HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 10/03/1995 Cityntof Ke
Council MeetingCity
A enda
9
CITY OF
Mayor Jim White
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Jon Johnson
Tim Clark Paul Mann
Christi Houser Leona Orr
October 3, 1995
Office of the City Clerk
CITY OF J O\IL=/��J�
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 3 , 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. ✓ Proclamation - Kent Arts Commission 20th Anniversary
b B.f✓ Yangzhou Student Exchange Program Report
i
C.✓✓ �Employee of the Month
✓�/ I l,�i V�1 i '�' �:_��.LJ-[Y ', - � 1.t`�.�-�l-i i� l r- D Vf'ti`fi" RTC-,
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS 1
None d
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
B. Approval of Bills
C. 1995 Annexation Budget Change
D. ✓ Meridian Annexation Zoning AZ-95-3 - Set Hearing Dates
E.v/ Riverbend Golf Complex Protective Net Project - Accept
i as Complete
Turner (Condominiums aka Crestwood Estates - Bill of Sale
rrt\ 1 9`'i LIL-
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. LID 341 - S. 218th Street Sidewalks
B.W' Accessory Housing ZCA-95-3 - Zoning Code Amendment
C.\, Single Family Development Standards ZCA-95-8 - Zoning
Code Amendment
5 . BIDS
A.V✓ Kent Springs Water Transmission Main Repair
6. CONTINUED
J COMMUNICATIONS
7 . REPORTSVO- 1996 Budget
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) Proclamation - Kent Arts Commission 20th Anniversary
B) Yangzhou Student Exchange Program Report
C) Employee of the Month
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . city council Action:
Councilmember m roves, Councilmembe 1
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through be approved.
Discussion
Action `�-
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
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
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
September 19, 1995
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Present: Councilmembers Bennett,
Clark, Johnson, Mann, Orr and Woods, City Attorney Lubovich,
Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Police
Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Parks Director Hodgson, and
Finance Director Miller. Councilmember Houser was excused from
the meeting. Approximately 30 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC Introduction of Mayor's Appointees. Mayor White
COMMUNICATIONS introduced JoAnn Schaut as the newest appointment
to the Kent Arts Commission. He noted that
Ms. Schaut is from the Salt Air Hills area of the
City and welcomed hpr aboard to represent that
area.
Mayor White also introduced Dudley Jackson as the
newest appointment to the Transit Advisory Board.
He noted that Mr. Jackson is a transit dependent
member of the community and that his input is
very much needed.
Literacy Month. Mayor White read a proclama-
tion declaring the month of September, 1995 as
Literacy Month in the City of Kent. He encour-
aged all citizens to join in the efforts to
spread the gift of literacy and learning to all
people, and to experience for themselves the
wonderful world that books and reading can open
up with the enrichment they can bring to our
lives. Catherine Bogdon from King County
Literacy Coalition accepted the proclamation and
expressed appreciation to the City of Kent for
their dedication to literacy.
Crime Prevention Month. Mayor White read a
proclamation declaring the month of October, 1995
as Crime Prevention Month in the city of Kent.
He encouraged all citizens, government agencies,
public and private partnerships, public and pri-
vate institutions, and businesses to increase
their participation in the community' s crime
prevention efforts to more tightly weave the
fabric of the community and strengthen community
spirit. Lt. Rufener of the Kent Police Depart-
ment accepted the proclamation.
Day of Concern for the Hungry. The Mayor read a
proclamation declaring September 30, 1995 as the
Day of Concern for the Hungry in the City of
Kent. He urged all citizens to join with the
Seattle Emergency Feeding Program to feed those
who are hungry. Arthur Lee, Executive Director
1
September 19 , 1995
PUBLIC of the Emergency Feeding Program, accepted the
COMMUNICATIONS proclamation and noted that the City of Kent has
been participating in this program for the last
four years. He expressed great appreciation to
Mayor White for taking an additional initiative
to express some concerns and ask some questions
which haven't been asked before. Lee explained
that the Day of Concern for the Hungry has always
been a collaboration of Food Banks and Feeding
Programs throughout King County and that the Kent
Food Bank has agreed to put forth a more joint
collaborative effort to assure this project is a
success as it has been in times past. He invited
citizens to contribute or donate toward this
project on September 30th to meet the needs of
the growing hungry in King County.
Kent Area PTA Week. . Mayor White read a proclama-
tion declaring September 17-23 , 1995 as Kent Area
PTA Week in the City of Kent. He encouraged all
citizens to join in supporting the PTA in their
efforts on behalf of our children. Susie
Shields, Kent Area PTA Council Board Member,
noted that the PTA Council is comprised of 32
PTA' s in the Kent School District with over 4600 _
individual members. She noted the objectives of
all PTA' s and explained the different programs
and projects that are offered. She thanked the
Mayor, Council, and citizens for joining with
them in advocating for children everywhere.
Mayor White invited Ms. Shields and/or repre-
sentatives from the PTA to join with him in a
Mayor' s Forum to discuss in detail some of the
issues that the PTA is working on.
Regional Justice Center Update. Wendy Keller,
Project Manager, noted that the project is
running ahead in terms of interest earnings on
the budget because the total amount of estimated
expenditures haven't been paid thus far. She
explained that all the cement for the rat slabs
has gone down, the conduit that goes in the
bottom for all the electronics and electricity
that goes to each cell has been done, and that
the upright walls are beginning in the detention
area. She noted that the Courthouse is now ahead
of schedule, that the project is doing fine as
far as budget, and that the project is on sched-
ule in all parts of the site and in some cases a
little ahead. Keller explained that the Business
Advisory Group has formed a special committee to
look at the types of services the users in the
2
September 19 , 1995
PUBLIC RJC might be interested in and that they are
COMMUNICATIONS looking into doing a survey. She noted that
every user group is currently going through the
operational procedures and are approximately an
eighth of the way through most of the working
tasks. She noted that there have been very few
changes made by the owners of agencies in the
Regional Justice Center building, and that the
design documents are good.
CONSENT ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR I be approved. Mann seconded and the motion
carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of September 5, 1995 ,
with the following correction to Item 3B:
Check Numbers 158304-159201
Should read 158460-159021
STREETS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
(ADDED ITEM)
LID 345 - S. 218th Street Sidewalks (East Valley
Hwy to SR167 . ) Tom Graham, property owner at
8605 S. 218th Street, noted that his property is
adjacent to Jim & Elsie Rust and that he wants to
petition the Council to review one remaining
aspect of the design. He explained that there
are no remaining property owners who oppose the
LID and that the issue concerns two sidewalks
versus one. He stated that there are no known
pedestrians using that street and that one side-
walk is relatively sufficient according to the
majority of property owners. He noted that this
issue was discussed at the Public Works Committee
Meeting on September 11, 1995 and that a sugges-
tion was made to come before the whole Council
with the possibility that it may be sent back to
the Public Works Committee for further study.
