Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 10/17/1995 FCity of Kent Council Mee t . n g Agenda CITY OF Tot L � Mayor Jim White Council Members Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Jon Johnson Tim Clark Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr October 17, 1995 E Office of the City Clerk '` 1 re,t ., CITY OF LW9-\,1n j,5 SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 1995 Council Chambers V 7 : 00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Tim Clark Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Leona Orr CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Trade Exchange Update B. Natural Medicine Economic Development Task Force Report �P. Regional Justice Center Update 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS -A. 1996-2001 Capital Facilities Plan - Resolution Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-95-1 and Initial Zoning AZ-95-3 3 . ISENT CALENDAR Approval of Minutes Approval of Bills C: Harassment Crimes - Ordinance Xl'. , Top of the Hill Final Plat FSU-94-2 - Set Meeting Date ,.oK. Kingstone Final Plat FSU-94-11 - Set Meeting Date ,P: Kiwanis Tot Lot No. 2 Project - Accept as Complete 4 . OTHER BUSINESS ,iV Heath Tecna Franchise Assignment - Approval _--B. Meridian Annexation Aerial Mapping Contract 5. BIDS LID 346 - S. 212th Sidewalks and Street Lighting, Russell Road to West Valley Highway 6 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7 . PORTS EXECUTIVE SESSION - 1) Litigation 2) Labor Negotiations 8. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk' s Office and the Kent Library. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in advance for more information. For TDD relay service call 1-800-635-9993 or the City of Kent (206) 854-6587. 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) Trade Exchange Update B) Natural Medicine Economic Development Task Force Report C) Regional Justice Center Update Kent City Council Meeting Date October 17 , 1995 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: 1996-2001 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This Public Hearing was continued from August 1, 1995 to this date. As required by the Growth Management Act, the City must adopt a Six-year Capital Facilities Plan. This proposed plan designates certain capital facilities for implementation in 1996-2001 in order to meet state GMA concurrency requirements within established and projected budgets. May Miller, Finance Division Director, will give a brief presentation on this plan. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0 in favor) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 1996 plan elements included in proposed 1996 budget. 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: v PUBLIC INPUT• yL � CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION_: Councilmember `�f"fJmoves, Councilmember LVL' seconds to adopt Resolution No. which establishes the City's 1996-2001 Capital Facilities Plan and combines the 1996 element into the preliminary budget. DISCUSSION: ACTION: C Council Agenda Item No. 2A MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print . - ----------- -- -- ---------- ---- ------- ---- ,_,abject : 1996-2001 CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN Creator: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/28/95 at 1527 . TO : MAYOR WHITE AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: MAYENE MILLER, FINANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR , THE ATTACHED CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN IS A RESULT OF SEVERAL MONTHS OF WORK IN UPDATING PROJECTS AS REQUIRED BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT . THIS PLAN IS COMPREHENSIVE AND INCLUDES INFORMATION FROM MANY CITY-WIDE PLANS, INCLUDING: WATER, SEWER DRAINAGE, TRANSPORTATION, PARKS, AUTOMATION AND FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PLANS . SINCE THE REQUESTS EXCEEDED THE REVENUE AVAILABLE, PRIORITY WAS GIVEN TO: 1 . FUNDING EXISTING DEBT SERVICE PREVIOUSLY USED FOR CAPITAL. 2 . INCREASING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND BALANCE TO $510 , 000 . 3 . BUILDING OR GROUNDS SAFETY PROJECTS . 4 . MAINTAINING EXISTING BUILDING AND GROUNDS . 5 . PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE . T"E PLAN INCLUDES PROJECTS TOTALING $171, 555, 000 OVER SIX YEARS . THE 1996 �,.,,tTION WILL BE ADDED TO THE 1996 PRELIMINARY OPERATING BUDGET. THE FOLLOWING YEARS ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSE ONLY AND WILL BE UPDATED ANNUALLY. OVER $100 , 000 , 000 WILL PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, SIDEWALKS, ASPHALT OVER LAYS, WATER, SEWER, DRAINAGE AND GOLF PROJECTS . THESE PROJECTS ARE FUNDED WITH REVENUE BONDS, LIDS, GRANTS AND GOLF AND UTILITY REVENUE . THE PARKS PLAN INCLUDES VOTED BOND ISSUES IN THE FUTURE FOR A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, COMMUNITY/YOUTH CENTER, CULTURAL CENTER AND ATHLETIC COMPLEX. SINCE THESE ARE PLANNED FOR THE FUTURE A SIGNIFICANT EVALUATION WILL HELP FINE-TUNE NEEDS, COST, AND TIMING. FUNDS ARE PROVIDED FOR UPDATING OUR AGING PARKS SYSTEM AND WILL BE COMBINED WITH DONATED LABOR AND MATERIAL TO MAXIMISE THE IMPROVEMENT TO PARKS AND PLAY EQUIP- MENT. THE FOCUS WILL BE ON IMPROVING PARKING SURFACES, FENCES, TURF, IRRIGATION PLAY EQUIPMENT AND ADDING COLOR, (ONE OF COUNCILS HIGHEST PRIORITIES) . MONEY IS ALSO BUDGETED TO WORK WITH COMMUNITIES IN IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC PARKS IMPROVE- MENTS WITH CONSTRUCTION PLANNED IN 1997 AND BEYOND. THE SKATE BOARD PARK FUNDS ARE ALSO INCLUDED TO FUND A COMMUNITY REQUESTED PROJECT. COUNCILMANIC BONDS ARE SCHEDULED FOR 1997 AND 1998 FOR AUTOMATION AND TELEPHONE NEEDS AS WELL AS PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED ADDITIONAL SHOP SPACE . A CURRENT NEEDS STUDY WILL HELP DETERMINE FUTURE LOCATION NEEDS WITH THE NEW MERIDIAN ANNEXA- TION AS WELL AS FINE TUNE ESTIMATED COSTS AND DATES . FT^TALLY FUNDS FOR THE FIRE BURN PROPS HAVE RISEN TO THE TOP AND WILL BE USED TO A,,.,,,UIRE THIS LONG REQUESTED ITEM. FUNDS ARE ALSO INCLUDED FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF OUR EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ARE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN CURRENT ASSETS, FOR THEIR MAXIMUM LIFE . THE LAST PIECE INCLUDES ONE FTE POSITION THAT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ANNUAL CAPITAL FACILITY UPDATE, MONITORING, PLANNING CASH FLOW AND CLOSING PROJECTS IN A TIMELY MANNER, AS WELL AS KEEPING THE CITY' S ASSET RECORDS CURRENT . THIS WILL BE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IN UPDATING THE CAPITAL FACILITY LEVEL-OF-SERVICE WITH THE ADDED ANNEXATION PARKS, STREETS AND OTHER ASSETS . FUNDS FOR COMPUTET _ AND CABLE TV EQUIPMENT WILL ALLOW STAFF TO BE THE MOST EFFICIENT IN THIS INCREASINGLY COMPLEX PROCESS . AFTER THE COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON OCTOBER 3 , 1995 TECHNICAL ADDITIONS FOR THE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION START-UP OVERLAY, SIDEWALKS AND EQUIPMENT FOR STREETS AND PARKS WAS ADDED. THIS IS COVERED BY ANNEXATION REVENUE. IN ADDITION, FUNDS WERE INCLUDED TO EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY OF EXTENDING TELECOMMUNICATION (FIBER-OPTICS) TO OTHER CITY FACILITIES . LAST, FUNDS WERE INCREASED IN THE CABLE TV-AREA IN RECOGNITION OF COUNCILS COMMITMENT TO THE VITAL CABLE-TV LINK WITH KENT CITIZENS . GROWTH MANAGEMENT HAS REQUIRED ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CITIES BY REQUIRING THAT CITIES NOT ONLY PLAN, BUT PLAN TO HAVE NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION, WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS FUNDED AND COMPLETED AS THEY ARE NEEDED BY GROWTH. THE CITY OF KENT HAS EXCEEDED THE REQUIREMENTS BY PLANNING QUALITY OF LIFE AND BUILDING MAINTENANCE PROJECTS TO PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM BALANCED CITY FOR OUR CITIZENS WITHIN EXISTING REVENUES . A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD AUGUST 3 , AND CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 17, 1995 . THE PLAN HAS BEEN HEARD AT A PUBLIC WORKSHOP OCTOBER 3 , AND WAS APPROVED BY THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE AT THEIR OCTOBER 11, 1995 MEETING. COUNCIL ACTION: ADOPT THE 1996-2001 PLAN AND RESOLUTION WITH THE 1996 PORTION APPROVED TO BE ADDED TO THE 1996 PRELIMINARY BUDGET. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, adopting the 1996- 2001 Capital Facilities Plan WHEREAS, after proper notice, the City Council of the City of Kent held a public hearing at the regular meeting of the City Council at 7 : 00 p.m. on August 1, 1995 , to consider public testimony on the proposed Capital Facilities Plan for the City; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued to a regular City Council meeting at 7 : 00 p .m. on October 17, 1995, where additional testimony on the Capital Facilities Plan was heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all public testimony on the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 . The 1996 through 2001 Capital Facilities Plan, which is attached as Exhibit A and which shall be filed with the City Clerk, is hereby adopted. SECTION 2 . The allocations made in the Capital Facilities Plan shall be added to the City' s proposed 1996 budget . Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1995 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1995 . JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify. that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1995 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK SIXYEAR.res City of Kent, Washington CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1996 - 2001 Prepared by Financial Planning October I1, 1995 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN In Thousands REVENUES BY SOURCE 1996 2001 LIDs 16,072 9.4% ... Gener al CIP Revenues 15494 9.0% >€ s»>` >'< I>': Bonds & Grants 96,418 56.2% Transportation 22,668 13.2% Golf& Utility Fees 18,956 11.0% Sale of Property 1,947 1.1% Total Revenue: $171,555 EXPENDITURES 1996 - 2001 Police Department 1,416 0.8% Parks Voted Bonds 43,804 25.5% Parks Department 9,263 5.4% Fire and EMS Svcs 3 Gen Govt Fac/Office 7,521 4.4% Public Works 106,036 61.8% Total Expenses: $171,555 I 1996 -2001 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECT COST STATISTICS (In Thousands) SUMMARY FOR ALL PROJECTS 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL REVENUE SUMMARY., General CIP Revenues 2,609 2,645 2,741 2,215 2,623 2,661 15,494 Transportation Revenues 6,698 2,961 3,133 3,266 3,256 3,354 22,668 Golf&Utility Fees 3,557 2,582 3,936 3,337 3,456 2,088 18,956 Sale of Property 1,820 127 1,947 Bonds&Grants 14,042 11,717 52,151 12,468 4,771 1,269 96,418 LIDS 1,028 1,070 8,109 5,340 525 16,072 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 29,764- 21,102 70,070 26,626 -14,631 9,372 171,555 EXPENDITURE:SUMMARY: NON UTILITY PROJECTS TRANSPORTATION Corridors 6,982 3,734 13,528 13,163 3,085 51479 47,971 Arterials 3,188 4,700 1,197 4,809 13,894 Intersection Improvements 350 150 500 Other Improvements 1,957 1,361 1,286 785 765 765 6,919 Subtotal Transportation 10,939 8,633 19,514 15,145 8,809 6,244 69,284 PUBLIC SAFETY Correctional Facility 105 205 160 25 320 815 Fire&Emergency Services 600 555 540 520 475 400 3,090 Police/Fire Training Facility 461 461 Police Administrative Offices 239 55 75 196 565 Subtotal Public Safety „ 1,405 815 700 620 795 596 d,931 PARKS AND RECREATION Neighborhood Park/Rec Land 200 300 300 300 300 300 1,700 Community Park/Rec Land 80 3,200 750 4,030 Neighborhood Rec Facilities 304 266 931 171 543 143 2,358 Community Rec Facillities 584 910 34,041 7,676 528 580 44'319 660 Golf Courses 330 330 Subtotal Parks &Recreation ' 1,498 1,806 38,472 8,141 1,611 1,773 53,067 GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES City Administrative Offices 906 1,386 530 448 665 496 4,431 City Maintenance Facilities 3,090 3.090 Subtotal General Government 906 1,386 3,620 448 665 496 7.521 TOTAL NON UTILITY PROJECTS 14,748 12,640 62,306 24,360 11,640 9,109 134,803 UTILITY PROJECTS Sanitary Sewer 175 250 260 270 281 291 1,527 Storrnwater Management 9,951 5,678 5,555 3,072 949 25,205 Water Supply&Distribution 2,144 754 1,764 1,775 1,786 1,797 10,020 TOTAL UTILITY PROJECTS 12,270 6,682 7,579 5,117 3,016 2,088 36,752 TOTAL CIP PROJECTS 27,018 19,322 69,885 29,477 14,656 11,197 171,555 V BALANCE 2,736 1,780 185 (2,851) (25) (1,825) Total Surplus or(Deficit) 2,736 4,516 4,701 1,850 1,825 TRANSPORTATION CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funds (In Thousands) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS Prior Revenues 3,425 2,736 4,516 4,701 1,850 1,825 19,053 Street Fund Revenues 2,779 2,943 3,012 3,099 3,172 3,248 18,253 Drainage Utility 265 850 440 1,555 Grants 4,949 6,117 7,607 3,688 4,563 1,065 27,989 LIDS 1,028 1,070 8,109 5,340 525 16,072 Annexation Revenue 420 420 Miscellaneous 74 18 121 167 84 106 570 Sale of Property 1,000 1,000 Total Sources 13,675 13,149 24,215 16,995 10,634 6,244 84912 USES OF FUNDS CORRIDOR PROJECTS : 10,806 196th-Street West 3,959 3,734 3,113 196th Street Middle 1,724 6,983 5,632 3,085 17,424 272nd Corridor 3,194 3,432 7,531 5,479 19,636 105 Annexation.Corridors 105 Subtotal Comdors 8,877 3,734 13,528 13,163 3,085 5,479 47,971 NON-CORRIDOR PROJECTS: ARTERIALS : 2,200 64th Ave Extension 2,200 W Meeker Widening 657 1,909 2,566 Pacific Highway HOV 1 2,188 2,188 Washington Ave Widening 1,000 1,000 72nd Ave Extension 540 540 Pacific Highway HOV II 2,500 2,500 SE 256th Widening 2,900 2,900 Subtotal Arterials 3,188 4,700 1,197 4,809 13,894 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS: Military Road 150 150 James&Central N. Rt Turn 350 350 Subtotal Intersections 350 150 500' OTHERIMPROVEMENTS : 1994 Projects/Neigh Traffic Cont. 20 20 40 Canyon Drive Sidewalk/Bike Lns 696 96 792 EVH Pavement Rehabilitation 510 510 S Central Pavement Rehab 425 425 Sidewalk Rehabilitation 300 300 300 300 300 300 1,800 Bus Demonstration 468 468 Bike Paths 100 100 100 100 100 500 Miscellaneous Asphalt Overlays 244 365 365 365 365 365 2,069 Annexation Arterial Overlays 100 100 Annexation Sidewalks 100 100 Annexation Equipment 115 115 Subtotal Other improvements 1,957 1,361 1,286 785 765 765 6,919 Total Costs 10,834 8,633 19,514 15,145. 8,809 6,244 1 9,284 Revenues Over Under Expenditures 2,841 4,516 4,701 1,850 1,825 Ending Balance 2.841 4,516 4,701 1,850 1,825 CORRECTIONS FACILITY CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funds (In Thousands) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL i I SOURCES OF FUNDS Existing Revenue: Prior Revenue from MDT Sale 37 37 800 MHZ Radio Sale-Prior Revenues 30 30 Seized Assets 55 90 145 CIP Funds 20 78 160 25 320 603 I Total Sources 105 205 160 25 320 815 USES OF FUNDS i Non-Capacity Projects: Computerized Fingerprinting System 55 55 j CKCF-Office Space Precinct 90 90 AFFIS-Auto Fingerprint,Term/Staff 90 90 Carpet Replace/Shower Remodel 25 25 Storage'-Staff Lockers& Inmate Bins/Files 20 20 Security Grounds and Building 25 25 Space Study(Cost Benefit Analysis) 25 25 Plumbing/Drainage/Maintenance 100 100 Air Flow Mechanical System Upgrade 320 320 Convert an area to Office Space 30 30 HVAC Control Upgrade 35 35 Subtotal 105 205 160 25 320 815 Total.Costs 105 205 160 25 320 815- BALANCE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funds (In Thousands) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL FDefibrillator OF FUNDS 50 50 Grants 550 555 540 520 475 400 3,040 es TotahSources, 600 555 540 520 475 400 3,090 Non-Capacity Projects: 60 60 Stat 73 Emergency Power Generator 60 Stat 76 Emergency Power Generator 60 Defibrillator Replacement 80 80 Phase 2-Repairs Stat 74lJoint Tm Fac. 75 75 Emergency Coord Ctr Oper Equip. 80 80 40 200 Sealcoat Pkg areas at 6 Fire Stations 60 60 Exterior Painting (4 Fire Stations) 80 80 Carpet Replacement 75 75 Replacement Fire Equipment 400 400 400 400 400 400 2,400 Subtotal 600 555 540 520 475 400 3,090 TotaPCosts 600 555 540 520 475 400 3,090 BALANCE POLICE AND FIRE TRAINING CENTER CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funds (In Thousands) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL. SOURCES OF FUNDS Mobil Data Terminal Sale-Police 36 36 800 MHz Sale-Fire 425 425 Total.Sources 461 461 Non-Capacity Projects: Burn Props 425 425 Bullet Trap 36 36 Subtotal 461 461 Total..Costs 461 461 BALANCE Additional MDT&800 MHZ&Project Revenue may be available to increase funding. i POLICE ADMINISTRATION CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funds (In Thousands) 1996' 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS 239 Prior Revenue from 800 MHZ Sales 239 CIP Revenues 55 75 196 326 239 55 75 196 565: Total Sources USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: 146 146 Additional Office Spaces (1075 sq ft) 146 146: Subtotal Non-Capacity Projects: 55 55 Energy Management System 75 Radios 75 Laptop Computers 50 50 75 75 Recarpet and Fix Walls 50 50 Remodel PD Offices 4 Vehicles&Equip for Annexation 114 114 Subtotal 239 55 75 50 419 Total Costs 239 55 75 196 565 BALANCE ' NEIGHBORHOOD PARK - RECREATIONAL LAND CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funds (In Thousands) n. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS Existing Revenue: CIP Revenues 200 300 300 300 300 300 1,700 Total Sources- 200 300 300 300 300 300 1,700" i USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: New Neighborhood Park 200 300 300 300 300 300 1,700 Land Acquisition(13.43 acres) Subtotal 200 300 300 .300 300 300. 1,700 TotalCosts 200 300 300 300 300 3001 1,700 BALANCE I i n COMMUNITY PARK - RECREATIONAL LAND I CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses or Funds (In Thousands) 1996' 1997 1998 1999 2000 20011 TOTAL FVoted OF FUNDS 3,200 3,200 Bonds 80 750 830es Total Sources- 80 3,200. 750I 4,030 USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: 80 80 Morrill Property 1,200 1,200 CulturaVPerforming Arts Center Land Acquisition(5 acres) 750 750 Community Park Land Acquisition(5 acres) 2,000 2,750 Bond Issue; CommNouth Center Land Acq 750 2,030 Subtotal 80- 3,200 Total Costs- 80 3,200 750 4,030 BALANCE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK - RECREATIONAL FACILITIES CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funds (In Thousands) 1996- 1997- 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL. SOURCES OF FUNDS CIP Revenues 304 266 407 171 335 143 1,626 Voted Bonds 524 524 208 208 IAC Grant TotatSources: 304 266 931 171 543 143 2,358- I USES OF FUNDS i Capacity Projects: 10 Parkside Wetlands Trail Dev. (0.25 miles) 10 Addtl Neigh. Parks Dev. (unknown acres) 20 113 31 18 400 582 Incl Chestnut Ridge, Parkside, Salt Air Subtotal 20 123 31 18 400 592 Non-Capacity Projects: Garrison Creek Facility Repairs 40 324 364 Glenn Nelson Facility Repairs '50 50 Linda Heights Park Renovation 10 200 210 Turnkey Park Renovation 83 83 Neigh Park Reno(Kiw 3&Tudor) 109 10 119 Lk Mer Annex(Springwood, Mer. Glen, 50 150 50 50 50 350 Eastridge, Pine Tree, Misc.) Playground Safety(Kiw3,4,W. Fenwick, 75 50 50 50 50 50 325 Turnkey&Misc. Parks) Risk Reduct.&lmprov. (Parking surfaces, 50 43 43 43 43 43 265 - Wing fences, Signs,Turf, lrng, Coloring) Subtotal. 284 143 900 153- 143 143 .1,766= Totat Costs> 304 266 931 171 543 143 2,358= BALANCE COMMUNITY PARK - RECREATIONAL FACILITIES CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funds (In Thousands) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS CIP Revenues 549 805 804 676 528 376 3,738 IAC Grant 207 300 184 691 Voted G O Bonds 33,030 6,700 20 39,750 Historical Grant 100 100 Am Legion Donation 5 5 Teen Funding Skateboard 35 35 Total.Sourees 584 910 34,041 7,676 528 580 44,319 USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: 3,000 Green River Athletic Complex(35 acres) 3,000 Bond Issue: Performing Arts Center 30,000 30,000 Bond Issue:Youth Community Ctr Dev. 30 6,700 6,730 Bond Issue: Master Plan E Hill Ath.Comp 20 20 Community Park Development 100 20 612 103 390 1,225 Architecture&Engineering Future Parks 27 27 27 27 27 27 162 Annexation Start Up Equipment 152 152 Grant Matching 150 100 100 100 100 100 650 Subtotal< 329 227 33,177 7,439 230 537 41,939 Non-Capacity Projects: 23 Campus Park Traiis Resurfacing 23 Commons Playfield Renovations 130 40 170 Green River Corridor Parking Improv. 89 89 Interurban Trail Improvements 92 92 Kent Memorial Park Improvements 150 100 250 West Femvick Park Improvements 34 22 110 166 Corn Pk Reno.(S. Lk Fen&Pkg, Neely) 20 214 400 634 Lake Meridian Park Improvement 50 50 Risk Reduction and Improvement 155 113 43 43 43 397 Trail/Pkg Surface Improvement 10 104 145 259 Plygnd Safety(KMP,W Fen, Com, RR,VD) 170 170 Skateboard Park 50 50 Rail Road Fencing-Uplands 30 30 Subtotal 255 683 864 237 298 431 2,380 Total Costs 584 910 34,041 7,676 528 580 I 44,319 BALANCE GOLF COURSES CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funds (In Thousands) .R. 1996 1997 1998 less 2000 2001 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS Existing Revenue: Golf User Fees 330 330 Prior Year Bonds 330 330 TdtaLSources- 330 330 660 Non-Capacity Projects: Par 3 Golf Course Renovations &irrigation 165 165 18 Hole Golf Course Renovation 165 165 New Maintenance Facility Construction 330 330 Subtotal. 330 330 660 Tota[Costs a 330 330 660 BALANCE i 17 CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES - GENERAL CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funds (In Thousands) 1996, 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS Councilmanic Bonds 800 800 CIP Revenues 906 586 530 448 665 496 3,631 t'otatSources: 906_ 1,386 530 448 665 496 4,431 USES OF FUNDS Non-Capacity Projects: Purchase of Addtl Computers&Systems 170 120 120 120 120 120 770 Emergency Facility Repairs 100 100 100 100 100 100 600 Software and Hardware Replacement 50 800 850 Reroof Kent Commons 75 50 125 City Hall Rooftop Safety Platform 25 25 Auto. HVAC Controls(Kent Commons) 60 60 Furniture Other Facilities 260 260 Painting-Kent Commons 35 35 Replumb City Hall 138 138 Kent Memorial Park Building Remodel 25 25 Chiller Compresser Upgrades(City Hall) 50 50 Senior Ctr Recarpet and Paint Exterior 45 45 Commons Recarpebng 32 32 Expansion of Municipal Court 50 106 110 113 116 495 CIP Project Analyst 56 56 59 63 67 70 371 Downtown Market Analysis 25 25 Shoreline Master Program Update 18 18 Telecommunications Feasibility Study 25 25 Uninterrupted Power Supply (Information Sy 15 200 215 Cable TV, PC,Tpedck&Other Tech Equip 42 40 40 40 40 40 242 Telecommuting Equipment 25 25 'Subtotai 90fi 1,386 530 448 . 665 . 496 4431 7 TotaCCosts 7. 906 11386 530 448: 665 496 4,431 BALANCE e FACILITIES - MAINTENANCE CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funos (In Thousands) 1996 1997 1998- 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS Councilmanic Bonds 3,090 3,090 Total-Sources 3,090 3,090 USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: Additional Maintenance Facility Space 1,240 1,240 Construction(7532 sq ft) Subtotal 1,240 1,240 Non-Capacity Projects: Expand& Remodel Maintenance Facility 1,850 1,850 Subtotal. 1,850 1,850 TofaGCostS7 3,090 3,090 BALANCE t SANITARY SEWER CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Usn of Funs (In Thousands) ------------ 1996 199T 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS Existing Revenue: 175 250 2S0 270 281 291 1,527 Sewer Sales Total Sources 175 250 2S0 270 281 291 1,527 USES OF FUNDS Non-Capacity Projects: Miscellaneous Sewer Lines 175 250 230 270 281 291 1,527 Replacements/Rebuilds Subtotal 175 250 250 270 281 291 1,527 Tota4Costs 175 250 260 270 281 291 1,527 BALANCE I I STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses of Funds (In Thousands) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20011 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS Existing Revenue: Drainage Sales 1,238 983 1,062 1,292 949 5.524 Revenue Bonds 8,713 4,695 4,493 1,780 19,681 Total--Sources 9,951 5,678 5,555 3,072 949 25,205 USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: Val StmWtr Det Wat Qual Trt Fac Const. 2,363 707 3.070 Subtotal 2-363 707 I 3,070 Non-Capacity Projects: Misc. Storm Drainage Improvements 378 393 409 A25 c42 2.047 Mill Creek Drainage Basin Improvements 1,500 1,500 Mill Creek(Auburn) Fid Ctrt Co-op Frog. 120 120 240 Various Streams Rest and Re-Vegetation 47 47 3rd Ave Trunk System Construction 280 280 Valley Detention System Improvements 7,090 2,123 9,213 Garr. Crk Stor. Faa'Tmk Const. Rebuild 570 570 1,140 Hrseshoe Ac. Pump Stat EnglEqu Repl. 280 280 Various Outfall Treatment Fac. Const 2,604 2.229 4,833 Facilities Construction Drainage Improvements 265 1,365 a18 507 2,555 Subtotal 7588= 4,971 5,555 3,072 949 21135 Tbtak'Costs. 9,951 5,678 5,555 3,072 949 1 25,205: BALANCE WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Sources and Uses o/Funds (In Thousands) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS Existing Revenue: Water Sales 2,144 754 1,764 1,775 1,786 1,797 10.020 Total:Sourcm 2,144 754 1,764 1,775 1,786 1,797 10,020 USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: Tacoma Intertie(Impoundment Res.) 1,C00 1,000 Impoundment Res Const(29600124th SE) 500 1,500 1,500 1,500 i,500 6,500 Miscellaneous Watermain Replacements 122 127 132 138 143 149 811 Subtotal 1,122 627 1,632 1,638 1,643 1,649 8.311 Non-Capacity Projects: Miscellaneous Watermain Replacements 122 127 132 137 143 148 809 Corrosion Control 725 725 112th Ave Well 175 175 Subtotal 1,022 127 132 137 143 148 I 1,709 Total..Costs- 1 2,144 754 1,764 1.775 1,786 1,797I 10,020 BALANCE � 7 141, Kent City Council Meeting Date October 17 . 1995 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: MERIDIAN ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA-95-1 AND INITIAL ZONING AZ-95-3 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On September 25 and 26, 1995, the Planning Commission held public hearings on both the compre- hensive plan and zoning map amendments for the Meridian annexation area. Following their deliberations on October 2, 1995, the Commission voted to forward their recommendation to the City Council. Tonight's hearing is the first of two public hearings to be held by the City Council pursuant to state law; the second hearing is scheduled for November 21, 1995. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, October 2 , 1995 Planning Commission Staff Report, eight public testimony letters and Planning Commission minutes of October 2, 1995 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: 1 PUBLIC INPUT: e CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: CouncilmemberJ Lmoves, Councilmember seconds to close the first hearing on the Meridian annexation area comprehensive plan and initial zoning. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2B CITY OF Zt\Lr!2 Z5 a CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 ..- Jim White, Mayor UFS©IIc,^'II'� MEMORANDUM October 17, 1995 TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING, #CPA-95-1 AND #AZ-95-3-- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Attached is the Planning Commission's recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning for the Meridian annexation area. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the plan and zoning for the Meridian area on September 25 and September 26, 1995, and made their recommendation on October 2, 1995 (see attached minutes). At the public hearings, the Planning Commission received testimony on and considered three alternatives for both the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning map for the area. These alternatives are outlined in the staff report to the Planning Commission, dated September 19, which is attached. After considering the public testimony and asking questions of staff, the Planning Commission is recommending a Land Use Plan Map and zoning map which most closely resembles Alternative 3 in the staff report, which was the staff proposal. The changes made to Alternative 3 by the Planning Commission were minor, and involved two changes along 152nd Avenue SE (one from R1-12 to NCC, the other from R1-12 to R1-7.2), one change along Kent- Kangley Road from R1-7.2 to 0, and one change along SE 124th Street from R1-9.6 to R1-7.2. The Planning Commission received a great deal of public testimony during the hearings, and this testimony was analyzed by staff in a memorandum dated October 2, 1995, which is attached. Several letters were received by the Planning Department between the Planning Commission hearing on September 26 and the Planning Commission's deliberation on October 2. Because the public hearing was closed on September 26, the Planning Commission chose not to consider these letters during their deliberations. However, they directed staff to enter the letters into the record and forward them to the City Council. These letters are attached, and are summarized below: 220 Jth AVE SO /KENT.WAS I INCTON 95031-5S95/T6LEPIIONE ('06)S59-3300/FAX#359-3334 Planning Commission Recommendation for Meridian Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment October 12, 1995 Page 2 Letter 1: Letter from several parties, dated September 28, 1995 Comment: Request a zoning designation of RA for a wetland owned by King County near the intersection of 128th Avenue SE and SE 268th Street. The area is currently proposed to be zoned R1-5.0. Letter 2: Two letters from Frances Houston, dated October 2, 1995 Comment: Expressed concern about proposed commercial zoning along SE 272nd Street, east of 152nd Avenue SE. Letter 3: Letter from Ed Katai, dated September 29, 1995 Comment: Supports staff-recommended commercial zoning at intersection of SE 272nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, and requests additional commercial zoning in this area. Letter 4: Letter from David Zehr, dated September 29, 1995 Comment: Supports staff-recommended commercial zoning at intersection of SE 272nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, and requests additional commercial zoning in this area. Letter 5: Letter from David and Amy Walton, dated October 2, 1995 Comment: Request for CC zoning on 154th Avenue SE, south of SE 272nd Avenue. Letter 6: Letter from Tom Sinkula, dated September 27, 1995 Comment: Request for commercial zoning at the intersection of 124th Avenue SE and Kent- Kangley Road. The area is currently proposed to be zoned R1-7.2. Letter 7: Letter from Kenneth Kirby, dated September 5, 1995 Comment: Request for R6 (R1-7.2) zoning near the intersection of 144th Avenue SE and SE 288th Street. This area is proposed to be designated RA. Letter 8: Letter from Cal and Betty Wilson, dated September 27, 1995 Comment: Supports staff-recommended commercial zoning at intersection of SE 272nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, and requests additional commercial zoning in this area. Planning Commission Recommendation for Meridian Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment October 12, 1995 Page 3 These letters should be considered as part of the public record, along with other testimony which will be received by the City Council during your hearings on the plan and zoning designations for the Meridian area. By City ordinance, the City Council must hold two hearings on the proposed zoning, which also includes consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. The first hearing is scheduled for October 17, 1995, and the second hearing is scheduled for November 21, 1995, since by State law the hearings must be at least 30 days apart. Planning Department staff will be available at the October 17 hearing to further explain the recommended plan and zoning designations for the Meridian annexation area. JPH/cw:merancc.mem Attachments cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner H M Lo rn rn C.9ffA 7 1 1 e`yE 61� W 1y t 3S 3Atl N1BS1 35 iAtl HAS vaG e, x yro F) O F F S 3S 3Atl pH2Si V 1 'l S M axz5 S F F F O O 5 l '� Z_ Z_ Z Z Z F F U 3Atl RIM A �) Z �2 5 S s I z 2 o o � of EJ _. ri a ai m Z Y7 � a AU 1 3Atl Hinfil 1I G C 0 G O a F a pZiZil p Tw n q FI W < .Fi .F] .Fi t; N z , ZZf oZ OE., 25 3Atl Nlpbl m z 1`�/tlF.