Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 06/02/1992 7��3� 7 gkss City of Kent City Council Meeting §� e� Agenda �t CITY OF aD Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr g`� Jon Johnson Jim White a. June 2, 1992 XXIV Office of the City Clerk . . ......... .... ............ .... ... ........ SUMMARY AGENDA u � KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 2, 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. J PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS XA. Employee of the Month 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS None o4 3 . XCONSENT CALENDAR ✓A. Minutes 4Bills Modification of Warranty Agreement - East Hill Complex Water Service Agreement - Covington Water District Bill of Sale - Robinson Sewer Extension F. Underground Storage Tanks - Acceptance G. V,ax�.-Ooreu'-s}Landing - Segregation of Assessments - Resolutions,' /.5 k/ 4 . Y( THER BUSINESS C�^1 A ' Performing Arts Center Task Force Cultural Center Development Strategy Timeline Donation from Chamber of Commerce for Canterbury Faire ✓C. Hemlock Acres No. 19 Final Plat (SU-88-4) 4D. Garrison Heights Final Plat (SU-89-7) E. Shoreline Master Program Amendments (SMP-90-1) XF. Downtown Plan Zoning Program (ZCA-90-6) XG 5. BIDS None 6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7. REPORTS 8 . x ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available in the City Clerk's Office and 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) Employee of the Month iuf-� C �/ CONSENT CALENDAR J�3 . city council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember_ "yl seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through G be ap oved. Discussion - ! 1,�• tvi Action i,.h,�A., ✓"� 1_t ;2 r?' Y:,� '1' ,t 1 `L ! :.-r =. �/ 1�1 ''1 cl LL' x3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 19, 1992 . 4B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through May 29, 1992 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 4 : 00 p.m. on June 1, 1992 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B v\ Kent, Washington May 19 , 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, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr and White, City Administra- tor Chow, City Attorney Lubovich, Public Works Director Wick- strom, Planning Director Harris, Fire Chief Angelo, Human Resources Director Olson, Information Services Director Spang, and Finance Director McCarthy. Mayor Kelleher, Parks Director Wilson and Police Chief Crawford were not in attendance. Approx- imately 60 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC National Public Works Week. Mayor Pro Tem Woods COMMUNICATIONS read a proclamation declaring the week of May 17 through 23 , 1992 as National Public Works Week in the City of Kent. Woods noted that the public works services provided in our community are an integral part of our citizens ' everyday lives and support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of the public works systems and programs. She noted that all citizens and civic organizations are invited to acquaint themselves with our public works services and recognize the contributions the public works officials make every day toward our health, safety, and comfort. Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director, accepted the proclamation. Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics. Mayor Pro Tem Woods read a proclamation declaring the week of May 24 through 30, 1992 as Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics Week in the City of Kent. Woods noted that the Special Olympics is a sports training and competition pro- gram open to individuals with mental retardation. She also noted that the law enforcement community demonstrates its support for the Washington Special Olympics through a statewide torch run and urged all citizens and businesses to support the Kent Police Officers in their fund raising and torch carrying efforts. Officer Wayne Himple accepted the proclamation. Officer Himple noted that police officers have raised $5, 000 for the Special Olympics so far, and that a barbeque is being held on May 28 from 5 : 30 to 7 : 00 p.m. at H. D. Hotspurs, with the proceeds going to the Special Olympics. He invited city officials and all citizens to attend. 1 May 19 , 1992 PUBLIC National Insurance Crime Bureau Award. Fire Chief COMMUNICATIONS Angelo noted that many times the Police and Fire Departments work together to solve arson and fraud cases. He read a letter concerning a case of fraud that Fire Lt. Nee and Police Officer Himple were involved in and noted that because of the arson prevention investigation, the National Insurance Crime Bureau wishes to recognize Lt. Nee and Officer Himple for their help. Councilmember Bennett read a letter from the owners of the Evergreen Restaurant commending Lt. Nee, Terri Nee, and Steve and Brandon Pinto for all their help when their restaurant was burglarized April 18 , 1992 . Bennett noted that the intruder was apprehended and arrested. The letter stated that these four people came after hours to help clean and fix up the restaurant so that they could be back in business sooner. The letter further expressed the owners ' gratitude for the concern these people showed and Bennett noted that this type of action went beyond the call of duty, showing a real "Kent Cares" attitude. He thanked the four individuals for all their help. CONSENT JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through I be approved. Houser seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 5, 1992 . WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) Water Main Relocation - Agreement with Washington State Department of Transportation. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an agreement with WSDOT for relocation of a portion of the City' s Kent Springs and Clark Springs Water Transmission Mains lying within the project limits of the State ' s Kent- Kangley Road widening project and transfer of $306, 000 from the Unencumbered Water Utility Funds for this project, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. 2 May 19 , 1992 TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) CONTROL Traffic Signal 72nd and S. 180th. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement with Tukwila for transfer of maintenance and operation of traffic signal at 72nd and S. 180th after installation by the City of Kent, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. FINAL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) PLATS Garrison Heights Final Plat No. SU-89-7. AUTHORIZATION to set June 2 , 1992 for a public meeting to consider Garrison Heights Final Plat Map. The property is approximately 8 . 6 acres in size and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of So. 213th Place and 94th Place So. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) Hemlock Acres No. 19 (No. SU-88-8) . AUTHORIZATION to set June 2 , 1992 for a public meeting to con- sider Hemlock Acres No. 19 Final Plat Map. The property is approximately 3 . 66 acres in size and is located along the east side of 112th Avenue S .E. , approximately 650 feet north of S .E. 240th Street. SHORELINE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) TRUST State Grant for Shoreline Trust Fund ($10,000) FUND DOE. This item will consider the recommended approval by the City Council Planning Committee of a State Grant for a Shoreline Trust Fund from the Department of Ecology for $10 , 000 on a 50/50 match basis to design a non-regulatory program to pur- chase and preserve sensitive shoreline areas, in- cluding wetlands, within the City. Planning Director Harris noted receipt of a letter in sup- port of this program from Paul Seely, Manager, Public Affairs, the Boeing Company. ORR MOVED to make the letter part of the record. White seconded and the motion carried. There were no further comments and ORR MOVED to accept the $10, 000 State Grant for development of a Shoreline Land Trust with a match of $5, 000 from the Growth Management/Wetlands Project funds with the remain- der as an in-kind contribution. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. 3 May 19 , 1992 SENIOR (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) HOUSING Senior Housing Support Services Program. This meeting will consider the recommended approval by the City Council Planning Committee of the Senior Housing Support Services Program. The recommen- dations for implementing a support services pro- gram are broken down into two phases. Phase I recommendations are those which the Committee feels must be implemented prior to the official opening of the Kent Senior Housing. Phase II recommendations may be implemented after the resi- dents move in. The Phase I implementation plan recommends a request for a proposal for a meal service program providing at least one mandatory meal per day on site and the hiring of a full time building manager and a part-time support services coordinator. The Phase II implementation plan recommends addressing those services which would be implemented after residents move in and will be based on the specific needs of the residents. Harris pointed out that the Planning Committee unanimously approved this program. White com- mented that this appears to be more of a care facility than a housing facility. Janet Shull of the Planning Department introduced the following members of the committee: Diane Richards of the Seattle King County Division on Aging, Judy Jones of the King County Housing Authority, Lin Ball of the City of Kent Office of Housing and Human Services, Jim Dione of the King County Housing Authority, and Buck Frymier, who has extensive background in senior housing and support services issues. Shull noted that in 1989 the Assisted Housing Committee recommended that an independent living program with support services be considered for the senior housing, and that this included meals. She noted that a second com- mittee, the Senior Housing Advisory Committee, also recommended including a support services pro- gram, but that they felt that program should be further detailed in a Phase Two activity. She said they defined that support services would include one main meal a day which would be manda- tory for all residents, and would provide other services such as chore service, personal care services, and transportation. She added that pub- lic meetings had been held to receive input from 4 May 19 , 1992 SENIOR seniors, and that 80% of the respondents indicated HOUSING they would like meals, health care and chore ser- vices. Upon White' s question, Shull explained that the City Council is being asked for recommen- dations because this has been a joint effort with the Housing Authority. She also noted for White that although no one on the current committee is a senior citizen, two of the members represent seniors, and that there were at least two seniors on each of the two previous committees . ORR MOVED to approve the Senior Housing Support Services Program as recommended by the City Coun- cil Planning Committee. Houser seconded. The motion carried with White opposed. Woods pointed out receipt of a letter from Lucyle Wooden, asking that in Phase Two consideration be given to include multi-cultural cross networking with agencies that serve People of Color. White said that he would like to see more participation by senior citizens, noting that only one-third of the committee members were seniors. Orr noted that she served on both the Assisted Housing Committee and the Senior Advisory committee and that seniors were well represented on both committees . ORR THEN MOVED to make Lucyle Wooden' s letter a part of the record. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. FRANCHISES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) Electric Lightwave Franchise Ordinance. ACCEP- TANCE of the Electric Lightwave Franchise Ordi- nance No. 3040 for its second reading and adop- tion, granting Electric Lightwave a 10-year fran- chise to construct, maintain and operate telecom- munication systems within City rights-of-way, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) Highline Water District Franchise Ordinance. ACCEPTANCE of the Highline Water District Fran- chise Ordinance No. 3041 for its second reading and adoption, granting Highline Water District a 25-year franchise to construct, maintain and operate their water system within City rights-of- way, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. 5 May 19 , 1992 REGIONAL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) JUSTICE ADDED ITEM CENTER Paul Hammerschmidt, 814 - 5th Avenue North, noted that on March 3 , 1992 , the City Council passed Resolution No. 1310 endorsing the location of a regional justice center in the City of Kent. He pointed out that Section 2 of the resolution states that the endorsement was conditioned upon "the consideration of public input into such a site selection" . Hammerschmidt requested that the Council withdraw their support. He stated that on May 18, 1992 , he hand delivered to the King County Clerk' s Office a petition with 795 signatures which reads as follows: "We, the undersigned citizens of Kent, strongly object to the placement of the King County Regional Justice Center being placed at the James Street site. We object that the County Executive Tim Hill selected a site that was surrounding a community recreation center used by thousands of children each weekend. We firmly believe that a new jail is needed, and that it should be in South King County, but the site selected would have a tremendous negative impact on our neighborhood community center, our neigh- borhood atmosphere, as well as the proximity to local elementary schools. We strongly urge the King County Council , the City of Kent, and the County Jail Planning Division reconsider their choice in sites . " He then proposed the following: 1) That the City Council of Kent WITHDRAW it ' s support for the placing of a regional justice cen- ter at 4th and James Street, known by the County Jail Planning Department as "Site 19" ; 2) That the Mayor of the City of Kent WITHDRAW HIS support for the placing of a regional justice center at 4th and James Street, known by the County Jail Planning Department as "Site 19" ; 3) That the City Council of Kent give notice to the King County Council , via Registered Mail , that the Council has withdrawn its support for the regional justice center located at 4th and James Street, known by the County Jail Planning Department as "Site 19" ; 4) That the Mayor of the City of Kent give notice to the King County Council , via Registered Mail, that the Mayor' s office has withdrawn its support for the regional justice center located at 4th and James Street, known by the County Jail Planning Department as "Site 19" . Hammerschmidt said that 6 May 19 , 1992 REGIONAL the Council has a duty to the citizens they serve, JUSTICE and urged them to withdraw their support tonight. CENTER He noted for Johnson that approximately 2/3 of the signors of the petition reside within the City limits of Kent, and that residents of East Hill, West Hill, the Valley, and all Kent zip codes are represented. Martin J. Durkan, Jr. , representing the owners of Site 19, stated that Kent will be the safest city around if the justice center is built here, because of the presence of police from all pre- cincts, that property values will go up rather than down, and that studies show there will be very little traffic problems. He noted that traffic problems can be improved with overpasses and that most traffic would be between 10 : 00 a.m. and 3 : 00 p.m. He stated that CAPS has totally ignored available data on the impacts of the justice center, and added that a site only 770 ' away would not be any safer. Durkan pointed out that some of the signors of the petition live in Renton, Des Moines, Seattle, Federal Way, Maple Valley, Olympia and other cities. He said that the decision should not be based on emotional and false information. He submitted a copy of the petition to the Council, noting that perhaps 300 of the signatures are from Kent, and that many of the names have been copied by the same person. Jimmy Cordova, 1510 Maple Lane, suggested moving Kent Commons to a location just off of Central Avenue where they could have playfields, a fishing pier, and horseback riding. Mark Tullus, 10215 SE 192nd, Renton, noted that he had collected 100 signatures on the petition, and that most people are opposed to having this facility next to a recreation facility. He urged the Council to rescind their endorsement. Russ Stringham, owner of The Hungry Bear, 524 W. Meeker, noted that the regional justice center would bring a payroll of approximately 770 people to this area which would help the downtown merchants. He said this devel- opment would increase the demand for land, raising property values. He also indicated that crime would be worse if the downtown area dies than it would be with the facility in the area. He urged the Council to look beyond the emotion in this 7 May 19 , 1992 REGIONAL issue and make a decision based on logic and JUSTICE facts. Alvin Parker, 853 Second Avenue North, CENTER said he feels the courtrooms are the problem. He noted that there are many senior citizens in the area who walk to the library and Saturday Market, and expressed concern about purse-snatchers, pan- handlers and so forth. He suggested enlarging Kent Commons at its present location and placing the justice facility elsewhere. Barbara Cummins, 730 Woodland Way, stated that she and her children use Kent Commons frequently, and that the children are upset about having the regional justice center nearby. She also stated that there is no reason to pay for another Com- mons. Richard Breen, 316 S. Second, noted that there will be 750 employees and approximately 1000 people going through the court system each day, and that the proposal is to build a parking facil- ity for only 700. He said he was told that people would be encouraged to carpool , take the bus, etc. He noted that this will cause an overflow of traf- fic into the area and expressed concern about the lack of adequate parking. He also stated that the facility will most likely have their own cafete- ria, that people will being their own lunches, and that the community will not generate a consider- able amount of money from the people at the facility. He added that felons will be housed at this facility and that people will avoid coming to Kent. He pointed out that other recommended sites do not have businesses on them, which would make them less costly. Cheryl Noble, 316 W. Cloudy, noted that although the intent is to favor sites in commercial and industrial type areas, Site 19 is the site which would affect the largest number of children. She agreed that the courtrooms will cause more problems than the jail and stated that theft would be the biggest problem. She noted that one person who recently sat outside Aukeen Court for two hours was approached five times by individuals who offered drugs or asked for money. She said she realizes that this facility would revitalize the downtown area, but that money rather than people need to take a backseat this time. She clarified that their objection is only to Site 19 . Don Villeneuve, 13341 SE 195th, Renton, stated that he works in Kent and agreed 8 May 19 , 1992 REGIONAL that the courthouse will cause more problems than JUSTICE the jail . He noted that businesses around Aukeen CENTER Court take overflow parking, have had instances of aggressive panhandling, and now keep exterior doors locked during the day to discourage people who ask to use the phone, or ask for money. He said he feels the Naden Avenue site would be a better location, or the site at 68th Avenue South and S . 212th which now has a half-finished motel on it. Hugh Leiper stated that Site 19 was chosen because it can be easily developed, which is a poor criteria. He said that in order for the project to be a success it must have the accep- tance of the people in the community. Mary Miller, 21024 101st Avenue, said she has heard many conflicts, noting that it has been said that there will be no traffic impact. She pointed out that jurors must arrive by 8 : 00 a.m. , and there are usually 200 of them, which conflicts with Durkan' s statement that traffic to this facility will not be during rush hour. She also said that proposing traffic overpasses indicates that a traffic problem is expected. She said she already avoids coming to Kent because of the traffic. Al Tennant, owner of the largest parcel on the Naden site, said he supports the Council ' s decision, because it is best for downtown Kent. He added that there are criminals in the area already, and noted that his experience as a juror in Seattle was a pleasurable and safe one. Clinton Tullus of Maple Valley noted that ball teams from many other areas come to the Commons to play, and that no other city would tolerate such a facility being in a park area. He pointed out that some of the sig- natures are from Federal Way, Auburn and Renton, but that children who live in these areas attend Kent schools. He agreed that the facility is needed, but not near a park area. Tim Clark, 23312 - 113th Place SE, voiced concern about the impact of traffic and the lack of parking for em- ployees, jurors, witnesses, police officers, etc. He said that when the facility is built and the road system is jammed, businesses in Kent will suffer. Warren Kohler, 602 N. Prospect, stated that this facility may cost as much as $140, 000, 000 which would be a tremendous burden on the taxpayers, and that this should be taken into consideration. He noted that two tax-paying 9 May 19 , 1992 REGIONAL businesses will be leaving, which will affect the JUSTICE City' s tax base. He agreed that traffic will in- CENTER crease and that the site in Auburn costs much less than this one. He suggested that the County econ- omize. Woods explained that making the sites available was a decision made by the property owners, not by the City. She added that mitigation will be nec- essary for any site selected in any city, and that the County Council has not yet made a decision. She also noted that it is not certain that county voters will vote to tax themselves to pay for this or Phase Two which will be on the east side. Houser commented that this issue is going to the County Council , therefore the signatures on the petition from all cities in the County are appro- priate. John Kieffer, 11048 SE 274th, suggested buying the Howard Manufacturing and Northwest Products prop- erty and building something for the City other than a regional justice facility which would put a burden on the people of King County. He also stated that there should be more public hearings on the regional justice center. Jimmy Cordova said he has spoken with neighbors near the Aukeen Courthouse and that they have had no problems with prisoners or people on work release. Paul Hammerschmidt clarified that CAPS is not against the regional justice center itself, but that they are opposed to Site 19 as a location for it. He read a letter from Nancy Knipp which appeared in the Valley Daily News on 5/8/92 , listing instances which have occurred at Pay-N-Pak since Aukeen Court has opened, and asking that the regional justice center be located on the out- skirts of the City rather than in the middle of town. WHITE MOVED that the letter be made a part of the record, Orr seconded and the motion car- ried. Mr. Cordova noted that none of the em- ployees of the banks on the corner of 4th and Smith object to the regional justice center, nor do any of the people he talked with who live on James. Clinton Tullus said that 90% of the people he has spoken to are against Site 19 , and that in 10 May 19 , 1992 REGIONAL Seattle criminals are sometimes in the elevators JUSTICE with jurors. CENTER ORR MOVED to make the petition containing 795 sig- natures a part of the record. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. Mann expressed concern about the lack of parking and said he would like to have more specific information regarding that and traffic impacts before making a decision. Planning Director Harris explained that the State Environmental Protection Act will have to be followed, as well as the local Zoning Code. City Attorney Lubovich clarified that no application has been made by the County, that the site has been recommended by the County Executive but not selected by the County, and that the issue will go before the voters in the fall . JOHNSON MOVED that the Council reaffirm their sup- port of the siting of the regional justice center. White seconded for discussion. Johnson stated that he is opposed to relocating Kent Commons or the playfields, and that he does not feel the facility would endanger children in the area. He noted that traffic will increase whether or not the justice center is built there, and that people need to use other forms of transportation than a single occupancy vehicle. He pointed out that the owners of businesses in Kent have already decided to leave the area. He said it is the duty of the Council to make decisions and pointed out that not everyone thought the Commons, the library, or the senior center should be built, but that it was a good decision to build them anyway. He opined that it is better to have a place for criminals to be housed than to be forced to let them go free. Raul Ramos noted that a final supplemental EIS has already been prepared and that it says the required parking would be approximately 1000 parking stalls which would be located under the building. He stated that the County will work with Kent to develop incentives for car pooling, transit ridership, bicycling and other measures. 11 May 19 , 1992 REGIONAL He noted that the City will have the option to JUSTICE review areas of concern through the local process. CENTER He added that the impacts have been fully assessed and it is reasonable to expect that this jurisdic- tion would adopt their environmental review docu- ment with possibly some additional clarification regarding certain problem areas. Mann stated that when this project was first brought up, it was noted that one of the advan- tages of having it is that it would provide addi- tional parking. He noted that 1000 stalls would not accommodate the people who would be using the facility, and would necessitate using the few other parking spaces in the City. He agreed that the facility should not be so close to schools, a community center, playfields and senior housing. White stated that he has researched the concept of a regional justice center and found it to be sound, and that he feels it would benefit the en- tire City on a long-term basis. Orr noted that there is a real need for this facility, since society is demanding longer jail time and stiffer sentences, and that if facilities are not built to accommodate that, criminals will be on the streets before justice has been served. She said that since this is an essential project, people should be willing to accept some of the responsibilities for it. She pointed out that there are very few pieces of land available which are large enough to use for such a facility. She reiterated that property owners offered their property to the County, and that cities were not involved. She noted that it is the responsibility of the City to make sure that problems and concerns are addressed through mitigation. Bennett expressed his support for Johnson' s motion. It was clarified that the motion is to reaffirm Resolution No. 1310 granting qualified endorsement for the location of a regional justice center in the City of Kent. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried with Bennett, Johnson, Orr and White in favor, and Houser and Mann opposed. Woods indicated that if the Mayor were in attendance at tonight ' s meeting and she had voted on this issue, she would have voted in favor of the motion. She thanked the citizens for attending and being part of the process . 12 May 19 , 1992 WORK (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D) RELEASE ADDED ITEM FACILITIES Work Release Facilities. Paul Hammerschmidt voiced concern about work release facilities and proposed the following changes to City laws: 1: That the City modify any and all existing codes, statutes, resolutions, laws, or other regulatory information to include the following: 1A: The SITE of ANY work release facility located within the City Limits of the City of Kent shall not be located closer than the following distances, measured via straight line, using King County Tax Assessor Maps: Churches, Synagogues, and places of Worship: NOT CLOSER THAN 5000 (FIVE THOUSAND) LINEAR FEET. Schools, whether Elementary, Junior High, or High School, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE: NOT CLOSER THAN 10 , 000 (TEN THOUSAND) LINEAR FEET. City or County Parks, whether maintained through PUBLIC FUNDS or PRIVATE FUNDS : NOT CLOSER THAN 10, 000 (TEN THOUSAND) LINEAR FEET. Health Care Facilities, to include Public or Private, Doctor ' s Offices, Nursing Homes, Homes for the Developmentally disabled, Elder Day Care Facilities, Senior Housing: NOT CLOSER THAN 5000 (FIVE THOUSAND) LINEAR FEET. Private Homes, Private Apartment Complexes: NOT CLOSER THAN 20 , 000 (TWENTY THOUSAND) LINEAR FEET. 2 : That in the future, if any plans are made, or proposed within the City limits of Kent, whether by a City, County or State Agency, for any facility to house, incarcerate, or maintain any criminal convicted of ANY crime, regardless of what the facility be called, that the City post a sign of the following dimensions and characteris- tics: 13 May 19 , 1992 WORK NO LESS THAN 10 (TEN) FEET TALL BY 20 RELEASE (TWENTY) FEET WIDE, WITH A COLOR OF "FIRE FACILITIES ENGINE" RED WITH BLACK LETTERING. THAT SUCH A SIGN CONTAIN A BANNER TYPE "HEADLINE" THAT STATES THE FOLLOWING: "ATTENTION: JAIL/WORK RELEASE PROPOSED SITE" , AND THAT SUCH SIGN BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED FOR A PERIOD OF 6 (SIX) MONTHS PRIOR TO ANY PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING SUCH A FACILITY, AND THAT SUCH SIGN CONTAIN ANY AND ALL TELEPHONE NUMBERS, ADDRESSES OF ANY AND ALL AGENCIES HAVING IN- TEREST IN SUCH A FACILITY. Woods explained that the proper process would be to send this proposal to committee for discussion. Orr stated that it should go through the Public Safety Committee and possibly to the Planning Com- mittee. Mann agreed, and it was decided to place this item on the Public Safety Committee agenda of June 15, 1992 . Mann noted that the meeting will be held at 5: 30 p.m. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) RECREATION ASA Riverfront Property Condemnation Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3044 relating to condem- nation of a portion of property south of the Valley Daily News Building along the east bank of the Green River for parks and recreation purposes. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through May 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 4 : 00 p.m. on May 18 , 1992 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 5/1-5/15/92 118044-118609 $2 , 407 , 898 . 84 Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Numbers Amount 5/20/92 01172381-01172984 $ 504 , 659 . 63 14 May 19 , 1992 REPORTS Council President. Woods noted that at last Tuesday' s council workshop, they were informed of actions taken by Administration to reduce spending in the 1992 budget. Woods suggested, as City leaders, that the Council set an example for others to follow by cutting their budget by 10% , as outlined in her memo dated May 12 , 1992 . JOHNSON MOVED to accept Council President Woods ' memo and proposal to cut the Council budget by 10%. White seconded and the motion carried. Operations Committee. Houser noted that the Oper- ations Committee is now meeting on the 1st and 3rd Monday of each month at 4 : 00 p.m. Public Safety Committee. Mann noted that the Public Safety Committee now meets on the 1st and 3rd Monday of each month at 5 : 30 p.m. He con- firmed for Paul Hammerschmidt that the issue of Work Release Facilities in Kent would be scheduled for the June 15th meeting, as requested. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 25 p.m. Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk 15 Kent City Council Meeting Y" ( Date June 2 , 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF WARRANTY AGREEMENT - EAST HILL COMPLEX 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Fire Department to enter into a modified agreement on the warranty phase of the East Hill project. Due to outstanding items needing corrective action, the Fire Department has not accepted the East Hill Complex as 100 percent complete. Because of the contractor's delay in completing the punch list, the time frame of this project has far extended the schedule period. The Fire Department is recommending that a review of the building be made. Any problems appearing to be warranty items will be brought to the contractor' s attention. When these items are resolved, this will satisfy the contractual one-year warranty period. If they are unable to complete the warranty items in a timely fashion, we will proceed according to the terms of the contract. 3 . EXHIBITS: Executive Summary 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Chief, Public Safety Committee (3-0) Councilmembers Mann or Johnson (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds F DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3C EXECUTIVE SUMMARY JUNE 21 1992 TO: MAYOR KELLEHER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOODS, COUNCILMEMBERS WHITE, JOHNSON, HOUSER, ORR, MANN, BENNETT FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEFIV/�j- SUBJECT: EAST HILL COMPLEX STATUS AND WARRANTY --------------------- ------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The Fire Department has been working with Mar Jon Contractors, Inc. to resolve the remaining items. Below this a progress report on these items. 1. We are currently awaiting information and replacement units from the manufacturer of the radiant heat panels. To our knowledge the problem with the units has not been resolved. 2 . The contractor has made arrangements with the painter to re- coat the training tower. This is tentatively scheduled to be completed by the end of May, weather-permitting. We will have the system re-tested after the recoating is done. 3 . The contractor has requested to delay investigating the leaking hatch on the tower until the building has been re- coated. They feel this may be a contributing factor to the leakage. We feel the hatch is part of the leaking problem. 4 . With regard to #3 , we believe it may be necessary to replace the floating slabs on the tower. Therefore, we have secured a quote to have the concrete slabs taken up and replace at a cost of approximately $5, 950. This item is one where the fire department and the contractor agrees to disagree. 5. At this time one of the two fire station windows continue to leak. We have performed additional tests and found that the water is still leaking through the wall. We will work with the contractor to find a solution to this. Executive Summary to Mayor Kelleher and Councilmembers June 2 , 1992 Page 2 6. The contractor has paid for liquid probes for the fuel tanks, we will be arranging the installation. This will eliminate the situation we are currently experiencing having fumes in the interstitial space. They should be installed the week of the lith. 7. The water proof boxes for the electrical boxes in the drill tower are still items where the Fire Department and the contractor agree to disagree. Cost estimate $3 ,400. 00 8 . We have received the necessary parts for the apparatus bay doors and will be installing these parts shortly. 9 . The subcontractor was on site to repair the loose floor tiles in the lobby and corridor areas, however, approximately 1/2 of the tiles were repaired. Upon the replacement of these tiles, there were numerous tiles chipped. We will need to have further discussion with the contractor. We believe this will be an ongoing problem if not properly repaired. 10. Lens for the outdoor sign lights have been replaced. The entire light fixture for the flag pole has been replaced. Fire Department has checked the flag pole lights and at this time they are not operating. 11. Hydraulic line to the unleaded fuel tank has been replaced after the blockage was removed. Blockage was due to incomplete installation of conduit. Executive Summary to Mayor Kelleher and Councilmembers June 2 , 1992 Page 3 RECOMMENDED ACTION The Fire Department has listed the action needed to be taken on the above items. At this point in the project, it is time to evaluate the effectiveness of the upcoming warranty period. It is stated in the specifications that the warranty period does not commence until the project is 100o accepted by the City of Kent Council. We have not come to that point in this project due to the outstanding items. There is concern as to the level of cooperative compliance with the warranty period. We have been told by Mar Jon Contractors, Inc. that they would like to explore a solution to the warranty term. Fire Department has proposed to review the building for warranty items and utilizing the same approach as the above items to resolve these warranty items, this will satisfy the contractual one year warranty period. This would not negate, however, manufacturer' s warranties. This would release the contractor from the first year warranty after they correct the items on the list to be developed. If Mar Jon Contractors, Inc. fail to correct the list of warranty items, we would not release them from the requirements of the warranty as specified in the contract. The Fire Department is requesting Council approval on this concept regarding warranty items. SIGNIFICANCE Due to the delay by the contractor in completing the punch list, the timeline for this project has been extended much further than anticipated. The Bond Project team as well as the members of the Fire Department have worked many long hours to bring closure to this project. Executive Summary to Mayor Kelleher and Councilmembers June 2 , 1992 Page 4 Following our proposed "warranty process" , this will expedite and enhance the probability of compliance in this final phase. BUDGET/ECONOMIC IMPACT A greater probability that the warranty items as well as a number of the above items will be corrected at no cost to the City. However, items we "agree to disagree" may need to be handled through the current budget. ALTERNATIVES/CONSEQUENCES None L Kent City Council Meeting Date June 2 , 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign agreement with Covington Water District allowing the construction of a water transmission main across City property. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes, agreement and memorandum from Public Works Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (2-0 vote) Public Works Committee; Jim Bennett, not in attendance (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D , PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MAY 20, 1992 PRESENT: JIM WHITE ED WHITE PAUL MANN TONY McCARTHY GARY GILL RAUL RAMOS ED CHOW LINDA DIAS TOM BRUBAKER MR. & MRS. RUST DON WICKSTROM Parking - Titusville Station (202 W. Gowe St. ) - Linda Dias Ms. Dias explained that at the present time, the parking situation in front of her Espresso Depot on Gowe Street, is being violated by citizens parking longer than the two hour allowable time. There are four parking stalls available; three stalls are 2 hours and one is 30 minutes. Ms. Dias requested that all four parking stalls be changed to 30 minute parking. She stated that other than the fact that people are violating the 2 hour parking limit, this would also benefit her as a business owner allowing her Espresso cart to be more visible to the public. Ed White explained that the City does have a parking problem in the downtown area and until we' complete our parking study, it would be confusing to the downtown businesses if we start taking action now before all the issues have been identified. Ed stated that it would be staff ' s recommendation to hold off on changing any of the downtown parking until our study is completed, probably either July or August. Jim White asked if a temporary parking change is possible. He felt that an ordinance had been prepared allowing staff to make those changes without going to Council. Wickstrom will review this. Committee unanimously agreed to direct staff to install four, 30 minute parking stalls on Gowe Street, in front of Titusville Station, on a temporary basis until the final plan is adopted. Water Service Agreement Wickstrom explained that this is an agreement between Covington Water District and the City of Kent. Covington needs to construct a transmission main along Kent Kangley which passes thru our annexed Clark Springs Watershed. The purpose of the watermain is to service a new reservoir they are proposing to build which lies east of Clark Springs. Covington is in concurrence with our agreement and Wickstrom asked to go forward with it. 1 Committee unanimously agreed to go forward with the Water Service Agreement. Bill of Sale - Robison Sewer Extension Wickstrom stated that this is an extension required for development and asked for acceptance of same. Committee unanimously agreed to accept the Robison Sewer Extension Bill of Sale. Underground Storage Tanks Wickstrom requested acceptance by the Committee, of the Public Works contract, which was completed for the exact bid amount. Committee unanimously agreed to accept the project as complete. Kent Circulator/Transit System Ed White explained that since the memo on this item was sent to the Public Works Committee, two things have happened. First, we have received a letter from METRO which relays information that Council members had requested. The other item is that Kevin O'Neil of the Planning Dept. and Ed White have met with Beverly Smith and Doug Johnson to discuss the regional transit project. As a result of those discussions, they relayed to us that part of the regional transit project was a funding package that was going to be addressed the next time the County votes on a bond issue that relates to this project. It is approximately $50 million dollars; roughly $18 million dollars will be devoted to enhanced Transit Service in the South County area. As such, the METRO long range Planning Section is involved with us in doing the initial scoping work to determine our needs. Ed said this is projected to happen whenever the bond issue passes. Jim White said he would ask the Mayor to form a Circulator Transit Advisory Group so we can have citizen input. White would like this done with a minimum of staff time, stating that he realizes staff has a lot of work to do in other areas . He feels that some of the downtown merchants are very interested in this. Committee unanimously agreed that citizen input be included into the Circulator Transit System. Sidewalk Improvement on West Smith Street West of SR 181 Wickstrom explained that the cost estimate on this item would be approximately $6, 000 - $10, 000 depending on what the project involves. He stated there is approximately $70 , 000 in the Sidewalk Improvement Fund. We have reserved $20, 000 to $30 , 000 for a joint project with the City of Des Moines per its 240th Street 2 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS May 13, 1992 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM RE: WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT Covington Water District plans to construct a water storage facility east of the City's Clark Springs property so they can provide water service to the Ravensdale area. The most logical route for the transmission main needed to provide this service from the water storage facility lies along Kent Kangley Highway and crosses through the Clark Springs property. Since the Clark Springs property has been annexed into the City for municipal purposes (one of Kent's water sources) , Covington Water District has requested authorization from the City to construct their transmission main along this route. The cost of construction would be borne by the District with the City having plan approval authority in order to assure the integrity of our water source. It is recommended the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement. WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT CITY OF KENT -- COVINGTON WATER DISTRICT and CEDAR RIVER WATER & SEWER DISTRICT THIS AGREEMENT, executed this day of , 199_1 by and between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City") , and the Covington Water District, and Cedar River Water and Sewer District, both water districts organized under Title 57 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) , (hereinafter the "District") : W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the City, for the municipal purpose of obtaining a groundwater supply source for the City water system, has annexed an ' island ' area legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Clark Springs" area) , which is within the District 's service area; and WHEREAS, the District intends to construct a water storage facility easterly of the Clark Springs area to serve the District; and WHEREAS, the District intends to provide water service to an area that lies easterly of the Clark Springs area (the "Ravensdale" area) ; and WHEREAS, the only feasible route available to the District to construct a water service transmission line to the Ravensdale area lies generally along the Kent-Kangley Highway as it crosses through the Clark Springs area; and WHEREAS, the City desires to authorize the District to construct and operate a water service transmission line through the Clark Springs area; and WHEREAS, both the City and the District are public agencies authorized by law to engage in furnishing domestic water service, and to that end, may, through their legislative authorities, enter into a contract with respect to the rights, powers, duties and obligations of the parties regarding the use and ownership of the facilities, the right to promulgate rules and regulations, to levy and collect special assessments, rates, charges, service charges and connection fees, the performance of contractual obligations and any other matters arising out of the provision of District service to areas within the City, all pursuant to and in accordance with RCW Sections 39 . 