Bennett explained that he doesn't feel there is a
need for any sidewalks in that area, but that a
compromise of one sidewalk makes sense. He then
recommended that this item be sent back to the
Public Works Committee to see if something could
be worked out. Clark noted that having sidewalks
on both sides of the road would clearly take away
some parking, but that the neighborhood has
developed and that the City is now having to
spend money to restore sidewalks in some locales.
3
September 19 , 1995
STREETS He noted that the original issue was safety
concerning the curve, and that that particular
street had to be dealt with because the City was
vulnerable to lawsuits regarding the safety. He
said that to partially complete the LID and then
at some future date come back and do it again is
not in the best interest of the City.
Mayor White noted that direction has been given
by Council to proceed with this LID which cur-
rently includes two sidewalks and unless Council
decides to take some other action, staff will
proceed with the LID as proposed.
Orr noted that she had agreed with Mr. Bennett
when this proposal originally was presented
regarding one sidewalk versus two and voted
against it, because she does not believe that a
dead end street requires sidewalks on both sides .
She explained that she has no objection to send-
ing this issue back to Committee to be reworked
if additional parking could be provided, home-
owners wouldn't lose as much of their frontage,
and safety is still provided. She stated that
this street clearly does not have a high pedes-
trian count, and she prefers one sidewalk.
BENNETT THEN MOVED to take this item back to the
Public Works Committee. Orr seconded and the
motion carried with Clark voting nay.
TRAFFIC (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2C)
CONTROL Six Year Transportation Improvement Program.
This date has been set for a public hearing and
adoption of a resolution establishing the 1996-
2001 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan.
Public Works Director Wickstrom noted that the
total to be spent over the six year period is
almost $84 , 000, 0001 and outlined the expenditures
as follows: $61, 000, 000 on corridor projects,
$17 , 944 , 000 for other arterial roadway improve-
ments, $9 , 588 , 000 of which is for High Occupancy
Vehicle lanes, $1, 442 , 000 for bicycle and pedes-
trian facility projects, $1, 920, 000 for upgrading
pedestrian facilities including compliance with
the Americans With Disabilities Act, $935 , 000 for
pavement rehabilitation on East Valley Highway
and $503 , 000 on a flexible route small bus system
for the downtown area.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were
no comments from the audience and ORR MOVED to
close the public hearing. Johnson seconded and
4
September 19 , 1995
TRAFFIC the motion carried. MANN MOVED that Resolution
CONTROL No. 1444 establishing the 1996-2001 Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program be adopted.
Bennett seconded and the motion carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
S. 212th street HOV Lanes - West valley Highway
to SR 167. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to
execute an agreement with Burlington Northern
Railroad in a form similar to the draft agreement
to improve the S. 212th Street crossing for HOV
Lanes, West Valley Highway to SR 167 project,
upon concurrence of the Public Works Director and
the City Attorney, as recommended by the Public
Works Committee.
PUBLIC WORKS (BIDS - ITEM 5B)
Lake Fenwick Restoration Watershed Nonpoint
Improvements. Bid opening for this project was
held on September 14th with two bids received.
The low bid was submitted by VLS Construction in
the amount of $132 , 631. 56 for Schedules A through
C. The Engineer' s estimate for A through C was
$123 , 067 . 87 . The project consists of storm water
improvements in and near an existing detention
pond including construction and placement of a
10-foot diameter diversion manhole, bioswale and
new stream channel, shoreline erosion control
improvements, including construction of wood
bulkheads and a concrete boat launch. MANN MOVED
that the Lake Fenwick Restoration Watershed
Nonpoint Improvements Project be awarded to VLS
Construction in the amount of $132 , 631. 56 for
Schedules A through C. Bennett seconded and the
motion carried.
COMMUNITY (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B)
DEVELOPMENT 1996 Community Development Block Grant Program
BLOCK GRANT This date has been set to consider adoption of
the 1996 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, including the contingency plans for
estimated entitlement changes, as recommended by
the Planning Committee and Human Services
Commission.
Betsy Czark of the Planning Department noted that
1996 funding is approximately 24% less than 1995
funding, and that there were more requests for
funding than funds available. She said that an
estimated total of $365, 361 had been recommended
for funding and outlined the applications
5
September 19, 1995
COMMUNITY received, the amount requested and the funding
DEVELOPMENT level recommended as follows:
BLOCK GRANT
CAPITAL PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION
Capital/Planning Recommended
Applications Received Amount Requested Funding Level
Children's Home Society $60,000 $39,373
Acquisition
Children's Therapy Center $12,750 $0
Weatherization
City of Kent $180,000 $180,000
Home Repair Services. Prg
City of Kent, Parks & Rec. $30,000 $0
Renovate Park - Tot Lot 14
City of Kent Planning & $40,365 $40,365
Administration .
Easter Seals of Washington $28,462 $15,500*
Access Modification Rehab
Highline Community College $5,813 $0
Child Care Center - play equip.
Highline Community College $24,335 $20,600
Child Care Center - kitchen
Kent Youth and Family Services $31,724 $0
Watson Manor renovation
MRCP $30,000 $21,600
Paradise Mobile Home Park - rehab
TOTAL $453,449 $317,438
HUMAN (PUBLIC SERVICES)
Human (Public) Services
Applications Received Amount Requested Funding Level
Community Health Centers of $25,000 $11,594
King County, Kent Clinic
Emergency Feeding Program $8,507 $7,734
of Seattle-King County
Kent School District $15,250 $5,000
Futures Club
YWCA of Seattle-King County, $29,000 $23,595
Domestic Violence Housing
TOTAL $77,757 $47,923 .
'The Easter Seals allocation of$15,500 includes$5,455 in unspent 1993 and 1994 CDBG funds
that Kent had allocated to Easter Seals in those years. Kent is now recapturing those funds and
reallocating this money to Easter Seals in 1996.
6
September 19, 1995
COMMUNITY CONTINGENCY PLAN:
DEVELOPMENT If Kent's CDBG capital dollars increase from the current
BLOCK GRANT estimate then:
1st The increase will be first allocated to Highline
Community College's Kitchen renovation project up to
its full request (for a maximum additional allocation
of $3,735) .
2nd The next $5,000 will be allocated to the Parks
Department project (Note: $5,000 is the minimum a
CDBG project can receive, therefore, since the Parks
project has $0 allocated in the proposed program the
project needs to receive at least $5,000 from the
contingency plan) .
3rd Any additional capital dollars after these two
allocations will be split evenly between the Parks
project and MRCP up to their full request.
4th In the remote possibility that the City receives
additional capital dollars that are not absorbed by
the aforementioned projects, these dollars will be
allocated to the Home Repair Program.
However, if after the Highline Community College's Kitchen
project receives its full request there is not enough of an
increase to allow an allocation of $5,000 to the Parks pro-
ject (Note $5,000 is the minimum allocation a CDBG project
can receive) then the remaining increase in CDBG dollars
will be allocated to MRCP.
If Kent's CDBG capital dollars decrease from the current
estimate, then the decrease will be split evenly between
the Children's Home Society and MHCP.