��' 5 Ab H1BF1 wZ y a N m m m m O U S U S, H U ' Of12 t0�O W in T`O N '_� ^ w y'.�.1.IH.�.'-i.I-I LC C'.G.C.SVU ►� - 3F 3Atl Intl W F4 xaa�aaz �zO N S 3Atl 41 rl O � C lAJ ♦Y�. � `O S nb N1C O Y pVE gE G as 3nv xzAIzT F y 3S 3Atl N1021 � ❑a� O a ❑D 1 3S 3Ab 0191 S d HS9TT E- Atl 1 3f 3 Nln F3S 3Ab It O m F., CQ .LzTT W _ rn ') 35 3ntl Nlaol y 3S 3Ab Hlapl 35 3Atl xS90T W Atl NI fll JI v� ��(�� 3s 3nv x.LtoT Ln Ql LO m IU 1A 7 y O FY O I m h6tV' C N w 35 3Atl N1951 3S n3'A,tl N195 ,2 O 1u; r � m Z m m 0 m w O O V y 35 Ad Ox261 O s an aco xzs W t-1 m A I a U z fs+ 410 a 3A N19x1 Cam, F/di{ VLF w � � zmz y o o �I Ei w = �Qdzz � w � °� W no —0, JLJ W O S ntl N 35 3ntl NMI r�l W O In , 1i o N U q C D F„ 35 3Atl HIM is1 < � � E• y wz s o I r m `\ w q V 3 Q m 36 3Atl N1961 '/� O U z 00zo F VI (O .-,r,com ww Atl IIIIQa a a - 35 3Atl 1TC1 OU G]91 d]U1 co m S Ad x (Sy A �xle 1 m 6"a j/2 o S AU .IL N 3s anV xz�zT F � NRE V r 36 3Atl N1021 ��I^�D' ❑❑m � l�J 31 3Atl NI91 ❑� V ,L9 T NAtl m 3S 3 u Nlx 1 O E- 3s 3ntl n F" "W' n o w� F S 3AV .L2TT a m w � � co o N o F 35 3Atl Nf601 3S 3Atl u16a1 as 3Atl x.LaoT w u! fAtl 111 01 V1 , � `Jy as aAv xitoT F -� CITY OF L&\2!2 C� CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jim White, Mayor MEMORANDUM October 2, 1995 MEMO TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING #CPA-95-1 AND 4AZ-95-3, MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS The following is a summary of concerns and questions which were raised at the public hearings on September 25 and September 26. The first part of the memorandum summarizes issues which are of a general nature,and do not relate to specific sites. The second part of the memorandum considers issues relating to specific sites on the proposed zoning maps. For each of these issues, staff has prepared a response and recommendation for the Planning Commission's review during the Commission's deliberations on the Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments on October 2. It should be noted that several persons who spoke during the public hearings on September 25 and September 26 spoke in favor of the staff proposal. Staff has not responded to this testimony, since the rationale for the staff proposal is already included in the September 19 staff report to the Commission. This memorandum will respond to those issues which either need to be further clarified, or where persons testified in support of an issue which was not consistent with the staff proposal. A. GENERAL ISSUES Issue 1: Animals in Residential Zones - Will annexation to the City of Kent effect residents ability to keep animals? Discussion: Many residents of the Meridian annexation area have expressed concern about the . City of Kent policies and regulations for keeping animals in residential zones. Kent's regulations are very basic compared to those of King County. The King County Zoning Code provides number limits and confinement standards for small and large animals related to property size, standards for aviary and beehives, kennels, and 21011h AVE.SO.. I KENT.WASHINGTON 95032-5995/TELEPHONE C061359-3300I FAX#859-3334 Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 2 catteries, and property line setback requirements for livestock buildings. It provides livestock density regulations, and provisions for livestock -farm management plans for pasture management, watering, wetland, and stream management, confinement area , and waste management. The only Kent zoning code reference to animals is Section 15.08.070 which states: Animals (excluding household pets such as cats and dogs), especially horses, cows, sheep and goats, shall not be permitted in residential districts on lots smaller than twenty thousand square feet." Beyond the Zoning Code regulation,the Kent Municipal Code provides for regulation of noise, and animal nuisances, such as failure to confine animals properly, vicious animals, and contagious diseases. The City at this time does not plan to revise the zoning code provisions for animals. In the future, and as population growth occurs,the City will respond as necessary to maintain compatibility between land uses, including the keeping of animals on residential property. Issue 2: Issue: Nonconforming Uses (Evans) Discussion: Mr. Evans was concerned about the status of Lake Meridian Village which is a condominium complex located in an area recommended for single family residential use. Lake Meridian Village would be an illegal use in the recommended zone, however, because the Kent zoning code contains a residential exception to nonconforming use status,the Lake Meridian Village is a legal use.. The exception states: "Legally established residential uses located in any residential zoning district and in existence as of January 1, 1984, shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of density provisions and shall be a legal use." Lake Meridian Village was established prior to 1984, and therefore qualifies for the exemption.. Other Meridian residents and property owners have inquired about nonconformance provisions in the Kent Zoning Code. The following is a general comparison of the City of Kent and King County regulations: Nonconformance is provided for in the Kent zoning code in much the same manner as the King County zoning code with some significant differences, including the residential exception quoted above. In each code, the nonconformance provisions do not relieve a property owner from compliance with Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Nor do the nonconformance provisions relieve a property owner from conformance with other provisions of the zoning code beyond the specific nonconformance being addressed in particular situation. Uses, structures, lots and signs which were lawfully established in Kent prior to June 20, 1973, or which were lawfully established prior to the effective date of the King County Zoning Code and rendered nonconforming by annexation are considered legal but non-conforming to Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 3 the present codes and standards. Uses, structures and site improvements which were not established in compliance with the zoning code use regulations and development standards in force at the time of establishment are not considered nonconforming,but are illegal and subject to code enforcement. In King County,nonconforming structures may be repaired or reconstructed if they are not expanded and the building permit for reconstruction or repair is submitted within twelve months of damage or destruction. In Kent, in the event of natural disasters which damage the nonconforming structure more than 50% of the market value,the structure may not be restored or reconstructed except according to specific criteria as approved by the Planning Director. King County regulations provide for re-establishment of a discontinued nonconforming use if the use is re-established within 12 months, but Kent regulations do not allow a non-conforming use to be resumed after six months of abandonment. Subject to certain conditions and criteria, expansions of nonconforming uses may be authorized in both King County and Kent by the conditional use permit process. For information regarding specific nonconforming uses or structures, the public should contact the Planning Department. Issue 3: Sensitive Area Development Regulations Discussion: The City of Kent uses several tools to regulate development within environmentally sensitive areas. Section 15.08.220 thru 15.08.224 of the Kent Zoning Code is intended to "regulate the location and density of development based on known physical constraints, and to preserve or enhance water quality in the city's watercourses.". This section of the code provides regulations for development on steep slopes, lakes, minor and major creeks, and seismic hazard areas. The Kent Wetlands Management Code (Section 11.05 of the Kent City Code) is intended to "protect the public health, safety, and welfare by preserving, protecting, and restoring wetlands through the regulation of development and other activities within them and wetland buffers so that nuisances or threats to safety are not created, and natural wetland functions and values are not degraded..." Finally, the Kent Shoreline Master Program regulates development within 200 feet of the shorelines of statewide significance (Lake Meridian, Green River). "The Shoreline Management Act (Ch.90.58 RCW) provides for the management and protection of the state's shoreline resources by planning for reasonable and appropriate uses." Using the City's Geographic Information System (GIS), hazard areas, creeks, and wetlands have been mapped within the city limits. This includes topographic contour lines at five foot intervals. The City currently has information on creeks Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 Page 4 and topography for most of the Meridian area. However, wetlands and hazard areas have not yet been delineated. The City is currently working with King County to acquire additional information on Meridian sensitive areas. The Kent Public Works Department will be working with their counterparts at the County to insure a smooth transition of standards between the two jurisdictions. The Water Quality division of the Public Works Department administers the City's wetland and stormwater regulations. The Planning Department monitors development in specified hazard areas, including lakes and creeks. B. MAPPING ISSUES Map Site 1: Kent Kangley Commercial (Widener/Ormiston/Huston/Burpee/Wilson) Issue: Should additional parcels be designated for commercial zoning in the area of Kent Kangley Road/154th Avenue SE? Staff Recommendation: No change Discussion: Owners of two properties testified that they would like to change their proposed zoning from R1-12.0 to CC, Community Commercial. In addition, a suggestion was made to "square off' the revised commercial zoning boundary to include two other properties in the area; the owner of one of these parcels objected to the revised boundary. The existing King County zoning in this area is Urban Reserve, 1 DU per acre. (This area is being proposed by King County for rezoning to R6 - 6 DU per acre.) The proposed zoning by staff is R1-12.0 which allows approximately 3-3 1/2 units per acre. At this time, the only access to these properties is from the south via 154th Avenue SE which is through a residential area. Staff does not recommend converting single family zoned land to commercial in this area. Map Site 2: 25840 135th Lane SE, Lake Meridian Cabins (Marie Lewis). Issue: Request for zoning to allow ten dwelling units per acre with zero lot line options for site planning. Staff Recommendation: Retain SF 6 Comprehensive Plan recommendation, and R1 9.6 zoning designation, as recommended by staff in Alternative 3. Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 Page 5 Discussion: Lake Meridian Cabins property is located at the northeast end of Lake Meridian. The property is developed with nineteen residences,including a house near the south an west property lines, and eighteen small cottages located near the north and west property lines. The King County Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the property is four to twelve dwelling units per acre. The County zoning designation is R-4 Residential (four dwelling units per acre). Four dwellings per acre is consistent with County policy to base densities on land characteristics. Lands which contain or which are in close proximity to environmentally sensitive areas, such as the north shore of Lake Meridian and the Soos Creek Corridor, received a maximum density recommendation of four homes per acre. The City of Kent Alternative 3, the staff-recommended alternative for the Lake Meridian Cabins recommends a Comprehensive designation of SF-6 (Single Family Residential, six units per acre) and a zoning designation of RI 9.6 (Single Family Residential, 9600 square foot minimum lot size. The zero lot line option is currently available under Kent Zoning Code regulations for a site area of five acres or larger. The Kent Zoning Code does not contain provisions for 10 dwellings per acre, except in multi-family residential zones. The general policy of the City is to avoid creating additional multifamily-zoned property unless the property in question is already developed with multifamily dwellings. Considering the location of the Meridian Cabins property, adjacent to the shores of Lake Meridian, within a large general area of Rl 9.6 recommended zoning; and considering general City policies regarding the creation of additional multifamily property, staff recommends retaining the staff-recommended Alternative 3 Comprehensive plan and zoning designations of six dwellings per acre and a 9600 square foot maximum lot size. Map Site 3: Shady Park Grocery and Auto Repair at 27848 152nd Avenue SE (Spencer) Issue: Should this area be changed from single family residential to commercial? Staff Recommendation: Remain single-family residential. Discussion: The Shady Park grocery is located at 27848 152nd Avenue SE, at the northeast comer of 152nd Avenue SE and SE 280th Street. The site contains a grocery store and an auto repair use. The owner testified at the September 26 hearing that the Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and #A7--95-3 Page 6 grocery store has been in existence since 1920, and that the auto repair use has been operating since 1940. This being the case, both uses are likely legal and nonconforming, since the site is currently zoned as Urban Reserve in King County (one dwelling unit per 5 acres). The general area surrounding the site is zoned and developed as very low density single-family. The legal, non-conforming status of the uses on the site will continue if the site is zoned for single-family use upon annexation into the City,meaning that the uses may continue to operate on the site. Designating the site as commercial would allow an expanded number of commercial uses on the site if the ownership were to change, and would create a commercial zoning designation in the middle of a low density single-family area. Furthermore, auto repair is not a permitted use in the NCC (Neighborhood Convenience Commercial) zone, meaning that making this use conforming would require a CC (Community Commercial) or GC (General Commercial) zoning designation. Map Site 4: 28040 152nd Avenue SE (Jones) Issue: Should this area be changed from SF-3 and R1-12 to SF-6 and R1-7.2? Staff Recommendation: Keep designation of SF-3 and R1-12 Discussion: This property currently has a farm use with some retail sales also being undertaken. The property is zoned Urban Reserve, 1 dwelling unit per five acres. King County staff has proposed, as part of the Soos Creek Urban Reserve study. The owner is requesting a similar designation in Kent, which would be R1-7.2. The staff proposal shows this area designated as SF-3 and R1-12,respectively. This recommendation was based on the idea of allowing higher densities than the current zoning designations in King County allow, while providing something of a transitional zoning designation between the R1-7.2 zoning south of SE 272nd Street and the RA areas along SE 288th Street. Also, the analysis of household capacity and targets for the overall area shows that a density of R1-7.2 in this largely undeveloped area would not be necessary to meet the projected targets for the area. However, after additional research, it appears that the area could be served adequately with water and sewer facilities at an R1-7.2 zoning density, and there are no major environmental constraints in this general area. Therefore, staff would not oppose a designation of SF-6 and R1-7.2 for this area if the Commission decides to make this change. If the plan and zoning designations are amended,the boundaries of the amended area should be a larger area than just the property in question. Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 Page 7 Map Site 5: 26626 132nd Avenue SE (Pearson) Issue: Should the zoning be changed from the staff recommended R1-7.2 to a zoning designation which would allow a nursery as a principally permitted use? Staff Recommendation: Keep designation of SF-6 and R1-7.2 Discussion: The owner of the property operates a nursery, which has been in existence for approximately 12 years. The site is currently zoned R6,Residential 6 units per acre. The nursery is apparently legal and nonconforming at the current time, and the proposed designation of R1-7.2 would preserve that status upon annexation into the City,meaning that the nursery could continue in operation. The zoning designations in the City which would allow a nursery as a permitted use are either agricultural zones (such as Al and RA) or commercial zones (such as NCC or CC), and these designations do not seem appropriate for this area, which is developed for the most part with single-family residential development. Map Site 6: 12633 SE 270th Street (Conti) Issue: Should this property be designated for office use, instead of single- family residential? Staff Recommendation: Retain single family designation The owner gave testimony regarding his property located at 12633 SE 270th Street which covers approximately 16.5 acres of land. The owner requested professional office zoning due to his property's location adjacent to Kent-Kangley Road and environmental constraints on a large portion of the site. Staff has recommended R1-7.2 zoning for this property. A large wetland area and streams are located on most of the subject property. According to the owner, a small portion of the site adjacent to Kent-Kangley Road is higher than the rest of the property, and would make a suitable building site for offices. Staff has good information regarding streams, wetlands, and topography within the existing city limits, but detailed wetland information is not yet available in the Meridian area. Information that the City currently has does show streams on the property and shows a bench of higher elevation along the northeast portion of the site. However, field investigations, usually including a wetland delineation and mitigation plan, are required of all projects locating on a lot with wetlands, or impacting nearby wetlands. Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 Page 8 At this time, staff is recommending that the proposed R1-7.2 zoning be retained until that time additional information pertaining to wetland boundaries, type, and buffers can be provided and reviewed. Staff recognizes the limitations to developing a single family subdivision on the property, but does not feel extending Office zoning, with the necessary commercial Comprehensive Plan designation, would be desirable along the entire frontage of this property. If in the future it can be shown that a portion of the property is suitable for intense development, the owner will be able to apply for a Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendment based on this information. Map Site 7: Clark Lake (Lake, Mills Goldberg, Grajewski) Issue: Concern about the future of the property by King County for the purpose of preserving open space adjacent to Clark Lake. Discussion: The Kent Comprehensive Plan, like the King Comprehensive County Plan, assigns high priority to the acquisition and maintenance of both active and passive recreation sites. It provides for incorporation of unique ecological features and resources into the park system to protect wildlife habitat and preserve sensitive aquatic areas. The open space adjacent to Clark Lake was acquired as implementation of the King County Open Space Plan. The City of Kent plans to maintain the space as a passive park, in accordance with the original intent of the purchase. At this time,the Kent Parks Department does not have a specific plan for development of the park, but use of the open space will include picnic areas, lake access, and trails. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan provides for increasing natural areas and open space linkages around Clark Lake and other open space areas, but there are no immediate plans to acquire additional property near Clark Lake. Map Site 8: 25261 124th Avenue SE (Kuehlthau) Issue: Should the designation of the property be revised to R1-7.2 from R1-9.6? Staff Recommendation: Revise the recommended zoning boundary to include the Kuehlthau property within the R1 7.2 zone. Discussion: A review of the King County Critical Areas maps and a site visit revealed no significant reason for the lower density designation on Mr. Kuehlthau's property. The property is uneven and hilly and contains what appears to be an intermittent Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 9 drainage channel, but the Class 2 stream indicated on the sensitive areas maps is located on the east side of 124th Avenue SE, and crosses to the west side of 124th Avenue north of the Kuehlthau property. Since there are no significant environmental constraints, and the area in question is located adjacent to Rl 7.2-recommended property along the west and south property lines, staff recommends that the boundary line between the RI 9.6 and Rl 7.2 zones be revised as shown on the attached map. Map Site 9: East Side of 116th Avenue SE/S of St 240th Street(Richardson) Issue: Request that approximately 1.4 acres be rezoned to MRM to allow senior housing Staff Recommendation: Retain R1-7.2 Discussion: The property owner in this case requests that the proposed zoning for approximately 1.4 acres be changed from R1-7.2 to MRM, Medium density Multifamily to permit senior housing/retirement housing to be built. The property is currently zoned R6 (6 DU per acre) in King County. The staff has proposed R1-7.2 zoning to be consistent with the existing County zoning. Also, this general area was the'subject of much discussion during the review of the City's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. While the Ranniger parcel to the north was given a Neighborhood Services designation to acknowledge an existing business office,the remainder of the area was designated for single family residential. In addition, if the proposal is to construct retirement housing for senior citizens,this use is a conditional use in the RI zone and may be authorized by conditional use permit. A rezone to multifamily is not necessary. Therefore, staff does not recommend a change in proposed zoning. Map Site 10: Property located in southwest corner of annexation area (Pawlowski) Issue: Request to change proposed zoning to less dense single family residential zoning Staff Recommendation: Retain R1-20 Discussion: The property owner favors low density, single family residential zoning which would be consistent with the current Urban Reserve (1 DU per 5 acres) zoning of King Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 Page 10 County. The proposed City zoning is RI-20 (1 DU per 1/2 acre). The City of Kent does not have a zoning classification equivalent to that of the County; the RA zone (1 unit per acre) is the least density residential zone in the City. The area where this parcel is located was proposed for R1-20 zoning because it is contiguous with the Ramstead annexation area where the City recently applied R1-20 zoning. Map Site 11: 24436 116th Avenue SE (Bushey) Issue: Should the zoning be changed from the staff recommended R1-7.2 to a zoning designation which would allow commercial uses? Staff Recommendation: Keep designation of SF-6 and R1-7.2 Discussion: This property is located on 116th Avenue SE, across the street from the City's East Hill Police/Fire Training Center. The property is currently zoned R6, Residential 6 units per acre. There are some small scale commercial and office uses located at the corner of SE 240th and I I6th Avenue SE; otherwise the prevalent development pattern in the area is single-family residential. During consideration of the Comprehensive Plan,the Planning Commission and City Council considered a proposal to change the land use designation along the west side of 116th Avenue SE south of SE 240th Street to commercial. The Council chose to keep this area designated for single-family development. The staff proposed land use designation of SF-6 and R1-7.2 is consistent with this earlier decision, is consistent with the existing County plan and zoning designations, and is consistent with the land use pattern of the area. Map Site 12: Multifamily Zoning of undeveloped site near Lake Meridian Shopping Center (Reid letter) Issue: Request to retain existing County multifamily zoning on undeveloped parcels located north and east of Lake Meridian Shopping Center. Staff Recommendation: Retain R1-5.0 Discussion: By letter dated 8-28-95, the property owner(Reid) of four parcels located adjacent to the Lake Meridian Shopping Center at Kent Kangley Road/132nd Avenue SE requests that these parcels retain multifamily zoning. The four parcels are currently Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 11 zoned R24 (24 units per acre) in King County,with a small portion of the site zoned R48 (48 units per acre). The staff proposed zoning map indicates R1-5.0, single family residential, 8 units per acre, with a portion of one parcel proposed for CC, Community Commercial zoning. The site is currently undeveloped. Portions of the site (east and northern sides) are low and not well drained. Cottonwood trees cover much of the higher portions of the site. Access to the site is limited due to the narrow width of 129th Ave SE which intersects at an angle with Kent Kangley Road. One of the land use planning objectives for the Meridian annexation area, as expressed through City Council resolution#1420, is to retain and protect its single family residential character. Zoning this site for high density single family use (such as the proposed R1-5.0) should better protect such neighborhood character than high density multifamily zoning (such as R24 and R48). Staff will be prepared at the October 2 meeting to make presentations on the new issues analyzed, and answer questions from the Planning Commission on the issues previously discussed. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please call Fred Satterstrom or Kevin O Neill at 859-3390. Attachment cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner lul V z a —�' u z E s rT'•� a / - q Y w� O � •iJ 3Ab S MY QNZ4 Y � _ zO US Kohl 3f p p •. + xlbbi ^ p9. a F Aoy .. � c � ti� :• s ,: IY z 9� o e K F 3f 3AY Koh \ p o 3 r o s i F f 3AY Ni.fl f' •�..• zO � � C\( Y r 6 • G O V p a � : : 8 o . s = P.