34 . 080, 35. 67 . 020 and 57 . 08 . 060 ; NOW, THEREFORE: PAGE 1 OF 15 The parties hereto mutually agree as follows : Section 1 . AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WATER SERVICE TRANSMISSION LINE. The City does hereby authorize the District to construct and operate a water service transmission line, as specifically described in Exhibit B attached hereto, through the Clark Springs area, which area lies within the corporate boundaries of the City and now serves as the City's Clark Springs water supply source, all in accordance with and subject to the provisions, terms and conditions of this Agreement. The City' s authorization given herein extends only to the District' s construction and operation of a water service transmission line through the Clark Springs area in order to provide water system service to areas lying outside of the Clark Springs area within the District' s established service area. THE CITY DOES NOT AUTHORIZE, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, THE CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION OF ANY SEWERAGE SYSTEMS OR FACILITIES WITHIN THE CLARK SPRINGS AREA, EVEN THOUGH THE DISTRICT MAY HAVE THE GENERAL POWERS TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SEWER SYSTEM AND RELATED FACILITIES WITHIN ITS SERVICE AREA. The City' s authorization to provide service shall extend for 25 years after the effective date of this Agreement, and shall further include the right and privilege to lay down, construct, relay, connect, replace and/or maintain such and so many pipes, conduits and mains, and all other appurtenances and appendages thereto, in, along, through and under the Kent-Kangley highway in that portion of the Kent City limits as specifically described in Exhibit B as may be necessary, convenient and/or proper in order to provide water and service and for that purpose to make any and all connections which may be necessary, convenient and/or proper between said pipes, conduits and mains. If District is not in substantial breach hereof following expiration of the intial term, City may, at its sole option, extend this agreement for an additional 25 years upon the written consent of the District. Section 2 . AUTHORITY TO MANAGE, REGULATE AND CONTROL WATER SYSTEM. After the construction of the water facilities as contemplated under this Agreement, the District shall have the sole responsibility to maintain, manage, conduct and operate its system of water service as installed within the Clark Springs area described in Exhibit B, together with any additions, extensions and betterments thereto. Section 3 . NON-EXCLUSIVE GRANT. This grant or privilege shall not be deemed or held to be exclusive. It shall in no manner prohibit the City from entering into other agreements or franchises of a like nature or franchises for other public or private utilities, in, over, along, across, under and upon any of the streets, avenues, highways, alleys or public places, or ways as herein enumerated, and shall in no way prevent or prohibit the City PAGE 2 OF 15 from using any of said streets, avenues, etc. , or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them with full power to make all necessary changes, relocations, repairs, or maintenance of same as it deems fit. Section 4 . APPROVAL OF PLANS. Prior to construction of any of the pipes, conduits, mains, side sewers and appurtenances in the locations described in Section 1 herein, the District shall submit, to the Dire4tor of Public Works (hereinafter the "Director") , in triplicate, plans drawn to an accurate scale, showing the exact location, character, position, dimension, depth and height of the work to be done. The plans shall accurately depict the relative position and location of all pipes, conduits, mains, manholes and appurtenances to be constructed, laid, relaid, installed, replaced, repaired, connected or disconnected, and the existing right-of-way or property lines. All right-of-ways denoted thereon shall be designated by their names and number and the local improvements therein such as roadway pavement, shoulders, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, ditches, driveways, parking strips, telephone or electric distribution poles, conduits, storm, gas or water pipe lines as may exist on the ground or area sought to be occupied shall be outlined. In the construction proposed by the District, all materials and equipment shall be of the first class type and kind. The exact class and type to be used shall be shown on the plans, as will the equipment to be used and the mode of safeguarding and facilitating the public traffic during construction. The manner of excavation, construction installation, backfill , and temporary structures (such as traffic turnouts, road obstructions, etc. ) shall meet with the approval of, pass all requirements of, and be constructed under the supervision of the Director. Prior to approval of any work under this agreement, the Director may require such modifications or changes as he or she deems necessary to properly protect the public in the use of the public places, and may fix the time or times within and during which such work shall be done. The District shall pay to the City such amounts as, in the judgment of the Director, are reasonably necessary to investigate and process any plans for construction work, to inspect such work, to secure proper field notes for location, to plat such locations on the permanent records of the City Public Works Department, to supervise such work, or to inspect or reinspect as to maintenance, during the progress of or after the repair of, any of the initial construction authorized by this Agreement. Section 5. PROTECTION OF PUBLIC. Whenever an excavation or fill from the construction, maintenance or repair of the facilities authorized under this Agreement has caused or contributed to a condition that appears to substantially impair the lateral support of the adjoining street or public place, or endangers the City' s Clark Springs water supply source, or otherwise endangers the PAGE 3 OF 15 public, an adjoining public place, street utilities or City property, the Director may direct the District, at its own expense, to take actions to protect the public, adjacent public places, City property and street utilities, and may require compliance within a prescribed time. In the event that the District fails or refuses to take the actions directed promptly, or fails to fully comply with such directions given by the Director, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the City's Clark springs water supply source, the public, the adjacent streets or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, including placing of temporary shoring, backfilling, alteration of drainage patterns and any other actions reasonably necessary to decrease the possibility of injury to persons or public and private property, or any other actions regarded as necessary safety precautions, and the District shall be liable to the City for the costs thereof. Section 6 . PROTECTION OF CLARK SPRINGS WATER SUPPLY SOURCE. The District shall not withdraw ground or surface waters that contribute, directly or indirectly, to the water supply within the Clark Springs Aquifer without first consulting the Director of Public Works of the City of Kent and obtaining his or her prior approval to make such withdrawal . Upon the District ' s submission of sufficient documentation that the Clark Springs Aquifer water supply will not be adversely affected, such approval by the City' s Director of Public Works will not be unreasonably withheld. A map diagramming the surface boundaries of the Clark Springs Aquifer is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 7 . REPAIR OF STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES. After construction, maintenance or repair of the facilities authorized by this Agreement, the District shall leave all streets, avenues, highways or public places in as good and safe condition in all respects as they were before commencement of such work by the District, its agents or contractors. The Director shall have final approval of the condition of such streets and public places after completion of construction. Section 8 . COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. Construction of the facilities herein contemplated will be completed by December 31, 1993 , provided that such time limit shall not apply to delays caused by acts of God, strikes or other occurrences over which the District has no control, or necessary eminent domain litigation. Section 9 . INDEMNIFICATION. The District hereby releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, PAGE 4 OF 15 awards or liability to any person, including claims by the District' s own employees to which the District might otherwise be immune under Title 51 RCW, arising from injury or death of any person or damage to property of which the negligent acts or omissions of the District, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing this Agreement are the proximate cause. The District further releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person (including claims by the District's own employees, to which the District might otherwise be immune under Title 51 RCW) , arising against the City solely by virtue of the City's ownership or control of the rights-of-way or other public properties, by virtue of the District' s exercise of the rights granted herein, or by virtue of the City 's permitting the District's use of the City' s rights-of-way or other public property, based upon the inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by the District, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the City' s property or property over which the City has control, pursuant to this Agreement or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with this Agreement. This covenant of indemnification shall include, but not be limited by this reference to, claims against the City arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of the District, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction, or work in any public right-of-way or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under this Agreement. Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by the District at the time of completion shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. In the event that the District refuses the tender of defense in any suit or claim, said tender having been made pursuant to the indemnification clauses contained herein, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter) to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of the District, then the District shall pay all of the City' s costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys ' fees and the reasonable costs of the City, including reasonable attorneys ' fees of recovering under this indemnification clause. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4 . 24 . 115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or PAGE 5 OF 15 damage to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the District and the City, its officers, officials, employees or agents, the District 's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the District's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE DISTRICT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THIS WAIVER HAS BEEN MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES. Section 9 . INSURANCE. The District shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of . the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to the District, its officers, officials, agents, employees. The District shall provide evidence of such insurance to the City for its inspection prior to the adoption of this agreement, and such insurance shall evidence: A. Automobile Liability Insurance with limits no less than $1, 000, 000 . 00 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and B. Commercial General Liability In- surance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1, 000, 000 . 00 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $1 , 000, 000 . 00 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. Payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the District. The insurance obtained by the District shall name the City, its officers, officials, employees and agents as insureds with regard to activities performed by or on behalf of the District. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or agents. In addition, the insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer ' s liability. The District ' s insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by the City, its officials, officers, employees or agents shall be in excess of the District ' s insurance and shall not contribute with it. PAGE 6 OF 15 The insurance policy or policies required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days ' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Section 10. RELOCATION OF LINES AND FACILITIES. The District agrees and covenants at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove (subject to the provisions below) any of its facilities when required by the City by reason of traffic conditions or public safety, street vacations, dedications or new rights-of-way and the establishment and improvement thereof, freeway construction, change or establishment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or structure by any governmental agency acting in a governmental capacity, provided that the District shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any water line or portion thereof required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. The City acknowledges that the District' s facilities to be installed herein are substantial and cannot be relocated without District suffering inordinate expense. The City will make its best effort to design or redesign streets, avenues, alleys or public places or ways, and other City utilities to forego and minimize the impact thereof on the District' s facilities, including the need to require the District's facilities to be relocated. PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the City shall make the final determination on the need for relocation of the District' s facilities . Whenever the City determines that any of the above circumstances necessitate the relocation of the District's then existing facilities, the City shall provide the District with at least one hundred twenty (120) days written notice requiring such relocation, which shall be completed by the District at no cost and within the time frame set by the City. Upon the District' s failure to complete relocation of its installations and facilities as so directed, the City may remove same at the District' s expense. The parties agree to coordinate their respective construction work and schedules in such event. Section 11. EXCAVATION. During any period of installation, relocation, maintenance or repair of the District' s facilities and installations, all surface structures, if any, shall be erected and used in such places and positions within said public rights-of-way and other public properties so as not to contaminate, harm or otherwise injure the City' s Clark Springs water supply source and so as to interfere as little as possible with the free passage of traffic and the free use of adjoining property, and the District PAGE 7 OF 15 shall at all times post and maintain proper barricades during such period of construction as required by state law or City ordinance. Whenever the District shall excavate in any public right-of- way or other public property for the purpose of installation, repair, maintenance or relocation of its facilities, it shall apply to the City for a permit to do so and shall give the City at least three (3) working days notice thereof. Emergency repairs may be conducted without such three (3) day notice; however, such notice as is practical shall be given. During the progress of the work, the District shall not contaminate, harm or otherwise injure the city' s Clark Springs water supply source nor shall the District unnecessarily obstruct the passage or proper use of the right-of- way, and shall file maps or plans with the City (as described in Section 3 herein) showing the proposed and final location of the water facilities. If either the City or the District shall at any time plan to make excavations in any area covered by this Agreement and as described in this Section, the party planning such excavation shall afford the other, upon receipt of a written request to do so, an opportunity to share such excavation, PROVIDED THAT: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the party causing the excavation to be made; (2) such joint use shall be arranged and accomplished on terms and conditions satisfactory to both parties; and (3) either party may deny such request for safety reasons . Prior to commencement of any construction authorized by this Agreement, the District shall reference all monuments and markers of every nature relating to highways and all other surveys. The reference points shall be so located that they will not be disturbed during the District ' s operations under this Agreement. The method of referencing these monuments or other points to be referenced shall be approved by the Director before placement. The replacement of all such monuments or markers disturbed during construction shall be made as expeditiously as conditions permit and as directed by the Director. The costs of monuments or other markers lost, destroyed, or disturbed and the expense of replacement by approved monuments shall be borne by the District. Section 12 . COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The District, its subcontractors, employees or any person acting on behalf of the District shall keep him/herself fully informed of all federal and state laws, and all municipal ordinances and regulations which in any manner affect the work or performance of the work authorized under this Agreement, and shall at all times observe and comply with such laws, ordinances and regulations, whether or not such laws, ordinances or regulations are mentioned herein, and shall indemnify the City, its officers, officials, agents, employees or PAGE 8 OF 15 representatives against any claim or liability arising from or based upon the violation of any such laws, ordinances or regulations. Section 13 . DISCRIMINATION. The District agrees that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant on the grounds of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, provided that the prohibition against discrimination in employment because of handicap shall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of the particular worker involved. The District shall ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without discrimination because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, creed, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. The District shall take such action with respect to this Agreement as may be required to ensure full compliance with Chapter 49 . 60 RCW. Section 14 . CITY CONSTRUCTION ADJACENT TO DISTRICT INSTALLATION. The laying, construction, maintenance and operation of the said District ' s system of water lines, pipes, conduits, mains, etc. , authorized under this Agreement shall not preclude the City or its accredited agents and contractors from blasting, grading or doing other necessary road or utility work contiguous to the said District's pipe lines, provided that the District shall have thirty (30) days notice of said blasting or excavation in order that the District may protect its line of pipe and property. In the event of an emergency, such work may be conducted without giving thirty (30) days notice; however, such notice as is practical shall be given. Section 15. MODIFICATION. The City and District hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Section 16 . TERMINATION; BREACH. If the District willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given the District under the provisions of this Agreement, or persistently disregards laws, ordinances or instructions of the Director, then the City may, without prejudice to any other right or remedy and after giving the District five (5) days written notice, terminate this Agreement. Section 17 . REMEDIES TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force the District and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring this Agreement terminated for breach PAGE 9 OF 15 of the conditions herein. District shall have the right of specific performance of the terms hereof in the event of City's breach. Section 18 . CITY ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct the City' s ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this Agreement, including any reasonable ordinance made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of the public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation and manner of construction and maintenance of any water and sewer facilities by the District, and the District shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause the District to violate other requirements of law. Section 19 . ASSIGNMENT. The District may not assign the rights, duties and obligations under this Agreement without the prior, written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. If such consent is given for assignment, acceptance of the assignment shall be filed by the District' s successor with the City. Section 20 . SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. All the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the District, and all privileges of the District shall inure to its successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 21. GOVERNING LAW; JURISDICTION OF DISPUTES. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, and jurisdiction of any resulting dispute shall be in King County Superior Court, King County, Washington. Section 22 . NOTICE. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given to the parties under this Agreement may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified: THE CITY OF RENT COVINGTON WATER DISTRICT Director of Public Works Don Wickstrom 18631 S .E. 300th Place 400 West Gowe Kent, Washington 98042 Kent, Washington 98032 CEDAR RIVER WATER & SEWER DISTRICT 18300 S .E. Lake Youngs Road Renton, Washington 98058-9799 PAGE 10 OF 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF RENT COVINGTON WATER DISTRICT by i by its its ATTEST: by its BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK I by its CEDAR RIVER WATER & SEWER DISTRICT by Lorraine M. Snyder its President by its by its APPROVED-AS TO FORM: og2 A. Lubovich, Kent City-Attorney PAGE 11 OF 15 Kent City Council Meeting i Date June 2 , 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ROBINSON SEWER EXTENSION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, acceptance of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Grace Robinson for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 371 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of 94th Ave. So. and So. 232nd Street and release of cash bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes, vicinity map and memorandum from Public Works Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (2-0 vote) Public Works Committee: Jim Bennett not in attendance (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL[PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCALJPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3Ex Committee unanimously agreed to go forward with the Water Service Agreement. )D►- Bill of Sale - Robit6on Sewer Extension Wickstrom stated that this is an extension required for development and asked for acceptance of same. Committee unanimously agreed to accept the Robi"son Sewer Extension Bill of Sale. Underground Storage Tanks Wickstrom requested acceptance by the Committee, of the Public Works contract, which was completed for the exact bid amount. Committee unanimously agreed to accept the project as complete. Kent Circulator/Transit System Ed White explained that since the memo on this item was sent to the Public Works Committee, two things have happened. First, we have received a letter from METRO which relays information that Council members had requested. The other item is that Kevin O'Neil of the Planning Dept. and Ed White have met with Beverly Smith and Doug Johnson to discuss the regional transit project. As a result of those discussions, they relayed to us that part of the regional transit project was a funding package that was going to be addressed the next time the County votes on a bond issue that relates to this project. It is approximately $50 million dollars; roughly $18 -million dollars will be devoted to enhanced Transit Service in the South County area. As such, the METRO long range Planning Section is involved with us in doing the initial scoping work to determine our needs. Ed said this is projected to happen whenever the bond issue passes. Jim White said he would ask the Mayor to form a Circulator Transit Advisory Group so we can have citizen input. White would like this done with a minimum of staff time, stating that he realizes staff has a lot of work to do in other areas. He feels that some of the downtown merchants are very interested in this. Committee unanimously agreed that citizen input be included into the Circulator Transit System. Sidewalk Improvement on West Smith Street West of SR 181 Wickstrom explained that the cost estimate on this item would be approximately $6, 000 - $10, 000 depending on what the project involves. He stated there is approximately $70, 000 in the Sidewalk Improvement Fund. We have reserved $20, 000 to $30, 000 for a joint project with the City of Des Moines per its 240th Street 2 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS May 13, 1992 TO: PUBLIC WORKS Cy�OMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM J W RE: BILL OF SALE - ROBINSON SEWER EXTENSION The owner of property at 94th and S. 232nd has completed the sanitary sewer extension required to service his property. We are recommending the improvements be accepted for operation and maintenance and that upon expiration of the one year maintenance period the cash bond be released. 8 VALLtY -i AV SJ ! C) VASHINGTON T2rn�y AV :m Al AV ' ^ .x 1AT ^ iOMP50N AV 72NO�U. ;Z �MFF[HU[ -AV I Io, '2-1 aal 1.1 N t i LINC UJ � _ 0 AV AHLWAUKff SAINT P U_L AND CHICAGO M AV O^ .. 1 -------_ —� ._. A L o S v N o �T� N ' - •G \ z D �DS� AV A 7ITN AV S♦ .y • ,._. - tiz $,z no.N 3. •< O 1M _♦' _ 7iSH•�p S ! Nold�a "'i.N -' N - AV' md7l�IN�,..�Ars — — _`' — - r LA - ln Ir •`y - N kn •NN m ISLE QVI N[ -i AOTN_=AVS a, IVy3N1Y0 N,. I- - luco m y - Iti W CENTRAL I AV .A TAT E - ^' .[_•.� i Ate_ V i n - Ni n T` .•,1r, ,I n cv.M[e[C>< N FOR rn ..z �JFi...... ���ST ' VALLY �. - ROAD) -. rs-, rn FS o CL ARK'AV o <a , tI 7N I _ Srr ' DJA ONIAV--- - n t n esr>.AV s S PROSP CT AV o HAZEL TiJ �c �tiS\----- y _ T11 A0 -- -. - _- ACD.RD .AV �� f_-- —-- � _ :te e-• 'i"'r� - rv2l'CL4SE�� Fit1 T,�QP���1��[ '�+- t:.1-• +:...�"` �7)v0'Av. N 11MM1T C1.^�'.S-AV St_1_ _ "E —to , PL I i 94.„ AV 5 u--_`>-; 9[TH' .94.„ •v 5 7 - ( IIIAM4TON RD, N— L J 1 IntwtU a 96TH AV J �J [ rai v r ��VSaT�I� N P � t "q?v llV---...^J 9gTN wv S AVs y t-;_ 79,T -AV 99_!i av S= tnTM H I I L -, t00- - _ ISJ '1: I v I ImJ1-� 01 :_X, IajR AV„V , I"-E ^. ..SE I z _ ' >S _, ,Vm[,'1srAtY SE /'� I' AV TI�II J.�1ry AVV SF yu,� N10JTR ?L/SEICt7r1THI'4ICSiN SE '^Cry- /IOS 1!1 PL SC VS [I -pV r 8 ' 1051H AV SE '� ( + CO 'AV.r� u V -• .�\`^ ^�081„ AV _ J iSOv qO IOSTN SC x L IOP i„ ` Tyr, ........ ...._..... ........ i D ... yF ... d . 108 T„'n .:: PL' SE '.�� v '�r m .r.L •T 1 £ I ..� n .r„ s c �a '1 �;• s - �A �/•.-. _(�jd t()B tll r: Pl S( ~ jr 1 •v p[ T1 _ r I10,„ Av SE3T. I1U T„ AV SEiTStt0,,. PtTQT I ' l- r11T11� m •.rr al$F !_V. Sr,,. •�_�, `: r� I11,27m SE1•-,�� VI/ 1 -- t � Kent City Council Meeting Date June 2 , 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION OF ABOVE GROUND TANK 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, accept as complete the contract with CECON Construction for the underground storage tank removal project and release of retainage after receipt of releases from the State. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and memorandum from Public Works Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (2-0 vote) Public Works Committee; Jim Bennett not in attendance (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3F DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS May 13, 1992 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM N RE: UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION OF ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK The contract for this project was awarded to CeCon Construction in September, 1991 for the bid amount of $61, 376 . 45. The project removed four underground fuel storage tanks (Linda Heights pump station, Meadow Hills pump station, Pump Station #4 and Pump Station #5) and replaced them with aboveground storage tanks. The contractor completed the project for the bid amount. It is recommended the project be accepted as complete and the retainage released after receipt of the releases from the State. Committee unanimously agreed to go forward with the Water Service Agreement. Bill of Sale - Robison Sewer Extension Wickstrom stated that this is an extension required for development and asked for acceptance of same. Committee unanimously agreed to accept the Robison Sewer Extension Bill of Sale. )0w- Underground Storage Tanks Wickstrom requested acceptance by the Committee, of the Public Works contract, which was completed for the exact bid amount. Committee unanimously agreed to accept the project as complete. Kent Circulator/Transit System Ed White explained that since the memo on this item was sent to the Public Works Committee, two things have happened. First, we have received a letter from METRO which relays information that Council members had requested. The other item is that Kevin O'Neil of the Planning Dept. and Ed White have met with Beverly Smith and Doug Johnson to discuss the regional transit project. As a result of those discussions, they relayed to us that part of the regional transit project was a funding package that was going to be addressed the next time the County votes on a bond issue that relates to this project. It is approximately $50 million dollars; roughly $18 million dollars will be devoted to enhanced Transit Service in the South County area. As such, the METRO long range Planning Section is involved with us in doing the initial scoping work to determine our needs. Ed said this is projected to happen whenever the bond issue passes. Jim White said he would ask the Mayor to form a Circulator Transit Advisory Group so we can have citizen input. White would like this done with a minimum of staff time, stating that he realizes staff has a lot of work to do in other areas. He feels that some of the downtown merchants are very interested in this. Committee unanimously agreed that citizen input be included into the Circulator Transit System. Sidewalk Improvement on West Smith Street West of SR 181 Wickstrom explained that the cost estimate on this item would be approximately $6, 000 - $10, 000 depending on what the project involves. He stated there is approximately $70, 000 in the Sidewalk Improvement Fund. We have reserved $20, 000 to $30, 000 for a joint project with the City of Des Moines per its 240th Street 2 v Kent City Council Meeting ' 1 Date June 2 . 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: VAN DOREN'S LANDING - SEGREGATION OF ASSESSMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, adoption of Resolution LILY_ segregating Assessment Numbers 45 and 46 in LID 327 and Resolution/ZLz_ segregating Assessment Numbers 6, 7 and 8 in LID 330 for the plat of Van Doren' s Landing. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (2-0 vote) Public Works Committee; Jim Bennett not in attendance (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: - Council Agenda Item No. 3G x OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: May 20, 1992 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: TOM BRUBAKER, Assistant City Attorney RE: Van Doren' s Landing--Segregation of Assessments When assessments were determined for LID" 327 and LID 330, the Van Doren's Landing development had only prepared a preliminary plat to indicate the final subdivision of the various properties within the development. Because these indications were only preliminary, the City assessed the larger development as a whole to determine assessment amounts for these LID' s. At this time, the final plat has been filed, and the City' s Property Manager has received a request to segregate assessment numbers 45 & 46 in LID 327 and assessment numbers 6, 7 , & 8 in LID 330. The Property Manager has determined that the developer' s request is in order. Therefore, we request the committee ' s approval to segregate the assessments and to authorize the City Attorney to prepare the necessary resolutions . improvement by Highline Community College. Wickstrom noted that we do have a covenant from the one property owner between the Kent Catholic Youth Service and West Valley Highway to build the sidewalk. Wickstrom expressed concern that by the City constructing this sidewalk as a result of a business request may set a precedent and other businesses will follow with similar requests. We have been installing sidewalks only in conjunction with road projects or where there is a school children walkway concern or as in the S. Willis area, where there was grant funding. Jim White stated he has no problem with staff 's recommendation of looking at an L. I.D. and if for some reason that doesn't work then we can proceed with other avenues. White' s understanding is that the Catholic Youth Service cannot obtain certain grants due to the lack of sidewalk access for handicaps. White agreed with staff ' s recommendation. Van Doren' s Landing L. I .D. Segregation At this time Brubaker brought forward an additional item concerning Van Doren' s Landing. He explained that at the time LID ' s 327 and 330 were created, they had only filed a preliminary plat. As a result, the actual division of the parcels were not determined so the larger parcels were assessed. They now have a final plat and they request segregation of the assessments to fit the individual lots. Brubaker requested authority to take the necessary steps to bring the resolution to Council. Committee unanimously agreed that resolution be brought to Council for the segregation of assessment. Further discussion followed regarding an assessment of sidewalks to see what is needed City wide. Ramos explained that he is assessing the sidewalk conditions determining replacement or repair. Ramos stated that this is part of the infrastructure of the downtown area, but it is also partly to implement the City' s response to the American Disabilities Act. In addition to that, he is also looking at areas which might allow bicycling. Jim White asked if Ramos is also looking at the area south of Willis and North Park as far as sidewalks. Ramos responded that he is just concentrating on the area formally designated as downtown. However the next step would be to expand to North Park and south of Willis. 3 i �i i i I i RESOLUTION NO. I, A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City ii of Kent, Washington, directing the Finance Director to segregate an assessment levied ii under L. I . D. 327 . WHEREAS, on February 24 , 1989, the City established assessment number 46 of Local Improvement District 327 ("LID 32711) in the amount of $167 , 249 . 03 ; and WHEREAS, Birtcher Frank Properties, the owner of record of the ,. property affected by assessment number 46, has requested segregation of assessment number 46; and WHEREAS, all clerical and engineering fees have been paid for the segregation as required by law, and the application being in +:'. all respects proper; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The original tract of assessment number 46 of LID 327, which is legally described in Addendum A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, shall have two parcels segregated from the original assessment tract, all in accordance with the application of Birtcher Frank Properties. Section 2 . The legal descriptions of the two segregated parcels are attached as Addenda B and C and incorporated herein by this reference. 1 { I' I i I Section 3 . The legal description of the remainder of the original tract of assessment number 46 is attached hereto a- ... Addendum D and incorporated herein by this reference. i Section 4 . The new assessment amount for the tract described in Addendum B shall be $29,972 . 64 ; the new assessment amount for { the tract described in Addendum C shall be $47, 283 . 33 . j I Section 5. The Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to segregate assessment number 46 according to the terms ; stated herein. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the city of !" Kent, Washington this day of , 1992 Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, Washington, ,Ithis day of 1992 it DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: i BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY SEGASST2.WPF i it 2 ilI �j it LID 327 - Assessment Parcel #46 (Tax Lot#142204-90 1 6) The northeast quarter of the southeast quarter (NE 1/4 SE 1/4) of Section 14, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; except the east 30 feet thereof conveyed to King County for Road by deed recorded under recording No. 602278; and except that portion thereof condemned for drainage ditch right-of-way in King County Superior Court Cause No. 32912; and except that portion thereof conveyed to King County Drainage District No. 1 by deed recorded under recording No. 4806961 ; and except that portion of said tract conveyed to the City of Kent by deed recorded under recording No. 9005080832. Containing an area of 1,652,337 square feet (37.93 acres) more or less. ADDENDUM A LID 327 - Proposed Assessment #46-1 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 BLOCK 2, VAN DOREN'S LANDING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 158 OF PLATS, PAGES 71 THROUGH 75 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4 IN SAID BLOCK 2 AND THE EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH, AS SAID AVENUE IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT; THENCE NORTH 000 52' 24" EAST 559.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 368.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00 ° 52' 24" WEST 435.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 52' 24" WEST 331.12 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 32912; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: THENCE NORTH 360 12' 57" EAST 164.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 02' 03" EAST 323.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 ; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 890 02' 03" EAST 33.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 52' 24" EAST 259.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89' 07' 36" EAST 35.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 52' 24" EAST 26.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 140 03' 18" EAST 55.00 FEET ALONG A RADIAL LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF LANDING WAY AS SAID WAY IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT AND THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 380.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHERLY 442.07 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 660 39' 17" TO A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE WHICH BEARS SOUTH 80' 42' 35" WEST; THENCE SOUTH 800 42' 35" WEST 56.00 FEET ALONG SAID RADIAL LINE; THENCE NORTH 891 07' 36" WEST 257.77 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE CONTAINS 295,147 SQUARE FEET (6.78 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS LOT B OF CITY OF KENT LL-92-5 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9204161373, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. The parcel described above contains a net usable area of 182,760 square feet (4.20 acres,) more or less. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BIRTCHER FRANK PROPERTIES VAN DOREN'S LANDING WILLIAM A. HICKOX, P.L.S. DECEMBER 19, 1991 REVISED DECEMBER 30, 1991 REVISED FEBRUARY 12, 1992 REVISED MARCH 20, 1991 REVISED MARCH 27, 1992 BRH JOB NO. 91269.02/SUR 53-B ADDENDUM B LID 327 - Proposed Assessment #46-2 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 3, 4, 5 AND 6, BLOCK 2, VAN DOREN'S LANDING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 158 OF PLATS, PAGES 71 THROUGH 75 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4 IN SAID BLOCK 2 AND THE EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH, AS SAID AVENUE IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT; THENCE NORTH 000 52' 24" EAST 559.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 368.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 52' 24" WEST 435.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 001 52' 24" WEST 331.12 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 361 12' 57" WEST 151.38 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH 890 02' 03" WEST 372.78 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO SAID EAST MARGIN OF.64TH AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 000 27' 19" WEST 330.36 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE CONTAINS 366,146 SQUARE FEET (8.41 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS LOT C OF CITY OF KENT LL-92-5 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9204161373, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. The parcel described above contains a net usable area of 288,313 square feet (6.62 acres,) more or less. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BIRTCHER FRANK PROPERTIES VAN DOREN'S LANDING WILLIAM A. HICKOX, P.L.S. DECEMBER 19, 1991 REVISED DECEMBER 30, 1991 REVISED FEBRUARY 12, 1992 BRH JOB NO. 91269.02/SUR 53-B ADDENDUM C LID 327 Remainder Description - Assessment Parcel #46 THE*NORTHEASTQUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4 SE 1/4) OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 602278; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED FOR DRAINAGE DITCH RIGHT-OF- WAY IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 32912; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4806961; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID TRACT CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF KENT BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9005080832. EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 BLOCK 2, VAN DOREN'S LANDING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 158 OF PLATS, PAGES 71 THROUGH 75 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4 IN SAID BLOCK 2 AND THE EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH, AS SAID AVENUE IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT; THENCE NORTH 001 52' 24" EAST 559.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 368.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00 ° 52' 24" WEST 435.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 52' 24" WEST 331.12 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDEMNED INKING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 32 ; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: THENCE NORTH 360 12' 57" EAST 164.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89' 02' 03" EAST 323.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 ; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89° 02' 03" EAST 33.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 52' 24" EAST 259.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 35.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 52' 24" EAST 26.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14° 03' 18" EAST 55.00 FEET ALONG A RADIAL LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF LANDING WAY AS SAID WAY IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT AND THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 380.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHERLY 442.07 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 660 39' 17" TO A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE WHICH BEARS SOUTH 80' 42' 35" WEST; THENCE SOUTH 800 42' 35" WEST 56.00 FEET ALONG SAID RADIAL LINE; THENCE NORTH 89' 07' 36" WEST 257.77 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, AND; THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 3, 4, 5 AND 6, BLOCK 2, VAN DOREN'S LANDING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 158 OF PLATS, PAGES 71 THROUGH 75 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ADDENDUM D 1 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4 IN SAID BLOCK 2 AND THE EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH, AS SAID AVENUE IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT; THENCE NORTH 000 52' 24" EAST 559.