With either an increase or decrease in Kent's CDBG human
services dollars, the change will be split evenly between
the Health Center and the YWCA.
Mayor White declared the public hearing open.
Mariah Ybarra, P.O. Box 881, Kent, Regional
Director for the YWCA programs, thanked the Mayor
and Councilmembers for their support and noted
that funds provided for Anita Vista transitional
housing have made a huge difference in the lives
of 12 women and 25 children in Kent during the
first half of this year. Joyce Nickels of the
Manufactured Housing Community Preservationists
noted that they own the Paradise Mobile Home Park
on North Washington, and that the funds requested
would be used to rehabilitate the house that
exists at the park. She explained that that unit
would then be rented to a low income family. She
noted that 40 households in that park would be
served, 15 of which are low income senior
citizens. She expressed appreciation for the
support, and commended the staff. Pea Mazen,
Children' s Home Society, invited the Mayor and
Council to visit their facility and thanked the
Commission and staff .for the work they have done.
She agreed that the staff is outstanding.
7
September 19, 1995
COMMUNITY Laurie Sorenson and Pete Babbington, Highline
DEVELOPMENT Community College, explained that their request
BLOCK GRANT is for funds to upgrade their kitchen, which
would allow them to provide hot food and two
meals a day at their child care center. He said
they would then be able to take advantage of
other grants, which they could not do without the
kitchen. He explained that many people using the
community college child care center need to get
off public assistance and the children need hot
meals. Babbington noted that funds are also re-
quested from other cities, including Des Moines .
Arthur Lee, P. O. Box 18145 , Seattle, Emergency
Feeding Program, expressed appreciation for past
support and said their program emphasizes nutri-
tion and diet. He explained that various types
of boxes are prepared for special needs.
There were no further comments from the audience
and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr
seconded and the motion carried. ORR MOVED to
adopt the 1996 Community Development Block Grant
Program, including the contingency plans for
estimated entitlement changes, as recommended by
the Planning Committee. Woods seconded. Orr
noted that with the number of requests received
and the amount of funding available, making de-
cisions was not easy, and she commended the staff
and the commission for their efforts. The motion
then carried.
BUSINESS (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
LICENSES Adult Entertainment Moratorium Extension. During
1994, the City of Kent was involved in litigation
regarding adult use entertainment. As a result
of the order of the U.S. District Court, the City
must amend its zoning code to provide reasonable,
alternative sites for adult entertainment busi-
nesses. Pending a review of the necessary zoning
change, the City adopted Ordinance No. 3185 which
instituted a six month moratorium on the accep-
tance of permit applications and the issuance of
permits for adult use businesses. The City has
completed the public hearing process before the
Planning Commission, however, the six month
moratorium expired before the zoning code amend-
ment process could be completed. Therefore, the
moratorium was extended for an additional six
month term. The Planning committee is now sche-
duled to deliberate the issue prior to bringing
the issue before the full Council for action
on December 12 , 1995. Because the existing
8
September 19, 1995
BUSINESS moratorium will expire prior to that date, the
LICENSES moratorium would be extended to January 15, 1996
or until the effective date of any ordinance
establishing new land use regulations governing
the location of adult entertainment businesses,
whichever is sooner.
The City Attorney explained that this is neces-
sary due to the need for a 30-day enactment
period on ordinances. He clarified that this is
in regard to zoning.
Mayor White opened the public hearing. There
were no comments from the audience and WOODS
MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded
and the motion carried. ORR THEN MOVED to adopt
Ordinance No. 3242 which specifically makes
certain findings regarding adult entertainment in
the City of Kent and establishes an extension of
a land use moratorium on the issuance of permits
and the acceptance of applications for permits
for adult use facilities. Woods seconded and the
motion carried. WOODS MOVED to make a letter on
this issue from Cheryl Johnson a part of the
public record. Orr seconded and the motion
carried.
COMPREHENSIVE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
PLAN Comprehensive Plan Emergency Declaration for
Meridian Annexation Area. ADOPTION of Resolution
No. 1445 declaring an emergency pursuant to Kent
City Code Chapter 12 . 02 to pursue a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for the Meridian Annexation
area in conjunction with the initial annexation
zoning, as recommended by the Planning Committee.
The Growth Management Act allows comprehensive
plans to be amended once a year except in an
emergency. This measure would allow the City to
process the comprehensive plan amendments for the
Meridian annexation area separate from other
comprehensive plan amendments. The Planning
Committee recommends adoption of a resolution
declaring an emergency to pursue a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for the Meridian Annexation area
in conjunction with the initial annexation
zoning.
9
September 19 , 1995
PUBLIC SAFETY (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D)
(ADDED ITEM)
North Park. Wayne Thueringer, 858 1st Avenue
North, said that in the last three months there
has been a problem with homeless people living on
vacant private property in the area. He ex-
plained that these people panhandle, litter, and
engage in lewd behavior. He also noted that
there are frequent calls for police and aid, and
asked what could be done. Mayor White noted
that this problem is widespread and that Code
Enforcement and Police officers attempt to deal
with it. Bennett added that this was discussed
at the Public Safety Committee meeting today and
that the Attorney' s Office is working on it.
The Mayor suggested that Thueringer meet with
Assistant City Attorney Brubaker.
COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
Council Absence. APPROVAL of an excused absence
from the September 19 , 1995 City Council meeting
for Councilmember Christi Houser. She will be
out of town and unable to attend.
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
Arts commission Appointment. CONFIRMATION of the
Mayor' s appointment of JoAnn Schaut to serve as a
member of the Kent Arts Commission. Ms. Schaut
is a Kent resident and recently retired from
Boeing. She currently works in property manage-
ment and unlawful detainers. She is a volunteer
with the Bellevue Probation Department and enjoys
the theater, arts and crafts, and classical
music. Ms. Schaut will replace Bev. Domarotsky,
who resigned, and her term will continue to
10/31/95 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Kent Transit Advisory Board Appointment.
CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s appointment of Dudley
Jackson to serve as a member of the Kent Transit
Advisory Board. Mr. Jackson is a Kent resident
and manages a retail establishment at SeaTac
Mall. He does not own a car and is completely
transit dependent. He has a thorough knowledge
of the METRO transit system and will provide an
excellent source of information from a user' s
perspective. Mr. Jackson will replace Mike
Skehan, who resigned, and his appointment will
become effective immediately and will continue to
4/30/97 .
10
September 19 , 1995
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
RECREATION Riverbend Golf Complex Restroom Project.
ACCEPTANCE of Riverbend Golf Course Restroom
Project as complete, and release of retainage to
MDM Construction, upon receipt of State releases.
FIRE DEPARTMENT (BIDS - ITEM 5A)
Fire Engine/Aid Apparatus. This is the second
bidding process to replace two Fire Engine/Aid
Apparatus, which are being replaced in accordance
with the approved Apparatus Replacement Program.
The City received three bids on the apparatus.