• 'r•. ink C) Y � � �D � L p HS 3AY BJnT Cp CF) 000 DD- 3L 3"x19 Deo• n V b A F m xl F �� F m ' N S HAY .LZTT fV w 3f 3Atl N1601 Y xlbu� 3S HAY HS80T Y O �(�� 3s RAY H.LiOT (�� PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 CITY OF ZQ�L03� LS CITY OF L"U41 1L5 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT a� (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM September 19, 1995 TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: FRED SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING, #CPA-95-1 AND #AZ-95-3 Introduction In August 1995, the City Council approved the annexation of the area known as the Meridian Annexation into the City of Kent. This action by the City Council was the culmination of a long process undertaken by a group of citizens in the Lake Meridian area, and represents the largest annexation by petition ever completed in the State of Washington. The Meridian annexation area encompasses approximately 5.27 square miles (or 3,373 acres), and extends east from the existing city limits at 116th Avenue SE to Big Soos Creek. The northern boundary of the annexation area is SE 240th Street, while the southern boundary is SE 288th Street (see vicinity map). The annexation area encompasses the southeastern portion of the City's Potential Annexation Area, which is designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Meridian annexation area is scheduled to become part of the City of Kent on January 1, 1996. As part of the City's effort to have services in operation for the area by January 1, the City has undertaken a pre-annexation zoning process. In order to meet this timeline, public hearings on zoning for the Meridian annexation area must be held in September by the Planning Commission. Following the Planning Commission hearings and a recommendation by the Commission, two hearings will be held by the City Council. By state law, these hearings must be held 30 days apart from one another. Therefore, the first Council hearing will be in mid-October, while the second hearing will be in mid-November. The Council must adopt an ordinance by the end of November in order for the zoning to be in effect by January 1. The City of Kent adopted its Comprehensive Plan under the provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in April, 1995. As mentioned above, the plan included a potential annexation area (PAA) for the city. The plan also included a Land Use Plan Map in the Land Use Element, which designated land uses for the entire PAA. Therefore, the Land Use Plan Map 1 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 includes land use designations for the Meridian annexation area. The GMA requires that all development regulations adopted by a jurisdiction must implement, and be consistent with, the comprehensive plan (RCW 36.70A.120). This means that the zoning for the Meridian annexation area must be consistent with the Land Use Plan Map in the comprehensive plan. While it is anticipated that the zoning being proposed (and ultimately adopted) for the area will be generally consistent with the Land Use Plan Map, it will be necessary to make some amendments, and also necessary to update the land use designations so that they are consistent with the designations for the rest of the City. Therefore, this project includes an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan, as well as an amendment to the zoning map. Both the comprehensive plan and zoning amendments will be considered concurrently, since they must be consistent with one another. This report will outline background information on the Meridian annexation area, including a discussion of the existing King County comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the area, and how they compare to Kent's respective plan and zoning designations. The report will then outline three alternatives for both the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and the City's zoning map for the Planning Commission's consideration. It should be emphasized that the Planning Commission and City Council will be asked to review and adopt both an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map designations for the annexation area. Background The comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the Meridian annexation area have changed twice in the past five years. In 1991, the King County Council adopted the Soos Creek Community Plan and zoning, which encompassed the entire Soos Creek Community Planning Area, and included the Meridian annexation area. The zoning which was adopted at the time of the Soos Creek Plan was distinguished by, among other things, the creation of growth reserve areas. These growth reserve areas, which allowed either 1 unit per 2.5 acres or 1 unit per 5 ghout the area. Some of the growth reserve areas were acres, were designed to phase growth throu assigned underlying densities, which became effective on December 31, 1994. In December, 1994, the County Council adopted the King County Comprehensive Plan, which was prepared pursuant to the Growth Management Act. The County also adopted new zoning designations at the same time that the plan was adopted, and the new zoning went into effect in February, 1995. The new zoning was most notable for designating residential areas based on density, as opposed to uses. These current County zoning designations are described in greater detail later in the report. r 2 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 When the County adopted their comprehensive plan, housing and employment targets were established for each community planning area and for the County as a whole, just as they were established for Kent in the City's comprehensive plan. The housing target for the portion of the Soos Creek area located within the urban growth area ranged from 8,600 to 9,600 households. The Meridian annexation area represents a significant portion of the urban land in the Soos Creek area. Staff has analyzed the Soos Creek household targets designated to each Small Analysis Zone (SAZ) by King County. It appears that the target for the Meridian area would fall within the range of 1,700 to 2,000 households in the next twenty years. Staff feels that more coordination needs to be done with King County and the other cities located in the Soos Creek area on distribution of targets. This is supported by LU-8 of the City's plan, which states: The City of Kent adopts a 20-year housing target of 7,500 new dwelling units within the existing city limits. Coordinate with King County through an interlocal agreement on housing targets in the unincorporated area with Kent's Potential Annexation Area. This interlocal agreement has not yet been completed. It the interim, however, it appears that a target range of 1,700 to 2,000 new households in the Meridian annexation area is reasonable. It should be noted that ultimately a new housing target will be adopted by the city, to account for other recent annexations, and to be more consistent with the ranges listed in the Countywide Planning Policies. Staff has also analyzed the existing County zoning with regard to building capacity. Using data provided by the County for both vacant and underdeveloped land, it appears that adequate zoning capacity currently exists to support a target of 1,700 to 2,000 units. However, the "cushion" shrinks substantially at the higher end of the range for existing zoning. Therefore, while all three zoning alternatives presented in the report would provide capacity to meet this interim target, Alternative 2 and 3 would provide more of a cushion to ensure that this target could be achieved. Existing Land Uses The existing land use pattern in the Meridian Annexation Area is typical of most suburban neighborhoods. The predominate existing land use is detached single family residential. However, most uses, excluding those of an industrial nature, are represented. The most intense and dense land uses are clustered around two nodes on Kent-Kangley Road. The intersection of Kent-Kangley Road and 132nd Ave SE includes two multi-tenant commercial centers with adjacent multifamily residential development. The largest multifamily complex in this area, 3 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 the Springwood apartments, contains 350 units in 41 separate structures. The commercial uses include a supermarket, restaurants, pub and tavern, clothing stores, and other services. The area around the intersection of Kent-Kangley Road and 152nd Ave SE includes existing commercial uses and single family,multifamily,and mobile home park housing. The Lake Meridian apartments contain 175 units, and the Cascade Villa Mobile Home Park has 130 units. The commercial uses in this area are smaller than those at the node located at 132nd Ave SE and are of a personal service/retail nature. Numerous single family residential subdivisions are within the annexation area. Lot sizes in these subdivisions are similar to those within subdivisions inside the existing city limits with a few exceptions. In some cases, subdivisions developed under county regulations, which allow lot averaging and clustering, may have lot sizes smaller than those in a city subdivision within a comparable zoning district. These subdivisions have been given credit for land set aside for open space tracts or public road dedication. The City is currently proposing similar single family residential development standards. The overall density in these areas is still held to a maximum underlying density established for each zoning district. Dispersed among the subdivisions are many large tracts of land. Several of these parcels are used for large farms including livestock grazing/exercising areas. Other large tracks of land are simply vacant or occupied by a single residence and accessory buildings. In many cases these large parcels are surrounded by developed single family subdivisions. These large vacant and underdeveloped parcels of land greatly contribute to what people perceive as rural character within this urban designated environment. There are several existing nonconforming uses located in the Meridian Annexation Area. These uses are mainly of a small retail and service variety. Several of these uses are located along Kent- Kangley Road and 144th Ave SE. Section 15.08.100 of the Kent Zoning Code outlines the City's regulations pertaining to nonconforming development. This section provides protection to uses, structures, lots, or signs which have been lawfully established pursuant to a county resolution in effect at the time of annexation which rendered it nonconforming. Generally, a use which was legal and/or legally established under the applicable county regulations,will continue to have a reasonable opportunity to continue its operations. This will be true regardless of what the new City zoning is. This protection is not offered to uses which were not lawfully established or expanded in King County. Other potential nonconforming uses at the time of annexation are Planned Unit Developments (PUD) previously located in single family zoning districts within the county. These developments, which 4 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 contain attached and multiple dwelling units, are currently not allowed in City's single family zoning districts, but are likely to continue with single family zoning upon annexation. Description of Existing King Countv Zoning The existing King County zoning is predominantly residential. Within the annexation area, all properties north of Lake Meridian are classified R-4, or four dwelling units per acre. Most residential properties south of Lake Meridian are classified R-6,or six dwelling units per acre. Areas of higher residential density are found adjacent to two commercial activity centers, Kent Highlands center,zoned Community Business(CB), and Lake Meridian center, zoned Neighborhood Business (NB); both are located adjacent to SE 272nd Street. Residential parcels adjacent to the Lake Meridian center are designated for 12, 24, and 48 units per acre. Residential areas adjacent to the Kent Highlands centers are zoned for densities of 18 and 24 units per acre. An area south and west of the Kent Highlands center is designated R-4, or 4 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the annexation area contains five areas which are zoned Urban Reserve, one dwelling unit per 5 acres. Urban Reserve zoning is found in the following locations: (1) around Clark Lake, extending south to SE 256th Street, with a narrow extension to SE 259th Street; (2)North of the Kent Highlands commercial activity center, extending from approximately SE 263rd Street south to approximately SE 268th, between 128th and 132nd Avenues SE; (3) between Kent Kangley Road and SE 272nd Street, from I I8th Avenue SE to 132nd Avenue SE; (4) from SE 276th Street to SE 280th Street, between 104th Avenue SE and 120th Avenue SE; (5) between 141st to 156th Avenues SE, extending from approximately SE 275th,280th and 272nd Streets south to SE 288th Street and State Route 18. As mentioned in the background section of this report, the Urban Reserve zoning designation is a planning strategy which the County used in the 1991 Soos Creek Plan and Area Zoning, and throughout the County, to phase urban growth. The 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP) recommends lifting all Urban Reserve zoning because it is considered inconsistent with the KCCP-recommended capital improvement strategy for phasing growth. Urban residential zoning is recommended, but not yet adopted in Soos Creek. The recommended densities for the Urban Reserves within the Meridian Annexation Area, in the same order as the location descriptions in the previous paragraph, are as follows: (1) R-4-P and R-6-P, four and six dwelling units per acre; (2) R-8-P, eight dwelling units per acre; (3) R-4-P, four dwelling units per acre; (4) R-4-P; four dwelling units per acre; (5) R-6-P, six dwelling units per acre. The County has cited several reasons for these proposed increased densities, including the fact that lands within the Urban Growth Area(UGA) are required by the County Wide Planning Policies to be characterized by urban development, and the fact that most lands surrounding the Urban Reserve-zoned lands are zoned R4-P and R-6-P. In addition, urban level services are available to, or planned for, the Urban 5 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Reserve parcels. In some cases, however,the urban reserve areas contain environmentally sensitive lands which will not develop to maximum permitted densities. Comparison of King County and Kent Zoning Designations A list of existing County zoning designations assigned to the Meridian Annexation Area, and the most closely corresponding City of Kent zoning designations is attached to this report (see Key to Zoning Districts). Some characteristics of the Kent zoning alternatives proposed for the Meridian Annexation Area are comparable to County zoning districts, and other characteristics are very different. The King County Neighborhood Business (NB) and Community Business (CB) zones compare generally to the Kent Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) and Community Commercial zones. The King County residential zones generally correspond to Kent Residential zones with the following differences: 1. Residential districts in Kent are separately distinguished as single family and multi- family zones. King County residential zoning is inclusive of detached single family and attached and "stacked" multifamily dwelling units. 2. The maximum number of detached single family dwellings which may be developed on a parcel of land in Kent is determined by the overall area divided by a minimum lot size specified for each zone. The number of attached or stacked dwelling units which may be located on multi-family-zoned property is determined by the overall area divided by a minimum area allotted for each unit proposed. In each case, streets and utilities are subtracted from the overall gross area. In contrast, The King County zoning code bases the determination of the maximum number of dwelling units to be developed on a specific property on the Comprehensive Plan recommended density. Regardless of the amount of land required for streets and utilities, the maximum number of lots is permitted. No minimum lot size is specified. 3. The King County Zoning Code contains provisions for residential density bonuses, based on open space preservation or other public benefits. The Kent Zoning Code has no provisions for residential density bonuses. 4. The P suffix attached to designations such as R-4-P on the King County Maps which refer to the proposed zoning for the Growth Reserve areas, indicates a zoning overlay which provides for property-specific development standards to address individual properties or specifically defined geographic areas that are not adequately 6 KEY TO ZONING DISTRICTS (Each zone is listed opposite the most similar zone in the other jurisdiction) City of Kent King County RA Residential Agricultural R-1 Urban Residential 1 Dwelling Unit per Acre 1 Dwelling Unit per Acre R1-20 Single Family Residential NA 2 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-12 Single Family Residential NA 3 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-9.6 Single Family Residential R-4 Urban Residential 4 Dwelling Units per Acre 4 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-7.2 Single Family Residential R-6 Urban Residential 6 Dwelling Units per Acre 6 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-5.0 Single Family Residential R-8 Urban Residential 8 Dwelling Units Per Acre 8 Dwelling Units per Acre MRD Duplex Multifamily Residential R-12 Urban Residential Approximately 10 Dwelling Units 12 Dwelling Units per Acre Per Acre MRG Garden Density Multifamily Residential R-18 Urban Residential 16 Dwelling Units per Acre 18 Dwelling Units per Acre MRM Medium Density Multifamily Residential R-24 Urban Residential 23 Dwelling Units per Acre 24 Dwelling Units per Acre MRH High Density Multifamily Residential R-48 Urban Residential 40 Dwelling Units per Acre 48 Dwelling Units per Acre CC Community Commercial CB Community Business NCC Neighborhood Convenience Commercial NB Neighborhood Business O Professional and Office O Office NA UR Urban Reserve 0.2 Dwelling Units per Acre or the purposes of this chart, "Dwelling Units" refers to principal dwelling units. Accessory dwelling units and cluster housing are not addressed in this definition chart. zd.cht Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 addressed by general minimum requirements. There is no similar overlay in the Kent Zoning Code. 5. Since Kent is an urban area,the Kent Zoning Code does not contain large lot zoning designations for natural resource lands, such as RA 5,Rural Area, one dwelling unit per 5 acres.. The Residential Agricultural or RA zone, one dwelling unit per acre, is the designation used in the Kent zoning alternatives to assign the lowest available residential density. Environmental Characteristics The Meridian Annexation Area is located on Kent's East Hill (aka, Soos Creek) plateau and can be generally characterized as rolling terrain. Elevations are approximately between 400 and 600 feet above sea level. There are several significant environmental features in the area including Lake Meridian, Clark Lake, Soos Creek and its tributaries, wetlands, and significant trees and habitat areas. The Kent Zoning Code and other City regulations provide protection to and guide development in sensitive areas. Lake Meridian is a shoreline of statewide significance, and development within 200 feet of its ordinary high water mark and/or associated wetlands is governed by the Shoreline Management Act(Ch.90.58 RCV) and the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program. Staff has mapped hazard areas, wetlands, streams, and lakes within the city using its Geographic Information System (GIS). Some information pertaining to the Meridian area is currently available, but it is not as extensive as what is available within the existing city limits. The City is planning to update its database during the fall and winter to include all relevant topographical and environmental data. The City is also working with King County to exchange data where compatible. In some instances, King County and City of Kent development standards differ within sensitive areas. Buffers, setbacks, and impervious surface standards vary between jurisdictions. The City is discussing with the County appropriate measures for coordinating standards insuring a smooth transition between jurisdictions. Public Participation - Meridian Open House To get input on zoning issues from Meridian area residents, an Open House was held at Meridian Elementary School on August 24, 1995. Over 200 persons attended the open house and of these, 125 persons filled out survey questionnaires covering land use planning and related issues. Of those who filled out the questionnaire, the vast majority were long-term residents (> 10 years residency) who lived or owned property in the Meridian area. Survey respondants mentioned 7 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 "rural atmosphere" and "open space" as the two most important factors for living in the Meridian area. In terms of zoning issues, preservation of single family residential neighborhoods was the most important, with preservation of open space and the management of traffic congestion also receiving a high number of responses. Survey respondants were asked about their opinions of County zoning policy. Over 80% of respondants indicated dissatisfaction with County zoning. Follow-up questions indicated that respondants felt County zoning allowed too much residential density and did not adequately protect neighborhoods. Four zoning alternatives were highlighted at the meeting and survey respondants were asked to identify their preference. Zoning Alternative 1 simply converted existing County zoning to the most comparable City zoning classification. In this alternative, existing urban reserve zoning was given a City zoning of RA (the lowest density City classification). Zoning Alternative 2 was similar to Alternative 1 except in the urban reserve areas. In these areas, residential zoning densities reflected the zoning recommendations which were proposed for each urban reserve area by King County staff. Zoning Alternative 3 retained existing zoning densities for much of the developed area of Meridian, but lowered the permitted density for many undeveloped properties. In this alternative, all undeveloped multi-family zoned parcels were given a small lot, single family designation. Zoning Alternative 4 allowed higher densities than Alternative 3 particularly in single family areas. Also, existing undeveloped multi-family zoned parcels were given a comparable City zoning classification. Based on the survey results, Zoning Alternative 1 was the preferred alternative (with 47 votes). Alternative 4 (with 20 votes) was the second most preferred alternative. Alternative 2 received 15 votes and Alternative 3 received 11. Ironically, while over 80% of survey respondants were dissatisfied with existing County zoning policy, over half of respondants preferred the alternative which was most like the existing County zoning pattern. Description of Zoning Alternatives As mentioned above, staff prepared four zoning alternatives for review at the August 24 open house. After reviewing the survey results, staff narrowed the number of alternatives to three for purpose of this report. The first two alternatives analyzed here were presented at the open house (numbered at that time as Alternative 1 and Alternative 4, respectively). Alternative 1 was included because it represents the existing zoning pattern in the area, and was the alternative which received the most votes in the survey. Alternative 4 (now labelled as Alternative 2) was included because it represented a clear distinction from Alternative 1, reflects much of what is 8 i Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #tCPA-95-1 and ##AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 currently being proposed for the urban reserve areas by King County staff, and was the alternative which received the second-highest number of votes in the survey. The third alternative was developed to reflect some characteristics of all four alternatives which were prepared for the open house, and to attempt to respond to the results of the survey. Maps for each zoning alternative are attached. Zoning Map - Alternative 1 Alternative 1 shows what the zoning in the Meridian annexation area would be if existing King County zoning was converted to the most comparable Kent zoning designations. In this alternative, each parcel in the area is zoned based on the Kent zoning designation which most closely approximates the parcel's current King County zoning designation. For example, if a parcel is currently zoned R6 (6 dwelling units per acre), it is shown as R1-7.2, which is the Kent zoning designation which allows roughly the same density. The exception is the area presently designated as Urban Reserve zoning in King County. These areas are currently zoned for 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in the county. Kent does not have any zoning district which requires equivalent density. The zoning district in Kent with the lowest residential density is the RA (Residential Agriculture) district, which allows 1 dwelling unit per acre. Therefore, the existing Urban Reserve areas are designated RA in this alternative. Zoning Map - Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would generally allow higher densities than would Alternative 1. For example, many of the areas currently zoned R4, and shown as R1-9.6 (single-family residential, 9,600 square foot minimum lot size) in the other two zoning alternatives, are shown as R1-7.2 (single-family residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size). This in many cases reflects the fact that many of the existing lots in these areas are less than 9,600 square feet. The parcels which are currently zoned for multi-family residential uses are designated as multi-family in this alternative, although in some cases at lower densities than current King County zoning allows (as shown in Alternative 1). The urban reserve areas are for the most part zoned the same as is currently being proposed by King County staff as part of the Soos Creek urban reserve zoning study(typically either R1-9.6 or RI-7.2), while the areas presently zoned RI are shown as R1-9.6, which would allow higher densities (approximately 4.5 units per acre, as opposed to 1 unit per acre). 9 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Zoning Map -Alternative 3 The third alternative represents something of a midpoint between the first two alternatives in terms of residential densities. Some areas are designated for very low-density development, although not to the extent that is shown in Alternative 1. The proposed RA zoning is generally located near environmentally sensitive areas (Clark Lake and Big Soos Creek), and are distinguished by land owned by public entities (King County or the State of Washington). The area along SE 288th Street is designated RA due to the large number of existing agricultural uses in this general area. Otherwise, the urban reserve areas are designated for slightly higher densities, although in some cases not as much as is shown in Alternative 2. In terms of the commercial/multi-family nodes at 132nd Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road and at 152nd Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road, much of the existing multi-family-zoned land which is vacant or distinguished by some other use is zoned either commercial or high-density single-family. This is done in order to create a more consistent zoning pattern in these areas than presently exists, and to be consistent with the City's policies regarding multi-family development reflected in past actions (such as the 1989 Housing Study) and the Comprehensive Plan. Description of Land Use Plan Map Alternatives There have been three land use plan map alternatives prepared, in conjunction with the three zoning alternatives. Each land use plan alternative is designed to be consistent with its accompanying zoning alternative (for example, Zoning Alternative 1 would implement Land Use Plan Alternative 1, etc.). None of the land use map alternatives represents a radical departure from the existing Land Use Plan Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The main difference between these proposed alternatives and the existing plan map is that the existing plan map uses the County's land use designations, based on the policy direction provided by the City Council at the time the plan was adopted. The proposed alternatives use the same land use designations as are used in the existing city limits. These designations go into slightly more detail in terms of residential densities than do the County's designations. However, the overall land use pattern represented in these alternatives does not differ substantially from either the City's or the County's existing plan. The three land use plan map alternatives have some things in common. In each, much of the developed single-family areas are designated SF-6, which could be implemented by either R1-9.6 or R1-7.2 zoning. Also, each alternative designates public facilities and publicly-owned open space areas. These areas will be zoned similarly to other properties, since the City does not have a "public" zoning district, so the zoning map will not reflect the location of public lands; however, the land use plan map will. 10 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Maps for each alternative are attached. Land Use Plan Map - Alternative 1 This alternative is generally consistent with the County's land use plan, although the land use designations in the City are different than they are in the County. Much of the area would be designated SF-1, which would be implemented by the RA zoning designations shown on Zoning Alternative 1. The developed single-family neighborhoods are designated SF-6, as they will be in all three plan alternatives. The land use designations around the commercial nodes are a mix of commercial and multi-family residential, as reflected in the existing King County plan and zoning map. Land Use Plan Map - Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is most distinguished from Alternative 1 by the lack of property designated as SF-1. Almost every area distinguished by single-family residential development is designated as SF-6, with the exception of two areas near the shopping center at 132nd and Kent-Kangley Road, which are designated as SF-8. Otherwise, this alternative is fairly similar to Alternative 1, with regard _. to the commercial and multi-family areas. Land Use Plan Map - Alternative 3 Alternative 3 presents the widest variety of single-family residential densities, with areas being designated SF-1, SF-3, SF-6, and SF-8. This alternative also has less land designated for multi- family development than the other alternatives, while it has more land designated for commercial development, since it designates some existing multi-family land as commercial. Also, unlike the other alternatives, the existing mobile home parks are designated as mobile home park on the plan map, as opposed to multi-family residential. Analysis of Zoning and Land Use Plan Map Alternatives While Alternative 1 for both zoning and land use plan maps reflects the existing designations in King County, these existing policies are in a state of flux due to the policies in the King County Comprehensive Plan regarding the urban reserve areas. As stated previously, the County's plan calls for the elimination of urban reserve zoning, and this policy is currently being implemented in the County. The densities which are being recommended by County staff for the urban reserve areas, which are generally reflected in Alternative 2, are being guided by policies in the County's plan regarding densities in the urban growth area. Among these policies are the following: 11 u z 01 0—' tl 951 b� .�—ri ulY �Ct S 3A aS26. 0 wW � ri I„ l4 iil� ZHI a I �i �I ;n w:anl J Is. Z � W E. U i � Z � zw ( i r ^ 1 a ? �0-4 E- C; U Cu U7 Ul el' L/L� JS Ab leEl �• NI �V I 3S 3 y 21 ��-+r� �I 3S AV H1911 M \ n� O �! '� m / �il F S itP iH.LZiT M x ue sm F�-��---, 35 3Atl H.180[ M1I J�I�� 35 3AV HLYO[ I I�I = HS 7 0 �n �T Zi PZ � o � ° � ❑ o � a � n ( Y nit e'f pNm77 � m I 1J 1-l� G l ^33s 3.