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 368.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 52' 24" WEST 435.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 52' 24" WEST 331.12 FEET TO THE _. SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 360 12' 57" WEST 151.38 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH 890 02, 03" WEST 372.78 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO SAID EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 000 27' 19" WEST 330.36 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. ADDENDUM D 2 k ; P RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, directing the Finance Director to segregate an assessment levied under L. I .D. 330. WHEREAS, on May 15, 1990, the City established assessment number 6 of Local Improvement District 330 ("LID 33011) in the amount of $869, 339 . 42 ; and WHEREAS, Birtcher Frank Properties, the owner of record of the property affected by assessment number 6, has requested segregation of assessment number 6; and WHEREAS, all clerical and engineering fees have been paid foY the segregation as required by law, and the application being in all respects proper; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The original tract of assessment number 6 of LID , 330, which is legally described in Addendum A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, shall have two parcels segregated from the original assessment tract, all in accordance with the application of Birtcher Frank Properties. Section 2 . The legal descriptions of the two segregated parcels are attached as Addenda B and C and incorporated herein by lthis reference. �I �i 1 l i i If I � Section 3 . The legal description of the remainder of the �ioriginal tract of assessment number 6 is attached hereto as ! Addendum D and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4 . The new assessment namount for the tract described lin Addendum B shall be $62, 686. 68 ; the new assessment amount for ;! the tract described in Addendum C shall be $98, 891. 36. Section 5. The Finance Director is hereby authorized and ;; directed to segregate assessment number 6 according to the terms stated herein. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington this • day of , 1992 Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of 1992 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ' ATTEST: ' BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: '; ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY ;i SEGASSES.NPF i 2 i ij it i � LID 330 - Assessment Parcel #6 (Tax Lot#1 42204-9 0 1 6) The northeast quarter of the southeast quarter (NE 1/4 SE 1/4) of Section 14, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; except the east 30 feet thereof conveyed to King County for Road by deed recorded under recording No. 602278; and except that portion thereof condemned for drainage ditch right-of-way in King County Superior Court Cause No. 32912; and except that portion thereof conveyed to King County Drainage District No. 1 by deed recorded under recording No. 4806961 ; and except that portion of said tract conveyed to the City of Kent by deed recorded under recording No. 9005080832. Containing an area of 1,652,337 square feet (37.93 acres) more or less. ADDENDUM A LID 330 - Proposed Assessment #6-1 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 BLOCK 2, VAN DOREN'S LANDING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 158 OF PLATS, PAGES 71 THROUGH 75 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4 IN SAID BLOCK 2 AND THE EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH, AS SAID AVENUE IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT; THENCE NORTH 00° 52' 24" EAST 559.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 368.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00 ° 52' 24" WEST 435.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 52' 24" WEST 331.12 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 32912; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: THENCE NORTH 360 12' 57" EAST 164.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89' 02' 03" EAST 323.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 ; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 890 02' 03" EAST 33.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00' 52' 24" EAST 259.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 35.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 52' 24" EAST 26.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 140 03' 18" EAST 55.00 FEET ALONG A RADIAL LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF LANDING WAY AS SAID WAY IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT AND THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 380.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHERLY 442.07 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 660 39' 17" TO A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE WHICH BEARS SOUTH 80' 42' 35" WEST; THENCE SOUTH 80' 42' 35" WEST 56.00 FEET ALONG SAID RADIAL LINE; THENCE NORTH 89' 07' 36" WEST 257.77 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE CONTAINS 295,147 SQUARE FEET (6.78 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS LOT B OF CITY OF KENT LL-92-5 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9204161373, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. The parcel described above contains a net usable area of 182,760 square feet (4.20 acres,) more or less. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BIRTCHER FRANK PROPERTIES VAN DOREN'S LANDING WILLIAM A. HICKOX, P.L.S. _ DECEMBER 19, 1991 REVISED DECEMBER 30, 1991 REVISED FEBRUARY 12, 1992 REVISED MARCH 20, 1991 REVISED MARCH 27, 1992 BRH JOB NO. 91269.02/SUR 53-8 ADDENDUM B LID 330 - Proposed Assessment #6-2 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 3, 4, 5 AND 6, BLOCK 2, VAN DOREN'S LANDING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 158 OF PLATS, PAGES 71 THROUGH 75 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4 IN SAID BLOCK 2 AND THE EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH, AS SAID AVENUE IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT; THENCE NORTH 000 52' 24" EAST 559.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 368.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 52' 24" WEST 435.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 52' 24" WEST 331.12 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 360 1.2' 57" WEST 151.38 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH 890 02' 03" WEST 372.78 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO SAID EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 000 27' 19" WEST 330.36 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE CONTAINS 366,146 SQUARE FEET (8.41 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS LOT C OF CITY OF KENT LL-92-5 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9204161373, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. The parcel described above contains a net usable area of 288,313 square feet (6.62 acre: more or less. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BIRTCHER FRANK PROPERTIES VAN DOREN'S LANDING WILLIAM A. HICKOX, P.L.S. DECEMBER 19, 1991 REVISED DECEMBER 30, 1991 REVISED FEBRUARY 12, 1992 BRH JOB NO. 91269.02/SUR 53-B ADDENDUM C LID 330 Remainder Description - Assessment Parcel 46 4n i THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4 SE 1/4) OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 602278; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED FOR DRAINAGE DITCH RIGHT-OF- WAY IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 32912; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4806961; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID TRACT CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF KENT BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9005080832. EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 BLOCK 2, VAN DOREN'S LANDING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 158 OF PLATS, PAGES 71 THROUGH 75 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4 IN SAID BLOCK 2 AND THE EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH, AS SAID AVENUE IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT; THENCE NORTH 00' 52' 24" EAST 559.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 368.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00 ° 52' 24" WEST 435.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89' 07' 36" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 52' 24" WEST 331.12 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 32912; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: THENCE NORTH 360 12' 57" EAST 164.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89' 02' 03" EAST 323.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 ; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89° 02' 03" EAST 33.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00' 52' 24" EAST 259.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89' 07' 36" EAST 35.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 52' 24" EAST 26.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 140 03' 18" EAST 55.00 FEET ALONG A RADIAL LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF LANDING WAY AS SAID WAY IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT AND THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 380.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHERLY 442.07 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 660 39' 17" TO A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE WHICH BEARS SOUTH 809 42' 35" WEST; THENCE SOUTH 80° 42' 35" WEST 56.00 FEET ALONG SAID RADIAL LINE; THENCE NORTH 890 07' 36" WEST 257.77 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, AND; THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 3, 4, 5 AND 6, BLOCK 2, VAN DOREN'S LANDING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 158 OF PLATS, PAGES 71 THROUGH 75 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ADDENDUM D 1 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4 IN SAID BLOCK 2 AND THE EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH, AS SAID AVENUE IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT; THENCE NORTH 000 52' 24" EAST 559.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 368.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 52' 24" WEST 435.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 07' 36" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 52' 24" WEST 331.12 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 36° 12' 57" WEST 151.38 FEET ALG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH 890 02' 03" WEST 372.78 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO SAID EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 00° 27' 19" WEST 330.36 FEET ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. ADDENDUM D 2 Kent City Council Meeting �+ Date June 2 , 1992 g Cateory Other Business 1. SUBJECT: PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TASK FORCE CULTURAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TIMELINE AND GOALS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City of Kent Performing Arts Center Task Force has established a Cultural Center Development Strategy Timeline and Goals. The Task Force requests City Council approval of the strategy and the expenditures of $50, 000 budgeted in the 1992 CIP to begin work on the project. 3 . EXHIBITS: Cultural Center Development Strategy Timeline and Cultural Center Development Strategy Goals 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee 2-0 (Houser not present) and City of Kent Performing Arts Center Task Force (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $50, 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1990 CIP Will require future funds as discussed in the Cultural Center Development Strategy 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve the Cultural Center Development Strategy and the expenditure of $50, 000 as budgeted in the 1992 CIP for the project. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4A V& CITY OF KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TASK FORCE CULTURAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ..-GOAL #1 : Get City Council commitment for the Shovel in 1996. STRATEGIES: • Council support and commitment is the number one goal of the cultural center project • Funding/Bonding capacity needed '93 - $500,000 '94 - 1 million '95 - 1 .5 million '96 - 3 million '97 - 4 million • Outline needs to City Council, update as needed to keep them informed, bring them "in" on the project • Continue to stress cultural center as high priority under "Downtown Revitalization" as a highly visible downtown enhancement • Talk to each Council person individually, continuously, show them how cultural center helps to meet City Council needs • Get vocal support from citizens, school district, Chamber of Commerce, arts organizations, etc. • Investigate special tax for the project • Budget for Task Force operational costs and support staff in 1993 and beyond CITY OF KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TASK FORCE CULTURAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY GOAL #2: Hire an architect to create the cultural center schematics designs and display. STRATEGIES: Establish Process • Assign committee to oversee process - use facility feasibility study as guide • Develop selection process and criteria for design competition (qualifications, RFQ, fees, quality, flexibility) • Spend $10,000, don't pay for preliminary designs • Have optional site/non-specific site design Do Process • Determine applicant pool and advertising sources • Make the announcement for design competition using RFQ, review applicants • Interview top 3 - 5 candidates based on ability, price, skill, reputation • Select architect, negotiate contract • Create design model, schematics, displays for presentation purposes Promote Process • The design will be the "theme" of the project, circulate model i community at every opportunity CITY OF KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TASK FORCE CULTURAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ....GOAL #3: Establish Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee made up of community leaders with representation from Kent City Council, King County Council, State Legislature, Kent Chamber of Commerce, major corporations, Kent school District, the Imperials and local arts organizations to raise funds. STRATEGIES: Establish Committee and Committee Goals • Establish a twenty member committee in 1992 • Determine role and structure of committee • Develop list of committee members, Mayor to head up committee and appoint members • Develop role of committee in cultural center awareness campaign • Create committee letterhead and other marketing tools • Involve a media person as a member of the committee CITY OF KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TASK FORCE CULTURAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY GOAL #4: Hire a fundraising group to work with Blue Ribbor Committee to raise project capital. STRATEGIES: Establish Process • Assign committee to oversee process - use feasibility study as a guide, review costs, develop selection process and criteria (qualifications, RFQ, experience) • Establish fundraising goals - private vs. public Do Process • Determine applicant pool and advertising sources, make announcement for fundraiser • Review applicants, interview top 3-5 candidates based on experience and past performance, price, reputation • Select fundraiser, negotiate fees, hire Promote Process • Develop campaign at all financial levels: -Government grants -Corporate donors/Private donors -Individual donors -Sell pieces of the theatre, e.g. seating, stage, tiles, etc. -Giving plan similar to the Channel 9 approach/pledge cards -GET THE MONEY! CITY OF KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TASK FORCE CULTURAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY GOAL #5: Raise public awareness to gain broad-based public support for the cultural center; passage of $10,000,000 bond issue in 1995. STRATEGIES: Establish a Committee to oversee project/select a chairperson • Create "theme" logo, slogans, etc. i.e. "Shovels and Picks in '96" • Survey community regarding their perceptions and to educate • Make community presentations, speeches, slide show, newsletters, blurbs in programs, publicize at arts event in South King County, involve services clubs, arts organizations, school PTA's, churches, clubs, Chamber of Commerce • Circulate cultural center display, designs, model, throughout Kent • Senior citizens, Imperials, school age children involved in contest to envision cultural center design CITY OF KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TASK FORCE CULTURAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY GOAL #5 Continued: STRATEGIES: • Media exposure at all possible times • School District involved due to need for after school youth programs • Present the cultural center as a reality Work with groups/individuals who oppose the cultural center to change attitudes 0 Be aware of public sensitivity regarding possible sites or other controversial subjects • Keep politicians informed on regular basis • Replace "Downtown Revitalization" with more positive "Downtown Enhancement" theme Involve merchants, service oriented businesses, etc. who will benefit from the project CITY OF KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TASK FORCE CULTURAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY GOAL #6: Secure major corporate commitment/donations to the project. STRATEGIES: • Hire professional fundraiser (see fundraiser goal) • Work with Blue Ribbon Committee - develop presentation/script, donor pool (ask Key Informants for names and entree) Get statements of support/endorsement from City, County, State, School District, Churches, Chamber of Commerce • Establish challenge program between like businesses, e.g. Real Estate companies challenge each other to raise stated goal • Get corporations to "own" the cultural center project (start with major employers and national corporations located in Kent) • Secure Foundation support CITY OF KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TASK FORCE CULTURAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY GOAL #7: Hire a project administrator experienced in planning anc: construction of theaters and cultural facilities. STRATEGIES: To Be Announced CITY OF KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TASK FORCE CULTURAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TIMELINE I. Establish 1993 Budget - May/June '92 a. Include Task Force Operating expenditures b. 1993-1997 Capital Development II. Goals Presentation - May/June '92 a. Parks Committee approval in May b. Kent City Council adoption in June III. Architect Process a. Process ready to start in October '92 b. Proposal deadline end of November '92 c. Hire architect in January '93 IV. Blue Ribbon Committee a. Select committee - September through December '92 b. Appoint in December '92 C. "Coming Out" Party and display design in January '93 CITY OF KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TASK FORCE CULTURAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TIMELINE V. Public Awareness a. Public announcement at Canterbury Faire Gala - August '92 b. Publicity Chair selected - May/June '92 C. "Coming out" party - January '93 d. Reception prior to Council meeting - January '93 e. Community relations - January '93 - ongoing • Data base - donors • Pledge cards • Marketing materials - logo, slide show, letterhead • Community presentations Vl. Fundraiser Process a. Process starts September/October '92 b. Hire in December '92 c. Begin fundraising process at "Coming out" party d. Raise 10 million by 1996 t Kent City Council Meeting Date June 2 , 1992 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: DONATION FROM KENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOUNDATION FOR CANTERBURY FAIRE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Kent Chamber of Commerce Foundation will contribute $5, 000 to th� Canterbury Faire in 1992 ,{ i 1 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee 2-0 Houser not resent (Committee, Staff, xaminer, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PE SONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL PERSONNEL NOT Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE RE UIR $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTIO . Councilmember moves, Councilmember -u���i seconds �— to accept a dona on in the amount of $5, 000 from the Kent Chamber of Commerce Foundation for Canterbury Faire. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4B Kent City Council Meeting Date June 2 , 1992 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: HEMLOCK ACRES NO. 19 FINAL PLAT NO. SU-88-4 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider an application for the Hemlock Acres No. 19 Final Plat No. SU-88-4 . The property is approximately 3 . 66 acres in size and is located along the east side of 112th Ave. S.E. , approximately 650 feet north of S.E. 240th Street. All conditions of the preliminary plat have been met. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, map and City Council minutes of February 7, 1989 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commissio , etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IO2ACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS, t, 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1!' Councilmember 1 L1_moves, Councilmember w seconds to approve the staff's recommended approval of''Llock Acres No. 19 Final Plat No. SU-88-4 DISCUSSION: ACTION• wJy\ C, Council Agenda Item No. 4CJC CITY OF L"L� CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 �Ta�nc Pay MEMORANDUM June 2 , 1992 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: HEMLOCK ACRES NO. 19 FINAL PLAT #SU-88-4 On February 7 , 1989, the City Council approved the Hemlock Acres No. 19 Priliminary Subdivison No. SU-88-4 , a 14-lot single family residential plat. The site is approximately 3 . 66 acres in size and is located along along the east side of 112th Avenue SE, approximately 650 feet north of SE 240 Street. The property is zoned R1-7 . 