One bid was from Emergency One in the amount of
$283 ,752 . 00 for each apparatus, the second was
from Smeal Fire Apparatus in the amount of
$278 , 960. 00 for each apparatus, and the third
was from Boise Mobile Equipment in the amount of
$269, 544 . 40 each. All bidders took exceptions to
the specifications. The low bidder, Boise Mobile
Equipment meets the specifications with the
fewest exceptions. Chief Angelo noted that this
represents a savings of $112, 911. 00 over the
first bid. BENNETT MOVED that the bid for the
fire engine/aid apparatus be awarded to Boise
- Mobile Equipment in the amount of $539, 088 . 80 ,
for two fire engine/aid apparatus, which does not
include Washington State sales tax, and that the
Mayor be authorized to sign a contract after
approval as to form by the City Attorney. Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
LITTLE LEAGUE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
(ADDED ITEM)
Steel Lake Little League. Mary Standfill, 4603
Fenwick Court, explained that she represents the
Steel Lake Little League and wants to put on
public record the impact of the pending loss of
the five Little League and one Big League fields.
She noted that the Steel Lake Little League has
been using the present facilities for the past 25
years, but during a lawsuit over the landfills
in 1990 the property was sold to the City of
Seattle. She explained that in December 1995 the
lease will be terminated and that almost 700
children between the ages of 5-18 years will no
longer have a place to participate in baseball.
She noted that it would be in the best interest
of the citizens and government to aid them in
continuing to provide this opportunity to the
young people. She requested support from the
City in their endeavor to purchase the property
and noted that the project is funded by dedicated
11
September 19, 1995
LITTLE LEAGUE volunteers and sponsors. She noted that in a
letter dated August 30, 1995 from Mayor Rice,
which Mayor White was sent a copy of, he
indicated that he is willing to work with the
officials of any jurisdiction affected by this
action. She noted that the recently adopted
Comprehensive Plan which has changed the zoning
of the property from SF-1 to SF-3 has, in effect,
put the price of that property out of reach for
them to purchase. She also noted that Mayor Rice
states that ,it would be inappropriate for the
City of Seattle to unilaterally take any step
that would violate the City of Kent' s compre-
hensive Plan. " She requested Council' s help and
asked that the Planning Department look at the
possibility of restructuring the zoning to leave
their 3 parcels at SF-1 and compensate the re-
mainder of the zoning to the surrounding parcels
which would allow the City of Seattle to still
get the best profit out of the remainder of the
property and leave the League in tact.
Mayor White noted that he has had discussions
with the City of Seattle and that they want to
sell all 200 acres of the property but don't want
to break it up, and that extensive negotiations
would have to take place. Ms. Standfill noted
that the letter from Mayor Rice suggests that
they will be willing to look at a generous offer
or a comparable offer and that a second offer is
on the table right now. Mayor White also noted
that the City of Seattle is asking $7 . 1 million
for this property. He assured Ms. Standfill that
his office would be in contact with her and that
the Parks Department staff will discuss this
item.
Mayor White noted that he has had a number of
discussions with a group of realtors who are
backers of the Steel Lake Little League and are
interested in volunteering their time and effort.
He stated that this is a legitimate situation and
that the City needs to keep working with the
League on it.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through August 31 and paid on
August 31, 1995 after auditing by the Operations
Committee on September 13 , 1995 .
12
September 19, 1995
FINANCE Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
8/31/95 159022-159851 $1, 644, 477. 18
Approval of checks issued for payroll for
August 16 through August 31, 1995 and paid on
September 5, 1995 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/5/95 Checks 205828-206161 $ 266, 976. 13
Advices 27104-27506 507 , 991.42
$ 774, 967 . 55
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Workshop and Continued Public Hearing on CIP.
APPROVAL of October 3rd as the date for a Council
Workshop on the 1996-2001 Capital Improvement
Plan, and October 17th as the date for continua-
tion of the public hearing, with possible adop-
tion at the close of the hearing.
The Capital Improvement Plan includes all
capital, revenue and expenditures for the next
six years for the General Government as well as
for the Water, Sewer, Drainage and Golf Course
funds. A public hearing was held on August 1st
and was continued.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Investment Policy. Since the Orange County
investment losses in California, much attention
has been focused on updating investment policies
to protect cities against .these kind of losses .
The proposed policy is the first Comprehensive
Investment Policy for the City of Kent and covers
recommended items for safeguarding the City' s
investments. The Council is asked to approve the
policy in its present form as set forth in the
draft ordinance. The policy will then be for-
warded to the Municipal Treasurer' s Association
for final certification. Following Certification,
the ordinance and any proposed modifications will
be submitted to the Council for final action.
Finance Director May Miller explained that the
old policy was a very vague statement saying that
the City will follow the state laws, that the
Finance Director can do investments, and not much
was prohibited except for mutual funds. She
noted that the City of Kent has been working on a
policy that would be very specific and establish
13
September 19 , 1995
FINANCE new priorities. She explained that the priori-
ties are: 1) to safeguard the City's investments;
2) to provide the cash flow needed to pay the
employees and pay construction bills; and 3) to
look at the yield. She noted that this policy
offers guidance, requires a safekeeping of the
investments, requires a new reporting criteria,
states the maturity ranges and the liquidation
process, talks about how to select brokers and
requires the brokers to read a statement and
agree that they will not sell the City any
illegal investments. She further noted that
this policy excludes specific investment types
that are currently- allowed at the State level
such as repos, derivative based investments
unless they are at the very highest quality and
are callable investments, and prohibits specula-
tion and borrowing to invest. Miller explained
that it establishes an advisory committee which
will meet quarterly and report what the invest-
ment types are, who the brokers are, and what the
returns are. She noted that an added benefit to
this policy is that when bonds are sold, the City
will have an official policy. She explained that
the last step will be to have it certified at
the federal level by the Municipal Treasurer' s
Association.
JOHNSON MOVED to adopt the proposed Comprehensive
Investment Policy subject to final certification
by the Municipal Treasurer's Association of the
United States and Canada, after which the policy
with recommended changes will be submitted to the
Council for final action. Orr seconded and the
motion carried.
REPORTS Council President. Woods reminded the Council
and citizens that there will be an Open House at
City Hall on Saturday, September 23 , from noon to
3 : 00 p.m.
Operations. Johnson noted that the Committee will
meet at 9 : 30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 27 .
Planning. Orr noted that the Committee will meet
at 4 : 00 p.m. on October 3rd.
Administrative Reports. Fire Chief Angelo noted
that a fire sprinkler trailer will be at the Open
House and invited Councilmembers to participate
in a demonstration. He also reported on a major
14
September 19, 1995
REPORTS incident on SR 167 today which involved 32 people
and resulted in one fatality.
