Short Subdivision Committee recommended approval
with six conditions of a request to create two lots from one
existing lot located at 96XX South 243rd Lane (west of 98th
Avenue So. ) .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, short plat approval dated 2/14/92 , staff
report dated 2/13/92, minutes of Short Subdivision meeting of
2/13/92 , a map, letter to James B. Harris dated 10/18/91 and an
appeal letter dated 2/24/92 from Gregg and Ellen Ward
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Short Subdivision Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember �� ,�,L, moves, Councilmember AJ seconds
age/deny the appeal made by Gregg W. Ward and Ellen Royal
Ward of the Short Subdivision Committee's recommendation of
approval on the Hicks Short Plat SP-92-2 with six conditions.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION: If �.` ' IL ,c -1
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
CITY OF MJ LS
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
March 17 , 1992
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF HICKS SHORT PLAT #SP-92-2
The City of Kent received a notice of appeal of the Hicks Short
Plat #SP-92-2 from Gregg W. Ward and Ellen Royal Ward on February
25, 1992 . This appeal is in compliance with Section 12 . 04 . 228 of
the Kent Subdivision Code.
Attached please find a copy of the letter of appeal dated February
24 , 1992 , minutes from the February 13 , 1992 Short Subdivision
meeting, the Staff Report completed for the subject application, a
copy of a memo to Paulette Hicks regarding short plat approval
dated February 14 , 1992 , and a copy of a letter received from Mr.
and Mrs. Ward dated October 18 , 1991 .
JPH/mp:als:als\sp\92-2.1tr
Enclosures
cc: Alice Shobe, Planner
Larry Webb, Fire Marshall
Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
L(iiL L.Ir. /1'.i /i1�Y'L.�
`F/LLLe it ILI
February 24, 1992 n
FEB ti 5 1992
City of Kent C'TY OF KEN j
City Council :Members CITY CLERK
220 4th Ave. S.
Kent WA 98032
Dear City Council Members:
Under the provisions of City of Kent Subdivision Code 12.04.228, we are
appealing the decision reached by the Short Subdivision Committee on Febru-
ary 13, 1992, regarding the property located at 96XX South 243rd Street.
The file name and number of this location is "Hicks Short Plat", ;SP-92-2.
It is the intent of the applicant, Ms. Paulette Hicks, to create two lots
from one existing lot.
Last October 18th, in response to a solicitation for comments via a publicly
posted "Determination of Nonsignificance", we wrote a letter (Atch 1) to
Mr. Harris detailing our concerns about this project. This letter was pre—
sented through Ms. Alice Shobe, the assigned planner for the project. These
concerns were condensed and included as paragraph 9 in the Planning Department
Staff Report (Atch 2) dated February 6, 1992. We received this report and a
telephoned invitation from Ms. Shobe to attend the Short Subdivision Committee
meeting on February 13 at 10 All. Only one of us, Ellen, was able to attend
this session.
Although she did participate in some of the discussion, Ellen was not given
the opportunity to be recognized and present the information and concerns
contained in our letter. As the participant requested to speak first, Ms.
Shobe referred to our letter as contained in the Staff Report , but none of
its concerns were discussed during the meeting. After feedback from partici—
pants on other items raised by Its. Shobe, Mr. . Harris called for a vote from
the committee and adjourned the meeting.
We strongly feel- that ].egitimate public input on any land use decision, no
matter how small, deserves to be considered, discussed and decided upon. This
did not occur during the February 13th meeting, and we are unaware of any
future opportunity for us to do this. Given this, we have no choice but to
formally appeal the approval, of this proposal- by the Short Subdivision Committee.
Very truly yours
Cr •bg' h1. Wr�rd
i f\/
EIIen Royal d
rR
CITY OF L Ll)L� a
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
SHORT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
February 14 , 1992
MEMO TO: PAULETTE E. KICKS .
NAME OF SHORT PLAT: HICKS APPLICATION NO: #SP-92-2
ACTION OF SHORT PLAT COMMITTEE: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
ACTION DATE: February 13 , 1992
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
A. Prior to the recordation of the short plat:
1. Execute a traffic mitigation agreement to participate in
the 272nd/277th Street Corridor project.
2 . Provide approved engineering drawings for the extension
of public water and sanitary sewer systems to serve the
property.
3 . Provide private roadway and storm plans to service the
property. South 243rd Street (private) shall be improved
to provide minimum 20 foot all-weather surface roadway,
approved by the Public Works Director.
4 . Provide all public and private easements for the roadway
and utility improvements described above.
5 . Execute a no protest LID for the future widening and
improvement of 98th Avenue S . to City standards.
B. Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a development
permit on any lot:
1 . Construct roadway, water, sanitary sewer, and storm
drainage systems required under section A above.
RECORDING•
The above conditions must be met before the short plat can be
finalized and recorded. The short plat does not become effective
until such time it is recorded with the King County Auditor ' s
Office. You have six months in which to do this. If the short
plat is not recorded within six months of the above date of
approval, it shall become null and void. At the written request of
the applicant, the Planning Department may grant one extension of
not more than six months .
Page 1 of 2
Hicks
#SP-92-2
When the final map is complete and all conditions have been
complied with, bring the map to the Planning Department and we will
send it through King County for recording (the applicant must pay
the recording fee to the Planning Department) . The Planning
Department must receive the map in its office at least two weeks
prior to the six-month expiration date in order to allow time for
proper checking.
Copies mailed to:
Jerry McCaughan, Property Management
Carol Storm, Property Management
Building Department
Seattle-King County Health Department
c:sp922 . apl
Page 2 of 2
City of Kent
Short Subdivision Meeting
February 13 , 1992 10: 00 a.m.
Minutes
Committee Members in attendance:
James P. Harris, Planning Director & Chair
Larry Webb, Fire Marshall
Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
Others in attendance:
Doug Graef
Paulette Hicks, Applicant
Bill Poppie
Ellen Royal-Ward
Alice Shobe, Planner
James Harris began the meeting at approximately 10 : 00 a.m on
Thursday, February 13 , 1992 . The only agenda item was Hicks Short
Plat #SP-92-2 . All those present introduced themselves and stated
their relationship to the application.
Mr. Harris identified the voting members of the Short Subdivision
Committee and asked Alice Shobe, Planner to present a summary of
the application.
Alice Shobe presented the information outlined in the Staff Report
for Hicks Short Plat #SP-92-2 . Ms. Shobe specifically reviewed
zoning, size, access, compliance with the Subdivision Code,
environmental review, adjacent subdivisions, and public comment
received.
Mr. Harris asked for comment and discussion on the proposed
conditions outlined in the staff report. The applicant stated
agreement with conditions Al, A2 , A4 , A5 and B1 with limited
discussion.
A significant amount of discussion was heard regarding condition A3
which originally stated:
Provide private roadway and storm plans to service the
property. S. 243rd Lane (private) shall be improved to
provide a minimum 20 foot asphalt roadway, with Fire
Department turnaround.
Ms. Shobe explained that the condition should be modified to
exclude the Fire Department turnaround because the DNS issued on
October 3 , 1991 required that future residential homes have
sprinklers in lieu of providing a turnaround.
Short Subdivision Minutes
February 13 , 1992
Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director and Larry Webb, Fire Marshall
addressed the need for improvements to the private road. Ellen
Royal Ward asked if the road expansion would impact her property.
The applicant or Mr. Wickstrom knew the width of the existing
private road or size of the easement. Mr. Wickstrom explained that
it will be the applicant' s responsibility to provide this
information.
Further discussion on condition A3 addressed the surface of the
required road. Mr. Wickstrom and Mr. Webb conceded that an "all-
weather surface" would be sufficient for this proposal. Ms Royal-
Ward noted that the staff report incorrectly identified South 243rd
Street and South 243rd Lane. Ms. Shobe noted this error would be
corrected.
Mr. Wickstrom proposed changing condition A3 to read:
Provide private roadway and storm plans to service the
property. South 243rd Street (private) shall be improved to
provide a minimum 20 foot all-weather surface roadway,
approved by the Public Works Director.
The applicant agreed to the condition as stated.
Mr. Harris asked if there was further comment and requested a
motion. No further comment was received. Mr. Wickstrom moved to
approve Hicks Short Plat #SP-92-2 with conditions as modified. Mr.
Webb seconded the motion. The motion carried.
a1s\sp\92-2.min
s
CITY OF JE® In L
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT FOR
:18tw;;cr':e CITY OF KENT SHORT SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 13 , 1992
10 : 00 a.m.
FILE NO: Hicks Short Plat #SP-92-2
APPLICANT: Paulette Hicks
REQUEST: Create two (2) lots from one (1) existing lot
located at 96XX S. 243rd Lane, (west of 98th
Avenue S. ) .
PLANNER: Alice Shobe
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant proposes to create two (2) lots. The subject
property is located at 96XX South 243rd Lane (west of
98th Avenue S) .
2 . Zoning on the subject property is R1-7 . 2 , Single Family
Residential .
3 . The minimum lot size permitted in a R1-7 . 2 zone is 7, 200 square
feet.
4 . The subject property is approximately 19 , 602 (0 . 45 acres) . The
proposed lot sizes are:
Lot 1: 9 , 801 square feet
Lot 2 : 9 , 801 square feet
All lots exceed the minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet
required in the R1-7 . 2 zone.
5 . Lot 1 will have access directly from S. 243rd Lane and. Lot 2
will be accessed via an easement through Lot 1.
6 . The existing lot is undeveloped and is located at the end of
S. 243rd Lane which is a private road. Single family residences
are located to the east; a four lot short plat, Maple Lane Short
Plat is located to the south, and a new multi-lot subdivision is
located to the north.
1
Staff Report
Hicks Short Plat
#SP-92-2
7 . The subject property was annexed into the City of Kent on June
20, 1958 under Ordinance #985 .
8 . A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued for the
proposed project on October 3 , 1991 with the following
conditions:
I . The owner of the subject property shall execute a traffic
corridor participation agreement to participate in further
construction of the S. 277th Street Corridor project.
II . Fire Department access is required for Lot 1 and 2 . In the
event that access in accordance with City of Kent Ordinance
#2929 is not provided future houses must have sprinklers.
9 . A letter dated October 18 , 1991 to James P. Harris, Planning
Director, from Gregg W. and Ellen R. Ward, 9619 S. 243rd Street,
outlines concerns with the proposed short plat. In summary, the
authors are concerned with the following items: a) future
development of two homes on the subject property will not be
consistent with current build-out in neighborhood; b) tree
preservation; c) construction limitations during development of
the properties; d) future expansion of S. 243rd Street as a
"through street" ; and e) pressure to hook up their existing home
to city sewer.
10 . The following departments and agencies were advised of this
short plat application:
City Departments
Public Works Department
Fire Department
Parks and Recreation Department
Other Agencies
Seattle-King County Health Department
The Seattle-King County Health Department typically has no
objections provided the project is served by public sewer
and water.
2
Staff Report
Hicks Short Plat
#SP-92-2
11. Services available to the subject property include:
A. Water and Sewer
An existing six-inch water line and eight-inch sewer main
line are available to serve the subject property. Service
for lot #2 will require an easement through Lot #1.
Sanitary sewers shall be extended to provide gravity
service to the Hicks lots. Off-site easements will be
required in order to allow for the necessary main line
extension from the Walnut Grove system.