2 . Twelve conditions were part of the Council ' s approval. The applicant has now complied with these conditions as listed below: A. Prior to Recordation of Plat: 1. The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that all residential structures proposed to be built on subject lots must conform to the solar access setback regulations of the Zoning Code. 2 . Deed to the City the property necessary to provide a half street right of way width of 30 feet, for the entire frontage of 112th Ave SE, as measured from the north-south centerline of Section 17 Township 22 Range 5E W.M. 3 . Execute a signal participation agreement for the future construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of 112th Ave. SE and SE 240th St. 4 . Provide a minimum 10 foot pedestrian easement for a pedestrian walkway through one or more of the easternmost lots of the proposed plat linking the SE 238th Place sidewalks with the property immediately east of the subject property. B. Obtain City approval of detailed engineering drawings the following improvements and either construct or bond for same: 1. Fully develop SE 238th Place as shown on the preliminary plat with a minimum pavement width of 28 feet (as measured from the curb face) , curb and Hemlock Acres No. 19 #SU-88-4 June 2, 1992 Page 2 gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage facilities, underground utilities, street signs, and related appurtenances. The improved radius to face of curb to the proposed cul-de-sac shall be 45 feet, and the improved radius of the curb return at the junction with 112th Avenue shall be 25 feet. Deed to the City the necessary right of way for these improvements. 2 . Provide on-site storm water detention in accordance with City Drainage Code. 3 . Provide pedestrian walkway as noted in item A4 above. 4 . Extend City water to provide adequate domestic and fire flow for all lots. A minimum 6-inch main size is required. 5. Extend gravity sanitary sewer to service all lots within the plat. The sewer extension shall extend to the north property line of the property. 6. Provide on-site and off-site storm drainage facilities adequately sized to convey storm water for a 25-year six-hour design storm improvement project. 7. Reconstruct and widen 112th Avenue SE for the entire frontage thereon with asphalt pavement 18 feet wide as measured from the north-south centerline of Section 17, Township 22 , Range 5 or centerline of existing pavement whichever provides the widest road section, drainage system, curb and gutter, street lighting, cement sidewalk and other related appurtenances. 8. Furnish and install all street name signs and stop signs as may be determined necessary by the City. JPH/mp:c: su884fp.mem February 7 , 1989 SUBDIVISION Commission. He also noted that the issue is not CODE time tensitive. WHITE MOVED to hold this item for two w ks e , during which time Mr. Morford could talk with %Satterstrom to be sure his concerns are addresse �--_sHouser seconded and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F) SUBDIVISION Canterbury Pre 'mina Subdivision SU-88-5. AUTHORIZATION to set February.,421, 1989 as a public meeting to consid6K the Hear"ing Examiner's recommendation of coqn, ditional approval of a 20 lot single family residehti"al preliminary subdivision located on the northeast corner of proposed 100th Ave. S.E. and S .E.. 248th.1St. Hemlock Acres No 17 Preliminary Subdivision #SU-88- 3. This public meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner' s/recommendation of conditional approval of a 17 lot/single-family residential preliminary subdivision located on the north side of S.E. 240th St. approximately 300 ft. west of 116th Ave. S.E. Carol Proud of the Planning Department described the area. WOODS MOVED to adopt the findings of the /Hearing Examiner and to concur with the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of conditional approval of the Hemlock Acres #17 Preliminary Subdivision. White seconded and the motion carried. Hemlock Acres No 19 Preliminary Subdivision #SU-88- 4. This public meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of conditional approval of 1 a 14 lot single-family residential preliminary f subdivision located along the east side of 112th i Ave. S .E. , approximately 650 feet north of S . E. 240th St. Kathy McClung of the Planning Department clarified for White that this project will include widening 112th Ave. S .E. WOODS MOVED to adopt the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to concur with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval of the Hemlock Acres #19 Preliminary +, Subdivision. Biteman seconded and the motion carried. 6 - .. / :ORNER MON IN CASE 2/10/89 C) n D m m J 12TH AVE SE v1 825.72' N 00'02'07" W N N 193.56' p 10 � p I �0 1, z 113.38' 0 0 U D m C m rO N C V ZO zz z N 00'02'07" W i s 143.51' :a.: F m o Cn m o p a. O r J N fTl p a u • o m a N 00'02'07" W N 1I 143.48' m 0 A r J 25 I 25 V N O p p O O /l N 00*02*07" W o .� 0 143.44' m a oC) D qu " e 0 o N J D O - n m o n N o A o I-4 m N F N 00102'07" W 143.40' N 00'02'07' W 135.00' wm m � z br J D m O ar m .6 N WQ O ^ O OO O O F N 00'02'07" W - a s' - (9 S 00'02'07" E (Tl 142.37 / N � a a s m z w m 135.00' m O o f - m r- m W m m -I V U a O 00 N o u N !8. ? �• u W m g5'21„ S 11'19'26 E m Z _ N 118.g4 m A N O W O J U1 Z N� O O F N 0b Uo f4 W cn M � a .o !3/ V .J0. in m C m s u z J o n J rn m m 0 p OG Jo o a m �2�c'm• p O co U a ti� O O p I IU -i (P -1 J ,ZA f u QI ni V' V A m J' W N ... U O L U m - O m m 1 z m 28.39' 112.30' 110.50' 68.54' -1 S 0,00,01" W 319.73' 10' PEDESTRIAN ESMT CENTERED ON LOT LINE PER THE 3/\V�,,,r H19 L L KENT PLANNING DEPT.' REQUIREMENT Kent City Council Meeting Date June 2 . 1992 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: GARRISON HEIGHTS FINAL PLAT NO. SU-89-7 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider an application for the Garrison Heights Final Plat No. SU-89-7. The property is approximately 8. 6 acres in size and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection at So. 213th Place and 94th Place So. All conditions of the preliminary plat have been met. i i 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, map and City Council minutes of April 3, 1990 r 4 . RECOMMENDED BY:\ Hearing Examiner (Committee, S aff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL ERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL PERSONNEL N TE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember 1 „ti moves, Councilmember '� seconds to approve the staff's recommended approval for Garrison Heights Final Plat No. SU-89-7. DISCUSSION: {^�` ACTION: Council Age la Item No. 4D CITY Of ��� CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 aFy��r� MEMORANDUM June 2 , 1992 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GARRISON HEIGHTS FINAL PLAT SU-89-7 On April 31 1990 the City Council approved the Garrison Heights Preliminary Subdivison No. SU-89-71 a 23-lot single family residential plat. The site is approximately 8 . 66 acres in size and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of S. 213th Place and 94th Place S. The property is zoned R1-12 . Nine conditions were part of the Council ' s approval. The applicant has now complied with these conditions as listed below: A. Prior to recordation of the final plat: 1. Provide detailed engineering drawings and bond for or construct the following: a. gravity sanitary sewer facilities to service all lots and any adjacent properties not presently served; b. public water to all lots in a manner which meets domestic and fire flow requirements (water must be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District) ; C. on site storm drainage facilities to drain all roadways and lots (including off-site tributary areas) which shall be constructed to incorporate detention as well as biofiltration and oil/water separation (a minimum 200 foot long biofiltration swale with maximum 3 to 1 side slopes will be required) ; d. street improvements within the plat up to residential standards including asphalt pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage, street lighting, street name signs underground utilities and related appurtenances (S. 214th Place and 95th Avenue S. shall be 32 feet curb-to-curb and 95th Place S. shall be a minimum 28 feet curb-to-curb) . Garrison Heights Final Plat #SU-89-7 June 2, 1992 Page 2 2 . The applicant shall identify the exact location of the three percent wildlife/open space easement- on the final mylar as proposed on Exhibit 3 and shall include a notation indicating it is a non-buildable area and that natural vegetation is to be retained. A minimum of two informational signs shall also be posted within the open space area stating that the surrounding area is an open space area so that no vegetation should be removed. 3 . The applicant shall identify building sites on the final plat that meet the siting criteria specified in the Kent Zoning Code including solar access and view regulations. B. Prior to the approval of a grade and fill permit, the applicant must identify on the submitted tree plan all trees to be retained on the property. This shall be done with the review and approval of the Planning Department. C. The sprinklering of all structures is required in order to assure that adequate fire protection can be provided in view of the fact that the access road to the site exceeds a 12 percent grade. JPH/mp:c:su897 . fp N 00'59'25' E 94TH PL. SN 00'59'25' E n 25FO7 o� m o 0 a S 00'5 9'25' W 0 00'S9'25� o 0 n 0 120.13' 75.93' e o 80.69' .' m u r 0.00'30.00 o r U m O ti N y Imn u 'Irp �J6,il-r� m m $u In o u N J0 9'2' 5 E m e m I E0 9 17 147.09 m 0 n O.00m N i C° F is CZN o n •a _ � u w-01 m 5 00"58.11- W(g) 94TH59,CT. S. N u v �N 00"59'25' E~ v 128.23' ,a 88.22 119.65 ^ o m P oy n y e 30.12 N 00'59'25' E 159.02' 7D.19' 85.83'/ ro 0.00 4 -p1 '^ N O o mo °°• o,p - U z m N 00'59'25' E m ;' O N -' -� 104.85' u G7 (n `I •�/ o N 00'13'311' E •I -� m 9 S 1-1 7 -i S OOl3'34' V/ 121.01 m = D m ly ems• .° `�J. Y '' 16Z82' u N l m m Z S 130 O U (— N_ ,P A 14 p . 0.00'36.00' 791J•h• m U N [� N N > 1 �' S 00'59'25' W 1 5<.66' 104.67' Iu 97.27' n 104.85 N m u0 H N o .N Io � � N m� 95TH PL. S. J. m r �] o s o0'S7'25• w 314.69' o + N U70 zi Z 1 v 49.35' _ 79.24' 91.24' Ing N m iz z u o c m U ON m N O. O S m m I• b O J 4 4 O O O O N v O U A C5 lY,bs• t...., j;l 2 cn z �r m 4Nr mu Jp� 40u**r�N N.v I 4°/Ljbo.':/'V3Ni•'IN�ii.j..1 m�J �f2�O_ FAv O� .0 mp a u: N F Jg pJo uO r � m 64.32' / 114.41' scie 7M4' .\\7V W \ \ N8.01 131.57• S 00'57'25* W S 00-57'25" W 659.0' \ 1 1977.20' 268.80'i \ \ o 0 0 m o r< xH ou o 0 0 00 ue D V m U'p V O 0 Ui F +nl -I(lZZ 0 0 Oi O mm r1 U y vy m Zu m U I F A u D I m m Z n!•1 �1 O U v I n >•F7C >••-_ 'm 9 czi F 7A 6 µ N m 1 4 0 zn m Om y�Tm A,Z 0 ooa m N m April 3 , 1990 would answer his PRELIMINARY shown on page 8 of the Staff apt of EPA conditions of SUBDIVISION concerns and that these were p the final Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance. the City Gill stated that the Miles t would inspect 5 complaint truck. There about material spilled by s and the motion carried unanimously. no further comment HUMAN SERVICES - ITEM 3M) _ HORIZATION to Admini trative Polic for In - endorse ',the white paper entit ed "Ci ' s Ro uman '1990) nd to direct t Services' (dated March 15, u ish guidelines for Human Se ices Commission o P requests. use of Cit staff in respo din to such POLICE (ADDED TEM) r (OTHER B INE S - ITEM ) Southwood ` a e. Ms. nne Gonder, representing e rApartments group Of la .i from outhwood Square referred to a tter • they had sent to the Mayor regarding cont'in ng iolence against them by a male City Attorney Driscoll stated tenant of the com that the matter ha en investigated and no facts as stated would war ' n iling criminal charges. Chief Frederiksen sta d,.t a the investigating officers did ial not find prob le aus at the time of the outlthat complaint on anua is a further pointed arrests coul no l, nger e m e because of the use of ies remain profanity. he Ma. or sug ste that the Hedalso noted to speak w' h sta f after he me r n er action on the that this is HUD housing a d imp part of tenant could re su t in evi tion. (BIDS ITEM 5C , The Police Department Bids n Forfei 'ed Property.`� soli ted mini um bids on two' ar pr isions of statef real tlaw sei d and fo feited undeused or manufacture or per aining toj property distribution f controlled substa ces. The Chief of the highe t bids as follows: Police recomm rids award of 1, 4 . 84 ac es of unimproved propert in Enumclaw to _ 6, 552 .00. William G. and Lois Burleson at $ 2 ence at 27637 18 Kent gto Thomas r Rid and Warwick D. tTomfehr Eat $195119 . 00 . 6 \'C V" L, ? Kent City Council Meeting Y _ Date June 2 , 1992 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENTS NO. SMP-90-1 AND NO. SMP-91-1 (FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 18) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the recommended adoption of the Shoreline Master Program Amendments (SMP-90-1 and SMP-91-1) as recommended by the Planning Committee and as now approved by the Department of Ecology. These items were approved by the City Council at their June 4 and September 3 , 1991 Council meeting by Resolution No. 1295 and Resolution No. 1283 , but needed to also be approved by the Department of Ecology. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, Department of Ecology Amendments, City Council minutes of June 4 and September 17 , 1991. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (3-0) (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:A / Councilmember_ L'1/ moves, Councilmember R �seconds to adopt the Shoreline Master Program Amendments No. SMP-90-1 and No. SMP-91-1 which have been approved by the Department of Ecology, as recommended by the Planning Committee, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION:' ACTION:- Council Agenyia Item No. 4E CITY OF �L0 J1 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 V7UC,T§, MEMORANDUM _ June 2 , 1992 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ORDINANCE TO ADOPT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENTS JSMP-90-1 AND ISMP-91-1 (FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 18) On May 21, 1991, the City Council set forth a resolution of intent to adopt certain amendments to the Kent Shoreline Master Program. On September 3 , 1991, the Council also adopted a resolution amending the shoreline environment designation to lot 18 of the Foster Industrial Park. Both sets of amendments have been reviewed by the Department of Ecology, which must approve and adopt all amendments to the City' s shoreline master program. The Department of Ecology is proposing to adopt the amendments on June 16, 1992 , with the addition of certain revisions (attached to this memorandum) . The final amendments to be approved by the D.O.E. Deputy Director are substantially the same as those reviewed and approved by the City Council last year. The City Council Planning Committee reviewed the proposed Department of Ecology amendments at their May 19, 1992 meeting, and voted to forward them to the full council for approval. JPH/AW/mjp:a:smpord. cc: Ann Watanabe [Deletions from original shoreline program amendments are indicated by strikeouts; additions are underlined. All other language is unchanged from amendments approved by City Council on May 21, 1991. 1 2 .0 DEFINITIONS ACCESSORY USE. Any structure or use incidental and subordinate to a primary use or development. ACT. The Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90. 58 RCW. ADMINISTRATOR. The Kent Planning Director, or his/her designee. AGRICULTURE. The use of land for agriculture purposes, including farming, dairying, pasturage, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, apiaries, and animal and poultry husbandry, and the necessary accessory uses for storing produce; provided, however, that the operation of any such accessory use shall be incidental to that of normal agricultural activities and provided further that the above uses shall not include the commercial feeding of garbage or refuse to swine or other animals. AQUACULTURE. The culture or farming of aquatic animals and plants. AVERAGE GRADE LEVEL The average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the lotr parcel , or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed buildinct or structure: Provided that in the case of structures to be built over water, average rade level shall be the elevation of ordinary high water. BUILDING. Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls used or intended to be used for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property of any kind. BT 1LE)ING j!EIGHT The tA l Flj:stanee f the "Grade" Ca the the deek the line FO e J BUILDING SETBACK LINE. Unless otherwise indicated within this Program, the line which establishes the limits of all buildings and impervious surfaces along the shoreline. CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT. Enlargement of a natural stream's discharge capacity by means of straightening, making "cutoffs" , cleaning vegetation, widening, or deepening, and thereby decreasing flood stages. 2-I whic CIRCULATION. Those means of transportation along cacorridor. rry passengers or goods to, from, over, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. Commercial developments are those uses which are involved in wholesale and retail trade or business activities. - are i �bL cc y t f ,a n a r i s te tiege :ieral - bl CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT. A designation for areas with valuable natural, cultural, or historical resources (see section 3) . CONDITIONAL USE. A use, development, or substantial development which is classified as a conditional use or is not classified within the shoreline master program. CORRIDOR. A circulation right-of-way and the area immediately adjacent to it. DEVELOPMENT. A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any other project of a permanent or temporary nature which e of with us ic waterseres overlyingthe landsrmal subjectlto the Actthe at anyface statefofhe water level. DIKE. An embankment to prevent flooding by a stream or other waterbody. DOCK. A fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water. DREDGING. The removal of earth from the bottom or banks of a body of water for the purpose of deepening a navigational channel, obtaining bottom materials, or for flood control . ELEMENTS. Major aspects of land and water use for which goals are written as part of a Shoreline Master Program. ENVIRONMENTS. Designations given specific shoreline areas based on the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities and limitations, and the goals and aspirations of local citizenry, as part of a Master Program. EXCAVATE. To remove earth material mechanically. EARTH MATERIAL. Any rock, natural soil or fill, and/or any combination thereof. � �L ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. A development which provides a service, produces a good, retails a commodity, or engages in any other use or activity for the purpose of making financial gain. FLOOD CONTROL. Any undertaking for the conveyance,. control, and dispersal of flood waters caused by abnormally high direct precipitation or stream overflow. FLOODPLAIN. d } a , jiiundatien a r_t c-4 ..n s}- en . A term synonymous with the one hundredyear floodplain meaning that land area susceptible to being inundated bV stream derived waters with a one ercent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The limit of this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method which meets the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act. _ G. rnl. l } } F elevatien f the finisj_ed qurfaee Pf RADE- er } } feet distant frem said ', between the F is less tizan five feet dista­ -rem spid wall - lie sidewalle, e -er shall the , t-, 1. than t ural that .. #19P —t-h�rade shall. be } GROIN. A barrier-type structure extending from the backshore into the water across the beach. The purpose of a groin is to interrupt sediment movement along the shore. } GTgjqET=jjiEs . These standards EidePt-e�� the pel-iey­f-� slate eriteria in a , . HEARING EXAMINER (Land Use) . A person appointed by the City Administrator to conduct public hearings on applications outlined in the City ordinance creating the Hearing Examiner, and who prepares a record, findings of fact and conclusions on such applications. LANDFILL. The ereatien ef dry—apland area by the wetland . The placement of soil sand rock gravel or other material to create new land along the shoreline below the OHWM or on upland areas in order to raise the elevation. LANDSCAPING. Vegetative ground cover including shrubs, trees, . flower beds, grass, ivy and other similar plants OPEN SPACE. A land area allowing view, use or passage which is almost entirely unobstructed by buildings, paved areas, or other man-made structures. ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK. "Ordinary high water mark" on all lakes, streams, and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation; as that condition exists on June 1, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter: PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide,and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water. (RCW 90. 58 . 030 (2) (b) ) . OVER-WATER STRUCTURE. Any structure projecting over the ordinary high water mark. ef the G een River— 5. 0 GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS General performance standards apply to all activities and uses within the shoreline. These standards carry out the policies expressed in the Elements of the Kent Shoreline Master Program and the policies found in the Shoreline Management Act. Shorelines of State-wide Significance The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated certain shoreline areas as shorelines of state-wide significance. These are shorelines which benefit all people in the state, and therefore, preference is to be given to uses which favor public and long-range goals. Within Kent, the Green River and its associated wetlands are considered a shoreline of state-wide significance. RCW 90. 58 . 020 requires that local governments, in developing master programs for shorelines of state-wide significance, give preference to ' jeh, the following uses in the descending order of preference: 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest. 2 . Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. 3 . . Result in long-term over short-term benefit. 4 . Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. 5. Increase public access to publicly owned_ areas of the shorelines. 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline. The following development guidelines shall be applied to proposals in shorelines of statewide significance, in addition to any other applicable performance standards in this Program: Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest 1. Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals representing state-wide interests. by circulating proposed master program amendments and uses for review and comment by state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions ' citizen advisory committees, and state-wide interest groups. 