EXECUTIVE At 8: 25 the City Attorney announced an executive
SESSION session of 10-15 minutes on property acquisition.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened and adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Brenda Ja ob CMC
City Cler
15
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 3 , 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 1995 ANNEXATION BUDGET CHANGE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations
Committee at their Se tember 27th meeting, *uthorization }s-
r^R.,AGtPd to approv the 1995 Annexation Budget for the
Meridian Annexatione 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from May Miller and worksheet
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $348 ,428
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Various - see attached
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
MILLER, MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print .
----------- -- --- --- --- - ---- -- ------ ------
� ,_,Jject : 1995 ANNEXATION BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Creator : Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/28/95 at 1418 .
TO: MAYOR WHITE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS \_ �(�
FROM: MAYENE MILLER, FINANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR `��`^'�X27�
AUTHORIZATION IS REQUESTED TO APPROVE THE 1995 PORTION OF THE MERIDIAN
ANNEXATION BUDGET. 911 CALLS WILL BEGIN 1/l/96 AND WE NEED TO HAVE STAFF
TRAINED AND READY TO GO. THE BUDGET INCLUDES 10 POLICE OFFICERS, UNIFORMS,
ARMAMENT, RADIOS AND OTHER REALATED SUPPLIES . THE BALANCE OF 6 OFFICERS
WILL BE HIRED IN EARLY 1996 . TWO ADDITIONAL OFFICERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH
A CONTRACT WITH KING COUNTY FOR SPRINGWOOD FOR DECEMBER 1995 .
FUNDS FOR A PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY AND A CUSTOMER SERVICE
PERSON TO SET UP THE STREET AND DRAINAGE UTILITY BILLS ARE ALSO INCLUDED.
FUNDS FOR HUMAN RESOURSE WILL PROVIDE THE 1/2 POSITION NEEDED TO PROCESS THE
NEW HIRES RELATED TO ANNEXATION. $156, 317 HAS BEEN INCLUDED FOR PART-
TIME CENSUS TAKERS DUE TO THE REQUIREMENT OF HAVING THE CENSUS COMPLETED
AND TO THE STATE BY ABOUT JANUARY 15 , 1996 . TO MEET THIS DATE THE CENSUS
WILL BEGIN THE FIRST WEEK IN DECEMBER AND GREAT CARE WILL BE TAKEN IN FOLLOWING
STATE REQUIREMENTS, OTHERWISE WE COULD LOSE ABOUT $428 , 000 IN SHARED AND
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REVENUE . THIS ONE TIME COST FOR CENSUS WILL ESTABLISH THE
P^PULATION BASE FOR 1996 AND FUTURE YEARS FOR SHARED REVENUE AND ALL OTHER
'ULATION BASED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES .
FINALLY NEW PARK SIGNS, LEGAL NOTICES AND POSTAGE IS BUDGETED TO COMMUNICATE
WITH KENTS NEW MERIDIAN CITIZENS .
THE 1995 EXPENDITURES ARE FUNDED WITH A SAVINGS FROM DELAY OF DRAINAGE RATE
INCREASE, UNBUDGETED REGIONAL JUSTICE SALES TAX AND EXCESS 1995 SALES TAX.
FUND BALANCE FROM STREET UTILITY, STORM DRAINAGE AND HEALTH FUND WILL
BE NEEDED TO FUND THE UTILITY AND HUMAN SERVICE STAFF PERSON.
THE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION 1995 BUDGET WAS REVIEWED WITH COUNCIL AT A WORKSHOP ON
MARCH 21, 1995 AND INCLUDES CURRENT AJUSTMENTS . YOUR APPROVAL IS REQUESTED .
City of Kent
1995 Budget Amendment
Meridian Annexation
■
CITY OF KENT
1995 BUDGET AMENDMENT
RIDIAN ANNEXATION
Change
in Fund
Revenues Expenditures Balance
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
GENERAL FUND 264,535 264,535 0
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Street Utility 7,600 (7,600)
Capital Improvement Fund 82,420 34,000 48,420
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Police MDT Sales 18,200 (18,200)
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Storm Drainage 11 ,400 (11 ,400)
IfRTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Insurance 12,693 (12,693)
TOTAL BUDGET CHANGE 346,955 348,428 (1 ,473)
CITY OF KENT
1995 ANNEXATION BUDGET AMENDMENTS
STREET CAPITAL STORM
GENERAL UTILITY IMPROVEME DRAINAGE MEDICAL OTHER
REVENUE FTE TOTAL 001 113 150 440 563 FUND DESCRIPTION
Civil Service Fees 5,500 5,500
Springwood Contract Revenue 11,777 11,777
RJC Sales Tax 150,000 112,500 37,500
Excess 1995 Sales Tax 179,678 134,758 44.920
TOTAL REVENUE 346,955 264,535 0 82.420 0 0 0
EXPENSES
ADMINISTRATION:
Postage/Supplies/Maps 5,000 5,000
Census Legal Notices 2,100 2,100
7,100 7,100 0 0 0 0 0
FINANCE-UTILITY BILLING:
Customer Service Asst III 1.00 11,270 4,508' 6,762
Computer and Maintenance 3,050 1,220 1,830
Phone 680 272 408
Postage and Supplies 4,000 1,600 2,400
1.00 -19,000 0 7,600 0 11,400 0 0
PARKS:
Brochures 7,000 7,000
Signage 27,000 27,000
34,000 7,000 0 27,000 0 0 0
HUMAN RESOURCES:
Office Technician 11 0.50 9,743 9,743
Computer and Maintenance 2,950 2,950
Census Takers Advertising 1,700 1700
-0.50 14,393 1,700 0 0 0 12,593 0
PLANNING:
Administrative Secretary 1 1.00 16,681 16,681
Census 156,317 156,317
----1.00-- - 172,998 172,998 --- 0 0 0 0 0
POLICE:
Police Officers 10.00 107,234 107,234
Training 840 840
Background Checks 5,958 5,958
Uniforms/Armament 28,000 21,000 7,000
Vehicles/Fuel/Maintenance 2,428 2,428
Radios/MDT 18,200 18,200 Paid out of MDT money
Springwood Contract 11,777 11,777
10.00 174,437 149,237 0 7,000 0 0 18,200
TOTAL EXPENSES FOR 1995 12.50 421,928 338,035 7,600 34,000 11,400 12,693 18,200
Drainage Savings 73,500 73,500
NET EXPENSES 348,428 264,535 7,600 34,000 11,400 12,693 18,200
FUND BALANCE (1,473) 0 (7,600) 48,420 (11,400) (12,693) (18,200)
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 3 . 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: MERIDIAN ANNEXATION ZONING AZ-95-3
-DATSS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set October 17, 1995
and November 21, 1995 as public hearing dates to consider the
initial zoning for the Meridian Annexation area.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO e/ 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 3 , 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX PROTECTIVE NET PROJECT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of Riverbend Golf Course
Protective Net Project as complete, and release of retainage to
Driving Range Partners, 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. 3E
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 3 , 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: TURNER CONDOMINIUMS AKA CRESTWOOD ESTATES - BILL OF
SALE
2. SUMMARY ST TEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, lKuthorization accept the Bill of Sale for Turner
Condominiums for continuous eration and maintenance of 40
linear feet of sanitary sewers, 25 linear feet of street
improvements, 80 linear feet o storm sewers and release of
bonds after expiration period. The project is located at SE
261st Street and 114th Avenue SE.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(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
DANIELS
:-47TH $ ELEM.ST SE 2"TH ST l
i 1
I < �
W
SE 251 Sf SE 2501A 51.