\tl H.LtZT LU rt _I 3S 'Ati H.191I L VLA _ I� Li 33 3Atl 141901 - _I �l�� 35 3Av 111t0[ Ji Ir--'" N w w C\2 l � -99� P. c % � C�L/1-� �� !�y 3n NtBnt / �d.l �s• m xZ:m F �"�� ^ 1�1 i o � �7 v •F-1 ok � � 7 o c ;.e ..a, f„u\� L n W O U zy 0 pmm c U Z U 0 ^— A � F!� s Jnb uii � ICI I� 3s AV HIL911 EL 3531b.1EJ1 3AV H.L801 { r Inf�(� 3s 3nv H.irot I w ^S L I' �� 3.1 ❑.�iS 02 `Ifl �xa a o ❑ I� IrT'1 a s In m {/.�. 5 I�1 c5xy map s �� ©I `u• P O C P' f F L , 'I (. V I uienL 1\VI 1 sr� i5 iAe u��bl F�1 (vim/1 k � ��a ��ahmmoa � r m .Q m � ► . z � `lam � 1 � S Wp � � : ❑ Arco � . wC N 34-luinZi ? z 1d l Al �c r 5 ;tl �V n3SS SAY H.L V �! III IL !. Lj i ICIZ- 411 3s tl Ial li 3.S nAV H19III I 11 �il SAY HIZITT iS i tl Mtl 4`.{ i e (L I � _ 31 II Ih 35 3AV Hl6ol II Zz O ,.._� a o ;; ;.,..;;, it Ems 02 =tl x co L)Z rr��"'lll h—� O W a .11 ]15 1 1 N �u1 �T•� y � s�syaa � 5 �1 � `� v� .n . .. � III � xaW-lanam Fo � � F _ m C2 1. o N ON _ u I1j l �� � o` lrL rV =00 as � � L 3s AV H19 c r � w�iL atv rtlzrr ;s „..A.' EMI / �� 35 3.1V N180I -I 3S 3AV N140f —--I' c,zi1 I � 9S 3n w M � 9 � 9as as � z0-4 P m N O y' N C O N 6 //�,5� �✓ OIm SCR 6R C� F � XO IN a.Q w N thre Anp 0.Chp h1 is y r-{',`J�\ m 0 0 O O U d 1� O m •S 0= „ ' ,.i c.: � ) It(/J �lll QI,�; �1\ 33 3ntl HJ,62l ei _ J L�IL��, v—.^����� ^ _ I'J•S v}' � � � i, as ,.v»�ci ffl �I LETET .�� CD Nil s is »�so� � 3S 31Atl Hiso[ 3nV Ity4U1 � �� Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 King County shall seek to achieve through future planning efforts over the next twenty years, an average zoning density of at least seven to eight homes per acre in the Urban Growth Area through a mix of densities and housing types. A lower density zone may be used to recognize existing subdivisions with little or no opportunity for infill or redevelopment. (Policy U-502, King County Comprehensive Plan) The City's Comprehensive Plan also contains policy language pertaining to residential density patterns. The plan outlines the following general policy: Provide in the land use plan adequate land and densities to accommodate both city and county housing targets with the Potential Annexation Area. Average net residential densities throughout the Potential Annexation Area should be at least four units per acre in order to adequately support urban services. (Policy LU-8.1) This policy, while encouraging single-family ill at urban densities, provides somewhat more flexibility in terms of plan densities throughout the City's PAA, particularly given that the plan contains areas for high density residential development in the downtown area and mixed use areas on the Valley Floor. In addition to the above policy, the City Council established policy guidelines for the Meridian annexation area prior to adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In January, 1995, the Council passed a resolution (Resolution No. 1420) which stated the following: It shall be the policy of the Kent City Council to retain the Meridian annexation area's predominantly single family residential character upon annexation into the City of Kent. As provided in the City's Draft Comprehensive Plan, the area will be planned and zoned for predominantly single family residential use, except in the commercial nodes at the intersections of Kent Kangley Road with 132nd Avenue SE and 152nd Avenue SE, together with existing or vested multifamily uses, all of which are currently indicated on the City's Draft Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation After review of these policies, as well as review of the survey results of the questionnaires collected at the August 24 open house, staff feels that Alternative 3 for both the land use plan map and zoning map should be the recommended alternative. 12 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Recommend to the City Council adoption of Land Use Plan Map Alternative 3 as an amendment to the Land Use Element of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. 2. Recommend to the City Council adoption of Zoning Alternative 3 as an amendment to the City's Official Zoning Map, to go into effect on January 1, 1996. cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner 13 EIIFR . #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 September 28, 1995 Fred Satterstrom, Planting Manages RECEIVED City of Kent Planning Department 0 C T 0 2 1995 220 S. Fourth Ave. CITY OF KENT Kent, Wa 98032 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Subject: Meridian Amtexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands Reference: Staff Proposed Alternative 3 presented at the Kent Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 25, 1995. Please accept the following input for incorporation by Your staff and by the members of the Kent Planning Commission into the subject zoning: Our concern is with the preservation and maintenance of existing wetland areas. This concern was expressed at the Referenced Hearing. Specifically, we are concemed about the Meridian Meadows Wetlands and Stormwater Storage Pond located north of S.E. 268th St_ and east of 128th Ave. S.E. (See attached map). This Wetland is identified in the King County Wetland Inventory as "Soos Creek 87". The southwest comer of the wetland as well as the stream which provides the major inflow to the wetland have been improved by King County to provide stormwater storage and flood control. An earth dam or berm has been constructed to provide a storage pond with a control gate on the outflow. The dam and control gate along with approximately half of the wetlands are on property owned by King County(Property Tax Account No. 282205-9312)which is about 4.7 acres. It is assumed that title and control of this Wetlands and Stormwater facility will be tamed over to the City of Kent as part of the Annexation. As shown on the attached map, King County fenced and is maintaining the entire Wetlands. Trails, benches, interpretive signs, plants and trees have been installed and maintained by the County with citizen iffvolvment. The Wetlands are used by various groups and individuals for recreation and education. The proposed Alternative 3 shows the area that includes the wetlands as R1-5.0 (single family, 5,000 min. lot) on the zoning map and as SF-8 (eight units per acre) on the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that the property owned by King County should be designated as open space and that the remaining Wetlands area along with the adjacent property should be one unit per acre. The zoning"for this area on the Zoning Map should be changed from R1-5.0 to RA(one unit per acre). The Comprehensive Plan should be changed to show the King County owned property as OS Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands - September 28, 1995 (Open Space) and the remaining area as SF-1 (one unit per acre). This would also be consistent wish other areas shown on Alternative 3 (Le; the Clark Lake area). We believe that preservation and maintenance of this Wetlands and Stormwater Facility is critical and must be identified and recognized in this initial Zoning activity. Please incorporate these changes into the Comprehensive and Zoning Plans. Thank you for your consideration! 1 a tie r D 4 !2 Ate `>E — '1 I*Mo� all 1.1-1 VLO Qr, tiff Q�55 D� K E rJ�, L06 gRd 31 l r /�r 14 1 A,4 �� C Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zmftng-Meridian Meadows Wetlands - September 28, 1995 (,27 1 ' cl -ltle, G71n A/p �(e(r�A 127+ n Sf 5 f Zbb�c� \Z1 RvL `7 �(vlo3D- !�'1T" �i1E5C �Lt+57 iz7 "" r1v� LOA q< WA `SO31 �LX 11111 3 - SE �` -7 i Z )a, FY03 6AA WA �2L/ 2 L L �?A . Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands - September 28, 1995 ZG ' c47 p W Pt 6 •t g 0-ZZ•l.L W; i 5 AV ON Zfi V CQ i 0 Ul ui :U o L S � r •4M ; M1I � � A [� �� I1 � r Y 7o p,� • M �M ^ � � •Q� O 7d- Sc� T zi ° I U900-Z60r8 -060199 d5 :)I ' r N b ! may . w�ri (�- -'-J - -- �i� 3 3S 9Atl'Hi GZI• � ' 'ILr¢i• // � t<r/ W m i O +1 O t' O_ P n all N ry., /. P •� Z `� r• Z ,Z s N� :r I %, `. � ''p_/V�p1li. '• - '� ^ .fir,:,•), Z F-I •�. I Y O Q a o Y I w .ry6g �,t )r(. JZ Iij _ .. c• � •, m'.,i et w' � I Y- ^ i ry _IS,��+ '/ LETTER #1 (CONTINUED) September28, 1995 #AZ-95-3 4CPA-95-1 Fred Sattersbrom, Planning Manager City of Kent Planning Department 220 S. Fourth Ave. Kent, Wa 98032 Subject Meridian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands Reference: Staff Proposed Alternative 3 presented at the Kent Plam m9 Commission Public Hearing, September 25, 1995. Please accept the following input for incorporation by your staff and by the members of the Kent Planning Commission into the subject zoning: our concern is with the preservation and maintenance of existing wetland areas. This concern was expressed at the Referenced Hearing. Specifically, we are concemed about the Meridian Meadows Wetlands and Stotmwater Storage Pond located north of S.E. 268th St. and east of 128th Ave. S.E. (See attached map). This Wetland is identified in the King County Wetland Inventory as "Soos Creek 87". The southwest corner of the wetland as well as the stream which provides the major inflow to the wetland have been improved by King County to provide stormwater storage and flood control. An earth darn or berm has been constructed to provide a storage pond with a control gate on the outflow. The dam and control gate along with approximately half of the wetlands are on property owned by King County(Property Tax Account No. 282205-9312)which is about 4.7 acres. It is assumed that title and control of this Wetlands and Stormwater facility will be turned over to the City of Kent as part of the Annexation. As.shown on the attached map, King County fenced and is maintaining the entire Wetlands. Trails, benches, interpretive signs, plants and trees have been installed and maintained by the County with citizen irrvolvment. The Wetlands are used by various groups and individuals for recreation and education. The proposed Alternative 3 shows the area that includes the wetlands as R1-5.0 (single fanuly, 5,000 min. lot) on the zoning map and as SF-8 (eight units per acre) on the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that the property owned by King County should be designated as open space and that the remaining Wetlands area along with the adjacent property should be one unit per acre. The zoning for this area on the Zoning Map should be changed from R1-5.0 to RA(one unit per acre). The Comprehensive Plan should be changed to show the King County owned property as OS Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zomng-Meridian Meadows Wetlands - September 28, 1995 (Open Space) and the remaining area as SF-1 (one unit per acre). This would also be consistant with other areas shown on Alternative 3 (:Le; the Clark Lake area). We believe that prcwrvation and maintenance of this Wetlands and Stormwater Facility is critical and must be identified and recognized in this initial Zoning activity. Please incorporate these changes into the Comprehensive and Zoning Plans. Thank you for your consideration! ,z� -n ti e7, 2loS��f !�S—Lt�e S� 1,��,'��f8o-s t 21��/Y 2 128 �}"v� i2 yg '47re ,< — 1 . � /J tic- Cgio/j ai% CJ,4 SH. Ffa3/ PP R� Lo y �i R M o /�N ' X�•�tz�/ /J'1 �P�✓`jr�`7 Lend if /1 . T-2YZ(,/ .�r� / /G'-tL. O' g cc/% Pn4' tJ 4 Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning- Meridian Meadows Wetlands - September 28, 1995 0 W pl 5 � S-Z Z-IS M: 3 ..vZ .10 .I S-- �' a5 3Av ON Z Ll II: S7 N CO 13 `:-L,3z I 1 W 3 v / III r � Qb _ r" o �• Tom; V S) 41 Jv Il WI�CZ901IZ6019 06016G dS 0A N �) 1• 3 35 ]AV'H1 QZI tV �+ /n r•/ - N/ L + f W' 171 �L. �� tl'•I ^S '1 �Z S 3AV HI CZI ' r` LETTER #2 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 NOT 2 October 2, 1995 l_ City Of Kent Planning Commission 220 4th Avenue S. Kent, wA 98032 RE: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning Houston Property (Tax Ac. # 352205-9162-03) Dear Commission Members: The notice we received from the City of Kent regarding the initial zoning on my property showed it proposed for single family residential. At the September 26th public hearing I testified that I wished to retain my property in single family zoning. I have lived in this house for 18 years and in the immediate neighborhood for 48 years. I stated that my desire is to .continue to live on my property. At the September 26th meeting I also heard my neighbors stating that they want to be zoned commercial. Because of this I have done some further thinking about my property. If the zoning is adopted as proposed in Alternative 1 by the Planning Department, I continue in my desire to stay zoned as single family. But if the Planning Commission decides to zone the properties adjacent to me as commercial, then I would also want to be zoned commercial. It would no longer be desirable for me to continue to live on my property if I am surrounded on three sides by commercial zoning. Thank you for your consideration of my request. If you have questions please call me or my grandaughter, Roxanne, at 631-0873. Sincerely, Frances Houston 15304 S.E. 273rd Pl. Kent, wA 98042 cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrcm, Planning Services Manager �vLJLD 2 1905 CITY '-)F K:Pi T r•tsr r,)rV nt Ala mnn r'nmm o:rr.1 , 11W 1 l -2nnm/J VC='Is J.VyI 77.0 4th Ave R Kent, WA. 99032 ...-U _.M t nnc RE:Mmdian Annexation Area Gonin>_; TT T\ /.1` II llnn 1 .l nn, rlousion Property Brix Ac. h D55«05-916L-VD) Tlr r C'nmmiccinn TiTrml'v�rc• Due to further information 1 received this mornm2 about my iaxeS 1 woula iiKe this letter suomlueu wiLn my urSL One. h .....i' +..+"'r-- h 44,. T 14 1....n u.. �UAnla Uiil 1V 411v JaA Cli.LL.JJVia Vulw 1 WVL11U AAV IQIA6 .A quai.11?' JUL ILLY a�JAAVI .,.-. LAI A, li rnv nrnr.-rry•vnc to on nnmmrminl Thic uwnnlA rnicr rnv tavrc f7rsm T';6R dq to.'U 71 F,S That would be a increase of M53.49. Berne on a fixed income Pm afraid 1 would be rorced t0 Self. .� Tc_._.. L__._ __._. ._.._...:_.._ _.L C__1 r-.__ ._ __11 _._ _--__. _.__.Ate_.._L.__ _. C'�1 no" ll You nave ttuy qL=-LiuuD p=hSc 1=1 ucc LO luau ulc LF1 luy 1'1H111111aLIg'ulcl�a1 UJ 1-VO I D. RiTi!`.P. IV 'rrances thous on 141AA o n #1^79_A 1 JJ VY O.r. LIDILL - Ka�li,g7F ounn? ... CC: J8nte5 Y. i-iwmc,rlaIImns LlreClor 1'lcu .w.lWlauuul,1 1tt11L111.� JGl V1lGa lVl[LLJt1�G1 LETTER #3 Sad}- . ?q lGgs #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 NA Kevkvv-\ U' Nei � 40co W. G-Twee e l�fi, Wa . cl Ed Kak-al C\V-ri\ o acre pa�rc� 1 of ► s3�4 �:c 2-7 ct rca-t '"1 4Z,2 CG^yn w-c-r CLA c OL ! CL Jy�ec� wl �t� t � C���nexakcEn CJfi �6tts �'r0I1E��t� �i� f'��Q Cc -&j cf VMV-c cc CG'�'�YrtL'rcld.l �Qb11 flC� . of {,u v-Irtc) off tl, z j)roR-e/r+3 t,� �vL�,s area {ter a Cc mereei� �O 11 e i �o � C CU �0 h I ricj , b""L �o CO( qvJ e p fti\LS CtNV�e�� - u RECEIVED SEP 2 9 1995 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT LETTER #4 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 29 September 1995 Kent Planning Commission C/o Kent Planning Department RE: Lake Meridian Area Annexation Dear Planning Commission Members : My name is David Zerr and I reside at 20619 Southeast 276th Street in Kent and own a commercial property, "Zerr's Feed" located at 15323 Southeast 272nd Street in Kent. I'm writing to let you know that my wife and I are pleased that you are proposing to zone our property CC(community commercial) . Your're proposed zoning will allow a slightly more flexibility than the previous Neighborhood Business Zoning that was in place when we were in King County. It has come to my attention that several of my neighbors are proponents of "up zoning" their properties to this same zoning that you are giving me. It is my opinion that this (timing) of your zoning of this area would be a good time to correct the irregular pattern of zoned property that existed under the county on this prime corner property(s) .Please take this fact into consideration as you deliberate your recommendations to the city council. Sincerely, David L. Zerrr 0 � r� C1EJ11 SEP 2 9 1995 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT LETTER #5 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 s za' - --- cc a__ 9 0 - - - - ----- - - — ------- --- Cm.�_a -22cSL't e ffl&2_ Ta?G -- ---- - i —� . O(c rr��. ' - oC n� --- - - - ---- ----- - - - RECEIVED 0 C T 0 2 1995 PiIWNOF KENT IiTdYG DEPARTMENT LETTER #6 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 DST 2 ,. . James Harris Tom Sinkula 1928 So. 289th treei��NN r�� u� Planning Dept. pgQQ ITY OF KE!, City of Kent Federal Way, _ 220 4th Ave. So. Phone: 839-4394 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: 9-27-95 Dear James: I have been out of town and have been unable to attend the public meetings regarding the Meridian Annexation Areas 1 and 2. For several years I have owned the vacant lot at the NVV corner of Kent - Kangley and 124th Ave. SE. Attached is a map showing the property highlighted in yellow, and two pictures showing the property on 11-21-91. Even 4 years ago the lot was full of parked cars and was no longer adequate for residential use. Also enclosed are previous letters to King County dated 3-4-88, 1-17-91, and 9-4-91; all regarding requests and substantiation to upgrade the current zoning to a more realistic use. When the Dept. of Transportation widened SR516 to 4 lanes, they constructed a commercial road approach on my property. They assumed that business or commercial was the only use of the property. I agree with the Dept. of Transportation. Due to the high traffic count, noise, and air pollution, the property is no longer suitable for residential use. There are several businesses in the immediate area, including East Hill Radiator, Bergsma Realty, and Budz Home Heating. .As outlined in the enclosed letter to King Co. on 3-4-88, I feel that my property meets all the requirements for BN zoning as required in the King County Comprehensive Plan and the Soos Creek Plateau Communities plan. The commercial services at 132nd Ave. SE are already overloaded. I feel that my property should be rezoned in order to provide a personal service facility that would meet the everyday needs of the neighborhood. Please support BN zoning for my property. Sincerely, Tom Sinkula Tom Sinkula 1928 South 289th Federal Way, WA 98003 March 4, 1988 Sue Enger project Manager King County Planning & Community Development 707 Smith Tower Bldg 506 2nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Sue: - I recently called regarding the update of the Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan and am now submitting my letter of request per your instructions. I own the property at the NW quadrant of SR 516 (Department eto change Road) and 124th Ave. S.E. and wish to petition the Planning the zoning to B-N, neighborhood business. Following are several supporting reasons why this change would be in conformance with requirements of the King County Comprehensive Plan and the Soos Creek Community Plan. 1.) Business centers should be located at the intersection of major transportation arteries. SR 516 is the highest volume East-West corridor in the Soos Creek Plateau, while 124th Ave S.E. is a major arterial leading directly south to the Green River Community College. In the 1979 Soos Creek Plan, the traffic counts- shown on the Do Nothing Transportation System show this intersection to have the highest traffic count of any intersection East of the Benson Highway (SR 515) , even higher than SR 516 at 116th, 132nd, 164th, or Wax Road. This intersection is centered in the area of the most rapid growth and will continue to be an important neighborhood focal point. 2.) For many years there have been many established businesses in the area from 116th Ave.S.E. to 132nd Ave.S.E. Some of these businesses are: Short Stop Market at 117th S.E. East Hill Radiator at 120th S.E. Bergsma Realty at 123rd S.E. Budz Home Heating at 124th S.E. Draeger Land & Homes at 128th S.E. Saddles & Equipment at 129th S.E. E-Z Eating Cafe at 130th S.E. March 4, 1988 Although this area is rapidly developing it is better to place the businesses at the major intersections first, with managed growth concepts applied to the areas between. The property I own is presently vacant land and would be the most suitable of the four corners on which to furnish neighborhood services. Budz Home Heating is presently on the S.E. corner of 124th, but this property is much lower and would be more difficult to develop. 3. ) As required by C1-4121 the following developments are already existing: a.Paved streets , sidewalks b.Storm drainage control, including curbs, gutters, and stormwater retention facilities c.Public water d.Sanitary sewers e.Controlled Traffic Access - There is an existing signal and left turn lanes at 124th Parking and Landscaping will be installed with the improvements. Also, there is an existing commercial road approach on SR 516 and I have enclosed a copy of the permit from the Dept. Of Transportation. This was approved on 4-11-86. 4.) According to the population density there should be more neighborhood services provided in this area. Currently to obtain services you would have to travel 11' miles to the West, 3 miles to the North, 1 mile to the East, and 3 miles to the South. The added driving distance contributes to traffic congestion, environmental pollution, and wasting of our natural resources. Cl-404 states that neighborhood centers should be located approximately one to three miles apart and serve a density of 8,000 to 15,000 persons. Neighborhood services at the intersection of 124th Ave.S.E. would reduce the current traffic congestion at SR 516 and ER 515 (Benson Highway) which is currently operating at level of service E (over capacity). 5.) The rapid development along the SR 516 corridor has increased the noise and air pollution considerably and this area is no longer suitable for residential use. 6.) As required by C1-109, this land has a natural capacity for development and is free from environmental cor_s�.raints involving floodplains, wetlands, steepslopes , landslides , coal mines, erosion, and aquifer recharge areas. -3_ March 4, 1988 7.) The intersection of 124th Ave-S.E. and SR 516 adjoins the areas of highest growth as shown on page 185 of the 1979 Soos eek Plateau Communities Plan. 8.) This proposal meets all guidelines for Neighborhood Centers as listed under C1-4-01 thru Cl-412 in the King County Comprehensive Plan. Also, this proposal meets all guidelines for development of retail and commercial uses listed under paragraphs 1 through 9 on pages 12 and 13 of the existing Soos Creek Plateau area zoning plan. This proposal also is in compliance with the existing County Policies listed on page 86 of the Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan and the Development Guidelines listed on pages 94 through 97 of the Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan. I have enclosed a proposed site plan and a copy of the permit for the commercial road approach on SR 516. In summary, I feel that my proposal is in compliance with all existing policies and request that the zoning be changed to Neighborhood Business. Please call me at the following numbers ifthere s any ur m more information that you may require. Also, p my n g list. 764 - 4108 days 839 - 4394 evenines Respectfully, Tom Sinkula NE-4SwAr S�oK28-TwP22N —R. S, ��/Vtvt . F N � •E ZGp .779 Z3• �� 2 ^1 Art (V� - L.GJ�XL]• _ ZI E.W.ef• w%zv`w, I ir. t I � I�-EY4Yz —' I h I f i I I i I I I I I /Vti• 13Z0 Olt R1 1l74 it cam! -I 7 "1'16, plat i, for your aid in luretiug your land with reference to streets and other parcels. While thie plat is believed to he rorrcrt, the Cornpany a%aunles no liahilily fur any hiss orrurnng by reaann of reliance thereon." SAFECO SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Tom Sink:ula 1929 So . 289th Federal Way , WA 9B003 .Jan . 1 7 , 1991 Sue Enger Project Manager 6C36 second Ave . , Suite 707 3eattie , WA 9E3104 I was unable to attend your recent work::shops so please accept my written commemts . Enclosed is my previous letter to you dated 3-4-eB , in which I listed several supporting reasons why my property at the NW quadrant of SR516 and 124th Ave . S .E . should be rezoned to a more compatible use . My supporting data met all the guidelines in the king County Comprehensive Flan , as well as those in the e;: isting Soos Creek Flateau Communities Flan . I had discussed my particular property with Ned Conroe on several occasions , .and when talF: ing to Ned on both .4-26-90 and 10-30-89 he told me my property would be zoned professional office or multi-family . I feel my property still meets all the desireable qualifications for Neighborhood Business and should be changed to that type of zoning . There are other businesses in the immediate area , and due to the noise and trafric my property is no longer desireable for residential use . REsspectfully , Tom Sinkula T m S :rl L!1 _. So Pr-,cne : CD,-- s;4 oo• =rG. z "lan_am a . _.7, V e . :::j u l t e 7 0 7 rezjuEsted by your 1 etter da.te-- =nE notariZea request form a n C = =urra.nt =sse s snowing my property out) ined in r_C was ,1Us= out to I ooF�: at the property oF, 5'% %•`''1 a^ _-tere were four cars parked on the lot with For Sale si_.ns =n•_r . 7:- l a has been going on for several years and tr-,E i ot. I -- DECOming unsightly and an eves.cre 1 _BI t%ct i 5 1 of Can ba n E_-F_C UD ai:;7 pLlt tC c c .tE Ll E'.e 1t is zoned BN and c_47, rrovi�be sh000l'- and _, seP"`:'1 = 4aCi1 it i e s tJ =Er'd_ the Ev E-rvd a' ne=ds 0- r , _ rr a=_e are r, =_VIOUS In (ry lvi arch 4 } t?:�:� l ett%(" i 1 listed hQl'7 IT. i ry ccning met al 1 thc' app1 ica_�1e gLtldc'1 in_ Co mareInensive F' , a- and the _�ocE _E L.omm:_ - _ les Flan . RReSoect-�ul Y, 7/ Tom =inI:uI ,,... 7• IR J l 1T f LETTER #7 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 September 5 , 1995 Planning Department City of Kent 220 4th Avenue, South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 RE : MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA Dear Sir or Madam: Unfortunately , I was unable to attend vour Open House on August 24 , 1995 . I should like to use this opportunity , therefore, as the tax- paying owner for 39 years of' a 9 . 43 acre tract in the Meridian Area, r 34-22-05 , to request that this area be zoned by the City of Kent for Residential use , with 6 lots allotted per acre , as recently proposed by King County, Carol Lumb , Community Planner, King County Environmental Division . I should greatly appreciate your serious consideration of this request. Thank you very much . Sincerely , Kenneth G. KirSy 1110 Wagon Wheel Rd Lawrence, KS 66049-3538 KGK:bak cc : Mayor Jim White RECEIVED S E P 2 8 1995 CITY OF KENT PLANtQ4G DEPARTMEN. T LETTER #8 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 September 27, 1995 Planning Commission City of Kent We, Cal and Betty Wilson, owners of the property on the SE corner and NW corner of SE. 272nd and 152nd SE, Kent, Washington, are in the process of building a new Chevron Gas Station and Convenience store on the SE Corner of 272nd and 152nd SE, Kent, Washington. Our original store and station opened in 1954. We resided at 15030 SE. 272nd Kent, Washington until 1980. We wish to express we are in full agreement with the parties that expressed their desire to enlarge the CC - Community Commercial area in the Meridian Annexation Area Zoning - Alternative 1 and squaring off the entire area. This would allow for a well planned retail area to benefit all, the property owners, the community and reduce traffic congestion. Zoning the entire area at this time seems only right. Zoning the area does not necessarily mean a person has to-move. We have known the entire Houston Family for 40 years. They have been our customers, our neighbors - they are our friends. We join the majority of the property owners in requesting this zoning. RECEIVED Sincerely, SEP 2 7 1995 CITY OF KENT Cal & Betty Wilson FLRNNiNG CEF ARTMENT CITY OF �1�L'V U PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Jim White, Mayor --J v Public Hearing October 2, 1995 The continuation of the September 26 1995, meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kent Morrill at 7:00 PM on October 2, 1995 in Chambers West, Kent City Hall. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Morrill, Chair Russ Stringham, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Connie Epperly Janette Nuss Robert Maclsaac Mike Pattison PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth Dozier, excused Edward Heineman, Jr., excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Brad Hazeltine, Planner Linda Phillips, Planner Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 25 AND 26, 1995. MINUTES Commissioner Pattison MOVED and Commissioner Dahle SECONDED to accept the minutes for September 25 and 26 as written. Commissioner Nuss and Commissioner Maclsaac abstained. MOTION CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS NONE. COMMUNICATIONS NONE. 1 "01th AVE.SO /KENT WASHINGTOV TELEPHONE i'_06i859-3100/FAX- Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Director, Jim Harris, announced the Meridian Annexation Open Houses scheduled for Wednesday, November 15 at the Soos Creek Fire Station and Thursday, November 16, at Martin Sortun Elementary from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Nuss announced that Mr. Chris Vance will be holding a meeting to discuss the proposed amendments for the King County Comprehensive Plan. The meeting will be held at the Kentwood High School located at 25800 - 164th SE from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. The public is encouraged to attend. MERIDIAN ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING (Deliberations) 4CPA-95-1 and 9AZ-95-3 (Fred Satterstrom) Mr. Fred Satterstrom, City of Kent Planning Manager, outlined the staff report. The report is separated into two sections. Part one is an overview of general questions raised during public testimony. The second part addresses the individual "mapping" issues one by one. Mr. Satterstrom submitted eight letters to the Planning Commission for record. The letters were received by the Planning Department after the close of the public hearings. 