2 . Recognize and take into account state agencies ' policies, programs and recommendations in developing and administering use regulations. 3 . Solicit comments, opinions and advice from individuals with expertise in ecology, oceanography, geology, limnology, aquaculture �-I Environmentally Sensitive Areas 1. Development in or adversely affecting unique and fragile areas is prohibited, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the values and functions of the areas will increase as a result of the development. The Administrator may require that any mitigation measures associated with such development be fuiiy implemented prior to development. 2 . Development located in or that adversely affects sensitive areas, including marshes, bogs, swamps, fish and wildlife habitats, migratory routes, spawning areas, scenic vistas, and unstable bluffs shall be avoided or minimized. 3 . When a development site encompasses environmentally sensitive areas, these features shall be left intact and maintained as open sace or buffers. All elopment shall e set ack hese areas to prevent hazardous conditionsb b c nditi ns and propertydamage,oastwell as to protect valuable shore features. Marshes Boas and Swamps The following standards shall apply to all marshes, bogs and swamps within the jurisdiction of the Kent Shoreline Master Program. For purposes of this section only, the terms "wetland" and 'wetlands" refer to marshes, bogs and swamps. 1. Wetlands within the jurisdiction of the Kent Shoreline Master Program are resources of local and state-wide significance. These wetlands shall be mapped and shall be considered for designation as Conservancy lands. 2 . City staff shall consider the impacts of shoreline development on wetlands. 4 . Adverse impacts to wetlands shall be avoided, unless it can be shown that the impact is both unavoidable and necessary. 5. Where adverse impacts to wetlands are unavoidable and o necessary, the impacts sheul shall be minimized by appropriate mitigation and monitoring. The goal of mitigation is to .ensure no overall net loss of wetland functions, values, types and acreage. Mitigation sherd shall achieve adequate replacement ratios, taking into consideration the unproven nature of enhancement and replacement technologies, and the possibility that the benefits Of mitigation may not be immediately available. As a guide, City staff should consider the replacement ratios suggested by the Department of Ecology' s Model Wetlands Ordinance (September 1990) . 6 . Any proposed mitigation or enhancement sheula shall: (1) be contiguous with the affected or altered wetland, unless this would result in a lower replacement ratio of types, functions, values and acreage; and (2) in general , avoid the use of unique and fragile 5 � S areas, sherelineST agricultural lands or any other protected areas for mitigation. 7. Where there are wetlands on the site of a proposed development, the Administrator shall require the following: a. a wetlands report prepared at the applicant's expense by a consultant chosen from the City' s list of qualified wetlands consultants or otherwise approved by the Administrator. b. The report shall include the following: 1. A description of the methodology used to conduct the study; 2 . A delineation of any wetlands, including wetland edges, on the site, using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, 1989 {teens F i sit- arelap E�u Y , u Y Y lie Y • r L L _7 \ 3 . An identification of the functions, values and types of wetlands on site, and a description of how they relate to wetlands off-site; 4 . A classification of the wetland according to the rating categories described in the King County Wetlands Inventory, 1983 ; 5. An assessment of the proposal ' s potential impacts on the functions and values of the wetlands; and 6. A mitigation -plan, if construction in the wetland or any other impacts or alterations to the wetland are proposed. The plan must identify whether avoidance of the wetland is possible; whether filling is proposed; the replacement ratio; and the specific mitigation and monitoring measures proposed. b C. In addition to mapping the wetlands and edges, the edges shall be marked in the field. e d. Upon receipt and verification of the report by City the staff and/or the Department of Ecology, City staff shall reviewgoals report and the proposed mitigation plan against the City's g and policies referenced and the general guidelines in Section Fi 7 above. The following buffer and setback areas are recommended, unless alternative buffers and setbacks will, in the opinion of the Shoreline Administrator, provide an equivalent level of protection for wetlands: 1. Class 1 wetlands - 100-foot undisturbed buffer of native vegetation; 2 . Class 2 wetlands - 50-foot undisturbed buffer of native vegetation; 3 . Class 3 wetlands - 25-foot undisturbed buffer of native vegetation. For all classes of wetlands, a minimum setback 1 n ea of o15 other feet she,aid shall be required from any road, parking and , the edge of the wetland buffer. Other impervious surface, rse impacton the . activities that may have an adve the use of pesticides prohibited in the setback area, for example, or fertilizers. 8 . The Shoreline Administrator shall condition shoreline permits in accordance with the results of the process outlined above. } t ' All projects which adversely affect wetlands shall require a conditional use permit. 9 . Implementation of mitigation plans . City staff shall take any steps necessary to ensure that mitigation plans are fully implemented. Such steps may include, but are not limited to: a. Requiring a cash mitigation bond to be posted by the applicant or other adequate security that will ensure implementation of the mitigation plan; b. Ensuring that the approved mitigation plan and bond are eiin place prior. to any construction plan approval (that City filling and grading permits, engineering plans, etc• ) lan is staff should also ensure that the mitigation plan example, implemented prior to final project approval issuing the Certificate of occupancy, final plan approval, etc. ) ; c. Ensuring that there is adequate inspection and monitoring of the mitigation both during and after the construction phase; d. Utilizing all available authority to ensure the long-term success of the proposed mitigation, including enforcement or other legal action as necessary; and e. Any other appropriate measures . MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM ) A roval of Minutes. A roval of the minutes of th regular Council m ting of September 31 1991 . STREETS (CONS T CALENDAR ITEM 3F) - VMS Ve icle Mon' orin System) U rade. AUTHORIZA ON r the Mayor to sign a WSDOT grant application funding the upgrade of the Vehicle Monitoring S em and to establish the budget for monies rec ved om said grant, as recommended by the Publi Works mittee and approved by IBC and Operatio s Committee. SHORELINE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) MASTER Amendment to Kent Shoreline Master Program for PROGRAM Foster Industrial Park. ADOPTION of Resolution 1295 expressing the City ' s intention to adopt a proposed amendment to the Kent Shoreline Master Program and to forward the same to the State Department of Ecology. The City Council, at its September 3 , 1991 Council meeting, considered proposed amendments to the Kent Shoreline Master Program as recommended by the Kent Planning Commission to amend the Kent Shoreline Master Program by changing an existing conservancy shoreline environment to an urban environment for Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18 No. SMP-91-1, and further directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution declaring its intent to adopt the amendments as proposed by the Planning Commission and to forward the same to the State Department of Ecology for review and approval . MOBILE HOME (CO SENT CALENDAR - TEM 3D) PARK CODE Mobi e Home Park C de Amendments. AUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS to se October 1, 1991 as the date for a public hearin to cons ' er amendments to Mobile Home Park Code. PLATS (CONSENT L DAR - ITEM 3G) Correction a Recorded Plat. ADOPTION of Ordinance N 3002 correcting the recorded plat of Walker' s re as recommended by the Public Works Committe . Short S bdivision f Walker ' s Acres was approved subjec to certain nditions, some of which were to ap ear on the face f the plat. A plat con- form ' g to the conditio al approval was submitted to t e King County Audit for recording, but it 2 June 4 , 1991 Y PUBLIC half is to be paid by a ULID within the area and WORKS the other half by the storm drainage uti ity over a three year period. Upon Dow/id tion, he noted that the drainage utilit on impervious surfaces and that t currently approximately $2 . 50 a month. at the ncrease during the first yearabout 76 c nts. He noted for Johnsontoject in Ludes 36 . 5 acres for deten ion facilities and 15 . acres for pretreatment onds, and that the pretr atment ponds could be expanded. He noted for Do 11 that the origi 1 lagoon was on 65 acres an that the final roject will be 101 acres. Dowell asked hether e wetlands facility and construction o 64th venue South could be done at the same time, a not to disrupt wildlife twice. Carol Sto r of the Environmental Committee explain that the pump dredge must be done in the wint r, nd construction on 64th Avenue must be one d ing the spring and summer. She said that opefully the buffer will be in place when r ad construc " on begins so that the disruption " s only one sea n. WHITE MOV D that the final rep t on the Combined Storm W er Detention/Enhanced We land Facility be accept and the Mayor be authorize to sign same for t nsmittal to the Department of colog . de- Wood seconded. White noted that this of mon rates that the environmental communi and th development community can work well to ther. T e motion carried. SHORELINE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) MASTER Shoreline Master Pro ram Amendments. ADOPTION of PROGRAM Resolution 1283 approving the Shoreline Master AMENDMENTS Program Amendments as discussed at the City Coun- cil meeting on May 21. S OR (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM ed that this HOUS Senior Housin Pro The Mayor not item consists hree parts: I. Au tion to enter into a preliminary eement betw the Bellewood Corporation and the City of Kent for velopment of the Senior 3 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 2 , 1992 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PLAN ZONING PROGRAM NO. ZCA-90-6 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Planning Commission's recommended approval of Downtown Plan Zoning Program. The proposal recommends establishing three 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 on February 24, 1992 . Two City Council workshops were held on March 30 and May 19, 1992 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, revised Downtown Plan Zoning Program, proposed downtown zoning map, and the Planning Commission minutes of 2/24/92 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALLPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember %,/VV moves, Councilmember �� seconds to approve the proposed Downtown Plan Zoning Program (ZCA-90-6) establishing three new zoning districts, outlining new development standards for the downtown area, recommending a design review process for new downtown development and modifying parking requirements, sidewalk design anc pedestrian corridors, as recommended by the Plannir .,. and directing the City Attorney to prepare the nece ordinance. DISCUSSION: ACTION: fe w� C I' CITY OF �L� CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 iaII�R� MEMORANDUM June 2, 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 DCE 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. Revised Downtown Plan Zoning Program #ZCA-90-6 June 2, 1992 Page two 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. The Council held two workshops to review the Planning Commission' s recommendation. These workshops were held on March 30 and May 19. At the March 30 workshop, the City Council discussed parking, zoning district boundaries and permitted uses. Staff responded to these concerns at the May 19th workshop. This material plus that on the overall downtown zoning process is available for your view in the City Council Conference room. JPH/mp:kon:dtzoncov.cc cc: Kevin O'Neill CITY OF KENT REVISED DOWNTOWN PLAN ZONING PROGRAM Kent Administration and Planning Departments February, 1992 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 IL 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 1. 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 P►anning 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 (131-7.2) 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 W.JAMES ST.4 W.JAMES ST. °Q lF Io op °o q p°a0 MRM a a,qo ; i ' --G r' I R1 -7.2 ; } M 2 r I a 0 w o _ 9 °a La ono p -o �`J J!�I G c n_ n D w lL 11I11 I\ti t 'C7,CC _p o r — Fj Jc - }' SMITH. ST. - Ld ui I I =r e [[[ f=- Jr-- J l7 C r]�rn�tC �, ■ o a , ■��DC-1e oe ia� scni2: DC-2 _ SHE ENER I L II ❑ I O m�0 t"a 500 feet n �I go r J I a a fF sjcI 0 eio-1 I' C 7, � - 6 C cc 9 C pow a° m () � � �� a � I U o lUl � o ; ^� G 9 1�I, J OFCo .II.II I' S < ` n I■ I tIU 1SJS oninW Eaaienation, TAUS !1 0 r� t� LJ ❑o a d f❑ 0 f'� CM Commercial Manufacturing °❑ 6 D C m i c p 81 � DC-1 - Downtown Commercial i �f p e0 J D C-2 i ry o O DC 2 Downtown Commerciel 2 C R UI L o y0 4 D 0 p Q AL.p1NE GC General Commerciel ❑ 4� °� F,, [J of U g �O ❑p°a0 D (__r' M2 - Limited lnd.etriel W. WILLIS ST. MRM - Medium Density Multifamily MRH - High Eeneily Multifamily EXISTING DOWNTOWN ZONING O ❑fR=e R17:2 - Single-family Residential W.JAMIP ST. W.JAMES ST. Ij{I - ' C n c� r D 00'C I�U i 7 ,; •' �nL' •l o < lyL— o t1 p° < I I. } _ t i -_— I DLM --4, G �R1�7 2 l`—r cl J� rt lt! I� I ❑ i J i � r. r. C =, e p ❑nri lJJ I .......� II G �C .y o Doc ��1V LL Ill GI o z •�� _- _� C� t_✓ Ld a G J lJ 00 a II � Q 1I E1) 'S L� r` W.HARRISON t�ST. 41 wowa il 0`sE a ,ap o J DCE = "�� iff, i o DICE ■� a SDI: qq _ _ r- ■■11 dl1j Q p U I' rNEENER TO I L ❑ LJ F (S p c�7 n D t".$oo feet 0 0 � b u I I n 00, P_(� Q �_.� I I)� l� oc _ , °R l' Lip \� ❑ � L - < z O•• ❑ iJ r�' Q �, F O to 0 L C de Q ,nue e1 CJ O� II �'. �711 a 0 n4 TI� Z erla oninv Deelonna ❑ �~ Q .n < v rs" b a Ec - Downt°wee Commercial L a O 4, o DICE ❑owmown Commercial Enterprise p co pp 4 ❑ �O p' p J O 'ELM - Downtown limited Manufacturing W.WILLIS ST. d °� � ❑ ° � GC General Commamiel MRH - High Density Multifamily PROPOSED DOWNTOWN ZONING 0.17.2 - Single-family Reeidenliel 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 (Weleted text)) 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 ((business)), 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 ((, while beth auto ))• 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 around 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. ((Reefeatienal Eises sueh as theateFs, " lin all s, dare . 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. ((MHnneipal 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. ((PFl He;;�;,,-P�,Tt�ed-Uses-i n -P Q 2- Zene -7. MeteF vehiele sales (new and used). •)) ((Pfehibited Uses Heavy eemmefeial uses with e�itdeeF sterage aFe pFehibited in this )) Special Permit Uses The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in Section 15.08.020: 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 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. 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, 2-13, 2-C and 3. 5. General conditional uses as listed in Section 15.08.030 6. (( )) 7. (( 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, SfiIT�-i 5T. II I� ' - _11nIIllIl01111f1@I1ID�Ill�lllilll���llilifflllilll - _ I` llllllllllulllull�lul�llluUluu�lllllllllllllllul lul(I111�011ll1ll W. rs E�IceR S-r � IINIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIET<1111MW lllllll III '.TITUS ST I F1 F1 7 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. Princioally 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-B, 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 Forthe 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 and 5 Plan, lotth frontage mixture of 100% lot frontage, and 100% 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 =tothe ible -off-street parking areas shouldg areas should be to the rear or side of side of buildings and should be well lituld 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 r w O F- J I I I 1 1_J w w U u Z,nr ■Wltlf NeSrff f,tlft 1 lmin% (I w w � cc it tn U ■ x »artJ � 11 '• w V -�����(� �y w w o d Lui a a Fw- ._._._._._y14.._. ahrw.xa,l N I in Q m z i In N cD k k v 1 � N pp w 1 1 3 U U O 1 lki n ������------...■ b � ■ 7nr .gd-iMf N -m., oved'11Yd t ■ Lip W\ CD mmmmmmflmmlmmm ® __ _ � °' I - am auY 'N -+w a+i ■ c cc 3 �N 1 I T n r v F CD cl: ■ -a r II1F N -;^y ryjb_ s I Y ) 3 I 3 I I 3fitimmmiTnIm [ W (- 1 Lr ■ I I � G � L i � I — 1 UU I 'NY nd.YJM N 1 l� ■ i I i Ll ❑® •, If )�Ifl 'y 1+1vT+1 i 'll fiAlfi■If lfl■Iflflfl■Ifif fl Iflflfi I I1lflfil If lfl ■1fl�lfl■If 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. III. 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 VALLEY =-iFREEWA S. NADEN AVE. LINcOL.N .4VE Li . c &C, T) u o q, Up" C3 LI a U IM OM No rn %at vs. Cos I A H. AVE, P Gi ri I L? C2 cy r T 5TH. AVE. CJ N. 4-TH. AVE. Li 10 Eu ;�� >0 z > rn (A LA F1 L-:j N. 1 ST. AVE. cl r'-A HAILHORU RVE-1 mm 00 0 Quo =1 [lam j b MfA M 9 ow-WIPM -M Jrpu u,-;!jo,h GO)- CENn.& FIVE f.-j D M 0 o N 7 1[:(mn U I-o 1-1 i�l, 0 0 0 dj n f U u . 86 ® tom no on m M 0 o 0 0 0 .0 PAF 9 0 0 0 0 u T_,j r.) I D�Jtjn L:j 3 r, 0 0 n 0 0 3 3 nOC) ull 3 3 cs 2. 2 R. m En 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 MEMBERS 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 (DIM) . 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 DIM 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 DIM. 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 DIM, 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 Dahle 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-1. 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 feels 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 ylor MOVED to close he public Commissioner Heineman eman SECON ED the motion. t Motion carriedearing. 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, Jams P. Har is, Secretary .. 11 i................... ... .....................u.Wp.. E� i r � Nkj City of Kent, Washington Kent City Council Meeting Date: June 2, 1992 Category: Other Business 1. SUBJECT Adoption of an Ordinance that would allow for the discharge of fireworks to be held only on July 4, 1992 from the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (Midnight). a€. 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT s,: The current drought conditions in the Pacific Northwest has created the probability for a serious fire threat this summer. The natural vegetation is currently very dry and will in all probability get worse as the summer progresses. In addition, the possibility of limiting the use of water for irrigation of lawns and shrubbery will only increase the problem. These factors will contribute to the worst fire conditions in recent history. ;. By limiting the discharge of fireworks to one day only, we hope to limit the fire exposure to the environment. This will also assist the fire department in planning resource requirements for the fires that do occur on the 4th of July. 3. EXHIBITS f ,r City Attorney will have the Ordinance. 4. RECOMMENDED BY Fire Department f Public Safety Committee (3 to 0 vote) Paul Mann, Leona Orr, Jon Johnson k' 5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED None 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION Ordinance Adoption Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds the adoption of Emergency Ordinance .3 f! V `:) allowing the discharge of fireworks on F s July 4th, 1992 from the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (Midnight). This Ordinance will be for 1992 only. i I � CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE i G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS U.ty ,..era OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES May 18, 1992 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Leona Orr STAFF PRESENT: Ken Chatwin Ed Chow Dick Gillisse Roger Lubovich Tony McCarthy Alana McIalwain Kelli O'Donnell Don Olson MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Bill Doolittle Connie Epperly UNIDENTIFIED STAFF & MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Approximately 3 people were present that were not identified to the Committee. The meeting was called to order at 4:15 p.m. by Chairperson Houser. Approval of Vouchers All claims for the period ending May 15, 1992, in the amount of$2,407,898.84 were approved for payment. Inventory of Physical Assets (Information Only) Finance Director McCarthy passed out the subject inventory noting that it was not sent out with the agenda due to the length of the document. (The document is available in the Finance Department.) McCarthy noted he was bringing this item to the Committee per Committeemember White's request for an inventory. The listing compiled includes all items capitalized over the years with a value of$1,000 or more. The limit was arrived at in the past using federal standards. The federal limits have been raised to a $5,000 minimum but other municipalities continue to use $1,000 for capitalization. This listing was compiled last year by transferring information on to the computer and sending listings to the departments to delete items that were surpluses or transferred over the years. The list does need more work but the project was put on hold after the Investment Officer left the City and the Field Auditor working on the project took over the investment function. McCarthy noted that because of the $1,000 limit, every chair and desk, etc. is not listed. Chairperson Houser asked about a listing of houses and property. McCarthy replied that information was within the listing but a sort order had not been established to pull it out by itself. He added that there is also the possibility of tying the listing into the Geographic Information System through sub-coding. 