N W
N /
E ackmD ST �
� SE 232N0' P
EAST HILL ` W
CENTER n 'a ' ES3 W
~
F,rnch SE 2520 $' �y W •• -cot W
tIu
Field ST 515 1 W < R SE 254TH " a
KENT-MERIDIAN ~ q T
iSR.HI. SCHOOL y k SE
SE 256TH ST .�.
's 30 s H g W• / 29 28 25
>�
< S.. 57,n Sf zj�r„
s S W KENT SCHOOL STRIC
.0 8y ADMINISTRATION LDG.
PROJECT LOCATION \
} ., W SE
' ,. SE 260TH ST 1° 260TH 0 ST SN
ST <fy q 60TM PL
SE 26W,
S, > ti6 ST
SEJ RUHI9A
SCHOOL 3
N V
� 2 in SE
�
Athlet IC0
Field - P
SE 264TH STD SE 264THST •gf.263R0
a S 4
toas 516 <
�i SE 265TH QC
< _ Water SE 2 PL
•H@S@ ST
SE 267TH ST Z w SE 267TH o
��0 0
2a i g y w ST a c.
SE 266TH s< a C. w N SE 268TH PL ST
TF 1 Art% o.. F _ W
SE 269TH -�\
s._ 2s9T W
h
0ti0 \ SE 270TH pry Sr < SE < 270TH ST
SE 270TH `�` ,� ST Tie
PL �; ou1L SE 271ST S W
u M q a
3 29 SE 272ND ST a _~ i 29 28 SE
2721V ST
--3 32 32 W W H q. p is
a q • • • Z\SE C
SE 274TH
274TH ST ST < < <
SE 276 ' se p 274TH sT
W S S ST y r MH M 4
• w f .. W
w
W _ SE 276TM
> Vicinity Map -
_ TURNER CONDOMINIUMS
(- Yt� S a/ /Y� 3IJ
AC�de AU Chirer- or c�Y�r X`Fal (
-
�o-r, 7LD sea` CC-1 a 6 e r
S- .30 P � u P. �s�r e
�- � o,�lC SLi a
- a
7' r
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 3 . 1995
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: LID 345 - S. 218TH STREET SIDEWALKS (EAST VALLEY
HIGHWAY TO SR 167)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This issue was referred to the Public
Works Committee at the September 19th Council meeting. As
explained in the Public Works Director' s memo contained in
Council' s packet, 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 redevelopment of
the property. Based on same, the Committee recommended no
change in the design.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and Public Works
Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember ) 10- +VIL-' moves, Councilmember D att seconds
-41,
that the Public Works Committee' s recommendation notAchange the
design be accepted.
DISCUSSION:
L<_
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 28, 1995
TO: Mayor& City Council
FROM: Don Wickstro4
RE: LID 345 - S 248th Street Sidewalks (EVH to SR 167)
Attached is the information packet that was presented to the Public Works Committee at their
September 25th meeting. The September 21st memo contained, therein, summaries on the
implication of deleting the southerly sidewalk It should be noted that the property owner who
originally requested the design change was no longer interested in pursuing same once he
understood the implications, thereof. The 2 to 1 Committee vote was for the purpose of placing
this item under "Other Business" so that there would be an opportunity for comment on the
assessment implications once the numbers were available.
The following table reflects the proposed increases in the respective assessments attributed to
deleting the southerly sidewalk.
Assessment Name Assessment Increase
Number (From King Co Tax Rolls) Due to Sidewalk Deletion
1 Robbins & Company $ 268.71
2 Kent East Corporate Park $ 8,074.51
3 Lester & Deborah Snodgrass $ 714.21
4 Arthur Diepietro $ 2,095.72
5 Lundberg Construction Co. $ 2,760.04
6 Evergreen Hi11 Partnership $ 345.40
7 James Rust $ 229.48
8 88th PI. S. Partnership $ 455.27
9 88th Pl. S. Partnership $ 527.45
10 James Pettit $ 211.64
11 Earl & Janice Anderson $ 244.05
12 Earl & Janice Anderson $ 49:63
13 Robert & Pamela Brutsche $ 258.24
14 Grady & Alice Deusser $ 567.50
15 Lars &Hearldene Trulson $ 725.93
16 Lloyd Lozensky $ 140.18
17 Lloyd Lozensky $ 13.18
18 Garrison Creek Development $ 167.94
19 James Pettit $ 122.98
TOTAL $ 177972.06
CCMEMO
�. . _. ....,.. . .._.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
September 25, 1995
PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker
Jim Bennett Mr. &Mrs. Rust
Tim Clark Rod Bailey
Don Wickstrom Don Rust
Gary Gill Jim Rust
LID 345 - S 218th STREET SIDEWALKS
Wickstrom noted that this is the second time this same issue (sidewalk on one side or both) was
referred back to Committee for a recommendation. Prior to this, it was referred back after being
thoroughly discussed at the Public Hearing on the formation of the LID.
Wickstrom noted the Committee's recommendation at that time was to go with sidewalks on both
sides and to supplement the LID funding in the amount of$166,000 which compensated for the cost
of the widening,the road to full width and installing curb, gutter and sidewalks. Wickstrom referred
back to his October 10, 1994 memo which described the analysis leading to the Committee's
recommendation at that time.
Wickstrom said that because of the City's contribution ($166,000), the final assessment would be
lower than originally denoted. He said that if you now go back and delete the one sidewalk, there
isn't any savings to the property owners. Said savings rightly goes towards reducing the City's
contribution because the City is essentially paying for the sidewalks and, therefore, the final
assessment will be higher than they were anticipated to be.
Mrs. Rust inquired to what extent the assessments would higher. Wickstrom explained that due to
the assessment distribution the properties on the north side, such as Trammell Crow, were paying for
approximately 60% of the assessment. So for every dollars' worth of improvements, they were only
being assessed 30 cents therefore. As such, the increase on the south would be small. For the Rust's
property it would be $200 to $300. Mr. Rust remarked if you take out the sidewalk it would be a
savings. Wickstrom stated there would be a slight savings if they were paying.100% and there were
no City contributions.
Wickstrom reiterated the history of this issue noting that after the Council closed the Public Hearing
on the LID they referred the issue back to Committee to address sidewalks on both sides. Wickstrom
said he went back to the Committee with the recommendation that property owners should pay for
some basic services and the City would compromise by paying for the widening, curb, gutter and
sidewalks. That's when the Committee authorized contributing $166,000. Wickstrom said the
proposal went back to Council, but at that time there was no hearing, and the ordinance was passed
incorporating our additional funding into the project.