B. Streets/Roads/Public Ways
The subject property has access to 98th Avenue S. (via
S. 243rd Lane) which is classified as a local access
arterial. The street has a public right-of-way width of 30
feet while the actual paving is 20 feet. The street is
improved with lanes of asphalt paving. A widening strip
will not be required to be deeded to the city. New left
turn lanes will not be required. The average daily traffic
count on the street is less than 1 , 500 vehicle trips per
day.
C. Storm Water System
Surface and ground water movement in this area is a concern
to the City. Storm drainage facilities shall be provided
which will not adversely impact downstream property owners.
D. Parks/Recreation/Open Space
The subject property can be served by Mill Creek Park and
Earth Works Park located on Canyon Dr. SE.
The proposed plat is exempt from Section 12 . 04 . 450 of the
Subdivision Code, "Parks and open Space -- Dedication or
Fees Required" because the proposed plat has less than five
lots.
E. Schools
The subject property will be served by the Kent School
District.
3
Staff Report
Hicks Short Plat
#SP-92-2
F. Transit Stops
The subject property will be served by METRO bus routes
149 , 161, and 163 . A Park-n-Ride is located at the corner
of SE 248th and 110th Ave SE.
CONCLUSIONS
The Planning Department has reviewed the proposed short subdivision to
determine the feasibility of future development on the lots.
I . Zoning Code Compliance
All lots must comply with the development standards for the R1-
7 . 2 , Single-Family Residential, zoning district. The proposed
lots exceed the minimum 7 , 200 square feet lot size.
other zoning issues will be addressed through the development
process.
II. Subdivision Code Compliance
The purpose of the City of Kent' s subdivision regulations, which
includes the requirement for short subdivision approval, is to:
. . . provide rules, regulations, requirements, and
standards for subdividing land in the City of Kent,
insuring that the highest feasible quality in
subdivision will be attained; that the public health,
safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of
Kent shall be promoted and protected; that orderly
growth, development, and the conservation, protection
and proper use of land shall be insured; that proper
provisions for all public facilities. . . shall be
made; that maximum advantage of site characteristics
shall be taken into consideration; that conformance
with provisions set forth in the City of Kent Zoning
Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be insured.
Section 12 . 04 . 222 of the Kent Subdivision Code sets forth the
particular requirements for an application for short plat
approval . That section details five principles of acceptability
that must be met before a short plat can be approved. They are:
1. Create legal building sites which comply with all
provisions of the City of Kent Zoning Code and health
regulations.
4
Staff Report
Hicks Short Plat
#SP-92-2
2 . Establish access to a public road for each segregated
parcel.
3 . Have suitable physical characteristics; a proposed short
plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or swamp
conditions or construction of protective improvements may
be required as a condition of approval.
4 . If adjacent to another municipality or King County, take
into consideration the subdivision standards of the
jurisdiction as well as the requirements of this code.
5. Make adequate provision for : drainage ways, streets,
alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary
wastes, as deemed necessary.
The proposed plat is in general conformance with the Subdivision
Code. Any development on the property will be required to meet
Zoning Code requirements.
III . RCW 58 . 17 . 110, as amended, states that "A proposed subdivision
shall not be approved unless the city. . .makes written findings
that:
(a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public
health, safety, and general welfare and for such open
spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other
public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies,
sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds,
schools and school grounds and all other relevant
facts. . . ; and
(b) the public use and interest will be served by the
platting of such subdivision and dedication.. "..
The proposed subdivision has been reviewed in accordance with
these criteria as reflected in the Findings of Fact.
Based on the Findings detailed above the application will
conform to the standards set forth in City ordinances and RCW
58 . 17 .
FINAL DECISION
If the Short Plat Committee approves this short plat, the following
conditions should be part of this approval . These are in addition to
any other conditions imposed by the Short Plat Committee.
5
Staff Report
Hicks Short Plat
#SP-92-2
A. Prior to the recordation of the short plat:
1. Execute a traffic mitigation agreement to participate in
the 272nd/277th Street Corridor project.
2 . Provide approved engineering drawings for the extension of
public water and sanitary sewer systems to serve the
property.
3 . Provide private roadway and storm plans to service the
property. S. 243rd Lane (private) shall be improved to
provide minimum 20 foot asphalt roadway with Fire
Department turnaround.
4 . Provide all public and private easements for the roadway
and utility improvements described above.
5 . Execute a no protest LID for the future widening and
improvement of 98th Avenue S . to City standards.
B. Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a development
permit on any lot:
1. Construct roadway, water, sanitary sewer, and storm
drainage systems required under section A above.
Kent Planning Department
February 6, 1992
c:sp922rpt
6
C*-) Y
C�
O
i
;
1�
1
+OJ
i I7
\ O
C11 U
n
i J
I nl
\q
.f
I -
IJI �S
\D I r}
`J v
C�T-�
® ,s'M
i
P[A
zz Aalf
zz
awz�l illz�b
IcIle
loylk " 16
-AZI
alaZl -Will? aAly- Ace
c �,�1�
Gf d7 ;
f� �yt a(l ��9
Wl-
���6L � 71 � �a � 2c7
� .u�,� a .mac ,��
� � � � ,�-,Gem�.
�/2�2� .�a �Ga�` � coin dG�i�G . �
�roac0�t' �i �.�e, c/arrc� ,��.�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date March 17 , 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN ZONING NO. ZCA-90-6
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Planning
Commission's recommended approval of the Downtown Zoning
No. ZCA-90-6. The proposal recommends establishing three new
zoning districts, outlines new development standards for the
downtown area, recommends a design review process for new
downtown development, modifies parking requirements, design of
sidewalks, and lighting of pedestrian corridors. The Planning
Commission approved the proposal February 24, 1992 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Revised Downtown Plan Zoning Program, proposed
Downtown Zoning Map, and Planning Commission minutes of
February 24, 1992 .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval
of the proposed Downtown Plan Zoning Program (No. ZCA-90-6)which
establishes three new zoning districts, outlines new
development standards for the downtown area, recommends a
design review process for new downtown development, modifies
parking requirements, design sidewalks and lighting of
pedestrian corridors.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Age da
Item No. 4B
CITY OF ZQ�J>� �.5
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
v7EC,T& MEMORANDUM
March 17 , 1992
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REVISED DOWNTOWN PLAN ZONING PROGRAM #ZCA-90-6
In 1990, the Planning Department began a work program to implement
through zoning the land use goals and policies in the Downtown
Plan, which had been updated and adopted by the City Council in
1989 . The Planning Commission began hearings on the Planning
Department proposal in March, 1991. During the course of the
Planning Commission' s deliberations, two alternative proposals were
generated: one by a Committee appointed by Mayor Kelleher, and
another produced jointly by staff from the Administration and
Planning Departments. After additional hearings, the latter
proposal was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission at
their February 24 hearing.
The Planning Commission' s recommendation is:
1. Three(3) new zoning districts to replace those in
existence. These are:
- Downtown Commercial (DC) ;
- Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) ; and
- Downtown Limited Manufacturing (DLM) (see attached
zoning map)
2 . New development standards for the downtown area
3 . A design review process for new downtown development
In addition, the Planning Commission made three(3) amendments to
the report (Revised Downtown Plan Zoning Program) . These are:
1. The parking requirements on page 16 were amended to
include a provision that the properties in the DICE zone
who paid into the parking LID would be exempt from off-
street parking requirements, and that the parking
requirements outlined should be adopted on an interim
basis until a downtown parking management plan is
adopted.
2 . The Commission made an addition to the design review
criteria outlined on page 18 to include a criterion on
the placement and design of sidewalks.
3 . The design review criteria relating to landscaping and
pedestrian corridors were amended to include a provision
that these areas be well lit.
In addition to the proposal, the Planning Commission minutes from
the February 24 hearing are also attached. Additional background
information on this process is available for your review in the
City Council Conference Room.
JPH/mp:kon:dtzoncov.cit
cc: Kevin O'Neill
p VALLEY I— FREEWAY
S. NADEN AV•. nF p v LINCOLN
❑ AVE.
U
U u OP, o ! r d f
T v � ❑ O tJ D
u m go
cf) -�— I- r N 6TH. AVE. ,Lk C3 - v
T
I
0 8rDc rJ L
v o . �
r
ti 5TH. AVE. ED _ «1 j 0 -. .....
❑ t
O ❑ LIFia
=Uc=�u
N. 4TH. AVE.
z. U �- � 1
0
NLA
L�ff lJ L J 1
LI Q �i D C)° f L_J �fj
•. IJ�-- N. t ST. AVE.
AILACRO RVE.I
ap a U U U
[r1
r7] 0 I_
_ Ll
(1 � Uj�
L� LI ❑I l � l Ili �. I Q �Lil� ilub I�
�ll J —
N CEn�.n pvE [_���j[� n` ,l Si
mi�
o 0 0 0 U .1 m1 � ;l I [ 1Ii
I
:0 n r Ct n
Q Sn *9 11 p n C l
m �� 1 I r'u1 pu e
m �) U rr I I ij :I
f! I?
ENN BEC c'
5 0 0 0 O m f'A�od�oa L ' '- LI
ce.
3 H. o > > > � � a� I Li 4 .) I n 1co U [i
17Y'
n
0 0 3
�l
m � m 3 3 J� 4 F,�jl
9I UCl (J[JUL O�lac)G
3 Q �y,.
c m
m
0 o t-
c ,3 .
w' 0
vim--
0
0
0
0
r
CITY OF KENT
REVISED DOWNTOWN PLAN ZONING PROGRAM
Kent Administration and Planning Departments
February, 1992
eua�u��
CITY OF KENT
REVISED DOWNTOWN PLAN ZONING PROGRAM
Kent Administration and Planning Departments
February, 1992
MAYOR
Dan Kelleher
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Ed Chow
PROJECT STAFF
Administration
Alana Mclalwain Administration Services Manager
Raul Ramos, AICP Downtown Infrastructure Facilities Coordinator
Planning
James P. Harris Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, AICP Planning Manager
Janet Shull Planner
Kevin O'Neill Planner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Background 1
B. Purpose of Report 2
II. RECOMMENDATIONS 3
A. Zoning Map 3
B. Zoning Districts 5
1 . Downtown Commercial 5
2. Downtown Commercial Enterprise 9
3. Downtown Limited Manufacturing 11
C. Development Standards 14
1 . Development Standards 14
2. Design Review 16
III. ACTION AGENDA 20
I. INTRODUCTION
This report presents revised staff recommendations regarding zoning for the
Downtown Planning Area. These recommendations have been produced by staff from
the City of Kent Administration and Planning Departments, and incorporate elements
from alternative downtown zoning proposals which have been presented to the
Planning Commission. The revised recommendations have also been designed to
reflect concerns raised by citizens at the Planning Commission hearings which have
been held to date on downtown zoning, as well as "visioning" comments made by
members of the Planning Commission at the November 25, 1991 hearing.
A. BACKGROUND
In May, 1989, the Kent City Council approved and adopted an update of the
Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan contains goals, objectives, and policies relating
to land use, circulation, housing, and economic development. In early 1990, the City
Council Planning Committee approved a Planning Department work program to
implement the Downtown Plan. The intent of the Downtown Plan Implementation
Program was to implement the land use goals contained in the Downtown Plan, as
well as incorporate recommendations made by the Mayor's Task Force on Downtown
Revitalization and Mayor's Advisory Committee on a Downtown Enterprise Zone.