1. Meridian Meadows Wetlands - Petition 2. Frances Houston dated October ) 3. Mr. Ed Katai received September 29 4. Mr. David Zerr dated September 29 referring to Zerr's Feed. 5. Daniel and Amy Walton received October 2. 6. Tom Sinkula regarding property at Kent Kangley and 124th Ave SE. 7. Kenneth Kirby dated September 5 and received September 28. 8. Cal and Betty Wilson dated September 27. Most of these letters support the staff proposed Alternative 3. However, some of these letters do deal with new issues. Mr. Satterstrom offered two suggestions before the Planning Commission on how to deal with these "new" letters. The first alternative would be to continue the deliberations to a later date to analyze the new issues. Secondly, these individuals will have two more opportunities for these issues to go before the City Council in open public hearing. The Planning Department will assure that these issues would be brought before the City Council. Mr. Satterstrom reminded the public that the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. The 2 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Planning Commission will be analyzing the issues that came up during the public hearings, deliberating on those issues, and attempting to make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Nuss strongly opposed continuing the deliberations and making a recommendation without even considering the letters submitted by the public. Staff Presentation Ms. Linda Phillips,Planner, addressed the issue of animal regulations. The King County regulations cover a broad range of animal uses and businesses throughout the county. These regulations are complex. Kent's zoning regulations regarding animals are very basic. Kent's code says that if you live on a lot that is 20,000 square foot or more, you may keep animals other than household pets. There are, however, in the municipal codes, regulations that address animal nuisances, confinement of animals,vicious animals, and animal diseases. These codes allow complaints to be heard. At this point if there are problems with animals on a lot, the Planning Department hears the complaint, investigates, researches, and follows-up the same as any- other code enforcement complaint. The City is not considering changing the animal regulations at this time. However, as growth occurs, if there becomes a problem with compatibility between lots,there would likely be a review of the current animal regulations and some changes would be made. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned the grandfathering issue that was discussed at the previous public hearing. Ms. Phillips reassured the Planning Commission that the City of Kent regulations are not as stringent as King County regulations. Therefore, the question of grandfathering would not arise. Keeping animals for a business use is not addressed in the City of Kent.code and would be grandfathered as a non-conforming use. Chair Morrill questioned if Kent's animal regulations are more lenient than those of King County. Ms. Phillips confirmed that Kent's animal regulations are more lenient than those of King County. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned the City's involvement in neighbor complaints regarding animals. Ms. Phillips informed the Planning Commission that the City would investigate complaints from neighbors as regulated under the municipal codes. Commissioner Nuss asked for further clarification of the municipal codes regarding odors especially concerning dairy cows. Ms. Phillips explained that animal nuisance cases are judged on a case by case basis and what is appropriate for the situation. Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map.3mendmenu-Area 2 4CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes " October 2, 1995 Ms. Phillips discussed issues regarding nonconforming uses. The Lake Meridian Village would be an illegal use under the current recommended zone. However, the Kent zoning code contains a residential exception to nonconforming use status. The exception states "Legally established residential uses located in any residential zoning district and in existence as of January 1, 1984, shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of density provisions and shall be a legal use." According to this exception Lake Meridian Village is a legal use Chair Morrill questioned the status of the other two Lake Meridian Condominiums. Ms. Phillips explained to the Planning Commission that she did not have that information at this time but she would find out if they would also fall under this exception clause. Commissioner Stringham questioned if the City was planning to move the 1984 date forward to a more recent date. Ms. Phillips informed the Planning Commission that the Planning Department does not have a recommendation to change the date at this time. Ms. Phillips continued to explain the significant difference between King County's and Kent's nonconformance regulations. King County does allow nonconforming properties to be totally restored if the restoration is done within one year. Kent has a provision that if the nonconforming property is destroyed up to 50% of the value; it can not be restored except with special permission from the Planning Director. Commissioner Dahle asked for clarification regarding the time frame for restoration. Ms. Phillips explained that the time limit is based on the date the permit is applied for and there is no time limit for construction although the City would require reasonable progress. Mr. Satterstrom discussed the issues relating to sensitive area development regulations. The zoning code is set up to regulate the hazardous areas in the City, primarily the steep slope areas. The Wetlands regulations are administered by the Water Quality Section of the Public Works Department. The Wetland regulations of King County and Kent are very similar. The buffer areas are similar in certain circumstances and the definition of wetlands is similar. The primary difference between the County and the City regulations is the City uses the 1987 manual for wetland identification where the county uses the 1989 manual. The Shoreline Management Program regulates any development within 200 feet of a shoreline. Development within 200 feet of Lake Meridian would be regulated by the Shoreline Management Act. Commissioner MacIsaac asked if Clark Lake was included in the Shoreline Management Act. Mr. Satterstrom clarified that Clark Lake is not regulated under the Shoreline Management act because it is not 20 acres. The Shoreline Management act regulates natural bodies of water greater than 20 acres. 4 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 9CPA-95-1 and 9AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Mapping Issues: Map Site 1• Kent Kanglev Commercial (Widener/Ormiston/HoustonBurpee/Wilson) Issue• Should additional parcels be designated for commercial zoning in the area of Kent Kangely Road and 154th Avenue SE? Mr. Wilson and Mr. Widener requested the Planning Commission to consider zoning their property community commercial. Neither property front on Kent Kangley. Therefore, the staff recommends no change to the original proposed zoning. Commissioner Pattison requested Mr. Satterstrom to point out the cemetery next to the properties in question. Commissioner Stringham asked about the two letters from Ms. Houston that were entered into record. Mr. Harris clarified that Ms. Houston supports the staff proposed recommendation. As indicated in Ms. Houston's letter, she would only like to be considered for the commercial zoning if the properties surrounding her's are zoned commercial. Commissioner Dahle asked if there would be a traffic problem with the cul-de-sac set up as a fire truck turn around if we zoned the properties commercial. Mr. Satterstrom indicated that there would be provisions for a turn around for a fire truck regardless of the zoning. Mr. Satterstrom indicated the problem would be access to the properties. At present they are accessed from SE 275th Place. Commissioner Stringham asked for what could the property owners do if they wanted commercial zoning later. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the property owners could get together and present a zoning request to the City based on the integration of the three or more parcels. The plan would need to internalize the access off of Kent Kangley. Map Site 2. 25840 135th Lane SE Lake Meridian Cabins (Marie Lewis) Issue• Request for zoning to allow ten dwelling units per acre with zero lot line options for site planning. Ms. Phillips explained that the City code does not contain provisions for ten dwellings per acre, except in multi-family residential zones. The City policy is to avoid creating additional multi-family zoned property, therefore, the staff recommends the original proposed zoning of R1-9.6. Map Site 43• Shady Park Grocery and Auto Repair at 27848 152nd Avenue SE (Spencer) 5 Iferidian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 4CPA-95-1 and 9AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Issue• Should this area be changed from single family residential to commercial? Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner, explained the staffs recommendation to stay with the original proposed R1-7.2 density. The businesses could continue as a legal and nonconforming use. Chair Morrill questioned if the businesses could continue if they burned down. Mr. O'Neill explained that if the property was destroyed beyond 50%, the new use would have to convert to the existing zoning. This is true of any legal nonconforming use under the City's current regulations. Commissioner Stringham asked if this was also true of King County zoning. Mr. O'Neill stated that King County allows for reconstruction within 12 months of damage or destruction. Commissioner Dahle verified from Mr. ONeill that if the property is destroyed more that 50% they can not rebuild. Map Site 44. 28040 152nd Avenue SE (Jones) Issue• Should this area be changed from R1-12 to R1-7.2? Staff is recommending the original proposal of R1-12. The general zoning surrounding this property is proposed for R1-7.2. Mr. ONeill explained the reasoning behind the staff recommendation is that this area is still beyond the developed area. Mr. O'Neill did explain that this property could be adequately served with water and sewer at a R1-7.2 density. Commissioner Stringham clarified that if this property stayed with King County it would have received zoning of six unit per acre (R1-7.2). Mr. O'Neill explained that King County staff has proposed six units per acre for that property, however, it has not been approved by the King County Council at this time. Map Site 5. 26626 132nd Avenue SE (Pearson) Issue Should the zoning be changed from the staff recommended RI-7.2 to a zoning designation which would allow a nursery as a principally permitted use. The only zoning that would accommodate the owners request would be either agriculture or commercial zoning. The staff is again recommending the original proposal of R1-7.2. The nursery would be able to continue as a legal nonconforming use. Commissioner Stringham clarified the location of the property. 6 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 #CPA-95-1 and 9AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Map Site 46. 12633 SE 270th Street (Conti) Issue• Should this roperty be designated for office use instead of single-family residential? This is a large parcel currently zoned urban reserve. The proposed zoning in the staff report is R1- 7.2. The owner has proposed an office zoning for the frontage of the property. The staff is recommending the original proposal of R1-7.2. Commissioner MacIsaac asked for clarification of use of some adjacent property. Mr. O'Neill pointed out the residential uses now located between the Conti property and the proposed commercial zone. Map Site 47• Clark Lake (Lake Mills-Goldberg. Grajewskil Issue• Concern about the future of the property bought by King County for the purpose of preserving open space adjacent to Clark Lake. Ms. Phillips explained that this property will be managed by the City of Kent. At this time the City does not have any plans to acquire any more property there. The Kent Comprehensive Plan has a strong recommendation for establishing linkages and increasing natural areas. The Kent Comprehensive Plan does have goals and policies for protecting ecologically sensitive areas. The Parks Department will be the managing department for this property. The Parks Department does not have a specific plan in mind in.now,but they believe it will be used similar to what King County had planned (passive use - picnic tables, lake access, and trails). Chair Morrill commented that the City of Kent's Park Department's is very good in taking into consideration the wishes of the people in the area. Map Site 98: 25261 124th Avenue SE (Kuehlthau) Issue• Should the designation of the property be revised to R1-7.2 from R1-9.6? The staff recommends a change in the zoning boundary to incorporate his property in the R1-7.2 zoning. Map Site 9• East Side of 116th Avenue SE/South of SE 240th Street (Richardson) Issue• Request that approximately 1 4 acres be rezoned to MRM to allow senior housing. 7 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 3 CPA-95-1 and 9AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 The owner of this property requests a consideration for MRM zoning to permit senior housing. The staff pointed out at the previous public hearing that a retirement home is a conditional use in any residential zoning districts in the City. A rezone to multifamily is not necessary. Commissioner Stringham asked for a definition of retirement housing. Mr. Satterstrom explained that as long as you were providing a living environment for senior residents it would be considered senior housing. Commissioner Stringham interpreted the zoning code to include on-site care in order to go in as a conditional use permit. Commissioner Stringham asked for a clarification of this. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the staff would further clarify this issue. Map Site 10• Property located in the southwest corner of annexation area (Pawlowski) Issue• Request to change proposed zoning to less dense single family residential zoning. The owner requested zoning classification equivalent to that of the current King County zoning. The staff recommended the original proposed zoning of R1-20. Map Site 11. 24436 116th Avenue SE Bushev) Issue• Should the zoning be changed from the staff recommended R1-7.2 to a zoning designation which would allow commercial uses. This property is located on 116th Avenue SE, across the street from the City's East Hill Police/Fire Training Center. The land use pattern in the area is predominately single family. The staff recommends the properties to stay with the original zoning of R1-7.2. Map Site 12: Multi family zoning for an undeveloped site near Lake Meridian Shopping Center (Reid letter) Issue• Request to retain existing County multi-family zoning on undeveloped parcels located north and east of Lake Meridian Shopping Center. Mr. Satterstrom explained there appears to be some developmental limitations on the property. The access to the site is limited due to the narrow width of 129th Avenue SE. The resolution that was passed by the City Council said to protect the single family area. The staff recommended the originally proposed zoning of R1-5.0 and some community commercial zoning. Commissioner Stringham asked what is the current King County zoning. Mr. Satterstrom informed the Planning Commission that the current zoning is R24 which is equivalent to the MRM zoning. 8 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning[Clap Amendments-Area 2 9CPA-95-1 and 9AZ-9.5-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Commissioner Epperly addressed the Keary property that was not mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Satterstrom clarified to the Planning Commission that the property owners that supported the staff proposed alternative 3 were not addressed in the October 2 staff report. Deliberations Chair Morrill stated that he would like to make the letters submitted earlier by the staff a party of record,however, not consider the letters as part of the deliberations. The letters would be sent to the City Council with an explanation that they were received after the Planning Commission had closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nuss strongly opposed sending the letters forward. Commissioner Nuss felt the . letters were important to the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Planning Commission should take the time to review these letters. Commissioner Nuss does not believe the Planning Commission should pass the "buck." Commissioner Nuss urged the Planning Commission to wait until after the letters can be considered before making a recommendation to the City Council so as not to "inconvenience" the public. Commissioner Pattison explained that the Planning Commission operate under clearly defined rules and therefore, should stick to those rules and accept the letters as part of the record but not delay the deliberations because of their tardiness in essence. Commissioner Dahle reminded the Commission that there were individuals who requested to speak tonight. Since the Commission closed the public hearing and won't allow the public to speak. Commissioner Dahle does not believe the letters should be allowed or considered. Dahle agrees that the letters should be a part the of record. Commissioner String-ham pointed out that there are two more public hearings that will occur before the City Council. The public will have those opportunities to make their wishes known. Commissioner Stringham agreed that the process has to be cut off at some point. Commissioner Nuss agrees that the process should be adhered to. Nuss does not think the hearing should be continually reopened, however, the public was aware that the deliberations were tonight and the letters were sent before this meeting. Commissioner Nuss believes that any letters received up to this point should be taken into consideration. Nuss feels the Planning Commission should be more caring and concerned with the people. 9 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 4CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Commissioner Dahle MOVED that the Planning Commission accept the eight letters that were received after the public hearing was closed and made a part of public record. Since the Planning Commission did not have time to take these letters into consideration, these letters should be forwarded to the City Council to be reviewed by staff and a recommendation given to the council. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Commissioner MacIsaac AMENDED the motion to specifically mention the Kenneth G. Kirby letter dated September 5, 1995. Commissioner Dahle accepted the amendment. Motion CARRIED with Commissioner Nuss against the motion. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned if staff considered the need for more commercial nodes. Planning Director, James Harris, explained that this is not the opportunity to review a general Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Nuss MOVED to approve the staff recommendation for no change on map site 1 (Widener/Ormiston/HoustonBurpee/Wilson) Kent Kangley commercial. Commissioner Pattison SECONDED. Commissioner Stringham pointed out that if King County had zoned the area commercial he would of opposed the down zoning of these properties. Chair Morrill agrees with Commissioner Stringham. Chair Morrill continued that if Wilson, Widener, and Ormiston went as one unit they probably would not have any problems getting a zoning change. Commissioner Maclsaac pointed out that because of the current access commercial does not make since, therefore, he feels that the Planning Commission should consider Ms. Houston's wishes to remain single family zoning. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to approve the staff recommendation for no change on map site 2,the Lake Meridian Cabins. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED with Commissioner MacIsaac OPPOSED. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to accept the staff recommendation for no change on map site 3, Shady Park Grocery and Auto Repair. Commissioner Pattison SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Stringham pointed out that this business has been in existence a long time and the owner would lose the business in the event that it burns down. Commissioner Stringham questioned the possibility of neighborhood community commercial. Commissioner Epperly mentioned that she had the same question. Senior Planner,Kevin O Neill,informed the Planning Commission that there is a possibility of NCC. The Comprehensive Plan land use map would have to be changed to commercial in order to accommodate the NCC zoning. The NCC designation would accommodate the grocery store, 10 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 nCPA-95-1 and'AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 however, it would not accommodate the auto repair. Auto repair is not a permitted use in NCC zoning designation. The auto repair would continue to be legal and nonconforming in NCC. The only designation that would accommodate both the grocery store and the auto repair would be general commercial. Commissioner Stringham asked for clarification that under NCC zoning one of the businesses would be legal and conforming and the other would still be legal and nonconforming. The owner would be 50% better off with the NCC zoning. Mr. O'Neill agreed. Commissioner Dahle voiced her disapproval with the NCC zoning. Commissioner Stringham emphasized the possibility of his business burning down and with the residential zoning the owner could not rebuild. Commissioner Epperly voiced her concern with taking away a livelihood. The motion to approve the staff recommendation FAILED. Vote: Yea - Commissioners Dahle, Nuss, and Pattison. Nay - Commissioners Epperly, Morrill, Stringham, and MacIsaac. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to designate the Shady Grocery parcel NCC zoning. The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Epperly. Mr. O'Neill clarified that the motion would include making the Comprehensive Plan designation commercial. Commissioner Stringham accepted the clarification. The motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea- Commissioners Epperly, Morrill, Stringham, and MacIsaac. Nay - Commissioners Dahle,Nuss, and Pattison. Commissioner Pattison MOVED to accept the staff recommendation. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion for discussion purposes. Commissioner Stringham questioned the reasonable expectation of the property owner to expect six units per acre. Commissioner Maclsaac questioned the lower designation in the area of discussion. Motion FAILED. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to designate the Jones' parcel (map site 4) R1-7.2 on the zoning map and SF6 on the Comprehensive Plan map as requested by the property owner. Motion was SECONDED by Commissioner MacIsaac. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Nuss abstained. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to keep SF6 and RI-7.2 designation for map site 5 (Pearson). Commissioner Nuss SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Stringham questioned if this property is the area where citizens had expressed a concern for wetlands preservation. Mr. ONeill informed the Planning Commission that it is in the vicinity, however, the 11 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning.Wap Amendments-Area 2 9CPA-95-1 and OAZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 property does not include the wetlands in question. Commissioner Stringham also questioned if RA zoning accommodate nurseries as a primary use. Mr. O'Neill explained that although RA would make the nursery conforming, it would create less opportunity in the future to develop the property. Commissioner MacIsaac discussed the issue of zoning the nursery NCC. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Stringham OPPOSED the motion. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to approve the staff recommendation to retain the single family designation for the map site 6 (Conti). Commissioner Pattison SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Nuss questioned the split between an office designation and the wetlands. Co.nunissioner Stringham commented that Mr. Conti's proposal for office zoning makes a lot of sense. Mr. Conti.offered to donate the wetland which would act as a buffer between the office zoning that would be on Kent Kangley and the residential area behind it. Motion FAILED unanimously. Commissioner Russ Stringham MOVED on map site 6 (Conti) to adopt commercial for Comprehensive Plan designation and professional office for the zoning designation along the entire site as it fronts Kent Kangley Road. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea-Commissioners Stringham,Epperly,Dahle,Morrill, and Maclsaac. Nay - Commissioners Nuss and Pattison. Commissioner MacIsaac MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to revise the zoning boundary to include the Kuehlthau property. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Dahle recommended that the City purchase the property surrounding Clark Lake (map site 8). Commissioner Nuss MOVED to accept staff recommendation of map site 9 (Richardson)to retain R1-7.2 zoning. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Nuss commented that the owner should have clarified the type of senior housing he was requesting zoning for at the time of the public hearing. Motion CARRIED unanimously. 12 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 9CPA-95-/and mAZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Commissioner Dahle MOVED to retain the RI-20 zoning as originally proposed by the staff for map site 10 (Pawlowski). The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Epperly. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Epperly MOVED to accept the staff recommendation for map site 11 (Bushey) to keep the SF6 and R1-7.2 designations. Commissioner Pattison SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Stringham questioned the staff whether there is a current business at this location. Mr. O'Neill informed the Planning Commission that in going out to the location there does not seem to be a business at that location just residential. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Pattison MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to retain the RI-5.0 zoning on map site 12 (Reid letter). The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Pattison. Commissioner MacIsaac voiced his concern with down-sizing the property's density. Commissioner Epperly asked for the approximate size of the property. Mr. Satterstrom informed the Planning Commission that the parcels total about ten acres. Motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea-Commissioners Dahle, Epperly,Nuss,Morrill,and Pattison. Nay- Commissioners Stringham and MacIsaac. Commissioner Nuss MOVED to accept the Comprehensive Plan and zoning Alternative 3 with the changes to map site 1 through 12 as indicated above. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Nuss emphasized her content for disregarding the letters presented to the committee. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to adjourn the hearing. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The public hearing adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, J P. Harris JH/tb:c:\PCMIN 10.2 13 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City council Action: Councilmember_ _moves, Councilmember IALL seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through F be approved. Discussion Action 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of October 3, 1995 . 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through September 29 and paid on September 29, 1995 after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 11, 1995. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 9/29/95 160046-160656 $1, 103, 316. 29 Approval of checks issued for payroll for September 16 through September 30, 1995 and paid on October 5, 1995: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/5/95 Checks 206461-206784 $ 253 , 581. 56 Advices 27911-28311 499 , 384 .32 $ 752, 965.88 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington October 3 , 1995 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Woods. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Clark, Houser, Johnson, Mann, and Orr, Operations Director/Chief of Staff McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Finance Director Miller, and Parks Director Hodgson. Mayor White was not in attendance. Approximately 20 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Rent Arts commission 20th Anniversary Month. COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Pro Tem Woods noted that the Kent Arts Commission was established 20 years ago this month to initiate, sponsor or conduct programs to further public awareness of and interest in the visual and performing arts. She read a proclama- tion declaring October, 1995, as Kent Arts Commission 20th Anniversary Month in the City of Kent and encouraged all citizens to continue to support the Arts Commission. She recognized the members of the Arts Commission and presented the proclamation to Grace Hiranaka. Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem Woods announced that Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich has been selected as Employee of the Month for October. She noted that Ms. Evezich was nominated for her outstanding commitment to quality and her tireless work ethic. City Attorney Lubovich stated that Ms. Evezich is organized, dependable, thorough, pleasant and is a team player. Evezich was then presented with the Employee of the Month plaque. Yangzhou Student Exchange Program Report. Mayor Pro Tem Woods introduced Jason Martin and Jennifer Castle, exchange students who visited Kent' s Sister City Yangzhou, China, this summer. Councilmember Clark explained the exchange pro- gram and how the students were selected. He also expressed appreciation to the host families. Ms. Castle thanked the City and the people of Kent for their support, and told of her experi- ences in China. Mr. Martin showed photographs he had taken and explained family life in China. The students then presented Mr. Clark with paper cuttings and the City with a cork carving in a laquerware frame. Woods commended all involved in the exchange, and expressed hope that it will continue. 