Rod Bailey questioned why the City would no longer contribute if you took one sidewalk out.
Wickstrom responded that that was the whole premise of why we were contributing in the first place
and if you start deleting everything, you are back to where the City is paying for the basic road and,
in reality, it should be a local issue paid by the abutting property owners. Wickstrom said deleting
the sidewalk would be fine until someone redevelops or adds onto their development. At that point,
they would be required to put that piece of frontage sidewalk in. Wickstrom said what we'd be doing
here is pulling out essentially a "no cost" item to the property owner and resulting in him paying a
higher assessment and then when he redevelops his property, he would have to put in his section of
the sidewalk along his frontage.
Clark mentioned that sidewalks were in high demand now in all developed areas in the City and that,
in fact, the City is spending S300,000 a year putting sidewalks in where they didn't have them before.
Wickstrom commented that we were contributing so that the property owners could get all the
improvements and still end up costing them less.
On a Motion of 2 to 1 (Mann and Clark for and Bennett no), the Committee recommended no change
in the project design. They also wanted Staff to develop a table denoting the increase in the
assessment attributed to deleting the sidewalk and have it available for Council review at the October
3rd meeting.
ADDED ITEM STREET SWEEPERS
Mann said he received a call from Jean Ford with regard to the street sweepers. She felt that the
street cleaners were working too late, charging the City a great deal of money in overtime and were
not necessary. Mann told her, however, that the street sweepers were contracted out. Ms. Ford told
Mann on their street the property owners take care of their own street, picking up papers & other
debris, but Mann said this was not true of other parts of the City and there was no way we could
control it unless we had the streets swept. Ford felt that the sweepers were not taking up the dirt,
just moving it around the community. Mann said maybe as a condition to the various vendors we
could monitor or inspect them from time-to-time and make sure when they get to the final destination
their truck is, in fact, filled with dirt. Wickstrom and Brubaker both commented that they were
inspected and were paying the tonnage for disposal of the sweepings at the landfill.
Wickstrom said the City has been very lucky with the current contractor and that he has been very
responsible unlike others in the past. Brubaker said from our City Shops prospective, this contractor
has performed admirably and has done a great job, performed timely, stuck to the schedule and
delivered the goods 100%. Brubaker said we have the right to monitor, but he will incorporate
Mann's suggestion and make sure there is some express clause that allows us the right to confirm that
the work is being done adequately in the next RFP.
Meeting adjourned: 5:45 PM
PWMIN
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 21, 1995
TO: Public Works Com ittee
FROM: Don Wicicstrom
RE: LID 345 - S 218th Street Sidewalks (East Valley Highway to SR 167)
This issue was referred to committee from your September 19th Council meeting.
For your convenience, I have attached a copy of the previous memos and minutes on
this same issue.
In summary, at the November Ist Council meeting the ordinance creating this LID
(LID 345) was passed. Included in the passage was the supplementing of the LID
funding with $167,377.13 of Drainage Utility funds. While this was drainage
money, it was (as explained in my October 1 Oth memo) the equivalent sum needed to
finance widening the road to 32 feet, installing curb &gutter and installing sidewalks.
The result thereof is a 14.37% reduction in the property owners final assessment.
Since the City is essentially paying for the sidewalk, to now delete same from the
south side will not result in any assessment reduction to the property. In fact,
because the City's participation would be reduced to $17,972.06 (the cost of the
sidewalk), the property owners final assessment will be higher than originally
anticipated. Further, were the sidewalks deleted besides raising the LID benefit issue,
as discussed in the earlier memo, the eventual construction of the sidewalk would be
the property owners responsibility. As such, as each fronting property is developed,
redeveloped or added on, thereto, the property owner, in conjunction with the
issuance of a building permit,would be required to install the fronting sidewalk.
Thus, not only by deleting this sidewalk would the fronting property owner end up
with a higher than anticipated assessment, but also he/she would have to construct a
sidewalk along his/her property's frontage.
While the principle of the issue is one thing, I don't believe the other fronting
property owners, if they knew the financial implication, thereof, would be supportive
of deleting the sidewalk. The Public Works Department recommends no change.
ACTION: Proceed with project scope as originally proposed.
j470
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
October 10, 1994
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstromo-I-)
RE: LID #345 S. 218th St (East Valley Highway to SR 167)
I�
This matter was referred back to Committee by Council for consideration of the possible
cost saving concerns raised at the Public Hearing. As you will recall, the issue of deleting
the sidewalk was discussed at your July 25th meeting. (Minutes and memo attached)
Essentially, deleting the southerly side sidewalk saved about $17,972.06 or 1.54% of the
total project cost. While 1.54% is saved, the southerly properties will only realize a little
more than a third of that due to the manner in which the assessments were distributed.
With respect to the traffic volumes we hope to have that available at the meeting. Please
keep in mind however that while the volumes may be low, the liability issue remains.
Since the Public Hearing a lot of thought has been given to what minimum improvements
are needed to address the problems while keeping costs down. As such, we looked at a
24 foot wide roadway with no curb and gutter or sidewalks. Also included in the project
was correcting the 'S' curve situation, constructing a drainage system to service the
properties and the street, installing a cul-de-sac turn-around and, acquiring all the right-cf-
way for the full street. The results would be that the backbone of a street would be in, for
which as the adjacent properties developed/redeveloped, or covenants expired, the
fronting improvements (widening, curb and gutter, sidewalks) could be made in a cohesive
manner versus the hodge-podge results that generally occur via the piece-meal approach.
The problem is that while the costs are less ($167,377.13 savings) for this backbone
system, it' is only 14.37% less. Additionally, the real problem is that were just this
backbone system constructed under the LID, the question of benefit in terms of enhanced
property value could become a major issue during the LID confirmation hearing. Also, it
brings into question the validity of the No Protest Agreements since many, if not all, were
based on full street improvements.
I
One possible solution to all this is that the City could supplement the funding of the
drainage improvements within the project to the tune of $167,377.13. As such, the
property owners would realize a 14.37% saving, the liability issues at the ,
S' curve would
be mitigated, the assessment benefit relationship would be preserved, the potential
viability of the No Protest LID Covenant would be muted, and new developments,
redevelopments or covenanted developments (upon expiration of the covenants) would
not have to come up with hard cash to pay for the construction of their frontage
improvements. Finally, the property owners and the City end up with a street that is an
asset versus a liability. City's funding would come from the present Miscellaneous
Drainage and Improvement Fund for which approximately $162,000 exists with the balance
earmarked from the '95 funds.