In January, 1991 , the Planning Department produced a report outlining proposed
zoning changes for the Downtown Planning Area. The report recommended three
new zoning districts: Downtown Commercial (DC), Mixed Use (MU), and Downtown
Limited Manufacturing (DLM). The report also recommended new development
standards for the downtown area which focused on height, placement of buildings,
and parking. The purpose of these recommended development standards was to
create a pedestrian-oriented environment.
The Planning Commission conducted the first hearing on the proposed downtown
zoning changes on March 25, 1991, and was continued to April 22, 1991 . At these
hearings the Planning Commission received a great deal of public testimony, which
focussed primarily on the proposed development standards and concerns relating to
nonconforming uses and structures.
At the Planning Commission's next hearing, on May 20, 1991 , the City Administration
Department asked the Commission, on behalf of Mayor Kelleher, to postpone
consideration of the downtown zoning changes, since the Mayor had appointed a
committee to develop an alternative zoning proposal which would have more flexibility
and more open standards than the Planning Department's proposal. The Planning
Commission granted the request and postponed the hearing four months to allow the
committee to generate an alternative zoning proposal for their consideration.
1
The Downtown Zoning Alternatives Committee presented its report to the Planning
Commission at workshop and hearing in September. The Committee recommended
two new zoning districts: Downtown Limited Manufacturing (DLM), which was
similar to the Planning Department proposal, and Downtown Commercial Enterprise
(DCE). The Committee also recommended eliminating all restrictions on height and
density and allowing more flexible development standards to encourage development
in the downtown. The Planning Commission heard public testimony on the
alternatives proposal at the September hearing and the October 28 hearing.
At the Planning Commission hearing on November 25, the Commission was asked by
staff from the Planning and Administration Departments for an additional
postponement to allow the two departments to work together to produce a joint
proposal which would incorporate elements of the Planning Department and
Alternative Committee proposals. The Commission agreed to postpone the hearing
for three months, but used a large portion of the meeting to share their vision for
downtown, and asked that their concerns, as well as those expressed by citizens
during public testimony, be taken into consideration by staff in preparing the new
proposal.
B. Purpose of Report
Staff from the Administration and Planning Departments have been meeting since
December to generate the revised zoning proposal. The intent of the revised proposal
is to implement a zoning plan which will facilitate the downtown revitalization goals
of the Mayor and City Council and allow a dense development pattern for downtown,
while at the same time meeting the goals and policies of the adopted downtown plan
regarding mixed use development and pedestrian-oriented development guidelines.
Since the uses permitted in the proposed zoning districts were very similar in the two
proposals, staff focussed their efforts on the zoning district boundaries and
development standards. Staff also reviewed the minutes from all previous Planning
Commission hearings to ensure that concerns expressed by the public, as well as the
Planning Commissioners, were taken into consideration in preparing the proposal.
The remainder of this report outlines the revised proposal and the rationale for the
recommendations being made. The report makes reference to two other documents
previously prepared on downtown zoning: the Planning Department's "Kent
Downtown Implementation Program" report, dated January, 1991 ; and the "Final
Report: The Mayor's Advisory Committee on Downtown Zoning Alternatives, dated
October 28, 1991 . This report concludes with a recommended Action Agenda for the
Planning Commission.
2
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter outlines the recommendations developed by Administration and Planning
staff. As stated, these recommendations include elements of both the Planning
Department and Downtown Zoning Alternatives Committee reports, as well as
responding to concerns raised during public testimony. The recommendations are
divided into three categories: the recommended zoning map, zoning districts, and
development standards.
A. ZONING MAP
Existing Zoning
The existing zoning in the Downtown Planning Area is shown on the fold-out map on
the following page. The existing zoning map shows that there are nine zoning
districts located in the downtown area, ranging from single-family residential (R1-7.2)
to manufacturing (M2). These various zoning districts allow a variety of uses,
including single-family and multi-family residential, commercial, office, and
manufacturing. However, the existing zoning districts tend to segregate uses as
opposed to allowing different types of uses within the same building or site. Both the
Planning Department and the Alternatives Zoning Committee recommended reducing
the number of zoning districts in the downtown area to allow more opportunities for
mixed use and incorporate development standards which are more appropriate for a
downtown setting. This is also reflected in the revised proposal.
Recommended Zoning
The recommended zoning map is also shown on the fold-out map located on the
following page. The recommended zoning map shows three major changes from the
existing zoning: an amended Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district, replacing
much of the existing DC-1 zone; a new Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) zone,
replacing the existing DC-2, MRM, and O zones, as well as portions of the DC-1 , GC,
and M2 zones; and the Downtown Limited Manufacturing (DLM) zoning district, which
would replace a portion of the existing M2 zoning in the downtown area.
There are also some areas in which the zoning is not proposed to be changed: the
R1-7.2 single-family zoning in the northeast corner of the planning area would remain
intact, as would some of the General Commercial (GC) area adjacent to Central
Avenue. Another area which is proposed to remain in its present zoning is the area
on the southeast section of the planning area along Kennebeck Avenue, which is
zoned High Density Multifamily (MRH). The Planning Department proposal and the
Alternative Committee proposal had recommended that this area be zoned Mixed Use
(MU) and Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE), respectively. The revised proposal
3
VALLr- FREEWAY
S. NAD•N AVE, n� Q L1NCOLN q
Q Ud a0Cp 7uiJCr C>= �'E.
0 `u
O ri
rho ❑o UO [7U 05
Q r
Li
r i
V• AVE. -Ummrlvmw - :a ❑ tr-
ED
cy
v ❑ . rn C, �1
OR a '
(A
5TH. AVE. 9 LI J --
LPL �° u UUU CA [� 1 i r-
❑ o
�rID �n f rl 1 N. 4TH. AVE.
O I ❑L O Q 6 � � I`v'I 1 --
on O
lr'l� IJ 1 Pl H
N , o tl• 2NQ AVE.RV
1 1
❑ 0 �i Q 0° -`�+ I - I U lJ� N. 1 ST. AVE.
Q fl� U°
_rr�-r-gi, nn -�:�: Q � '.- - �___.__.��_.r--_- _='l=.r=�••^t_
a� U u L.� -' nna --"� RILRQRQ RVE.F
❑U Uf
O
N CEt ).'n RYE C in O n
mol
N LJ I ✓ -
. ,p J. Q O o ■� f� � r'V o r
o, nL) l7 I�� 1.1 C
N = m o o g m r���� oaa�p DI L3 I fl !n� r��4 n
o
m ° e �
^o 0 0 � M� 'I U 1u� iti' U nJouv O
o o '� °i� l ❑n� n. F�n
❑ uUI! UC1Dlb
_ m m
c m
� o
i
7 m n
o
S ..
recommends preserving this area as MRH, due to concerns which were raised during
public testimony relating to mixed use zoning in this area. There were also concerns
expressed by the Planning Commission about preserving single-family housing in this
area. Therefore, staff felt that it was appropriate to retain the multi-family zoning for
three reasons: first, single-family residential would represent an extensive downzone
from the present MRH zoning, and this was an area already excluded from the
downzoning effort undertaken during the 1989 Housing Study; second, the
Downtown Plan encourages multifamily housing, as opposed to single-family; and
third, and perhaps most importantly, the area is designated as Office/Multifamily on
the Downtown Plan, and therefore a single-family designation would be inconsistent
with the Plan. In conclusion, staff believes that retaining the existing MRH zoning
designation will help preserve the area for residential use.
The following section will outline the recommended purpose language and permitted
uses for the three new proposed zoning districts.
B. ZONING DISTRICTS
1 . Downtown Commercial (DC)
Description and Rationale
The proposed DC zoning district is recommended to recognize the historic "core" area
of downtown. There was concern expressed at the public hearings by citizens and
Planning Commission members regarding this area, particularly concern regarding
what a lack of density controls might do to this area in the future. The proposed
boundaries of this zoning district are designed to reflect the "City Center" of the
downtown, including the corridors which have traditionally functioned as "Main
Street" shopping areas, such as Meeker Street and 1st Avenue.
The following shows the recommended amendments to the purpose language and
permitted uses in the DC zoning districts, as they would appear in the zoning code.
The proposed amendments show changes to the existing DC-1 and DC-2 language in
the code. The proposed purpose language and list of permitted uses is virtually
identical to what has been proposed previously by the Planning Department and the
Alternative Zoning Committee; one change which has been made to the purpose
language is shown in bold type.
amended text ((de'�xt))
Purpose: It is the purpose of this district to provide a place for, and create
environmental conditions which will encourage the location of, dense and
varied retail, office, residential ((ems)), civic and recreational activities
which will benefit and contribute to the vitality of a central "downtown"
5
location, recognize and preserve the historic pattern of development in the area,
and to implement the land use -goals and policies in the Downtown Plan. In the
DC area, permitted uses should be primarily pedestrian oriented and able to take
advantage of on-street and structured off-street parking lots ((,
)).
Principally Permitted Uses in DC Zone
(A) All of the uses listed below are permitted in the DC zoning district,
excepting that in the area designated in Appendix A the ground level or street
level portion of all buildings must be retail or pedestrian-oriented service/repair
uses.
1 . Retail establishments, including convenience goods, department and variety
stores and specialty shops such as apparel and accessories, -gift shops, toy
shops cards and paper goods home and home accessory shops, antique
shops, and book shops. ((
))).
2. Personal services such as barber and beauty shops, launderettes, dry
cleaning, television and radio repair, shoe repair.
3. Food-related shops, restaurants (including outdoor seating areas and
excluding drive-in restaurants), nightclubs, taverns.
4. Professional, administrative and financial offices.
5. Business and technical schools.
6. Performing and cultural arts uses such as theaters, museums, art galleries,
and studios. ((ReeFeatieRal uses sueh as thea!eFS, bowling alleys, danee halls
7. Hotels and motels.
8. Printing establishments, business services such as copy services.
9. Mortuaries
10. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for
human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed.
Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences.
11 . Public facilities and uses, including regional and community facilities, such
as libraries, government office buildings, and parks. ((Manielpal uses and
. ))
12. Multifamily residential uses, when established in buildings with commercial
or office uses and not located on the ground floor.
13. Multifamily residential uses for senior citizens.
14. Banks and financial institutions (excluding drive-through).
15. Preschools and day care centers.
16. Group Homes, Class 1-A, 1-B and 1-C.
17. Any other use that is determined by the Planning Director to be of the same
general character as the above permitted uses and in accordance with the
6
stated purpose of the district.
(1
2 n + bil s,, seFViees.
e. MaFine efaft sales and . ee f3s.,'..-
•))
((
))
Special Permit Uses
The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the
development standards listed in Section 15.08.020:
1 . Churches
(( ))
0. Gaseline se Vice stat;ens in DGz-cene only))
Accessory Uses
1 . Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use,
such as incidental storage facilities, which must be enclosed, loading and
unloading areas, .
2. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including on-site
hazardous waste treatment and/or storage facilities, which are not subject to
cleanup permit requirements of Kent City Code Chapter 4.19 and which do not
accumulate more than 5,000 pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any
combination thereof at any one time on site, subject to the provisions of
Section 15.08.050, except off-site hazardous waste treatment and/or storage
facilities which are not permitted in this district.
3. Day care facilities operated in coniunction with a permitted use.
7
Conditional Uses
1 . Multifamily residential uses, when not combined with commercial or office
uses.