1 October 3 , 1995 PUBLIC Yanclzhou China Visitor. Mayor Pro Tem Woods COMMUNICATIONS introduced Mr. Chen who is Deputy Manager of the Foreign Affairs Office of Yanghou and is here planning and preparing for other delegates who will be arriving. She added that Mr. Chen was very helpful to her and the Mayor when they were in China. CONSENT JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through G 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 September 19, 1995 with the following corrections: Item 3A - Check numbers 158460-159021 Should read 158304-159021 Item 3B - Check numbers 159022-159851 Should read 159022-159581 HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) SANITATION Turner Condominiums Aka Crestwood Estates. AUTHORIZATION to accept the Bill of Sale for Turner Condominiums for continuous operation and maintenance of 40 linear feet of sanitary sewers, 25 linear feet of street improvements, 80 linear feet of storm sewers and release of bonds after expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located at SE 261st Street and 114th Avenue SE. WATER (BIDS - ITEM 5A) Kent Springs Water Transmission Main Repair (180th Avenue SE to 204th Avenue SE) . Bid opening for this project was held on September 28, 1995 with 13 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Frank Coluccio Construction Company in the amount of $895, 871. 10 . The Engineer' s estimate was $1, 383 , 626. 98 . The pro- ject consists of installing approximately 8 , 000 LF of 241, ductile iron water main pipe and various related appurtenances in accordance with the plans and specifications. MANN MOVED that the Kent Springs Water Transmission Main Repair (180th Avenue SE to 204th Avenue SE) be awarded to Frank Coluccio Construction Company in the amount of $895, 871. 10. Bennett seconded and the motion carried. 2 October 3 , 1995 SIDEWALKS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) LID 345 S. 218th Street Sidewalks, East Valley Highway to SR 167. 'This issue was referred to the Public Works Committee at the September 19th Council meeting. As explained in the Public Works Director' s memo, the deletion of the southerly sidewalk would not only result in an increase of the property owners' assessments, but would also place the burden of constructing the sidewalk on the fronting property owner upon re- development of the property. Based on same, the Committee recommended no change in the design. Public Works Director Wickstrom explained that one issue at the Public Works Committee meeting was showing the property owner what the potential increase in the assessment would be. He noted that the Rust's increase due to sidewalk deletion would be $229 . 48 . He explained that the City is contributing to the project for widening the road to full width and adding curb and gutter and pay- ing for the sidewalk. He noted that the City' s money would therefore be reduced and it would not affect the assessments other than there would be less City money to lower the assessments, so the assessments would have to go up. He noted that at the Committee meeting some of the property owners realized that those who fronted on the south side would have to build the sidewalk upon redevelopment of the property, and that the property owners decided no change to the design should be warranted. Upon Orr's question, Wickstrom explained that originally the LID was paying 100% of the costs and that when the City' s contribution was deducted, the assessments were reduced by 14%, but that because less money was taken out because deleting the sidewalks amounted to 1. 5%, the assessments would go up 1. 5% higher than they would have if all City money were kept in the project. Woods noted that the City had committed funds to help pay for the second side- walk, and that if the second sidewalk is not funded, that money would be withdrawn but the rest of the LID goes on. Wickstrom explained that property owners assessments are going down, but not as much as originally anticipated. Wickstrom clarified for Clark that the figure of $166, 000 was the cost of widening the road, adding curb and gutter and sidewalks, and there was an equivalent amount of drainage work the 3 October 3 , 1995 SIDEWALKS City could participate in. He noted that if the sidewalks are deleted, the City will get the reduction on it' s funds, and that property owners will be faced with building those improvements on a piecemeal approach as they redevelop. Wickstrom noted for Orr that the City's standards call for sidewalks on both sides of streets, and that this is an industrial area and eventually sidewalks will be needed on both sides of the street. Orr voiced concern about raising the costs to property owners. Clark noted that this has been discussed in detail by the committee, and said the Council has approved this improve- ment. He noted that curbs must be put in on both sides, and that a major concern was a loss of parking on the south side. Houser said that the reason for making the change was because the assessments seemed high, and that now this would raise the assessments. Wickstrom responded that the assessments will go down, but not as much as previously expected. He added that because there would be sidewalks on one side but not the other, the assessments would have to be redistributed since one side receives the benefit of sidewalks and will have to pay for it, while the other side will not receive the benefit and will not have to pay for it. Bennett thanked the Councilmembers for sending this back to committee, and said it makes no sense to have two sidewalks on a dead end street which has no pedestrians. Elsie Rust, 8619 S. 218th, asked why the money would be deleted from property owners rather than from the city. . Wickstrom stated that he has ex- plained the logic of why the City contributed to the project, and noted that Council can stray from that logic. MANN MOVED that the Public Works Committee' s recommendation not to change the design be accepted. Clark seconded. Mann noted for Orr that he believes this is what the property owners want to do, according to staff. Bennett stated that the discussion on this issue has been con- fusing. On a roll call vote, the motion to accept the Public Works Committee' s recommenda- tion not to change the design carried with Clark, Johnson, Mann and Woods in favor and Bennett, Houser and Orr opposed. 4 October 3 , 1995 TRAFFIC (ADDED ITEM) CONTROL Traffic Control. Cliff Norton, 10020 S.E. 246th Place, expressed concern about the traffic pat- tern in his neighborhood. He said it was his understanding that S.E. 244th would not be cut through, but it appears to be happening. He said he is also concerned about the safety of children in the area of So. 100th Street because although the traffic is not heavy, it is extremely fast. He said it appears that S.E. 100th may also be cut through, and noted that it is near a school. He asked that the City explain their plan for those streets. Woods noted that this issue is scheduled for the Public Works Committee meeting of October 23rd, and said nothing will happen without considering the residents. She added that the meeting will begin at 4 : 30 p.m. in City Hall and invited him and other interested citi- zens. Mr. Norton stated that he will notify the homeowners in the area of the meeting. Dennis Ryerson, 10012 S. E. 244th Court, noted that two petitions on this issue had been presented previously, that meetings on this subject were rescheduled several times, and in the meantime the road continued to go through. He expressed frustration and the feeling that this neighbor- hood does not matter. He explained that they had suggested speed bumps or break-away barriers, but have not received a response. Woods stated that Mr. Ryerson' s concerns should be mentioned at the meeting on the 23rd, and explained that the meeting was rescheduled once because none of the regular committee members would be in attendance and the City preferred not to have other council- members stand in when this issue was being discussed. She apologized for the inconvenience and said-that this Council takes citizens' con- cerns seriously, adding that the Committee will be receptive to their suggestions, as they have been in other areas of the City. Orr stated that it was her understanding that the road was not going through and the issue had been resolved. Wickstrom explained that one of the petitions relates to 100th Avenue from 244th north to Fred Meyer, that that is not being built, and that a developer is building a trail along 100th for school children to use. He explained that 244th Avenue is a condition of the plat and that al- though work has proceeded, the plat has not been finalized. He noted that the Council has full authority to close the road if they so desire. 5 October 3 , 1995 TRAFFIC He also noted that alternatives will be looked at CONTROL during the October 23rd meeting. Norton reiter- ated that at the present time 244th appears to be cut through, and that their concern on 100th is the traffic speed. ANNEXATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) ZONING Meridian Annexation Zoning Az-95-3 . AUTHORIZA- TION to set October 17 , 1995 and November 21, 1995 as public hearing dates to consider the initial zoning for the Meridian Annexation area. ZONE CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) AMENDMENTS Accessory housing Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-3 . The Planning Commission has recommended that the Council consider a Zoning Code Amendment allowing accessory housing in Kent, as outlined in the draft accessory housing regulations. Betsy Czark of the Planning Department explained that accessory housing is basically mother-in-law apartments, separate independent units, and that the proposed ordinance allows accessory housing in all single family homes as long as one of the units is owner-occupied. Clark noted that Section 8 states that one offstreet parking space per accessory unit is required, and asked about the impact in regard to current zoning and clustering. Czark said she is not aware of the need for a variance, and that the regulations were drafted so that if the parking requirements were changed, the accessory housing ordinance would not have to be revised. Orr noted that she has some concerns which she was unable to discuss with staff before this meeting, -and asked that this item go to the Planning Committee meeting on October 17 for resolution of her questions and be brought back to Council on November 7 . There were no objec- tions and it was so ordered. Orr noted that in the meantime, anyone who presently has one of these units can continue as they have been. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) Single Family Development Standards Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-8. On June 26, 1995 , the Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt a Zoning Code Amendment regarding single Family Residential Development Standards. 6 October 3 , 1995 ZONE CODE Linda Phillips of the Planning Department noted AMENDMENTS that the revisions are proposed to implement the goals and policies of the adopted Kent Comprehen- sive Plan, and that various provisions assist in providing opportunities for affordable housing and flexible site design. She explained that Kent' s and other cities Codes were reviewed, a forum was held with residents, a forum was held with development interests, and that after pro- posals were made to the Planning Commission, they held a public hearing. She outlined the proposed densities and dimensions, and noted that the provisions proposed for change are minimum lot width, minimum street setback, maximum height, maximum building coverage, maximum impervious surface, and minimum lot size. She noted that the Planning Commission' s recommendation is to draft an ordinance adopting the recommendation. Orr requested that this issue go to the Planning Committee for review and fine-tuning on October 17, and be brought back to Council on November 7 . There were no objections and it was so ordered. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) RECREATION Riverbend Golf Complex Protective Net Project. ACCEPTANCE of Riverbend Golf Course Protective Net Project as complete, and release of retainage to Driving Range Partners, upon receipt of State releases. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through September 15 and paid on September 15, 1995 after auditing by the Operations Committee on September 28 , 1995 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 9/15/95 159582-160045 $3 , 046,252 . 05 Approval of checks issued for Payroll for September 1 through September 15, 1995 and paid on September 20, 1995: Date Check Numbers Amount 9/20/95 Checks 206162-206460 $ 264 , 463 .45 Advices 27507-27910 529 ,718 . 06 $ 794, 181. 51 7 October 3 , 1995 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) 1995 Annexation Budget Change. AUTHORIZATION to approve the 1995 Annexation Budget for the Meridian Annexation, as recommended by the Operations Committee at their September 27th meeting. This change is necessary to provide the initial staff needed for the Meridian Annexation to take effect January 1, and includes 10 public safety officers and other support staff needed to provide the census and utility billing and human resource hiring of the positions. The funding from Regional Justice Center sales tax and excess 1995 sales tax are primarily the sources used to fund the budget change. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) (ADDED BY CHIEF OF STAFF MCFALL) 1996 Budget Workshop. AUTHORIZATION to set October 17, 1995, at 5: 30 p.m. as the date and time for a Council workshop on the Mayor' s pro- posed budget for 1996 . (REPORTS - ITEM 7G) Administrative Reports. Finance Division Director Miller explained that due to a change in State law, an update on the budget must be pre- sented to Council in early October. She stated that no tax increases are planned for 1996, and distributed a handout. She outlined the sales tax revenue, noting that it is currently 5% above budget. She reported that overall revenue is approximately $700, 000 over what was budgeted last year and she expects to end the year with $919, 000 going toward the fund balance next year. Miller noted that next year' s revenue will come mostly from taxes, and explained that cities receive only 10% of the sales tax money paid into the State and 22% of the property tax. Miller noted that 72% of expenditures is for salaries and benefits, 58% of which is for public safety. She noted that in 1994 , $1, 100, 000 was used to balance the budget, that last year $708, 000 was budgeted, and that this year it is down to $296, 000, and that the fund balance is steadily increasing. She noted that the preliminary bud- get to be presented on October 17th will include the annexation as well as the basic budget for the City. 8 October 3 , 1995 REPORTS Council President. Woods noted that the Suburban Cities Association meeting will be held on October lath in Redmond and that Police Chief Crawford will be the speaker. She encouraged interested Councilmembers to contact Ms. Banister. Planning Committee. Orr noted that the next meeting will be held on October 17 at 4 : 00 p.m. She also explained that she inadvertently referred to the Planning Commission in her com- ments at the last Council meeting regarding CDBG funding and that the' Human Services Commission should be credited. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8: 25 p.m. Brenda J obe , CMC City Cl rk 9 /W Kent City Council Meeting Date October 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: HARASSMENT CRIMES - 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 3 a L4 3 which brings the City's criminal code into ca formity with state law �r by adding a new section to .e code pc- makes harassing and stalking an individual a crime. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO . X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adding a section to the Kent City Code relating to crimes of harassment . WHEREAS, the Kent City Code does not contain any provisions that make it a crime to harass or stalk an individual; and WHEREAS, the State has provisions relating to the crime of harassment which the City Council desires to add to its code by adopting the same by reference ; NOW, THEREFORE, . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 . There is hereby added a new section to the Kent City Code, Section 9 . 02 .43 entitled "Harassment" , to read as follows : �caraa�me7it Sec . 9 . 02 .42 . Harassment. Chapter 9A. 46 of the Revised Code of Washington is hereby adopted by reference in its entirety, with the exception of felony offenses contained therein, as currently enacted and as amended from time to time . SECTION 2 . A copy of RCW 9A. 46 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . SECTION 4. Effective Date.- This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR 2 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM : ROGER A. . LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No . , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 Sex Offenses 9A.44.150 ' p(It of the defendant, the relationship of the defendant to with the designation chapter 9A.44 RCW shall be construed child, and the courts observations of the child's inability as part of Title 9A RCW. [1979 ex.s. c 244 § 18.] p reasonably communicate in front of the defendant or in k ° court. The court's findings shall identify the impact 9A.44.902 Effective date 1979 ex.s. c 244. This act factors have upon the child's ability to testify in front of is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public jury or the defendant or both and the specific nature of peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government 8 emotional or mental trauma the child would suffer. The and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect on shall determine whether the source of the trauma is the July 1, 1979. [1979 ex.s. c 244 § 19.] nce of the defendant, the jury, or both, and shall limit use of the closed-circuit television accordingly. 9A.44.903 Section captions-1988 c 145. Section -(4) This section does not apply if the defendant is an captions as used in this chapter do not constitute any part of orney pro se unless the defendant has a court-appointed the law. [1988 c 145 § 22.] omey assisting the defendant in the defense. 5) This section may not preclude the presence of both Effective date�avings—Application-1988 c 145: See notes :- ( following RCW 9A.44.010. K victim and the defendant in the courtroom together for ses of establishing or challenging the identification of defendant when identification is a legitimate issue in the Chapter 9A.46 :q ceding. HARASSMENT (6) The Washington supreme court may adopt rules of procedure regarding closed-circuit television procedures. Sections n (7) All recorded tapes of testimony produced by closed- 9A.46.010 Legislative finding. i x1rcuit television equipment shall be subject to any protective 9A.46.020 Definition—Penalties. ptder of the court for the purpose of protecting the privacy 9A.46.030 Place where committed. - 9A.46.040 Court-ordered requirements upon person charged with `pf the child. crime—Violation. (8) Nothing in this section creates a rieht of the child 9A.46-050 Arraignment—No-contact order. ti itness to a closed-circuit television procedure in lieu of 9A.46.060 Crimes included it,harassment. testifying in open court. 9A.46.070 Enforcement of orders restricting contact. (9) The state shall bear the costs of the closed-circuit 9A.46.080 Order restricting contact—Violation. n yd 1990 c 150 . 9A.46.090 Nonliabiliry of peace officer. levision procedure.p [ § 2] 9A.46.100 "Convicted." time when. Legislative declaration-1990 c 150: "The legislature declares that 9A.46.110 Stalking. nil tion of child witnesses in sexual assault and physical abuse cases is 9A.46.900 Short title. asubstantial and compelling interest of the state. Sexual and physical abuse 9A.46.905 Effective date-1985 c 288. r es are some of the most difficult cases to prosecute, in part because 9A.46.910 Severability-1985 c 288. ' uently no witnesses exist except the child victim. When abuse is Disclosure of information to person threatened or harassed by mentally ill ,prosecuted,a child victim may suffer serious emotional and mental trauma person: RCW 71.05.390. faintexposure to the abuser or from testifying in open court. In rare cases, Harassment RCW 9A.36.080, chapter 10.14 RCW. th -a6e child is so traumatized that the child is unable to testify at trial and is mavailable as a witness or the child's ability to communicate in front of the :d Pry or defendant is so reduced that the truth-seeking function of trial is 9A.46.010 Legislative finding. The legislature finds impaired. In other rare cases,the child is able to proceed to trial but suffers that the prevention of serious, personal harassment is an ng-lasting trauma as a result of testifying in court or in front of the important government objective. Toward that end, this fendant. The creation of procedural devices designed to enhance the tenth-seeking process and to shield child victims from the trauma of chapter is aimed at making unlawful the repeated invasions ezposure to the abuser and the courtroom is a compelling state interest." of a person's privacy by acts and threats which show a d (1990 c 150§ 1.] pattern of harassment designed to coerce, intimidate, or Severability-1990 c 150: "If any provision of this act or its humiliate the victim. i90� ;Application to any person or circumstance is held invalid,the remainder of The legislature further finds that the protection of such 6' act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not persons from harassment can be accomplished without or [1990 c 150 § 3.] infringing on constitutionally protected speech or activity. 9A.44.900 Decodifications and additions to this [1985 c 288 § 1.] chapter. RCW 9.79.140, 9.79.150, 9.79.160, 9.79,170 as now or hereafter amended, 9.79.180 as now or hereafter 9A.46.020 Definition—Penalties. (1) A person is Mended, 9.79.190 as now or hereafter amended, 9.79.200 as guilty of harassment if: ow or hereafter amended, 9.79.210 as now or hereafter (a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly t !�Iended, 9.79.220 as now or hereafter amended, 9A.88.020, threatens: And 9A.88.100 are each decodified and are each added to (i) To cause bodily injury in the future to the person Title 9A RCW as a new chapter with the designation chapter threatened or to any other person; or 4A44 RCW, [1979 ex.s. c 244 § 17.] (ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a d• person other than the actor; or 9A.44.901 Construction--Sections decodified and (iii) To subject the person threatened or any other r� added to this chapter. The sections decodified by RCW 900 and added to Title 9A RCW as a new chapter Person to physical confinement or restraint; or ° 9A,44 (iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended >< to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and t D994 Ed.) [Title 9A RCW—page 25] 9A.46.020 Title 9A RCVS': Washington Criminal Code r conditions of (b) The person by words or conduct places the person the provisions of pretrial release according 9to the 0procedures established by threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried court rule for preliminary appearance or an arraignment out. (2) A person who harasses another is guilty of a gross [1994 1st g—I t 7 § Seve 1985 c 288 § 5.1 except Finding—Intent—Severability-1994 1st sp.s. c 7: See notes misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, P following RCW 43.70.540. that the person is guilty of a class C felony if either of the Effective date-1994 1st sps. c 7 §§ 401 410,413-416,418-437, following applies: (a) The person has previously been and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010. convicted in this or any other state of any crime of harass- ment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or 9A.46.060 Crimes included in harassment. As used members of the victim's family or household or any person in this chapter, "harassment" may include but is not limited specifically named in a no-contact or no-harassment order-, Png crimes: or (b) the person harasses another person under subsection to an 1 of the howl(RCW 9A.46.020); (1)(a)(i) of this section by.threatening to kill the person ( ment 2) Malicious harassment (RCW 9A.36.080); threatened or any other person. 3 Telephone harassment (RCW 9.61.230); (3)The penalties provided in this section for harassment (4) Assault in the first degree (RCW 9A.36.011); do not preclude the victim from seeking any other remedy (�) Assault of a child in the first degree (RCW otherwise available under law. [1992 c 186 § 2; 1985 c _88 9A.36.120); § 2.1 (6) Assault in the second degree (RCW 9A.36.021); Severability-1992 c 186: See note following RCW 9.a.a6.t l0. (7) Assault of a child in the second degree (RCW 9A.36.130); 9A.46.030 Place where committed. Any harassment (8) Assault in the fourth degree (RCW 9A.36.041); offense committed as set forth in RCW 9A.46.020 or (9)Reckless endangerment in the second degree (RCW 9A.46.110 may be deemed to have been committed where 9A.36.050); the conduct occurred or at the place from which the threat or (10) Extortion in the first degree (RCW 9A.56.120); threats were made or at the place where the threats were (11) Extortion in the second degree (RCW 9A.56.130); received. [1992 c 186 § 3; 1985 c 288 § 3.1 (12) Coercion (RCW 9A.36.070); Severability-1992 c 186: See note following RCW 9AA6.110. (13) Burglary in the first degree (RCW 9A.52.020); (14) Burglary in the second degree (RCW 9A.52.030); P person (15) Criminal trespass in the first degree (RCW 9A.46.040 Court-ordered requirements upon charged with crime—Violation. (1) Because of the 9A.52.070); likelihood of repeated harassment directed at those who have (16) Criminal trespass in the second degree (RCW been victims of harassment in the past, when any defendant 9A.52.080); ee (RCWg der charged with a crime involving harassment is released from (17) Malicious mischief in the first custody before trial on bail or personal recognizance, the 9A.48.070); eq s mischief in the second degree (RCW court authorizing the release may require-that the defendant: (18) Maliciou (a) Stay away from the home, school, business, or place 9A•48.080); ;. of employment of the victim or victims of the alleged (19) Malicious mischief in the third degree (RCW offense or other location, as shall be specifically named by 9A.48.090); the court in the order; (20) Kidnapping-.in the first degree (RCW 9A.40.020); (b) Refrain from contacting, intimidating, threatening, or (21) Kidnappng in the second degree (RCW otherwise interfering with the victim or victims of the 9A.40.030); alleged offense and such other persons, including but not (22) Unlawful imprisonment (RCW 9A.40.040); limited to members of the family or household of the victim, (23) Rape in the first degree (RCW 9A.44.040); as shall be specifically named by the court in the order. (24) Rape in the second degree (RCW 9A.44.050); _+ (2) An intentional violation of a court order issued (25) Rape in the third degree (RCW 9A.44.060); _ under this section is a misdemeanor. The written order (26) Indecent liberties (RCW 9A.44.100); releasing the defendant shall contain the court's directives (27) Rape-of a child in the first degree (RCW — 9A.44.073); and shall bear the legend: Violation of this order is a (28) Rape of a child in the second degree (RCW criminal offense under chapter 9A.46 RCW. A certified copy of the order shall be provided to the victim by the clerk 9A.44.076); of the court. [1995 c 288 § 4.1 (29) Rape of a child in the third degree (RCW _ 9A.44.079); 9A.46.050 Arraignment—No-contact order. A (30) Child molestation in the first degree (RCW defendant who is charged by citation, complaint, or informa- 9A.44.083); tion with an offense involving harassment and not arrested (31) Child molestation in the second degree (RCW shall appear in court for arraignment in person as soon as 9A.44.086); practicable, but in no event later than fourteen days after the (32) Child molestation in the third degree (RCW == next day on which court is in session following the issuance 9A.44.089); T of the citation or the filing of the complaint or information. (33) Stalking (RCW9aAry46• CW 9A.52.025); and At that appearance, the court shall determine the necessity of (34) Residential burg I (R imposing a no-contact or no-harassment order, and consider (1994 Ed) [Title 9A RCW—page 261 Harassment 9A.46.060 (35) Violation of a temporary or permanent protective same situation would experience under all the circumstances; ij order issued pursuant to chapter 9A.46, 10.14, 10.99, 26.09, and l� or 26.50 RCW. [1994 c 271 § 802; 1994 c 121 § 2. Prior: (c) The stalker either: 1992 c 186 § 4; 1992 c 145 § 12; 1988 c 145 § 15; 1985 c (i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person: a, 288 § 6.1 or `f Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1994 c 121 § 2 and by (ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person 7j q; j994 c 271 § 802, each without reference to the other. Both aendmenu is afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not tre incorporated in the publication of this section pursuant to RCW s' LI2,l)25(2). Intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12C25(l). Person. Purpose—�everability-1994 c 271: See notes following RCW 9 - 9A.28.o20. (2)(a) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under Severability-1992 c 186: See note following RCW 9A.46.110. subsection (1)(c)(i) of this section that the stalker was not Effective date—Savings—Application-1988 c 145: See notes given actual notice that the person did not want the stalker following RCW 9A.44.010. to contact or follow the person; and (b) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under 