1 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES May 18, 1992 During Further discussion, Risk Analyst Ken Chatwin suggested the property insurance listing may be helpful. McCarthy agreed that it could be beneficial to tie the two together. McCarthy noted that this was a working list to give the Committee some idea of where they were and he will forward a copy of the listing to Committeemember White. American Disability Act Proposed Cost to Modify City Hall - 1992 (Information Only) Risk Analyst Chatwin updated the Committee on the American Disability Act(ADA) as it relates to physical barriers. He noted that the regulations will have some financial impact this year and in the future. Chatwin explained that he is currently in the process of doing a physical assessment of all City buildings. He stated that the Barriers Act of Washington 504 has been in affect for some years and now a similar Act is being enacted by the federal government. He distributed the previous time table for ADA compliance which outlines implementation for physical barriers, job descriptions and application procedures as well as a draft of the barriers surveyed at City Hall by floor and the Resource Center. Chatwin reviewed some of the key areas that need to be looked at which included the elevator to the fourth floor which should have an audio signal for the sight impaired, particularly on the fourth floor, stating to exit at the rear as well as lowering the control panels. In addition, the restrooms are not wheelchair accessible. He pointed out that all of the problems do not need to be fixed immediately but should be surveyed and incorporated in any future remodel. During further discussion, it was noted that financial hardship does not require completing all projects immediately but items considered reasonable and prudent should be taken care of as stated by the time table. Personnel Policy Updates (Information Only) Human Resource Director Olson noted that he wished to periodically inform the Committee of updates to Personnel Policies. He presented three policies to the Committeemembers addressing: Flexible Work Schedule; Employee Definitions; and, Salary Plan. He noted that some policies require periodic updates such as the Employee Definitions Policy which was enacted February 1, 1986, and revised January 1, 1992. Olson explained that these are administrative policies which the City Administrator enacts after review with Personnel and the City Attorney. He noted that at a recent Committee meeting Committeemember White claimed he had not seen the Policies and Procedures and Olson has since hand carried him a copy and furnished a copy in the Council Office. He stated that he would like to continue to update the Committee on policy changes and that he would like to report back in a few weeks on some additional updates. Commute Trip Reduction Law Update (Information Only) Engineering Department Consultant Dick Gillisse previewed with the Committee the impacts on the City of the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law passed by the State Legislature last year. The intent of the CTR is to solve traffic and pollution problems. The legislation requires local jurisdiction, to adopt a CTR ordinance by January, 1993 which requires employers of 100 or more to have programs for alternatives for reducing trips by single occupancy vehicles. The goals of the program target a 35% reduction by 1999. The law requires four actions by the City: To adopt an ordinance. 2 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES May 18, 1992 2. Establish an administrative process to enforce employers compliance with the ordinance. (approximately 30-50 employers in Kent) 3. Program for City Employees, possibly incentives. 4. Review Parking Ordinance to fit in with goals which may include a maximum for parking places to force compliance. Gillisse distributed a handout of possible alternatives to influence employees to participate. He also noted that the State is in the process of drafting an ordinance for local jurisdictions to adopt. The State has provided start up funding for the first year which should last through June of 1993. Houser noted the need for coordination with freeway improvements. Gillisse noted that the first year will focus on education. Conunitteemember Orr asked if future growth was taken into consideration for reduction percentages. Gillisse replied that the 100 person limit may even be reduced in the future to as low as 10 employees. As the region grows we will have to change commuting methods which can include any combination of biking, flexible work schedules or telecommuting. Orr asked if the law would apply to companies with alternative hours. Gillisse responded that legislation currently addresses business with employees in one location during peak hours. Additional Items Orr asked when McCarthy anticipated an update on the financial situation. McCarthy responded that the May sales tax figures did not have a real impact on the situation. It would probably be mid-year before enough information will be in. Utility taxes are received at the end of July so August would probably be the soonest any significant change would be seen. Houser asked how the Department 5% cuts were proceeding. Chow responded that they were geared to go through Administration. Houser asked how the Council would be updated. McCarthy responded that the cuts are due by the first of June to Administration. Bill Doolittle asked if his request at a previous meeting for employees added to the payroll since the hiring freeze had been prepared. McCarthy provided a list that included employees added since the slow down first began. He noted that some of the hirings were in process before the slow down was announced and that others had been approved through the Executive Committee. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. by Chairperson Houser. 3 Brenda Jacober City Clerk Parks Committee Minutes May 19, 1992 Councilmembers Present: Jon Johnson, Chair; Jim Bennett; Christi Houser and Leona Orr. Staff Present: Ed Chow, Barney Wilson, Tony McCarthy, Tom Brubaker, Alana McIalwain, Stephanie Strozyk, Lee Anderson, Robyn Bartelt, Cheryl Fraser, May Miller, Patrice Thorell , Carol Weston, and Pam Rumer. Others Present: Doug Schwab and Bill Doolittle. ACCEPTANCE OF KENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOUNDATION DONATION Patrice Thorell requested that the Parks Committee accept a $5,000 donation from the Kent Chamber of Commerce Foundation to Canterbury Faire, and place it on the June 2 City Council agenda for full Council acceptance. Bennett moved to accept the $5,000 donation and to place it on the June 2 City Council agenda for full Council consideration. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 2-0 vote, as Councilmember Houser was not yet present. GOLF COMPLEX MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT McCarthy informed the committee that he prepared the financial report as a result of recommendations made by the Golf Advisory Board. The March financial statement showed that expenses are exceeding revenues; the graphic analysis showed that through March, the golf complex collected 113.5% of its projected revenue, but overspent on the expenditure side by $411,000. According to McCarthy's projections, revenues will increase at 4% for 1993-97, and expenses will increase at a rate of 5%. McCarthy explained that his trend data is based upon the number of years the golf course has been open, and added that this was adjusted significantly when the City added the 18 hole course. Wilson pointed out that the City has had the 9 hole course for ten years. McCarthy concluded that the unreserved fund balance, even after the $506,954 transfer from the 1992 capital improvement fund, is a negative $572,863, and is not projected to be positive until 1994. It was his suggestion that capital expenditures should be deferred unless additional revenue can be generated from play or rate increases, operating expenses can be cut, or additional contributions can be made from other funds. McCarthy reported that in April , the revenue trend softened and the expenditure trend went up. He said that if this trend continues, the golf course will overspend its budget by 25.8% in 1992, which will result in a negative cash flow balance of $12,000. McCarthy recommended that the City shouldn't make purchases from the golf complex equipment list unless something changes in the revenue or expenditure equation, or unless money is taken from the CIP for such purchases. Bennett commented that the demand for golf has increased dramatically in the late 80's and early 90's. He felt that McCarthy's ten year trend is a little misleading. In response to Bennett's comment regarding merchandise, McCarthy said that trend data shows the merchandise budget will be overspent in 1992 and that it hasn't been positive since the beginning. Wilson commented that he had an enterprise fund at the Kent Commons which was only 70% self-supporting, and that he has never seen income so heavily concentrated upon as it is with the golf complex. He said that other cities would be happy to have a business like Riverbend. Wilson said he hoped everyone would put the golf course to rest so the staff can get back to running it. He distributed a handout showing golf complex income comparisons for 1992. Bartelt was concerned that the 1991 actual amounts are predicting less in green fees at the 9 hole, less in driving range fees, and not much of an increase in 18 hole green fees for 1992, yet the golf complex has brought in more revenue the first four months in 1992 percentage-wise. McCarthy commented that he projected the 1992 revenues based upon history. He said that over the years, the golf complex has always overspent its budget. Regarding the trend data, Bartelt pointed out that when the April 1992 estimates and actuals are compared with the April 1991 estimates and actuals, the golf complex is $110,000 ahead in revenues this year. She said that although the golf complex is $49,000 ahead in expenditures, there is a big difference as far as the percentage of revenue over expenses this year versus last year. Johnson said this will be an ongoing process, and the Golf Advisory Board will be making recommendations as to how we might improve the facility even more. 2 CITY OF )6\LL�12�� CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 19, 1992 4 : 00 PM dA®IItC4� COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT OTHER CITY STAFF Leona Orr, Chair Tom Brubaker Jim Bennett Ed Chow Jon Johnson Rob Dreblow Alana McIalwain May Miller PLANNING STAFF GUESTS Sharon Clamp Travis L. DeLayhder Jim Harris Bill Doolittle Kevin O'Neill Rae Reitan, City Historian Margaret Porter Gregg & Ellen Ward Fred Satterstrom Anne Watanabe GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (K. O'NEILL) At the May 5, 1992 meeting Planner Kevin O'Neill presented an overview of the draft Countywide Planning Policies as recommended by the Growth Management Planning Council. In response to Chair Orr's request for clarification on several items, Mr. O'Neill distributed a document of explanation and further expounded on the issues. He also presented the schedule for adoption and ratification of the Countywide Planning Policies. SHORT PLAT PROCEDURES (J. HARRIS) Gregg and Ellen Ward are concerned about the public notification procedure for short plats. Mrs. Ward stated that the process of notifying the public by letter is required only if the plat involves more than nine lots. A small sign, which is difficult to see, is posted for nine or less lots. The Wards feel there should be a better notification procedure and the procedure should be the same regardless of how many lots are involved. Planning Director Harris informed the Committee that State law directs the City to have an administrative procedure in which to handle short plats. The City of Kent has a short plat committee made up of key department heads or their staff. Because short plats are administrative, the committee does not go through the same process as issues that go to the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission. It is not treated the same as a public hearing. Mr. Harris stated that the Law Department would need to be involved in CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 19, 1992 PAGE 2 any process to change the structure of how the short plat committee operates. Chair Orr asked staff to develop recommendations for changing the short plat procedures so the public is better notified. The Ward's will be notified when the recommendations are sent back to Planning Committee for discussion. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ORDINANCE (SMP-90-1) (A. WATANABE) Planner Anne Watanabe presented revisions to the Kent Shoreline Master Program Amendments. The amendments were approved by the Council in the form of a resolution of intent to adopt on May 21, 1991. Since that time the Planning Department has been waiting for approval of the amendments from the Department of Ecology. The revisions to the amendments were requested by the Department of Ecology as conditions of approval of the amendments. She explained that under the State Shoreline Management Act, all shoreline plans and plan amendments must be approved by the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology recently conducted a public hearing at Kent City Hall to gather testimony regarding the amendments. Ms. Watanabe reviewed the revisions which were mainly changes to definitions and to the wetlands language. Ms. Watanabe clarified that only wetlands associated with the Green River are affected by the shoreline program. In response to a question regarding wetlands by Councilmember Bennett, Planning Director Harris stated that staff could present the City's wetland procedures to the Committee at it June 2 or June 16 meeting. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a motion to recommend Council approval of the amendments to the Shoreline Master Program. Motion carried. FEDERAL WAY PLAN UPDATE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RESOLUTION (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom reported that King County is proposing a community plan update in Federal Way. Federal Way has incorporated since the last community plan was done in 1980. However, there is still a large amount of incorporated land to the east between Federal Way and Auburn which both cities are claiming in their urban growth areas. There is also some land in the Star Lake area that Kent may include in its urban growth area. Mr. Satterstrom stated the Committee will be asked to approve the interlocal agreement at its June 2 , 1992 meeting. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 19, 1992 PAGE 3 MUSEUM SERVICES AGREEMENT (J. HARRIS) Planning Director Jim Harris stated that Linda Van Nest, President of the White River Historical Society, is asking that the City of Kent approve the Museum Services Agreement drawn up by the City of Auburn. The agreement specifies that one member of the Board of Directors may be appointed by the City of Kent provided that the level of annual funding by Kent does not fall below $2 ,500 for the maintenance and operation of the museum. City Historian Rae Reitan stated she does not feel the City of Kent should take part in the agreement. She does not feel that Kent has been served by the White River Historical Society since Auburn began providing a paid director to the Society. She feels that Kent should form a historical society of its own and asked for the moral backing of the City of Kent and the Arts Commission. Ms. Reitan pointed out that Des Moines, Renton, Maple Valley, Enumclaw, and Buckley all have their own historical societies. A meeting of "old timers" interested in forming a Kent historical society will be held at 11: 30 a.m. on Thursday, May 22 , at Mom' s Kitchen. Planning Director Jim Harris pointed out there are two different philosophies being presented to the Committee and recommended Planning Staff work with Administration to present options for the Committee to review. Planning Director Harris suggested continuing this discussion to the June 2 meeting as an information item. ADDED ITEMS STATE GRANT FOR A SHORELINE TRUST FUND (J. HARRIS) At the May 5 meeting the Committee passed a motion to recommend City Council acceptance of a $10, 000 grant from the State Department of Ecology for a shoreline trust fund. The grant was awarded on a 50/50 match basis. Planning Director Harris advised the Committee that staff proposes to match the grant with $5, 000 from the Growth Management/Wetlands Fund and $5, 000 of staff time to be provided by Planner Ann Watanabe. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5: 11 p.m. PC0519 . 92 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MAY 20, 1992 PRESENT: JIM WHITE ED WHITE PAUL MANN TONY MCCARTHY GARY GILL RAUL RAMOS ED CHOW LINDA DIAS TOM BRUBAKER MR. & MRS. RUST DON WICKSTROM Parking - Titusville Station (202 W. Gowe St. ) - Linda Dias Ms. Dias explained that at the present time, the parking situation in front of her Espresso Depot on Gowe Street, is being violated by citizens parking longer than the two hour allowable time. There are four parking stalls available; three stalls are 2 hours and one is 30 minutes. Ms. Dias requested that all four parking stalls be changed to 30 minute parking. She stated that other than the fact that people are violating the 2 hour parking limit, this would also benefit her as a business owner allowing her Espresso cart to be more visible to the public. Ed White explained that the City does have a parking problem in the downtown area and until we complete our parking study, it would be confusing to the downtown businesses if we start taking action now before all the issues have been identified. Ed stated that it would be staff ' s recommendation to hold off on changing any of the downtown parking until our study is completed, probably either July or August. Jim White asked if a temporary parking change is possible. He felt that an ordinance had been prepared allowing staff to make those changes without going to Council. Wickstrom will review this. Committee unanimously agreed to direct staff to install four, 30 minute parking stalls on Gowe Street, in front of Titusville Station, on a temporary basis until the final plan is adopted. Water Service Agreement Wickstrom explained that this is an agreement between Covington Water District and the City of Kent. Covington needs to construct a transmission main along Kent Kangley which passes thru our annexed Clark Springs Watershed. The purpose of the watermain is to service a new reservoir they are proposing to build which lies east of Clark Springs . Covington is in concurrence with our agreement and Wickstrom asked to go forward with it. 1 Committee unanimously agreed to go forward with the Water Service Agreement. Bill of Sale - Robison Sewer Extension Wickstrom stated that this is an extension required for development and asked for acceptance of same. Committee unanimously agreed to accept the Robison Sewer Extension Bill of Sale. Underground Storage Tanks Wickstrom requested acceptance by the Committee, of the Public Works contract, which was completed for the exact bid amount. Committee unanimously agreed to accept the project as complete. Kent Circulator/Transit System Ed White explained that since the memo on this item was sent to the Public Works Committee, two things have happened. First, we have received a letter from METRO which relays information that Council members had requested. The other item is that Kevin O'Neil of the Planning Dept. and Ed White have met with Beverly Smith and Doug Johnson to discuss the regional transit project. As a result of those discussions, they relayed to us that part of the regional transit project was a funding package that was going to be addressed the next time the County votes on a bond issue that relates to this project. It is approximately $50 million dollars; roughly $18 million dollars will be devoted to enhanced Transit Service in the South County area. As such, the METRO long range Planning Section is involved with us in doing the initial scoping work to determine our needs. Ed said this is projected to happen whenever the bond issue passes. Jim White said he would ask the Mayor to form a Circulator Transit Advisory Group so we can have citizen input. White would like this done with a minimum of staff time, stating that he realizes staff has a lot of work to do in other areas. He feels that some of the downtown merchants are very interested in this. Committee unanimously agreed that citizen input be included into the Circulator Transit System. Sidewalk Improvement on West Smith Street West of SR 181 Wickstrom explained that the cost estimate on this item would be approximately $6, 000 - $10, 000 depending on what the project involves. He stated there is approximately $70, 000 in the Sidewalk Improvement Fund. We have reserved $20, 000 to $30, 000 for a joint project with the City of Des Moines per its 240th Street 2 improvement by Highline Community College. Wickstrom noted that we do have a covenant from the one property owner between the Kent Catholic Youth Service and West Valley Highway to build the sidewalk. Wickstrom expressed concern that by the City constructing this sidewalk as a result of a business request may set a precedent and other businesses will follow with similar requests. We have been installing sidewalks only in conjunction with road projects or where there is a school children walkway concern or as in the S. Willis area, where there was grant funding. Jim White stated he has no problem with staff 's recommendation of looking at an L. I.D. and if for some reason that doesn't work then we can proceed with other avenues. White' s understanding is that the Catholic Youth Service cannot obtain certain grants due to the lack of sidewalk access for handicaps. White agreed with staff ' s recommendation. Van Doren ' s Landing L. I. D. Segregation At this time Brubaker brought forward an additional item concerning Van Doren' s Landing. He explained that at the time LID' s 327 and 330 were created, they had only filed a preliminary plat. As a result, the actual division of the parcels were not determined so the larger parcels were assessed. They now have a final plat and they request segregation of the assessments to fit the individual lots. Brubaker requested authority to take the necessary steps to bring the resolution to Council . Committee unanimously agreed that resolution be brought to Council for the segregation of assessment. Further discussion followed regarding an assessment of sidewalks to see what is needed City wide. Ramos explained that he is assessing the sidewalk conditions determining replacement or repair. Ramos stated that this is part of the infrastructure of the downtown area, but it is also partly to implement the City' s response to the American Disabilities Act. In addition to that, he is also looking at areas which might allow bicycling. Jim White asked if Ramos is also looking at the area south of Willis and North Park as far as sidewalks. Ramos responded that he is just concentrating on the area formally designated as downtown. However the next step would be to expand to North Park and south of Willis. 3