2. Commercial parking lots or structures
3. Railway and bus depots, taxi stands
4. Group Homes Class 2-A, 2-B, 2-C and 3.
5. General conditional uses as listed in Section 15.08.030
6. (( ))
7. ((
zene en+yM
The proposed ground floor pedestrian overlay area has been slightly amended as well,
to reflect the new boundaries of the DC area as are now being proposed. The new
overlay area is shown below:
W. 5NIT4I
II
li
l li
— -�liulin�lmrlmllmtu���t�mm�m>nil = I
(J II
= llllllllllllllllllllf(l�lll�lll��lllllll(�lllllllllllll111 l�l�lll�llll
W. H 6 n_j(K ST
I (fllllll)IIIDIl111 _ r
ll 111
�fliill�i�Til
TITvs sr
I FIR
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ground Floor Retail/Service Use- Required
8
2 Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE)
Description and Rationale
The proposed Downtown Commercial Enterprise zone was previously recommended
by the Alternatives Zoning Committee, and contains elements of both the Alternatives
Committee recommendations and the Mixed Use zoning district recommended by the
Planning Department. The purpose of the zone is to encourage high density
development and maximize to the greatest extent possible redevelopment
opportunities in the downtown area. Like the earlier recommendations made by the
Planning Department and Alternatives Committee, the proposed zone encourages a
mixture of uses, particularly retail, .office, and multifamily residential, and allows
multifamily residential uses as a principally permitted use, with no density restrictions
on the number of units allowed.
The proposed boundaries of the DCE zone are essentially similar to what have been
previously proposed, with two major exceptions: first, as was previously stated, the
southeast section of the Planning Area along Kennebeck Avenue is recommended to
remain MRH as opposed to DCE, and; second, the southwest portion of the Planning
Area and along Naden Avenue, which is presently zoned M2 and had been previously
recommended as DLM, is now recommended to be zoned DCE. In reconsidering this
area, staff felt that zoning the area DCE would maximize redevelopment opportunities
in this area. Also, zoning a larger part of the Downtown Planning Area DCE will result
in more consistency regarding development standards and design guidelines, which
will be discussed in the next section.
The following lists the recommended purpose language and permitted uses in the
proposed DCE zoning district as they would appear in the zoning code. The purpose
language and permitted uses are similar to what was previously proposed for the MU
zoning district in the Planning Department proposal, with the exception that all
principally permitted uses would be permitted as "stand-alone" uses. The Planning
Department had recommended that in this area (which was recommended as Mixed
Use), retail, service, and office uses be permitted outright only if located in a
development which combined at least two uses, otherwise a conditional use permit
would be required. This was recommended to provide an incentive to encourage
mixed use development. This recommendation has been omitted from the revised
proposal to provide maximum flexibility for development; however, encouraging mixed
use development remains a priority goal for this area. Other changes from earlier
proposals are shown in bold type.
Purpose: The purpose of this district is to encourage and promote higher
density development and a variety and mixture of compatible retail, commercial,
residential, civic, recreational, and service activities in the downtown area, to
enhance the pedestrian-oriented character of the downtown, and to implement
9
the goals and policies of the Downtown Plan.
Principally Permitted Uses
1 . Retail establishments, including convenience goods, department and variety
stores, and specialty shops such as apparel and accessories, gift shops, toy
shops, cards and paper goods, home and home accessory shops, antique
shops, and book shops.
2. Personal services, such as barber and beauty shops, launderettes, and
household repair shops.
3. Food-related shops, restaurants (including outdoor eating areas and
excluding drive-through restaurants), taverns.
4. Professional and administrative offices, including medical/dental, legal, real
estate, and financial services.
5. Business and technical schools, and schools and studios for photography,
art, music, and dance.
6. Business service establishments, such as blueprinting, photocopying, and
consulting services.
7. Multifamily residential uses, including housing for senior citizens.
8. Banks and financial institutions.
9. Hotels and motels.
10. Performing and cultural arts facilities, including movie theaters.
11 . Public facilities and uses, including regional and community facilities, such
as libraries, government office buildings, and parks.
12. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for
human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed,
such as garages, carports, storage sheds, and fences.
13. Preschools and day care centers.
14. Group Homes Class 1-A, 1-B and 1-C.
15. Other uses designated by the Planning Director as consistent with the
purpose of the DCE zoning district.
Special Permit Uses
1 . Churches.
Accessory Uses
1 . Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use,
such as incidental storage facilities, which must be enclosed, loading and
unloading areas.
2. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including on-site
hazardous waste treatment and/or storage facilities, which are not subject to
cleanup permit requirements of Kent City Code Chapter 4.19 and which do not
10
accumulate more than 5,000 pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any
combination thereof at any one time on site, subject to the provisions of
Section 15.08.050, except off-site hazardous waste treatment and/or storage
facilities which are not permitted in this district.
3. Day care facilities operated in conjunction with a permitted use.
Conditional Uses
1 . Commercial parking lots or structures
2. Railway and bus depots, taxi stands
3. Drive-through restaurants and businesses, and only if located in a building
having at least two stories.
4. Group Homes Class 2-A, 2-13, 2-C and 3.
5. General conditional uses as listed in Section 15.08.030
3 Downtown Limited Manufacturing (DLM)
Description and Rationale
The proposed Downtown Limited Manufacturing district was previously recommended
in both the Planning Department and Alternative Committee proposals for the northern
portion of the Planning Area designated as "Industrial" on the Downtown Plan, as well
as for the area on the southwest corner of the Planning Area. As discussed in the
previous section, this latter portion is now being recommended as DCE, so the only
part of the Planning Area now recommended as DLM is the industrial area south of
James Street.
The proposed purpose language and permitted uses for the DLM zone are listed below.
The list of proposed uses incorporates concerns made by property owners in the area
in meetings with Planning Department staff and in public hearings before the Planning
Commission; changes which have been made since the January, 1991 Planning
Department report are shown in bold type.
Purpose: It is the purpose of this zoning district to provide for light industrial
land uses which may coexist with retail, business, residential and service land
uses in the downtown area. This district is intended to provide areas for those
light manufacturing activities that desire to conduct business in proximity to a
variety of land uses such as is possible only in the downtown community.
Principally Permitted Uses
1 . Retail uses intended primarily to serve the needs of the manufacturing area,
such as equipment, lumber, tools, and restaurants (excluding drive-through).
2. Manufacturing, processing,assembling, and packaging of articles, products,
11
or merchandise made from previously prepared natural or synthetic materials,
including but not limited to bristles, bone, canvas, cellophane and similar
synthetics, chalk, clay (pulverized only, with gas or electric kilns), cloth, cork,
feathers, felt, fiber, fiberglass, fur, glass (including glass finishing), graphite,
hair, horn, leather, paper, paraffin, plastic, metals, semiprecious and precious
metals or stones, putty, pumice, shell, textiles, tobacco, wire, wood, wool and
yarn, which generate low levels of noise, dust, vibration, truck traffic, or odors.
Prohibited are those manufacturing activities having potentially deleterious
operational characteristics, such as initial processing of raw materials (forging,
smeltering, refining and forming)•
3. Manufacture and packaging of food-related products, such as confectionery
products, bakery products, fruits and vegetables, beer and wine, and prepared
food specialties.
4. Printing, publishing, and allied industries, including such processes as
lithography, etching, engraving, binding, blueprinting, photocopying, film
processing, and similar operations; such uses may have on-site customer
service.
5. Custom arts and crafts manufacturing and artist workshops, studios, and
galleries.
6. Business and administrative offices.
7. Business, professional, educational, and construction services.
8. Finance, insurance, and real estate services.
9. Complexes which include a combination of uses, including a mixture of
office, storage, and light manufacturing uses.
10. Public facilities and uses, including regional and community facilities, such
as libraries, government office buildings, and parks.
11. Multifamily residential uses.
12. Other similar uses which the Planning Director finds compatible with the
Principally Permitted uses described herein, and are consistent with the purpose
of the DLM District.
Special Permit Uses
1 . Preschools and day care centers.
2. Gasoline service stations.
Accessory Uses
1 . Retail uses operated in conjunction with and incidental to permitted uses,
provided such uses are housed as a part of the building comprising the basic
operations.
2. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use.
3. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including on-site
hazardous waste treatment and/or storage facilities, which are not subject to
12
cleanup permit requirements of Kent City Code Chapter 4.19 and which do not
accumulate more than 5,000 pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any
combination thereof at any one time on site, subject to the provisions of
Section 15.08.050, except off-site hazardous waste treatment and/or storage
facilities which are not permitted in this district.
4. Day care facilities operated in conjunction with a permitted use.
Conditional Uses
1 . Retail commercial uses.
2. Hotels and motels.
3. Group Homes Class 1-A, 1-13, 1-C, 2-A, 2-13, 2-C, and 3.
4. General conditional uses listed in Section 15.08.030.
Proposed development standards and design guidelines for the three zoning districts
are outlined in the next section.
13
C. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
As staff from the Planning and Administration Departments examined in detail their
respective approaches to the regulation of development in the Downtown Planning
Area we found that there were only a few areas where our approaches differed
significantly. These areas were height, setbacks, and application of the pedestrian
plan overlay. Where the Alternatives Committee's report called for no height limit or
density restrictions, the Planning Department report recommended a Floor Area Ratio,
(FAR) for regulating overall density in the absence of a specific height limit. Where the
Planning Department report called for a maximum setback and a pedestrian plan
overlay to control the elements of street scape, the Alternatives Committee report did
not propose these controls.
The revised recommendation is to lessen the controls on height and setbacks in the
development regulations area, but implement simultaneously a design review process
to focus on the pedestrian environment and street scape. No changes are being
proposed to the minimum lot size, maximum site coverage, landscaping or parking
requirements for the new zoning districts. The Planning and Administration
Departments also agree that there should be slightly greater control through
development regulations in the DC zoning district or "Downtown Core" to protect and
enhance that area's unique character.
1 . Development Standards
For the DCE and DLM zoning districts, the Alternatives Committee's recommendations
to eliminate the FAR requirements and impose no height limit is proposed. In the DC
zoning district, the FAR requirement has also been eliminated, but a four story height
limit is recommended to help ensure that new buildings in this area will not be out of
scale with the existing pattern of development. Up to six stories could be built in the
DC zone with the Planning Director's approval.
The 20 foot maximum building setback which was originally proposed by the Planning
Department has been removed from the development regulations section and is now
proposed to be implemented as a design review criteria. The same is true for the
Pedestrian Plan overlay.
The table on the following page summarizes the proposed development regulations.
14
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
DC District DCE and DLM Districts
Minimum Lot Minimum lot of Record or Minimum lot of record or
Size: 5,000 square feet, 5,000 square feet in DCE;
whichever is less 10,000 square feet in DLM
Maximum Site 100 percent 100 percent in DCE; 75
Coverage: percent in DLM
Setbacks: No minimum setbacks unless No minimum setbacks unless
a site abuts a residential a site abuts a residential
district, in which case a 20 district, in which case a 20
foot rear or side setback may foot rear or side setback
be required; see design may be required; see design
standards standards
Height: Four story height limit, with No height limit; see design
authorization to go two standards
additional stories if Planning
Director approves; see
design standards
Landscaping: Street trees in accordance Street trees in accordance
with Street Tree Plan; with Street Tree Plan;
minimum three-foot buffer to minimum three-foot buffer to
screen parking areas. screen parking areas;
minimum 10-foot
landscaping buffer on
property lines abutting
residential districts
15
Parking: No off-street parking 50 percent reduction in DCE
required, except one space is west of BN tracks, and 25
required per multi-family percent reduction in DCE
unit; require a surface east of tracks. One (1 )
parking maximum of 3 parking space per multi-
spaces per 1 ,000 square feet family unit west of BN tracks
of floor area (does not apply and 1 .5 parking spaces per
to multi-family development) multifamily unit east of the
BN tracks. No reduction in
DLM; use existing parking
standards outlined in the
zoning code. Surface
parking maximum of 3
spaces per 1 ,000 square
feet (in DCE only; does not
apply to multi-family
development)
16
2. Design Review
Since we are proposing to eliminate certain development regulations to foster higher
density development, an administrative design review process will go a long way to
ensure that new development and/or redevelopment occurs in a way that creates a
quality pedestrian environment.