9A.46.070 Enforcement of orders restricting subsection (1)(c)(ii) of this section that the stalker did not contact. Any law enforcement agency in this state may intend to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person. enforce this chapter as it relates to orders restricting the (3) It shall be a defense to the crime of stalking that the defendants' ability defendant is a licensed private detective acting within the .a._- y to have contact with the victim or others. capacity of his or her license as provided by chapter 18.165 [1985 c 288 § 7.] P P P RCW. -`` (4) Attempts to contact or follow the person after being T�11 9A.46.080 Order restricting contact—Violation. given actual notice that the person does not want to be tc The victim shall be informed by local law enforcement contacted or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that agencies or the prosecuting attorney of the final disposition the stalker intends to intimidate or harass the person. of the case in which the victim is involved. If a defendant (5) A person who stalks another person is guilty of a is found guilty of a crime of harassment and a condition of gross misdemeanor except that the person is guilt of a class - the sentence restricts the defendant's ability to have contact yC felony if any of the following applies (a) The stalker has with the victim or witnesses, the condition shall be recorded previously been convicted in this state or anv other state of b — and a written certified copy of that order shall be provided anv crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060. of to the victim or witnesses by the clerk of the court. Willful Y_ violation of a court order issued under this section is a the same victim or members of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a protective misdemeanor. The written order shall contain the court's r` directives and shall bear the legend: Violation of this order order; (b) the stalking violates any protective order pro- tecting the person being stalked; (c) the stalker has previous- is a criminal offense under chapter 9A.46 RCW and will ly been convicted of a gross misdemeanor or felony stalking subject a violator to arrest. [1985 c 288 § 8.] offense under this section for stalking another person; (d) the stalker was armed with a deadly weapon, as defined in RCW 9A.46.090 Nonliability of peace officer. A peace 9.94A.125, while stalking the person; (e) the stalker's victim officer shall not be held liable in any civil action for an is or was a law enforcement officer, judge, juror, attorney, arrest based on probable cause, enforcement in good faith of victim advocate, legislator, or community correction's a court order, or any other action or omission in good faith officer, and the stalker stalked the victim to retaliate against under this chapter arising from an alleged incident of harass- the victim for an act the victim performed during the course ment brought by any patty to the incident. [1985 c 288 § 9.1 of official duties or to influence the victim's performance of official duties; or (f) the stalker's victim is a current, former, 9A.46100 "Convicted," time when. As used in or prospective witness in an adjudicative proceeding, and the RCW 9.61.230, 9A.46.020, or 9A.46.110, a person has been stalker stalked the victim to retaliate against the victim as a "convicted" at such time as a plea of guilty has been ac- result of the victim's testimony or potential testimony. _ cepted or a verdict of guilty has been filed, notwithstanding (6) As used in this section: the pendency of any future proceedings including but not (a) "Follows" means deliberately maintaining visual or limited to sentencing, posttrial motions, and appeals. [1992 physical proximity to a specific person over a period of time. c 186 § 5; 1985 c 288 § 10.] A finding that the alleged stalker repeatedly and deliberately Sever2bility-1992 c 186: See note following RCW 9A.46.110. appears at the person's home, school, place of employment, business, or any other location to maintain visual or physical 9A.46.110 Stalking. (1) A person commits the crime Proximity to the person is sufficient to find that the alleged Of stalking if, without lawful authority and under circum- stalker follows the person. It is not necessary to establish stances not amounting to a felony attempt of another crime: that the alleged stalker follows the person while in transit (a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or from one location to another. repeatedly follows another person; and (b) "Harasses" means unlawful harassment as defined in (b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in RCW 10.14.020. L- fear hat the stalker intends to injure the person, another (c) "Protective order" means any temporary or perma- n or property of the person or of another person. The nent court order prohibiting or limiting violence against, g of fear must be one that a reasonable person in theharassment of, contact or communication with, or physical proximity to another person. e.) [Title 9A RCR'—page 27] .................... 9A.46.110 Title 9A RCR': Washington Criminal Code (d) "Repeatedly" means on two or more separate 9A.48.020 Arson in the first degree. (1) A person is occasions. 11994 c 271 § 801; 1992 c 186 § 1.] guilty of arson in the first degree if he knowingly and Purpose—Severability-1994 c 271: See notes following RCW maliciously: 9A.28.020. (a) Causes a fire or explosion which is manifestly Severability-1992 c 186: "If any provision of this act or its dangerous to any human life, including firemen; or application to any person or circumstance is held invalid,the remainder of (b) Causes a fire or explosion which damages a dwe11- the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances ing; or _ is not affected." (1992 c 186§ 10.1 (c) Causes a fire or explosion in any building in which there shall be at the time a human being who is not a 9A.46.900 Short title. This act shall be known as the participant in the crime; or anti-harassment act of 1985. [1985 c 288 § 12.] (d) Causes a fire or explosion on property valued at ten thousand dollars or more with intent to collect insurance 9A.46.905 Effective date-1985 c 288. This act is proceeds. necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, (2) Arson in the first degree is a class A felony. (1981 health, and safety, the support of the state government and c 203 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.48.020.1 its existing public institutions, and shall take effect May 1, 1985. [1985 c 288 § 15.] 9A.48.030 Arson in the second degree. (1) A person is guilty of arson in the second degree if he knowingly and 9A.46.910 Severability-1985 c 288. If any provision maliciously causes a fire or explosion which damages a of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is building, or any structure or erection appurtenant to or held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of joining any building, or any wharf, dock, machine, engine, the provision to other persons or circumstances is not automobile, or other motor vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, affected. [1985 c 288 § 14.] bridge, or trestle, or hay, grain, crop, or timber, whether cut or standing or any range land, or pasture land, or any fence, Cha ter 9A.48 or any lumber, shingle, or other timber products, or any P property. ARSON, RECKLESS BURNING, AND MALICIOUS (2) Arson in the second degree is a class B felony. r MISCHIEF [1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.48.030.] Sections 9A.48.040 Reckless burning in the first degree. (1) 9A.48.010 Definitions. A person is guilty of reckless burning in the first degree if 9A.48.020 Arson in the first degree. p _ 9A.48.030 Arson in the second degree. he recklessly damages a building or other structure or any 9A.48.040 Reckless burning in the first degree. vehicle, railway car, aircraft or watercraft or any hay, grain, _ 9A.48.050 Reckless burning in the second degree. crop, or timber whether cut or standing, by knowingly 9A.48.060 Reckless burning—Defense. causing a fire or explosion. 9A.48.070 Malicious mischief in the fast degree. 9A.48.080 Malicious mischief in the second degree. (2) Reckless burning in the first degree is a class C r 9A.48.090 Malicious mischief in the third degree. felony. [1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.48.040.] 9A.48.100 Malicious mischief—"Physical damage' defined. ' Explosives: Chapter 70.74 RCW. 9A.48.050 Reckless burning in the second degree. (1) A person is guilty of reckless burning in the second 9A.48.010 Definitions. (1) For the purpose of this degree if he knowingly causes a fire or explosion, whether chapter, as now or hereinafter amended, unless the context on his own property or that of another, and thereby reckless- indicates other-wise: ly places a building or other structure, of any vehicle, (a) "Building" has the definition in RCW 9A.04.110(5), railway car, aircraft, or watercraft, or any hay, grain, crop or and where a building consists of two or more units separate- timber, whether cut or standing, in danger of destruction or - ly secured or occupied, each unit shall not be treated as a damage separate building; (2) Reckless burning in the second degree is a gross (b) "Damages", in addition to its ordinary meaning, misdemeanor. [1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.48.050.] includes any charring, scorching, burning, or breaking, or _ agricultural or industrial sabotage, and shall include any 9 -48.060 Reckless burning—Defense. In any diminution in the value of any property as a consequence of prosecution for the crime of reckless burning in the first or - an act. second degrees, it shall be a defense if the defendant (2) To constitute arson it shall not be necessary that a establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that: person other than the actor should have had ownership in the (a) No person other than the defendant had a possessory. building or structure damaged or set on fire. [1975-'76 2nd or pecuniary interest in the damaged or endangered property, =e ex.s. c 38 § 6; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.48.010.] or if other persons had such an interest, all of them consent- Effective date—Severability-1975-'76 2nd exs. c 38: See notes ed to the defendant's conduct; and following RCW 9A.08.020. (b) The defendant's sole intent was to destroy or damage the property for a lawful purpose. (1975 1st ex.s.c 260 § 9A.48.060.1 T l (1994 Fd) [Title 9A RCW—page 28] Kent City Council Meeting Date October 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: TOP OF THE HILL FINAL PLAT FSU-94-2 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set November 7, 1995 as the date for a public meeting to consider a final plat appli- cation made by Baima & Holmberg, Inc. The City Council approved a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner for the Preliminary Plat -#&UT9� on September 61 1994. The plat contains 8 .74 acres, consists of 42 single-family residential lots, and is located on the north side of the SE 244th Street, approximately 600 feet west of 104th Avenue SE. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALJPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS- 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D Kent City Council Meeting Date October 17 . 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KINGSTONE FINAL PLAT FSU-94-11 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set November 7, 1995 as the date for a public meeting to consider a final plat application made by T.C.A. The preliminary subdivision was approved in King County and upon the East Hill/Ramstead Annexation, the final plat fell under Kent` s jurisdiction. This plat contains 21. 34 acres, has 69 lots, and is located between SE 271st and SE 268th and between 114th Avenue SE and 117th Avenue SE 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3E Kent City Council Meeting Date October 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KIWANIS TOT LOT NO. 2 PROJECT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of Kiwanis Tot Lot #2 Project as complete, and release of retainage to Parkwood Services, upon receipt of state releases. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3F Kent City Council Meeting Date October 17 , 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: HEATH TECNA FRANCHISE AGREEMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Heath Tecna Aerospace Corporation is selling its Kent facilities and asks that the Council give its consent to Heath' s assignment of its interest in an existing street use franchise with the City of Kent. By its terms, the franchise does not allow assignment without Council's prior approval. Heath asks Council to authorize the Mayor to sign a Consent Agreement together with a second agreement that verifies that the franchise is still in effect and that no franchise terms have been violated to date. the City Wiens 1 3 . EXHIBITS: Cons nt agreement and Estoppel Certificate 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: S aff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) t } ti 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL RSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember Ma, Y yu move, Councilmember seconds that the Mayor be authorized to sign the Heath Tecna franchise assignment agreements. DISCUSSION• ACTION• � l Council Agenda Item No. 4A CONSENT CONSENT, dated as of the day of 1995 , by City of Kent (the "City" ) , a Washington municipal corporation, having an office at 300 West Gowe, Kent , Washington 98032 . W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Strategic Alliance Agreement (the "Agreement" ) among Ciba-Geigy Limited, Ciba-Geigy Corporation (as successor in interest to Heath Tecna Corporation , the "Assignor" ) and Hexcel Corporation (the "Assianee" ) , Assignor agreed to sell to Assignee, inter aria, all right , title and interest of Assignor in and to certain premises located in Kent , Washington and more particularly described in EXHIBIT A attached hereto (the "Property" ) ; WHEREAS, the Agreement further provides that Assignor shall assign to Assignee all right , title and interest of Assignor in, to and under all contracts and agreements relating to the Property; WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Ordinance No . 3101 of the City (the "Franchise'' ) , which Franchise was passed by the City Council of the City on April 20 , 1993 , approved by the City Council of the City on April 21 , 1993 , published on April 23 , 1993 and recorded under King County Recording No . 9306221931 , the City granted certain rights to the Assignor which relate to and affect the Property; WHEREAS, Assignor and Assignee have requested that the City consent to the assignment by Assignor to Assignee of the Franchise, and the City has agreed to so consent . NOW, THEREFOR, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the re- ceipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City hereby agrees as follows : 1 . Pursuant to Section 17 of the Franchise , the City hereby consents to the assignment by Assignor to Assignee of all rights , interests , authorities , franchis- 0106997.02-01 S4a es and privileges of the Assignor in, to and under the Franchise . 2 . From and after the date hereof , all notices from the City to Assignee under the Franchise shall be sent to Assignee at 5794 West Las Positas Boulevard, Pleasanton, California 94598 or at such other address or addresses as Assignee - may from time to time designate to the City in writing . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Consent has been ap- proved and executed by the City in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington as of the date first set forth above . Name : Title : Mayor ATTEST : Name : Title : City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM : Name : Title : City Attorney OI06987.02-O:S4a 2 XHIC3 iT ORDER NO . 3071-75 - 2 THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMI=_ - IS S=i"JATED IN THE STATE OF. WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING AN-i IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : PARCEL A: "HAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OP THE NORTHEAST QUARTER O- SECTION 1 , TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTH 196TH STREET AND EASTERLY OF THE =AST MARGIN OF 81ST AVENUE SOUTH AS THEY ARE ESTABLISHED BY THAT DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO . 5345763 ; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 280 FEET OF THE WEST 263 . 19 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS LYING WITHIN PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 5 ; EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS DEEDED' TO THE CITY OF KENT BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS . 7812220012 , 7905290355 AND 8808150073 ; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST MARGIN 0= PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 5 , SAID POINT BEING 179 . 06 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1 ; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTH 196TH STREET TO A POINT WHICH IS 411 . 11 FEET EAST OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF 61ST AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL TO SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 365 FEET; THENCE EAST PARALLEL TO SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO . LL- 92 - 2 UNDER RECORDING NO . 9202251431 ) . a� 2 �1I fI A ORDER N-) . 3c7/ 17 - _ LA N-D Rnc=RR: TO !N _-_S CONM_T?�T�N =S ST-UAT�D _N THE ST 0` iiAS INGTON , ^COJN '`' Or KING AND 7S DE�CR_�ED AS FO ,LOW- PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF NORTH HALF_ OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF T E SOUTHE-_ST ^DARTER OF SECTION TOWNS,=P 22 NORTH RANGE EAS W.M. , IN K_NO COUNTY, WASEINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER Or SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 89007 ' 52 " WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 504 . 08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL TO THE —EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 222 . 30 FEET' THENCE NORTH 80024144 " WEST 77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE Or SAID SUBDIVISION 222 . 38 FEE ; THENCE SOUTH 89 °39 ' S2 " EAST 581 . 83 FEET TO EAST LINE Or SAID SUBDIVISION; _._ENCE NORTH ALONG SAID .TINE 439 . 54 FEET, TO THE POINT OF 3EGINNING; EXCEPT ROADS ; ;,ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 1 , CITY OF KENT LOT LINE ADJUSTYLENT NO . LL- 87-27 , RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO . 8712231180 ) . PARCEL 3 : A LERSEHo�D I^q i I KR ST IN T~AT PORTION Or THE NORTH F-A F OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1 , TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER Or SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 89 °07 ' 52 " WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 504 . 88 rEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ENCE CONTINUE NORTH 8Q007 ' S2 "WEST, ALONG SAID LINE 485 . 23 FEET; _HENCE SOUTH PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 448 . 85 . . ET; " ENCE SOUTH 89039 ' 52 " EAST 408 . 19 FEET; THENCE NORTH PAR-ALL EL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 222 . 38 FDET; THENCE SOUTH 89°24 ' 44 " EAST 77 . 00 FEET; _:.ENCE NORTH PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE Or SP_ID SUBDIVISION 222 . 30 _ -ET TO TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT ROADS; :ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 2 , CITY OF KENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO . LL- 87- 27 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8712231185 ) . SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE City of Kent (the , CityI' ) , a Washington munic- - pa1 corporation, having an office at 300 West Gowe , Kent , Washington 98032 , understands that Ciba-Geigy Corporation. (as successor in interest to Heath Tecna Corporation, the "Assignor" ) intends to assign to Hexcel Corporation (the "Assignee" ) all right , title and interest of Assignor In, to and under that certain Ordinance No . 3101 of the City (the "Franchise" ) , which Franchise was passed by the City Council of the City on April 20 , 1993 , approved by the City Council of the City on April 21, 1993 , published on April 23 , 1993 and recorded under King County Recording No . 9306221931 and that , in connection therewith, Assign- ee and its successors and assigns may rely upon the truth and accuracy of the information contained in this certif- icate in accepting an assignment of the Franchise . Accordingly, the City hereby certifies and confirms for the benefit of Assignor and Assignee and their respective successors and assigns as follows : 1 . The Franchise has been duly accepted by Assignor, is in full force and effect and has not been rejected, revoked, forfeited, annulled, modified, amended or suDniemented in any way. 2 . As of the date hereof , all of the terms , conditions and provisions of the Franchise to be complied with by Assignor have been complied with and no event has occurred and no circumstance exists which would, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, consti- tute a default by Assignor under the Franchise or permit the City to revoke or annul the Franchise . 3 . All plan review, inspection, restoration, indemnification and other costs, claims and expenses due and payable by Assignor to the City under the Franchise have been paid through the date hereof and no such costs , claims or expenses are presently outstanding. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Estoppel Certificate has been approved and executed by the City in accordance 0107006.01-0154a with the laws of the State of Washington as of the date first set forth above . Name : Title : Mayor ATTEST : Name : Title : City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Name : Title : City Attorney oionoo.oi-oiS»a 2 pn Kent City Council Meeting Date October 17 , 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AERIAL MAPPING CONTRACT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Public Works Committee has recom- mended that upon the City Attorney' s concurrence with the contract documents, the Mayor be authorized to sign the Meridian Annexation Area Aerial Mapping Contract with Nies Mapping Group, Inc. , Bellevue, Washington. i i i 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director meorandum and consultant contract 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (telephone concurrence) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, ,'Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEE IMPACT: NO YES ✓ 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ 6 ,715. 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Misc llaneous Drainage Fund (D-17) 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION ' Councilmember ! Ct�n lv moveJ, Councilmember t"ck,,�3 seconds that the Meridian Annexation Area Aerial Mapping Contract be awarded to Nies Mapping Group, Inc. for the contract amount of $36,715. 00 DISCUSSION• �1 ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4B DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS October 17, 1995 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom, Dir c`tbr of Public Works RE: Meridian Annexation Aerial Mapping Contract With the Meridian Annexation set for incorporation into the City on January 1, 1996, one of the many things that need to be done prior thereto is aerial mapping of the area. Said mapping and digitizing of the data thereon provides the basis for determining the respective drainage utility service charges on the individual parcels. The Public Works Department solicited RFP's from two firms (due to the specialized nature of this work, there are only a limited number of firms available in this field). The firm selected,Nies Mapping Company was the lowest cost at a dollar amount of$36,715.00. Adequate funds for this work exist within the Miscellaneous Drainage Improvement fund (D17). Because this work and firm fell outside of the Public Works exemption under the City's contracting policy Council authorization to sign same is sought. Because of the time constraint involved, we are pursuing verbal approval of the respective Public Works Committee members for this consent calendar item. We hope to secure same prior to the actual Council meeting. TIDW95278 CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND NIES MAPPING GROUP, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), and NIES MAPPING GROUP, INC., organized under the laws of the State of WASHINGTON, located and doing business at 1950 112TH AVENUE NE, #202, BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004,ATTN: GARY L. NIES, PRESIDENT, PHONE (206) 637-0546/FAX (206) 637-0549 (hereinafter the "Consultant"). Recitals 1. The City desires that the Consultant perform services necessary to provide consultation and advice to the City on the preparation of plans, specifications, and cost estimates for the LAKE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AERIAL MAPPING AND DIGITAL ORTHOPHOTO PROJECT. 2. The Consultant agrees to perform the services more specifically described in the Scope of Work, dated SEPTEMBER 29, 19 95 , including any addenda thereto as of the effective date of this agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A which is incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 1 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 T/KP95278 I. Description of Work Consultant shall perform all work as described in Exhibit A. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time such services are performed. I1. Payment A. The City shall pay the Consultant, based on time and materials, an amount not to exceed THIRTY SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTEEN DOLLARS ($36,715.00) for the services described in Section I herein. This is the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement for Tasks stated in Exhibit A, and shall not be exceeded without the prior written authorization of the City in the form of a negotiated and executed supplemental agreement. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, the City reserves the right to direct the Consultant's compensated - services under the time frame set forth in Section IV herein before reaching the maximum amount. The Consultant's billing rates.shall be as delineated in Exhibit A. B. The Consultant shall submit monthly payment invoices to the City after such services have been performed, and a final bill upon completion of all the services described in this Agreement. The City shall pay the full amount of an invoice within forty-five (45) days of receipt. If the City objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so notify the Consultant of the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt and shall pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute, and the parties shall immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion. CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 2 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 TIKP9527B C. In the event the Scope of Work is modified or changed so that more or less work or time is required by the Consultant, and such modification is reached by mutual agreement of the parties to this contract, the payment for services and maximum contract amount shall be adjusted accordingly upon agreement of the parties. III. Relationship of Parties The parties intend that an independent contractor-employer relationship will be created by this Agreement. As Consultant is customarily engaged in an independently established trade which encompasses the specific service provided to the City, no agent, employee, representative or sub-contractor of Consultant shall be or shall be deemed to be the employee, agent, representative or sub-contractor of the City. In the performance of the work, Consultant is an independent contractor with the ability to control and direct the performance and details of the work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub-contractors of the Consultant. Consultant will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Consultant's agents, employees, representatives and sub-contractors during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent contractors to perform the same or similar work. IV. Duration of Work The City and Consultant agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Exhibit A immediately upon execution of this Agreement. The parties agree that the work described in Exhibit A is to be completed before December 31, 1995; provided however, that additional i CONSULTANT CONTRACTIGENERAL FORM—Page 3 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 T/KP95278 time shall be granted by the City for excusable delays or extra work, as described in Section VI.