The Downtown Plan has very specific goals for enhancing the pedestrian quality of
the downtown area. By allowing greater development density downtown, there will
be a greater potential for the downtown area to become pedestrian oriented.
However, greater density in and of itself does not necessarily result in a pedestrian
friendly environment. The purpose of the proposed design review criteria is to ensure
that the pedestrian environment is considered with each and every new development
that is permitted.
On the following page is a table which summarizes the proposed design review
criteria. The criteria are essentially the components of the Pedestrian Plan Overlay
which were earlier proposed as development standards in the Planning Department
Proposal. Additional criteria which would be applied in the DC zoning district only are
proposed. These additional criteria address the historic character of the DC area, the
desirability of pedestrian coverings, such as awnings, and the desirability of a zero
setback along Meeker Street and 1 st Avenue.
By addressing these issues through an administrative design review process instead
of through regulations, the review process will be more flexible. Each applicant may
propose to meet the criteria in different ways yet each would still achieve the overall
objective of quality design.
17
DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA
DC District DCE and DLM Districts
-Pedestrian Plan, with focus on -Pedestrian Plan, with mixture of
100% lot frontage, and 100% and 50% lot frontage,
maximum 20-foot building and maximum 20-foot building
setbacks from street rights-of- setbacks from street rights-of-
way way
-windows should make up the -building facades facing a street
greatest percentage of the street should have windows at the
level facade area to minimize street level or an interesting
blank walls feature to minimize blank walls
-restrict curb cuts as much as -restrict curb cuts as much as
possible practicable
-off-street parking areas should -off-street parking areas should
be to the rear or side of be to the rear or side of
buildings and should be well I.it buildings and should be well lit
-extensive landscaping in large -extensive landscaping in large
parking areas or other open parking areas or other open
areas which can be seen from areas which can be seen from
the street the street
-pedestrian corridors outside of -pedestrian corridors outside of
building should be clearly building should be clearly
marked, and pedestrian through- marked, and pedestrian through-
ways should be provided in long ways should be provided in long
buildings buildings
-ensure that building design of -building facade setback after
new infill development is four stories to maintain human
compatible with existing historic scale
buildings in terms of bulk, scale,
and cornice line
-cover for pedestrians, such as
awnings, should be provided
along the length of any building
facade abutting a sidewalk
-zero front setback along Meeker
and 1st Avenue
18
}
a
LL
O
I I
J H F-
umar��—'T ■aurmuioll .
"S ■rL� r > uu�, W W
� W W �
.UIn
� � I z
a a v,
_ ��
+
w
w w
d .1 fV' LU
- - d 0-
F-
I } a m a
N N z
!r
k c in cD
w
I �E U U O
I
4 I
I
uuuuuuummuumum�umi F-7-71� ummuuu��muuuuuul= � -
-anr -iYdN.TJ tl �v �rs7Sja.au'Alm rr
L.11.�.� �iiiuuimuuuuid WQJc /��
"NY •4^d,lall 11
IT
r
Q
CL49 .11 -ANY O z
C >
i sr ur 14 �Ar nlb_ s
;I W
1 � /�
� W
- —-. L_ _ _ _-I._ ._._. -x... LL
— -r -•- � I i y Z
r\`i
•iigJ'r,r 4r� it
r0■i�r■ -. ---- --1 ��
• _ prr.ct
r .y. ,r 1 J! ,'
\` rrrrINlainINTO] ■��rLvtirraLrGri�r-iir r�rn nnnnr y
Lei �1rlOsd �1v�y
--------------------------------
19
Proposed Design Review Process
The process which is proposed for design review in Downtown Kent is an
administrative process consistent with the design review process adopted for
multifamily development in December, 1991 . The process would be administered by
the Planning Department, with decision making shared by an interdepartmental
committee with representatives from Planning, Administration and other departments
yet to be determined. In order to carry out the design review program, the criteria
outlined on the previous page will need to be illustrated and organized into a
handbook. This handbook must be available to distribute to all applicants for
development in the downtown.
111. ACTION AGENDA
Outlined below are the three actions which must be taken by City Officials to
implement the recommendations presented in this report.
A. Amend the Zoning Code to create three new zoning designations; Downtown
Commercial (DC), Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) and Downtown
Limited Manufacturing (DLM).
B. Amend the Official Zoning Map as illustrated on page 4 of this report.
C. Direct project staff to implement the administrative design review process
outlined in this report.
20
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
February 24 , 1992
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Antley at 7 : 00 P.M. , February 24 , 1992 in the Kent City Hall,
City Council Chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION ME14BERS PRESENT:
Tracy Antley, Chair
Linda Martinez , Vice Chair
Gwen Dahle
Christopher Grant
Albert Haylor
Edward Heineman, Jr.
Kent Morrill
Raymond Ward
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Greg Greenstreet
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O 'Neill, Planner
Janet Shull, Planner
Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary
KENT CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Raul Ramos, Administration
Alana McIalwain, Administration
APPROVAL OF JANUARY 27 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept the minutes of the
January 27 , 1992 meeting as presented. Commissioner Morrill
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
It was decided that new officers will be elected at the public
hearing on March 9 , 1992 .
ABSENTEEISM
Commissioner Grant suggested that at the next meeting they should
discuss the absenteeism of Mr. Greg Greenstreet who, after a year
and a half, he has never met.
Kent Planning Commission
February 24 , 1992
KENT DOWNTOWN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM - ZCA-90-6
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to reopen the public hearing on the
Kent Downtown Plan Implementation Program. Commissioner Dahle
SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Haylor made a friendly amendment
to the motion suggesting that each individual who would like to
speak limit their comments to five minutes. Commissioner Martinez
accepted the friendly amendment. Motion carried.
For the benefit of the people attending the meeting,
Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department presented a little
background on the proposal. In March of 1991, a zoning proposal
was presented to the Planning Commission by staff. At that time,
the existing zoning was compared to the proposed staff zoning and
there was considerable reaction by interests to that proposal. In
May, the Mayor requested and was granted an opportunity to
formulate a committee that met for a period of about four months to
formulate an alternative to that zoning which was presented to the
Planning Commission in September. In November, the staff and
Administration requested an opportunity to blend the proposals
together so they could come back with a consolidated
recommendation. The proposal now under consideration represents
the consolidation of the two proposals. It also has the benefit of
public input that was made throughout the hearings, as well as the
Planning Commission's own visioning exercise. These things were
tremendously helpful in arriving at the current proposal.
Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that obviously you can't please all of
the people all of the time, but he hoped that they have addressed
a lot of the issues to the Commission' s and the public' s
satisfaction.
Alana McIalwain from Administration said this truly has been a
cooperative effort. It has taken some time, but Administration and
the Mayor feel confident that this plan offers a real opportunity
for revitalizing downtown.
Kevin O'Neill from the Planning Department presented the new
proposed zoning map and zoning districts. What is consistent about
all the proposals is the desire to reduce the number of zoning
districts in the downtown planning area, trying to achieve the
goals of the downtown plan and get development standards and uses
that are really consistent with the policies of the plan and more
consistent with the downtown revitalization efforts of the City.
The new districts being proposed are Downtown Commercial (DC) which
is fairly similar to the existing DC-1 zone, Downtown Commercial
Enterprise (DCE) which is proposed to encompass a large portion of
the planning area and Downtown Limited Manufacturing (DLM) .
2
Kent Planning Commission
February 24 , 1992
The Planning Department ' s proposal had recommended that the DC
zoning district cover a larger area than the present proposal. The
Mayor ' s Alternative Committee's proposal did not have this zoning
district at all and the entire area was DCE. Based on a lot of
public testimony received about an interest in recognizing the
historic core area of downtown, the Downtown Commercial area is
being proposed with boundaries which really capture the primary
main street retail districts of Meeker Street and 1st and 2nd
Avenues. The reason for distinguishing this area from the rest of
the planning area is for purposes of uses and development
standards. There is a ground floor pedestrian use overlay which
has been part of the proposal all along.
The proposed Downtown Commercial Enterprize zoning district was
originally proposed by the Mayor ' s Alternative Committee. It had
a lot of similarities to the Mixed Use district which was
originally proposed by the Planning Department. The focus of this
area is to provide a zoning district which maximizes redevelopment
potential and encourages higher densities .
A portion of the area has been designated MRH, High Density
Multifamily, which is the existing designation for that area. The
previous two proposals had the area designated as Mixed Use
development and DCE which allow a large portion of retail
commercial uses . It is designated MRH in the current proposal
because of concern brought up at earlier hearings about mixed use
development and the uncertainties that would bring up in terms of
development that could happen there. There were also concerns
raised by members of the Planning Commission related to preserving
single family housing in this area and the impacts of changing
residentially zoned land to a commercial designation.
The third new district, Downtown Limited Manufacturing, was part of
both of the previous proposals. There were some changes made in
principally permitted uses based on public testimony at the
hearings and comments received from property owners in that area.
Janet Shull of the Planning Department spoke about the development
standards and the proposed design review process. The primary
differences between the new proposal and the previous ones are in
the areas of height, setbacks and the pedestrian plan overlay.
Minimum lot size and site coverage are the same as in the previous
proposals .
The earlier staff proposal had proposed a maximum setback of 20
feet from property lines that fronted on a right of way. In the
new proposal there are no minimum setbacks unless a property abuts
a residential zoning district, in which case the Planning Director
3
Kent Planning Commission
February 24 , 1992
could require up to a 20 foot minimum setback. The maximum setback
has been placed into the design review category.
The second area where there were differences between the two
earlier proposals was in the area of height. The staff proposal
utilized a floor area ratio (FAR) measurement to determine overall
height. The Alternative Committee had proposed no height limit for
the planning area. The new proposal has two different treatments
of height depending on the zoning district. For the core area,
which is the DC district, there is a four story height limit with
an opportunity to go up to six stories .with the Planning Director' s
approval. In the DCE and the DLM zoning districts where we're
trying to get greater density and have more flexibility, there
would be no height limit .
In the area of landscaping, no changes are proposed from the
earlier proposals.
Parking is an area where no changes are recommended from the
earlier staff proposal. Administration is working on a capital
facilities improvement plan for downtown which is forthcoming. In
the interim, the proposed parking standards are recommended. In
the DC area, no off-street parking is required except in the case
of multifamily where there would be one parking place per unit
required. There is also a maximum surface parking requirement of
three spaces for every 1 , 000 square feet, which does not apply to
multifamily.
In the DCE zone, there is a 50 percent reduction permitted west of
the Burlington Northern tracks and 25 percent reduction east of the
tracks. In the case of multifamily, west of the tracks there would
be a minimum of 1 space per unit and' east of the tracks where you
don't have as much on-street parking, it would be 1 . 5 . The same
surface parking maximums apply in the DCE zone. In the DLM zone,
the existing parking standards would apply.
One thing that is new in this proposal is the recommendation to
implement design review along with the revised development
standards . Since the flexibility in development regulations has
been increased, it is important to have the control that would be
afforded by the design review process . Following are some of the
areas that would be looked at in the design review process.
In the previous staff proposal, the pedestrian plan overlay was
more of a regulatory tool. Streets were classified as A or B. If
you fronted on a class A street, there were greater restrictions
has far as the percentage of the building fronting on the street,
windows, awnings, etc. On class B streets, you had greater
4
Kent Planning Commission
February 24 , 1992
flexibility as far as frontage to allow for curb cuts, parking,
etc. In the new proposal, the pedestrian plan would be used as a
design review criteria, not a strict standard. Another criteria
that would be looked at would be a 20 foot maximum setback along
streets designated A or B.
In the DC district, there should be a lot of windows on the ground
floor because those are streets that are very pedestrian oriented.
The DCE and DLM districts should have windows or some interesting
feature on the street level to avoid blank walls .
Curb cuts would be restricted as much as possible in the DC
district and as much as practicable in DCE and DLM.
In all three new districts, off-street parking areas should be to
the rear or side of buildings; extensive landscaping would be
required in large parking areas which can be seen from the street;
pedestrian corridors should be clearly marked and pedestrian
throughways should be provided in long buildings .
In regard to height, in the DC district new buildings should be
compatible with our existing, historic buildings in terms of bulk,
scale and cornice line. In DCE and DLM, there should be building
facade setbacks after four stories to allow more sunlight to reach
the street level and avoid canyon effects .
In the DC district only, there should be cover for pedestrians
along the length of any building that fronts on those streets .
Also, a zero front yard setback would be maintained along Meeker
and 1st Avenue.
The Commission recently reviewed the design review process for
multifamily. Staff is proposing that a similar process be
implemented for the downtown design review program. It would be
administered by the Planning Department with decisions made by a
team comprised of representatives from Planning, Administration and
other departments yet to be determined. A handbook would be
developed that illustrates all the criteria mentioned above and
would be available to applicants.
Commissioner Dahle felt that the design review criteria states that
the sides of buildings should be well lit, but doesn 't say anything
about the large parking areas . Ms . Shull referred to the criteria
which states "off-street parking areas should be to the rear or
side of buildings and should be well lit" . This language was added
at the request of the Planning Commission and means that the
parking area should be well lit, not the side of the building.
Commissioner Dahl.e felt that the criteria should also state that
5
Kent Planning Commission
February 24 , 1992
extensive landscaping should be well lit. Ms. Shull pointed out
that all of the criteria would be applied collectively, so the
lighting issue had already been covered.
Commissioner Martinez asked why sidewalks had not been addressed in
the design standards. Ms . Shull said that this is a zoning and
land use proposal and sidewalks are not within their jurisdiction,
but are covered by another department.
Commissioner Morrill asked for clarification of the parking
requirements in the DCE district. Ms. Shull explained that the
parking requirements were less restrictive west of the tracks
because that' s where the two City lots are located.
Ms . Shull called the Commissioners attention to the action agenda
which outlines the three actions before them. They are to amend
the Zoning Code to create the three new zoning designations; to
amend the official Zoning Map; and to direct staff to implement the
administrative design review process .
Clarence Derouin, 23605 94th S. , Kent, owns two properties which
would be rezoned from DC-1 to DCE. He was assessed through LID' s
to pay for the parking lots . If his zoning is changed to DCE, he
will be forced to provide additional parking on the properties when
he develops them in the future. He doesn ' t feel he should have to
supply additional parking when he has already paid for it
previously. Chair Antley asked Mr. Derouin what he would like. He
felt his property should be zoned DC, the same as the downtown
core. Commissioner Martinez asked if: everyone in the area has had
the same experience. Mr. Derouin said that he was the only one who
has been assessed. James Harris of the Planning Department pointed
out that the old DC-1 zone coincided with the LID assessment area .
No off-street parking was required in that area because these
people were paying into an LID for two big parking lots.
Mr. Derouin ' s property is at the end of the assessment area .
Commissioner Dahle asked if Mr. Derouin was planning to change the
usage of the property. He said no, but he is planning to put
another building on it. It would still. be Downtown Commercial.
John Stone, 431 E. Meeker Street, complimented the Commission on
being receptive to information from the public. He is a single
family resident and has a total of 15, 000 square feet in his piece
of property. He has built on two of his four lots and the other
two are undeveloped. He is assessed as MRH, but feels that he
should be assessed as R-1 because his property is residential .
6
Kent Planning Commission
February 24 , 1992
He also asked the Commission to cut down on regulations.
Regulations add to a property owner ' s expense. Trees look
beautiful, but play havoc with the sewer system and the streets.
Allow the person who owns the property, within reason, to build a
building that he wants to build as long as it' s somewhat compatible
with the surrounding area and other buildings in that area. The
more regulations you have, the more the cost goes up.
Commissioner Dahle pointed out that a lot of regulations have been
cut out between the first plan and the current one.
Mr. Stone thought it was probably rather boring for the
Commissioners to go over the same ground so many times, but thanked
them for doing it. It really helps the public to understand what
the Commission is trying to do and helps the Commission understand
what it' s doing to the public.
Chair Antley asked Mr. Stone if he had any idea how long his
property had been zoned MRH. He said probably since 1940.
Chair Antley wondered if he was asking the Commission to make it
R-1. Mr. Stone answered that he would like to have it R-l.
Leonard McCaughan, 623 E. Titus, presented a petition from the
people in the MRH zone. He is representing 14 of the 21 property
owners in that area. Unlike Mr. Stone, the rest of them don't want
single family residence and they don 't want multifamily high
density zoning. They would like to be put in GC or DCE zoning.
Probably DCE is a more appropriate zoning for them.
Commissioner Dahle asked why Mr. McCaughan wanted Commercial zoning
when he said the lots were not big enough for commercial use.
Mr. McCaughan said that he did not say the lots weren 't big enough
for commercial , he said not big enough for a duplex, fourflex,
eightplex or a highrise. They want it so they can put in an office
or small business and live in part of it. Commissioner Dahle said
she recalled a whole row of people who came to a previous meeting
and were very upset about having to pay higher taxes.
Mr. McCaughan said the county is not assessing for the commercial
zoning.
Chair Antley asked how long the property has been MRH.
Mr. McCaughan said he wasn ' t sure. Chair Antley thought it had
been MRH for a long time. Mr. McCaughan agreed that it probably
had been.
Commissioner Morrill asked what Mr. McCaughan was asking for.
Mr. McCaughan said they would like the property to be zoned DCE.
7
Kent Planning Commission
February 24 , 1992
Commissioner Ward asked what portion of the MRH area they wanted
changed. Mr. McCaughan said they wanted the whole area to be DCE.
Chair Antley asked if this area backed up to all single and
multifamily housing. Mr. McCaughan said there is some single
family across the street, but behind them is all multiple.
Chair Antley asked if there was any commercial development or if it
was all housing. Mr. McCaughan said Farrington Court is a
commercial venture. Chair Antley asked if people live there and
Mr. McCaughan admitted that they do. It is a retirement home.
Craig Cooperstein, 10720 Marine View Drive, Mukilteo, WA 98275
owns property at 624 through 710 W. Meeker which is in the proposed
DCE zoning. He bought it in 1989 and this will be the second
zoning change. His concern is that if there is a tenant turnover
or a fire, you've got to go through a rather unusual process to
justify why you want to have the same use. If you have a multi-
tenant building, it could be a real hardship on the owner to
somehow develop that space without changing the whole character of
the building. If you are in the middle of an ongoing loan with
either a prohibitive prepayment penalty or a lock in where you
simply can't get out of your existing financing to redevelop the
property. In another community, he had to go to substandard
insurance because the zoning had changed and his insurance rate
doubled even though the zoning was less of a manufacturing use and
more of an in-city business use. If someone has a building of this
nature, the use has to go on. Somehow you have to pay for it.
Over 50 percent of downtown is tenant occupied rather than owner
occupied. If these tenants can't occupy the same space because
they've been zoned out, they' ll have to go outside the City. He
hoped that the continued historical use on some of this property
would be allowed.
Mr. Cooperstein ' s only other comment on the plan was that he has a
hard time believing that residential use would either be encouraged
or developed next to the railroad tracks in DCE. He wouldn't care
to live near the railroad tracks. He reels there should be a
buffer zone there. He also questioned the no height limit in DCE.
It 's rather unusual.
Chair Antley asked if there was something in particular he wanted
done with either the property he owns or the area in which it is
situated. Mr. Cooperstein said he doesn't want anything done with
his property. He ' s happy with it, but if one of his tenants goes
bankrupt or something, he doesn't know whether he has to redevelop
the whole building or whether he can get in a use without spending
a great deal of money. He thinks if you are able to maintain
8
Kent Planning Commission
February 24 , 1992
historical uses for the building, provided they aren 't detrimental
to the City's overall plan, then that should be allowed.
Jerry Klein, 425 Lyon Building, Seattle, WA 98104 , represents a
couple property owners in this area--Washington Cedar and Kent
Building Materials. Kent Building Materials has gone out of
business since the last meeting on the downtown plan. The reason
it has is because they found out there wasn't a substantial demand
for the DCE type use. The demand for retail use is not very strong
in the downtown area because people are not going to come off the
hill to go shopping. The DCE type use suffered substantially.
There is a great demand for wholesale servicing of contractors
which is allowed in DLM. This is just one example of what's going
on in the downtown area. It's an economic consideration which
causes the plan to be difficult to work with. By using DCE, you're
always going to have a lot of commercial shops that will
continually go out of business because you don't have the financial
base to support them. The economic reality is that DCE is not a
very attractive use.
Mr. Klein submitted a map showing the two areas he would like to
have changed. To rezone these to DCE would very likely constitute
a regulatory taking. On March 3 the supreme court is going to
review a regulatory taking case that he believes would be analogous
to the situation here. All the vast DCE area that is now being
zoned may lead to a bunch of lawsuits. The DLM allows for
everything from multifamily to manufacturing. This is going to be
the preferred use and he thinks this is the one he wants. DCE is
not a good idea economically for the sites.
Chair Antley asked about the relevance of the supreme court case to
which Mr. Klein referred. He said it involves a regulatory taking.
In other words, whether or not it is a violation of the fifth
amendment to regulate somebody out of their use and whether that
would constitute a taking that has to be compensated for.
Commissioner Dahle asked if there ever was manufacturing in that
area. Mr. Klein said half of it is Manufacturing right now and the
other half is DC-1. This was confirmed by Mr. O'Neill .
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Haylor MOVED that item A of the action agenda which
would amend the Zoning Code to create three new zoning designations
(Downtown Commercial, Downtown Commercial Enterprise and Downtown
Limited Manufacturing) be recommended to the City Council.
Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion . Motion carried.
9
Kent Planning Commission
February 24 , 1992
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to approve action agenda item B which
would amend the Official Zoning Map as illustrated on page 4 of the
Revised Downtown Plan Zoning Program. Commissioner Heineman
SECONDED the motion.
There was discussion about whether to make Mr. Derouin' s property
part of the DC zone or to exempt it from the parking regulations in
the DCE zone since he had already paid into the LID for the parking
lot. Staff recommended the exemption with the proviso that at such
time as the City develops and adopts a comprehensive parking
management plan for downtown, the exemption would cease and the
property would be covered by the regulations of the new plan.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to extend the southernmost boundary of
the new DC zone so that it would be the same as the southern
boundary of the existing DC-1 zone. It was decided that this issue
would more properly fall under action agenda item C since it is
basically a parking problem and Commissioner Martinez withdrew the
motion.