(D) below. V. Place of Work The Consultant shall perform the work authorized under this Agreement at its offices in Bellevue, Washington. Meetings with the City staff as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall take place at the City's offices at 400 West Gowe, Kent, Washington, or at locations mutually agreed upon by the parties. VI. Termination A. Termination of Agreement If the City receives reimbursement by any federal, state, or other source for work described in Section I herein, and that funding is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way, or the project is cancelled or substantially reduced after the execution date of this Agreement and prior to the completion of the work, the City may summarily terminate this Agreement. Termination shall be effective ten calendar days after Consultant's receipt of the written notice by certified mail. B. Termination for Failure to Provide Services Bargained For. The Consultant agrees that it was hired by the City based on the Consultant's representation that employees identified in the Scope of Work, attached hereto as Exhibit A, will be available to perform the services described in Section I for the duration of this Agreement. If any of the employees identified in the Scope of Work are unavailable to perform the services bargained for, for any reason, CONSULTANT CONTRACTIGENERAL FORM—Page 4 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 TIKP95278 the City of Kent reserves the right to terminate this contract or renegotiate the amount of consideration. The consultant must immediately notify the City, in writing, if any employee identified in the Scope of Work is unavailable to perform the services described in Section I of this Agreement. Nothing in the foregoing language will alter the Consultant's independent contractor status. C. Termination for Failure to Prosecute Work or to Complete Work Satisfactorily If the Consultant refuses or fails to prosecute the work with such diligence as will ensure its completion within the time frames specified herein, or as modified or extended as provided in this Agreement, or to complete such work in a manner consistent with the standard of care in Consultant's profession, then the City may, by written notice to the Consultant, give notice of its intention to terminate the Consultant's right to proceed with the work. On such notice, the Consultant shall have ten (10) calendar days to cure, to the satisfaction of the City or its representative, or the City shall send the Consultant a written termination letter which shall be effective upon the Consultant's receipt of the written notice by certified mail. Upon termination, the City may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion, by contract or otherwise, and Consultant shall be liable to the City for any additional costs incurred by it in the completion of the Scope of Work referenced as Exhibit A and as modified or amended prior to termination. "Additional Costs" shall mean all reasonable costs incurred by the City beyond the maximum contract price specified in II(A), above. D. Excusable Delays The right of Consultant to proceed shall not be terminated nor shall Consultant be charged with liquidated damages for any delays in the completion of the CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 5 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 TIKP95278 work due to: 1) any acts of the federal government in controlling, restricting, or requisitioning materials, equipment, tools, or labor by reason of war, national defense, or other national emergency; 2) any acts of the City, its consultants, or other public agencies causing such delay; and 3) causes not reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the execution of the Agreement that are beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God, fires, floods, strikes, or weather of unusual severity; and (4) negotiated and executed supplemental agreements between the City and Consultant for Consultant to perform extra work defined as tasks not included in the Scope of Work referenced as Exhibit A. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the Consultant must promptly notify the City within ten (10) calendar days in writing of the cause of the delay. If, on the basis of the facts and the terms of this Agreement, the delay is properly excusable, the City shall, in writing, extend the time for completing the work for a period of time commensurate with the period of excusable delay. E. Rights Upon Termination In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all services performed by the Consultant to the effective date of termination, as described on a final invoice submitted to the City. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project which may be used by the City without restriction. Any such use not related to the project which Consultant was contracted to perform shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 6 of I NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 T/KP95278 VII. Discrimination In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any sub- contract hereunder, the Consultant, its sub-contractors, or any person acting on behalf of such Consultant or sub-contractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. VI I I. Indemnification Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Consultant's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. 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 damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 7 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 T/KP95278 PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. IX. Insurance The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants or sub-contractors. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1 . Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and employer's liability; and Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant. CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 8 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 TIKP95276 The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies. The Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The Consultant's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City and the City shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. X. Exchange of Information The City warrants the accuracy of any information supplied by it to Consultant for the purpose of completion of the work under this Agreement. The parties agree that the Consultant will notify the City of any inaccuracies in the information provided by the City as may be discovered in the process of performing the work, and that the City is entitled to rely upon any information supplied by the Consultant which results as a product of this Agreement. XI. Ownership and Use of Records and Documents Original documents, drawings, designs and reports developed under this Agreement shall belong to and become the property of the City. All written information submitted by the City to the Consultant in connection with the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement will be safeguarded by the Consultant to at least the same extent as the Consultant CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 9 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 T/KP95278 safeguards like information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available or is already in Consultant's possession or known to it, or is rightfully obtained by the Consultant from third parties, Consultant shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. All data, documents and files created by Consultant under this Agreement may be stored at Consultant's office in BELLEVUE, Washington. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon its request at all reasonable times for the purpose of editing, modifying and updating as necessary until such time as the City is capable of storing such information in the City's offices. Duplicate copies of this information shall be provided to the City upon its request, and at reasonable cost. Any use or reuse of the documents, data and files created by Consultant for the City on this project by anyone other than Consultant on any other project shall be without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. XII. Recyclable Materials Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever practicable. A price preference may be available for any designated recycled product. XIII. City's Right of Inspection Even though Consultant is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct the performance and detai Is of the work authorized under this Agreement, the work must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City's general right of inspection to secure the satisfactory completion thereof. The Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 10 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11, 1995 T/KP95278 and municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable to Consultant's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of such operations. XIV. Consultant to Maintain Records to Support Independent Contractor Status On the effective date of this Agreement (or shortly thereafter), Consultant shall: A. File a schedule of expenses with the Internal Revenue Service for the type of business Consultant conducts; B. Establish an account with the Washington State Department of Revenue and other necessary state agencies for the payment of all state taxes normally paid by employers, register to receive a unified business identifier number from the State of Washington; and C. Maintain a separate set of books and records that reflect all items of income and expenses of Consultant's business, all as described in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 51 .08.195, as required to show that the services performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall not give rise to an employer-employee relationship between the parties which is subject to RCW Title 51, Industrial Insurance. XV. Work Performed at Consultant's Risk Consultant shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance of the work hereunder and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 11 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 TIKP95278 XVI. Non-Waiver of Breach The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. XV11. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law Should any dispute, misunderstanding, or conflict arise as to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, the matter shall first be referred to the City, and the City shall determine the term or provision's true intent or meaning. The City shall also decide all questions which may arise between the parties relative to the actual services provided or to the sufficiency of the performance hereunder. If any dispute arises between the City and Consultant under any of the provisions of this Agreement which cannot be resolved by the City's determination in a reasonable time, or if Consultant does not agree with the City's decision on the disputed matter, jurisdiction of any resulting litigation shall be filed in King County Superior Court, King County, Washington. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to compensation for all legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification under Section VIII of this agreement. CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 12 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 T/KP95278 XVIII. Written Notice All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective upon the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. XIX. Assignment Any assignment of this Agreement by the Consultant without the written consent of the City shall be void. If the City shall give its consent to any assignment, the terms of this agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without the City's consent. XX. Modification No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Consultant. XXI. Entire Agreement The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this Agreement. The entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereunder is contained in this Agreement and any Exhibits CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 13 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11, 1995 TIKP95278 attached hereto. All of the above documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement and form the Agreement document as fully as if the same were set forth herein. Should any language in any of the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. [Signatures on following page.] CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 14 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11, 1995 TIKP95278 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have executed this Agreement. CONSULTANT THE CITY OF KENT by by IIM WHITE its its MAYOR DATE: DATE: Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to: CONSULTANT Mr. Don Wickstrom, P.E. Gary Nies President Director of Public Works Nies Mapping Group Inc The City of Kent 1950 112th Avenue NE, ##202 220 Fourth Avenue South Bellevue Washington 98004 Kent, Washington 98032 (206) 859-3340 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Roger Lubovich Brenda )acober Kent City Attorney Kent City Clerk CONSULTANT CONTRACTIGENERAL FORM—Page 15 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 TIKP95278 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK October 11, 1995 LAKE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AERIAL MAPPING AND DIGITAL ORTHOPHOTO PROJECT TASK SUMMARY TASK 1 - CONTROL SURVEYING; AND PRE-MARKING The City will be responsible for the establishment of fourteen (14) control points as indicated on Exhibit I. These points will be ties to National Geodetic Survey control monuments and will provide high order horizontal and vertical values. Prior to photography the City will pre-mark these control points per the pre-mark specifications shown on the attached Exhibit II. Additionally, the City shall pre-mark the manholes and catch basins within the area outlined on Exhibit III. These features will be marked by painting a 6" stripe around these features. The City agrees to maintain these pre-marks Until the photography is accomplished. TASK 2 - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY Aerial photography will be obtained by NIES suitable for providing the specified mapping and orthophotoproduction. This photography will be at an approximate scale of 1" = 850' with 60% overlap. The precision mapping camera will be a Zeiss RMK/A 15/23 (6" focal length lens) which has ben calibrated by the U.S. Geological Survey. Three flight lines consisting of approximately twenty one (21) photographs will be required to cover this project. Photography will be flown when weather conditions permit and the City has completed the pre-marking. TASK 3 - ANALYTICAL AERO-TRIANGULATION Upon completion of the aerial photography and receipt of the survey control values, NIES will perform analytical aero-triangulation. The purpose of this task is to expand and density the control to allow the topographic mapping data to be collected. TASK 4 - MAPPING From the existing DTM data that the City has, NIES will edit the existing DTM date (6 sections - Area 1) for use in the production of digital orthophotos. CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 16 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11, 1995 T/KP95278 Utilizing the new aerial photography, new survey control, and aero-triangulation, NIES will collect new planimetric features and a new DTM suitable for the generation of 5' contours (3 sections - Area 2). This data will be tied to the existing data. NIES will provide digital data files to the City of Kent. These maps will be delivered in a quarter section format, at 1 " — 100', with a five (5) foot contour interval. The stereo compilation will be performed on Zeiss analytic stereoplotters. Mapping shall comply with U.S. National Map Accuracy Standards. Utilizing the same new photography, NIES will compile all pre-marked manholes and catch basins which are visible on the photography. The area to be covered by this task is shown on Exhibit III. The deliverable for this task will be the AutoCAD file. All features which are clearly visible and identifiable to the stereo plotter operator will be shown on the mapping. In areas where the ground is obscured on the photography, field completion surveys will be required prior to any design. These areas will be indicated by a dashed linetype. TASK 5 - ORTHOPHOTO SPECIFICATIONS The 1 " = 850'± aerial photography will be scanned at a 15 micron scanning density. The raw image files will be ortho rectified. The City will provide NIES with a digital file of all quarter section corners within the ortho limits. These quarter section locations will be plotted at 1 " = 100' on mylar along with the image, titleblock, and grid ticks. The image plots will be delivered to the City of Kent in quarter section format for a total of 36 sheets. Area 1 and Area 2 as shown on Exhibit I is to be covered by the orthophotos. DELIVERABLES 1 . One set of black and white contact prints of the 1 " = 850'_ aerial photography. 2. One set of paper check plots of the new mapping (12 quarter sections). 3. AutoCAD files of the new mapping (12 quarter sections), NIES standard format. 4. AutoCAD file of the manholes and catch basins. 5. 1 " = 100' orthophoto mylar plots - 36 quarter sections. FEE SCHEDULE The budget to complete the scope of work described in Section III is shown below, with task budgets indicated for each work task. It is understood that NIES will not exceed the figure of $36,715.00 without prior written authorization from the City. CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 17 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11, 1995 T/KP95278 Aerial Photographic Services Black and White Mapping Photography $ 1,350.00 Photogrammetric Services Aero-Triangulation - 36 quarter sections $ 1,300.00 Edit existing DTM - 24 quarter sections $ 190.00 Provide new plan and DTM - 12 quarter section $ 17,940.00 Mapping of manholes and catch basins $ 6,510.00 Provide new digital orthophoto hard copy 36 quarter sections $ 9,425.00 TOTAL $36,715.00 CONTRACTUAL REPRESENTATIVES The following authorized representatives are hereby designated for this contract: NIES: Technical: Scott Hayes, Production Supervisor Contractual: Gary L. Nies, President CITY: Technical: Kurt Palowez, GIS Coordinator Contractual: Jim White, Mayor CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 18 of 18 NIES MAPPING GROUP,INC.October 11,1995 TIKP95278 '.,I\ . •r L. 1 ,fie; rel I .. 1'. I 1f . ..�r i � 1, 1 \ l f I `r , 1 f F (�'r-_ . .�� . .: � '� 1� 1 a,_ � 1•• J Jos � .I:'�: ' �9�, r„'�..11"t 1 11� �. Kent City Council Meeting Date October 17 , 1995 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: LID 346 - S. 212TH SIDEWALKS AND STREET LIGHTING, RUSSELL ROAD TO WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was held on October loth with 5 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Signal Electric, Inc. , Kent, Washington, in the amount of $160, 858 .50. The Engineer' s estimate was $181, 678 . 00. The project consists of installing cement concrete sidewalks, lighting standards and luminaries, conduit and other related appurtenances. f I i 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid summary memorandum ,'and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works irector (Committee, Staff, Examine , Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNiL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: 160 858 . 50 SOURCE OF FUNDS: LID 346 - 212th HOV Lanes Pro 'ect Fund W 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember � tyr ,vV' move, Councilmember w seconds that the LID 346 - S. 212th Sidewalks and Street Lighting con- tract be awarded to Signal Electric Inc. for the bid amount of $160,858 . 50. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS October 17, 1995 TO: Mayor &--City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom& RE: LID 346 212th Sidewalks/St Lighting (Russell Rd to W. Valley Highway) Bid opening for this project was held on Tuesday, October loth with 5 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Signal Electric, Inc. in the amount of S 160,858.50. The engineer's estimate was S 181,67 8.00. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the LID 346 212th Sidewalks/St. Lighting contract be awarded to Signal Electric, Inc. for the bid amount of $160,858.50 BID SUMMARY Signal Electric, Inc. 160,858.50 Totem Electric 166,302.00 MT Electric 169,509.83 DA Zuluaga Construction 190,616.00 CA Carey Corporation 198,215.40 Engineer's Estimate 181,678.00 MOTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the LID 346 212th Sidewalks/St Lighting Contract be awarded to Signal Electric, Inc. for the bid amount of S 160,858.50. �I JIII 1 �I nu it ,I I 1 I I. �C 71 I I � L � I I �! 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 G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson-Committee Chair, Leona Orr STAFF PRESENT: Norm Angelo, Ed Crawford, John Hodgson, Joye Honeycutt, Charlie Lindsey, Roger Lubovich, May Miller, Kelli O'Donnell, Ron Spang, Sue Viseth, Don Wickstrom MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: None The meeting was called to order at 9:34 a.m. by Chairperson Johnson. 12nroval of Vouchers: All claims for the period ending September 15, 1995, in the amount of $3,046,252.05 were approved for payment. Council Meeting Schedule City Attorney Lubovich stated that this item had been brought forward at the request of Council Member Clark. Clark requested that meetings be changed on the evenings of general elections and three proposals had been drafted to address this issue. The three alternatives cover holding the meeting the evening following the election, 8:15 p.m. the night of the election or holding only one meeting in November. Lubovich noted that staff has noted concern that annexation issues need to go before Council during this time period. Committee Member Orr stated that the option for one meeting was not workable and the only change she could agree to is the 8:15 p.m. start time. Committee Chair Johnson stated that in his opinion it was not necessary to change the meeting since no compelling reason has been stated. He added that with one meeting in December, there is the budget and other items that need to be brought before Council. In addition, the City has done a good job in the past of not scheduling public hearings or items for public communications on election night. If something controversial came forward in the future the item could always be pulled and held to the next meeting. After further discussion, Orr moved to make no change in election night meetings. Johnson seconded and the motion passed 2-0. 1995 Annexation Budget Director of Finance May Miller stated that this was a piece of the original presentation to make an adjustment for the 1995 charges. The 1996 budget will include the annexation proposed budget. May distributed the budget amendment and reviewed it with the Committee. In reviewing the revenue, she noted that the Regional Justice Center sales tax was never budgeted and is estimated to be $150,000 by year end. The additional funding will help to cover census expenses to meet the January 18 deadline. If this deadline is not met the City would risk losing 1/4 of the shared revenue plus the criminal justice funding for the entire year May explained. She continued that additional costs for postage, legal notices, and pre-billing are added. The addition of a person in December will be paid out of the utility/drainage accounts to work on the addition of all of the accounts. After further discussion of the census taking, Miller continued her review noting that police has been authorized to add 10 lateral officers and budgeting includes background checks, equipment, etc. A portion of this expense will be funded from the Regional Justice Center sales tax and the remainder from the Springwood grant and CIP. Chief Crawford added that the plan is to maximize the use of resources. Funds will be saved by phasing in officers and hiring lateral positions will save training time. May noted that the differed drainage rates also have resulted in a savings that will be used to cover 1995 annexation costs. She concluded that she would recommend the Council adopt the budget amendment which will be included in the budget adjustment ordinance in December. Orr moved to approve the budget amendment for the 1995 annexation expenses. Johnson seconded and the motion carried 2-0. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. STE M R�R 27 ]pP � 19 1996-2001 Capital Facilities Plan May Miller distributed the draft CFP noting that this is a working document and is being brought forward for review only. She explained that there will be a Council workshop in two weeks and it is planned to adopt the final CFP two weeks after the workshop. Miller thanked the department directors noting that it had been an incredible task to balance the funds available with the critical needs. She noted that her staff had worked to put it all together in a more readable format. May began her review by noting that the Capital Facilities Plan is a portion of the Growth Management Plan and requires that it be balanced to funding. She noted that the proposed plan addresses debt service; fund balance of the CIP; taking care of existing parks, facilities and grounds; and, future planning. May reviewed the plan with the Committee. During her review Orr asked if the annexation was included. May replied that it was not except for small items such as new signage and the new area will be inventoried next year. After the review was completed, Orr commented that she was glad to see that the burn props have been included as they get more expensive every year. August Financial Report Miller stated that she would not go through every page of the August Financial Report but noted on page 11 sales tax was down in June, July and August from the trend but it was reported up 4.8% in September. She noted that half of the expected overage will be used for the annexation with the rest going into the general fund. On page 13, May reviewed the sales tax by category noting that retail is up 7% and other cities are also experiencing strong sales tax revenues. After noting the activity in building permits on page 17, Miller concluded by reviewing page 24 noting that it is projected we will end the year $708,000 above budget in revenue with a projected increase in the reserve from $1,774,617 to $2,232,276. Committee Chair Johnson asked if there was any other business to be brought before the Committee. There being none the meeting was adjourned at 10:24 a.m. Paee 2 PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Council Present: Christi Houser, Chair; Paul Mann and Jim Bennett Staff Present: Roger Lubovich, John Hodgson, Lori Hogan, Helen Wickstrom, Pam McFall, Cheryl Fraser, Garin Lee, Randy Greathouse, Teri Stump Other: See attached list. Councilmember Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. as Chair Houser arrived. SKATEPARK COMMITTEE REPORT: Pam McFall explained that approximately three months ago Councilmember Mann and the Parks Committee asked Parks staff to create a committee of local teens to investigate the potential of having a skateboard park in Kent. A committee was created with teens and two staff members, Pam McFall and Julie Stangle. In order to view what elements are necessary to make a great skate park and then identify them for Kent, the committee visited local skate parks. Pam McFall presented a video of the three parks observed: ■ Seattle Skate Park: outdoor, free park, unsupervised. Seasonal operation due to construction of wood and sheet metal. ■ Mercer Island Skate Park: also outdoor, free, and unsupervised. Open year-round due to its concrete construction. Located in a downtown pedestrian park. ■ Bellevue Skate Park: the only indoor park, fee involved. Supervised with monitored use to maintain capacity limit, helmets and knee pads are required. Committee member Virgil Tomaras presented a display board exhibiting various components necessary in the design of a skate park. Committee member Tim Higgins explained that the next step will be to finalize a design; create financing through community contacts, donations and/or grants; and conduct a survey for the best potential site in Kent. They both thanked the Parks Committee for the opportunity to be on the Skatepark Committee. Pam McFall closed by saying the committee feels confident that they researched properly, determined the necessary components, and examined the liability issues for a skate park in Kent. The committee is ambitious to continue the process. Chair Houser complimented the committee on their presentation and the time devoted to complete this successful project. Page 1 Parks Committee Minutes September 5, 1995 Page Two John Hodgson commented that the less than a year ago the youth program was formed with the idea that the projects would not only be fun, but would also provide an education for youth. This committee has accomplished this; while having fun, they learned the challenges of planning a community project. John then asked the Committee for agreement to continue the research necessary for a skate park in Kent. The committee agreed unanimously. YOUTH EMPLOYMENT: John Hodgson and Cheryl Fraser explained that this program was part of the summer youth program, funded through a King County grant and a percentage of the.city's utility monies. Twenty teens, from sophomores to seniors, were picked to develop and construct a summer project. The group built a trail at Fenwick Park from scratch and constructed of materials only found in the woods. Garin Lee and Randy Greathouse were borrowed from Parks Maintenance staff and Cynthia Walker was hired to supervise this project. Cynthia presented a slide show illustrating the progress made throughout the project. The group was treated to educational field trips following each week of hard work on the trail. Some trips included: Mt. Rainier, where they helped in bridge building; the Green River Challenge Course, where they learned team building skills; University of Washington to look at the environmental science options; Pack Forest where they studied forest eco- systems; the Nisqually River Delta, studying wetland science; the Green River Corridor, where they created art through photography; assistance on two Public .Works field projects; and a visit to Point Defiance Zoo. John stated that we have funding to hire a few of these teens to work for the city throughout the school year too. He added that though this particular source will not be available for the summer of 1996, we will find a new source. Two students from the program spoke and thanked the city for this great opportunity and for the experience. Another student added that he learned a lot, especially how to build things and how to work with tools. Chair Houser commended this program and stated how great it was to see youth taking on such a big project for the community. Councilmember Bennett added that they are making the city's job a lot easier. PROJECT/PROGRAM REPORTS: John Hodgson complimented Helen Wickstrom on securing a $479,443 matching funds grant from IAC for the Morrill property. Helen reported that the money will be available in June of 1996. Results from the $20,000 Urban Resource grant and the $56,000 Youth Partnership grant for the mobile van will be available in September/October.