The motion to adopt action agenda item B carried with Commissioners
Grant, Martinez and Morrill voting against.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept action agenda item C which
would direct project staff to implement the administrative design
review .process outlined in the Revised Downtown Plan Zoning
Program. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to amend action agenda item C to
exclude from the parking regulations those properties currently in
DC-1 who contributed to the LID for the parking lots until such
time as the City adopts a downtown parking management plan.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. The motion carried with
Commissioner Dahle voting against.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that sidewalks should be added as one
of the design criteria to be considered in the design review
process in conjunction with the Public Works Department.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Discussion followed.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Dahle MOVED to add the language "and should be well
lit" to boxes 5 and 6 in both columns on page 18 .
Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Grant MOVED to specifically exclude regional justice
centers and jails from the Revised Downtown Zoning Plan completely.
There was no second.
10
Kent Planning Commission
February 24 , 1992
commissioner Martinez MOVED to change the height restriction on
page 15 in DCE and DLM from "no height limit" to "no more than 10
stories" . There was no second.
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to approve section C of the action agenda
with the three amendments which were previously passed.
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. The motion carried with
Commissioners Dahle, Grant, Haylor, Heineman and Morrill voting in
favor and Commissioners Martinez and Ward abstaining.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Dahle SECONDED the motion. The motion carried and the
meeting was adjourned at 10 : 15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
*amsHar is, Secretary
11
/ y
Kent City Council Meeting
i Date March 17 . 1992
r- Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: PHOTOCOPIER SERVICE & EQUIPMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held on February 26,
1992, with nine bids received. Of these nine, two were
disqualified, ore id not complete the bid document as
instructed and unable to evaluate their bid based on
insufficient information. The other did not bid all categories
as specified. The bids were evaluated based on current
equipment and projected volumes." recommend4iGy award of
the bid to eur current vendor, Cascade Office Systems ,for an
estimated annual cost of $84 , 060. ;
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo with bid summary
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examin r, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONN L IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Refcommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ 4 060 + tax
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Bud
r
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1i�
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
that the bid submitted by Cascade Office Systems in the amount
of $84, 060 be accepted.
DISCUSSION• } �
ACTION• ► `' ' ' ��
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
MEMO
DATE: February 28 , 1992
TO: Mayor, City C un it nd Operations Committee
f
FROM: Charlie Linds
SUBJECT: Photocopier Service Bids
We recently advertised for bids for photocopier services with the bid
opening held on February 26, 1992 . The bid was for rental and service
of all photocopiers currently in use. We received and evaluated 9
bids based on current features and projected copy volumes for 1992 .
Following is a list of bids and our recommendation.
VENDOR AMOUNT BID
Sharp Electronics Bid incomplete
Wittco $102 , 180
Seattle Office Systems 94, 368
William Dierickx 113 , 808
Cascade Office Systems 84 , 060
Image Tech 116,784
Minolta 122 , 856
Copiers Northwest 155, 988
Kodak Bid incomplete
The dollar amounts shown are for annual amounts but the contract will
be for 36 months with the option to extend an additional 12 months.
We are recommending that the bid be awarded based on submitted price
schedules and the Mayor be authorized to sign a contract with Cascade
Office Systems .
* This amount includes the Print Shop Copier which was inadvertantly
excluded from the budget numbers you were given.
Budget all copier except print shop $73 , 487
Budget print shop copier 13 , 163
Total 1992 budget $86 , 650
o o o o o �,
w a �• � � a �" as � cu � � � �e ~ C� � � �
C n p O CL p 0 N W CD O N
v� cn
y 00
O rO (A O VP W O 00
O O O O O O O O Vt O O Vt O VI O O O VI O -'
>S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O fD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD G1.
C
00 J N ram*
00 W O\ O\ Q\ O\ uA 4�- •P 4�- .� N N N N -
r-+ O\ 4:�-, 00 4z�. N O ',D 4�A- W N O V1 Vi 4�;- 4�:, J
(A O O O �.D �o � I'D Vt 00
00 N W Vt VI Vt � � W W W W N N N N
O\ O\ Vt '�O 4�A- N ',D 00 00 \D �] w J O\ D\ O\ 00 � W N W
Vt N �,O �1 --] N O O W 00 N V) O\ O\ 4�- V1
d
1O 00 .(D�
•P 4:z, -P � N N
00 O\ 00 ut 00 O\ Vt 1�0 J VA W O\ O\ (A ,D 00 0\ Vl N
P V1 vi 00 O ON N O O V1 W O �D 00 O N W C\
J O
O 4�-- O VI Vi � •? � W W W W N N
tC:�ii W N 0w0 ��+ � cO Ocn O vA O Co � � w 0000 W N O
cD
�,O 00 r--�
a \D VI 00 -I
W �O N W o0 O\ W N O\ 00 O\ J O\ VI �7 4�:- W N
vl O\ O 4�;-. 00 J Vt W J �D
r-� p
N Vt Oo 00
W O\ \0 O\ Ch \,D J VL O O O
00 O N 00 w r- O O\ W Q\ I�c N N %,c O vt W O N
n
O
N r + fD
\D O N O 110 %.D 00 —I -.l O% cA ? w w w �
�O r+ W \O W W 00 .P 00 O\ J � O\ VL 00 W O\ N O "D \�D
�D W 00 1-" J V1 W �-a 00 W r- 00 VA O O\ W �.D W O O
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
C �
R E P O R T S
�A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEElluj
1.61(� Cf ttkft
t
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
flAl
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
41
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
1 -
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINI-
March 2, 1992
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser
Leona Orr
Jim White
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Hansen
Charles Lindsey
Tony McCarthy
May Miller
Kelli O'Donnell
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Mary Lou Becker
Bernie Biteman
David Dale
Bill Doolittle
Steve Dowell
Brick Leever
Ted Loudenback
John Naylor
Pam Monroe
Charlene Monuszko
Jan Sowa
Georgia Vorhees
UNIDENTIFIED STAFF &
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Approximately 80 people were present that were not
identified to the Committee.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairperson Houser.
Approval of Vouchers
All claims for the period ending February 14, 1992, in the amount of $2,101,054.29 were approved for
payment.
Bids on Photocopy Machine Rental
Customer Services Manager Lindsey reported that bids had been received consistent with the procurement
ordinance on the photocopying services for the City. Nine bids were received with seven being valid. He
recommended that the bid be awarded to Cascade Office System who is currently providing the service and
submitted the lowest bid.
Committeemember Orr Moved to recommend acceptance of the low bid. Conu itteemember White
Seconded the motion which passed with a vote of 3-0.
January Financial Report
Finance Director McCarthy asked to have this item removed from the agenda as it would be heard at the
City Council meeting tomorrow evening.
1
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
March 2, 1992
Employee Definitions Policy
This item was for the Committee's information and there was no discussion.
Housing & Human Services Department
Committee Chairperson Houser informed those present that the public testimony would be given on this
agenda item until 6:30 p.m. She further stated that the item would be continued to the next meeting of
the Operations Committee. Houser asked for anyone wishing to address the Committee to sign up on the
list in the foyer.
Assistant City Administrator Hansen gave an update to those present of why the item was before the
Committee and reviewed his memorandum to the Committee outlining the advantages and disadvantages
of the proposal.
Chairperson Houser called people forward to speak from the sign up sheet.
Pam Monroe stated that the Senior Center had given her a place to utilize her time; to keep busy and make
new friends.
Ted Loudenback stated that he was a member of the Kent Activity Center Advisory Group and presented
a petition with over 400 names who oppose moving the Senior Center out of Kent Parks and Recreation
Department and that there were many more that opposed the move. He read a statement on their behalf
which questioned the necessity of moving the Senior Center out of Parks and into the Department of
Housing and Human Services. He cited examples of how the Senior Center activities and functions are
related to the Parks and Recreation Department with only 1% to 20/0 of the activities related to human
services.
The statement noted the importance of maintaining an upbeat, wholesome image. The Center currently
has 3,000 registered seniors with approximately 400 attending activities daily and with insufficient space
to add more programs. He also stated that the Parks Director was an exceptional administrator and
expressed his disagreement with the Warner Group Study that recommended this change. In closing he
suggested that Parks could be moved under Health and Human Services with the Parks Director
administering the program which would result in a $146,000 savings and that the current proposal would
be a grave error.
Georgia Vorhees stated that she has been a resident of Kent for 17 years and for the past 10 years been
a senior center participant. She stated that she didn't like the proposed changes and read a letter that
appeared in the paper from Gary Monuszko questioning the need to treat people differently.
Brick Leever stated that he was also a member of the Kent Senior Advisory Committee. He noted that it
was important to get a fresh look at an organization but first there must be an understanding of the
department to make recommendations. He noted that the Warner Group did not interview staff or
members of the Senior Center or the likeness to Parks activities would have been obvious.
During further comments he noted that two-thirds of the senior centers in the U.S. were operated under
parks and recreation departments and only one in the area was not operated under parks which was
privately owned. In addition, Federal Way has studied the issue and has concluded to follow the current
Kent structure.
Charlene Monuszko addressed the Committee noting that her husband had written the letter to the editor
read previously. She added that they have lived in Kent for fifteen years and have two children with special
2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
March 2, 1992
needs. She outlined her experience in addressing services for special needs in the state and Kent area
through which she has learned that Kent is "doing it right" by keeping the services in the community.
She added that her family has twice considered leaving Kent due to the fact that her children are not
allowed to attend school. Kent has provided services through Parks and Recreation in which her children
are fully participating members of the community. The Parks Department has never dwelled on deficits.
She added that human services across the country haven't figured that concept out.
During further comments she asked the Committee to study the issue and gather as much information as
possible to make the right decision. She also suggested changing the name to make it feel better if they
believed it was necessary to make a change now.
Bill Doolittle stated that the purpose of the Warner Group Study was to "improve efficiency" stating that
the City would be pushed to enhance the Senior Center other than providing more room. Special
Populations recently received the 'Best Operations Award" for this size city at Council. He questioned the
potential of containing administrative costs when a new department head would take $40,000 out of
another program.
During further comments he added that he felt that this was an attempt to reduce the responsibility of the
most successful department head in Kent.
Steve Dowell informed the Committee that a few years ago a division at the Senior Center had brought
accusations of theft and fraud resulting in a police investigation. The benefit of this difficulty had been
the idea of a Senior Activity Advisory Committee which is elected in a democratic manner.
John Naylor passed when given an opportunity to speak.
Mary Lou Becker stated that she was one of the original parents ten years ago who asked for the disabled
to retain the old Senior Center for Special Populations. The request was granted by Mr. Wilson who has
their best interest at heart. She added that she was comfortable with Parks and was distressed and
disappointed to read about this proposal in the paper.
She pointed out that she has never seen the Committee members in the Special Populations Center during
a program. She was disappointed that people were never asked for their opinion when the could have been
a great help to make the transition. She added that the specialists that work at the Special Populations
Center were not educated for human services.
David Dale stated that he is currently a care provider for the disabled. He agreed with the previous
comments regarding the title of Human Services being derogatory. He also questioned there not being a
budget change since Parks and Special Populations both use the same registration, brochures, and mailing
and he was concerned with maintaining the quality and programs. He asked that the Committee gather
more information before deciding.
Bernie Biteman stated that it was unfortunate that the name was suggested before the new department was
organized. He noted that he is a twenty year citizen of Kent and been active with the Parks Committee
for ten years with eight years on the Council when tough decisions were made. He noted that he disagreed
with the philosophy of the Parks Director.
He added that multiple decisions faced the Council with a city of 40,000 people, there were many
questions. He suggested a department just for the seniors. Perhaps the seniors shouldn't take the tide of
3
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
March 2, 1992
human services but be an independent department. He felt this possibility would follow the lead of
corporations, smaller departments for more control and effectiveness.
Committee Chairperson Houser stated that one more speaker would be heard and this item would be
continued at the next Operations Committee meeting which will begin at 5:45 p.m. and run until every one
has a chance to voice there opinion.
Jan Sowa stated that the statement that there was no major impact was incorrect. There would be an
adverse impact on Special Population in having two different places to sign up. She felt they deserve the
same treatment as everyone else instead of square pegs that don't fit.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. by Chairperson Houser.
4
CITY CLERK
PUBLIC WORKS CON
FEBRUARY 18, l
PRESENT: JIM WHITE TONY MCCARTHY
LEONA ORR ROGER LUBOVICH
JIM BENNETT ED WHITE
DON WICKSTROM RAUL RAMOS
TOM BRUBAKER MR. & MRS. RUST
GARY GILL BILL DOOLITTLE
JIM HANSEN JEAN PARIETTI
CHUCK AVERILL
Commercial Recycling
Karen Siegel informed the Committee that King County Solid Waste
has contracted with Pacific Energy Institute to provide technical
assistance to businesses addressing their recycling habits and
needs. She introduced the consultant, Chuck Averill, who will be
canvassing Kent in the next few weeks. Mr. Averill discussed the
County' s technical assistance program providing on-site waste
consultations consisting of a walk through of a business,
evaluating the waste reduction/recycling opportunities that may
exist and recommending waste reduction/recycling strategies
including information on recycled product procurement. A more pro-
active approach is being developed whereby he will be going out to
Kent businesses, asking them about their recycling program and
providing information on services that are available to them. In
initial visits to 32 businesses in the northwest corner of Kent he
found that businesses were very interested in finding out more
information on waste reduction/recycling in the Kent area and what
they could do. This process will also identify similar waste types
that might be recyclable and we will be able to provide assistance
in getting those particular items out of the solid waste stream.
He continued it is important to pursue space allocation
requirements for developments. He suggested involving the
recycling coordinator in the review process to enhance the planning
for waste reduction and recycling. Leona Orr stated she had
requested that Planning staff to start looking at some way to
include space for recycling in new development and ways to go back
into existing development and figure out some way to accommodate
recycling particularly in multifamily. Jim White asked that the
permit process not be slowed down by any additional review.
Mr. Rust asked if there was any assistance for a recycling cottage
industry of some sort. Mr. Averill commented that the Clean
Washington Center occasionally has grants available for such
efforts.
Public Works Committee
February 18 , 1992
Page 2
Revision of Parking Ordinance
Don Wickstrom stated this was one of the "clean-up" ordinances
which allows specific parking regulation by resolution. The
ordinance also includes a section which exempts City of Kent
vehicles from overtime penalties in the City Hall parking lot.
Apparently City vehicles have been ticketed. Wickstrom added that
Public Works has several vehicles that do not have any assigned
parking spaces so those vehicles have to be shuffled around. Jim
White suggested we get assigned parking for those vehicles and this
should be handled administratively. He stated he did not think
City vehicles should be exempt and if a City vehicle can be sitting
for over two hours, is it really needed. Jim Bennett asked how
many parking spaces are available in the municipal parking lots.
He added that merchants are concerned about their people having to
park 3-4 blocks away from their business and their safety. Roger
Lubovich stated that the Police Department was concerned that if
City vehicles are exempt they would possibly be using parking
spaces on the street which would take away from those available to
the businesses. Ed White stated he had requested language to be
included in the ordinance exempting City vehicles from parking
restrictions throughout the City because of a concern he had
regarding the lack of adequate storage for City vehicles. He said
that concern was not so much of having a place for the vehicles to
be parked while the driver was in the office but while actually
conducting City business. Wickstrom suggested that the section
exempting City vehicles be removed from the Ordinance and these
problems worked out administratively.
Roger Lubovich referred to corrections on page 6 of the ordinance
that should be made. Section 16.B should be corrected to read "If
the $20 penalty is not paid within after 15 calendar days. . . . "
and "After the fifteen calendar days has expired, the parking
ticket may shall . . . . " Bill Doolittle asked about Section 15
which seemed to have some words missing. He also asked for
clarification on Section 16 as to the fines. Mr. Doolittle also
questioned Section 4 which prohibits parking from 4 : 00 to 7 : 00
a.m. . He stated it was his understanding that was so the street
sweeper could clean the streets. He has observed that the streets
are being swept in the afternoons now. He observed also that the
No Parking signs on Meeker Street have been removed.
Jim Hansen commented that when the old library renovation is
completed for the Police Department there will be 37 stalls
available for the police vehicles. The employees have been asked
not to use the parking lot immediately east of City Hall and have
been cooperative. As to the suggestion of Mr. Doolittle that we
Public Works Committee
February 18 , 1992
Page 3
use space in the Centennial Center garage, Jim Hansen reminded
everyone that the garage is privately owned. The remaining spaces
are reserved for those tenants on the fourth floor and future
expansions. We have talked to the owners in the past about leasing
space and while they were agreeable to do that on a short term
basis, the rate was fairly high. Jim Hansen continued that in
compliance with new State law, Public Works Department has hired
a consultant to develop programs that will reduce the amount of
trips produced by City of Kent employees as well as the employees
of businesses in Kent. The City has also devoted five parking
stalls in the Centennial Building Garage for car pools. He
continued that we are looking at including parking or a parking
garage in the upcoming projects in the downtown area. He stated
that we will work on a solution for parking for the Engineering
vehicles. Jim White asked about the possibility of limiting
parking on Third Avenue to two-hours. He stated he hoped
Administration would come back to the Committee shortly with a
proposal to alleviate this parking situation.
Jim White suggested that since there are so many changes to be made
to the ordinance that it be brought back to the Committee at their
next meeting.
Sidewalk Program
Jim White had asked this be put on the agenda. He has ascertained
there is $70, 000 in a fund for sidewalks. He asked if we have
assessed the sidewalk situation around schools recently. Wickstrom
stated that some of that $70, 000 will be utilized for the City' s
portion of sidewalk improvement on 240th by Pacific Highway in
conjunction with a City of Des Moines road improvement project.
Wickstrom stated we have addressed a lot of issues around schools.
We've addressed the areas where the sidewalks were missing. On
100th, we responded to complaints of inadequate shoulders. We put
in the paths by Scenic Hill Elementary. Jim White asked if we
could take another look at the status of sidewalks around schools.
He added he continues to hear complaints about the sidewalks in
downtown Kent. Wickstrom stated that the maintenance of sidewalks
are the responsibility of the abutting property owner unless damage
is due to a street tree. If we have staff available we inspect the
sidewalks and notify the property owners of any repair that may be
required. If the property owner does not maintain the sidewalk, we
would have to go to Council to appropriate money for us to do the
repair and we would then seek reimbursement from the property
owner. Jim Bennett stated he would bring in a list of specific
areas for us to review. Gary Gill commented that the pedestrian
element will be covered in the Comprehensive Plan. We have been
Public Works committee
February 18, 1992
Page 4
working with the school district to try to assess the walking
routes for the various schools. Wickstrom added that we make sure
new plats include off-site improvements with widened shoulders or
outside lanes to accommodate pedestrian traffic. Additionally, all
the City road projects incorporate sidewalks. Orr asked what the
new school on 248th would be required to construct with regard to
sidewalks. Wickstrom responded they would be required to develop
a 5-foot wide path along 248th Street on the north side.
South Central Street Widening - Authorization for Condemnation
Wickstrom explained that the City is designing a project to widen
Central between Titus and Gowe plus overlay of Central from Willis
to Smith. There are two properties on which we have not been able
to secure the right of way. Wickstrom stated we would like
authorization to pursue condemnation if continued negotiations are
not successful. The committee unanimously recommended approval.
Bill Doolittle raised a question about the signing and allowed
turning movements at Central and Gowe going west on Gowe. Ed White
stated he would look at it.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MARCH 3, 1992
PRESENT: JIM WHITE JIM HANSEN
JIM BENNETT JILL VANNEMANN
PAUL MANN JERRY MCCAUGHAN
DON WICKSTROM RAUL RAMOS
TOM BRUBAKER GEORGE HOLLOWAY
GARY GILL DON RUST
ROGER LUBOVICH MR. & MRS. RUST
ED WHITE CONNIE EPPERLY
TONY MCCARTHY SHARON WEST
Wheel Chair Ramps
Mr. Holloway presented slides depicting wheel chair ramps and
deteriorated sidewalk sections throughout the downtown area which
present obstruction to travel by disabled and handicapped persons.
The list of the locations was presented to the Committee who asked
the Public Works Director to review and report back.
Parking Ordinance
The revised ordinance was presented to the Committee. Jim Bennett
raised questions about deleting the 3 hour parking in the downtown
during the holiday season. He was concerned that limiting the
parking to two hours in the downtown area would be detrimental to
getting people to come downtown to shop. Ed White mentioned that
there is unlimited parking available in the municipal lots and the
rationale of the two hour limit was to make spaces available for a
larger turnover of vehicles. Jim Bennett indicated he still had
concerns about it and it was decided this would be presented to the
downtown merchants for their input. The increase in the penalty
fee was discussed. Jill Vannemann mentioned it costs approximately
$15 to process a parking ticket if it is not appealed. If
appealed, it costs about $50 to process. The Committee expressed
concerns about a $20 parking ticket being detrimental to
rehabilitating the downtown. It was suggested this also be brought
before the downtown merchants.
West Valley Highway Signal Improvements
Wickstrom informed the Committee that this project was part of our
West Valley Highway Improvement project and installed new signals
at S. 212th and S. 190th Streets. Wickstrom recommended the
project be accepted as complete. The Committee unanimously
recommended approval.
Public Works Committee
March 3, 1992
Page 2
Agreement with WSDOT - SR 515 Widening
Wickstrom explained that we have just received an agreement from
the State for the relocation of the City' s water and sewer lines
that are within the limits of their SR 515 from S.E. 235th to S. E.
220th street improvement project. The City would reimburse the
State for the construction work and estimated cost is $101, 698 .
Wickstrom stated the funds have been budgeted. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval for the Mayor to sign the
agreement.
Parking on 5th
Connie Epperly stated she has been working with the traffic
division on the _ parking problem on 5th. She stated that the
apartment residents have plenty of parking but are still parking on
the streets. She stated that Carol Morris of the City Attorney's
office had advised that the City of Seattle had an ordinance
allowing permitted parking. She requested that such an ordinance
be prepared for the situation on 5th. The Committee requested that
a draft of such an ordinance be prepared for their review.
Street Occupation Permit
Don Rust stated he thought that Condition #7 on the permit was to
have been amended allowing things to be attached to the signs as
long as the attachments did not extend the approved sign size.
Wickstrom acknowledged that was the case and the permit form will
be revised.
Driving Range
Jim Bennett referred to the drainage problem at the City's driving
range. He commented that the Parks Department has spent a great
deal of money trying to correct the problem and asked Wickstrom if
his department would look at the overall drainage system for the
area and recommend solutions.