(i
ACTION: Proceed with project scope as originally proposed and authorize
supplementing the LID funding with $167,377.13 from the Miscellaneous
Drainage Improvement Fund.
i
N
1J
of.r,
� lu
N ro
N Ul
N r V' r riM NO\ r-I In r N %D
N W V' 0 On N iO w A m
ri . O. [O �. O. d' �O w �O . r. . CO
N
ry' N On 0Oj 0, a, r � d' N r r cOM 01 N iO M N M
co O, 01 Oi .-1 o0 m
0 ri co r, CO HN r
�-� � OD NHm Oi O10 an tn inn M ."INrrM CO �
0'o
a N V ri %D M 0000 N N %D ri M N d O\ Or ON M
Fi M N to d' H 1-4 14 rA rl ri M r
ri U d'
41
ro
A 0Y
H 3
MM H co N r W 0 OD ON r U) 0 �D Ori 0 ri ri
Nco rMul a, ninr1DHrinmMra, N 0
ar
r NOi OIn HW %D O) H0 NN "t V' (7i in N M LC)
M•7 0co In HO riM M H r nw OOm 0N �Da to
Ln ri lO InrNHN mm N -q r N r-
ri to N Ln � � NM N V' d' .-IN NIn %D e-1 ri ri to
1••y C��(..00.yyl
N
,N l) O r iD In M ri ON In e-I ri tD .D In M cO (n V 1D N ri
�Mj O {I >;-rl ON N r ri r 00 0 iL. %O M . ri . . . O. . . [0
F,.i O CI'O
Nr rIn r O c0
c0 iD C s i M M Oi M
N0M n M CO CO OI H D H 1-1 HM rM w n 00 M
rj o 00 O n ri o M M r co N r v 0000000% 0
1••+ J� En C N }1 rr N NC N O1 �D 14m In M �D anm On 0\y r^ O M oo r H rl N H 'A M ri 0
M O
HN N 000 M L1 M 00000 OO 00001n 00000 co
^ aw V 0M r4NW In 00 M OD O OOOn00000 n
pa HN O d' d' Hr Nd' OOOOO 00000000 co
A roll k7 MO Nrw 0r mH rA Ln
ri ri N N MO
r-1 V' N N r H c0
7...1 W� Ulb OHO MM V' 00% MN N0
in
01 li 3 H H H In o H ri ri .-1 ri h+1 H Cl)
a o U a
.d yJ OLL'1 O10 .D rlr M 01 riw w In wM Mv %ON ON
ro G 0 LO OOd' MlnmvM �DMoriM 0ON0 �
00 4)
N ri ri cD InNO N O1 d' 1l1 ID d' d' r-1 V' M MO\ O
N r-I d' co OIn OOrOrr4 r♦ riM r d' 01n cO % N
ri n V' N N 00 co M 001n ri r ODNrrOOCO W O1 iD
ro 0)
0 N r M %0 I11 CO N d' O% d' 1 In M H n
O N '� r4 V' H ra N .-I N M r✓ r-I r-I
E Q �) r Ll
a
G o
04 A A U 01 U C O
N W
U U to in W F+ N Sa r r U v t0d P. N
G N O >~ O O N }+r♦ r-1 0) N da
U O F 4J 4J EA N 4J 01 0 .d,
-ri 4J P P P L4 0 Ul �4 01 H O
>9 W U 0 N P+ P. 00 00 0 � E W •ra r
q N co d
N iAd 0S4 VVU.C � ro0C QU v�r
04 O.N N JJ H y 0 ra N >1>19
0 N 0 4J Ui'A O O 01 01 01 01 'd M 9 4) 41 b II II
0) O O A U 01 C•rl N to-Ni-.Oi-rOi A•rOi N C G F0i-A I~H
U U 0) �•rl Ox
ro 0 p U 11 01 01 V G r N -I ro 01 of U V 01 ro
z 16 N .a UNiq M(1) NN0hh � � x00kN UE
N N ro ro N ymy.)� a-i P, Lb a a 0 a
... y.i •rCi paN b� .0 b�N 4L 44 N ti >+ 'O'd••-I Ul II
01 A 1J 41 'O J:'0 Sa N A .0 N ri ri 0)'O N >,>+fd 01 _
G A9� (aOiJ r 0) 9i41 !r l+ PAro NO0P9
000U hcoC3hPa9h0, aw W W 0 aa U
a� v
x� E
. O .-1 NM H %Dn 0001 O
ri N M in kD r co m Hr+ ri Hri ri ri ri ri ri H
November 1, 1994
STREETS Approximately $324 , 935 was set aside in the
Operating Budget for annual overlays . There are
two projects to do; 212th Street from the
Green River to 42nd and, James Street from W.V.
Highway to Clark Street. 212th Street will be
done; however, due to weather conditions and the
contractor' s work schedules, James Street will
be overlayed in May of next year. The Public
Works Committee has recommended transferring the
balance of the remaining asphalt overlay funds
within the Street Operations budget to a Capital
Improvement fund.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
LID 345 - S. 218th Street Improvements. At the
October 18th Council meeting, direction was
given to prepare the ordinance creating Local
Improvement District 345 for the improvement of
S . 218th Street (East Valley Highway to SR 167) .
In addition, Council authorized that the City
supplement the LID funding with $167 , 377 . 13 from
the Miscellaneous Drainage Improvement Fund.
Wickstrom noted that the ordinance has been
revised to include direction made by the Council
at the last meeting, and distributed copies of
the revised ordinance. MANN MOVED to adopt
Ordinance No. 3200 forming LID 345 for the
improvement of S . 218th Street and to authorize
supplementing of the LID funding with
$167 , 377 . 31 from the Miscellaneous Drainage
Improvement Fund. Woods seconded. The motion
carried with Clark, Johnson, Mann and Woods in
favor, and Bennett, Houser and Orr opposed.
STREET VACATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Landing Way Street Vacation STV-94-1 ADOPTION
of Ordinance No. 3199 vacating a portion of
Landing Way. On January 18 , 1994 , Council
approved the application for vacation of
Landing Way as set forth in Resolution No. 1374 ,
subject to compliance of conditions and receipt
of compensation. These matters have been
accomplished.
3
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
July 21, 1994
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom v
RE: LID 345 - S. 218th St. (East Valley Hwy. to SR 167)
Proposed Scope of Work Revisions
The formation of LID 345 was discussed during the June 13 , 1994,
committee meeting. Several property owners in attendance suggested
that sidewalk is not needed on both sides of the road and that the
south side sidewalk could be deleted.
The Engineering Department has evaluated the impact on project
costs and LID assessments should the south side sidewalk be
deleted. The results by parcel are shown on the attached table.
Column 1 is the original total assessment after payment or credit
is given for right-of-way acquisition.
Column 2 shows that deleting the sidewalk would reduce project
costs by $17 , 972 . 06 (1. 54%) .
Column 3 is the total assessment after credit if the south side
sidewalk is deleted (Col. 1 - Col. 2 = Col. 3) .
Column 4 shows that if 2 feet of right-of-way on the south side is
also deleted, the savings would increase to $37 , 927 . 60 (3 . 25%) .
Column 5 shows the reduction in payment or credit for the right-of-
way acquisition resulting from the above mentioned right-of-way
deletion. The total is $19 , 955 . 54 .
Column 6 shows that deleting both the sidewalk and right-of-way
results in a net increase in actual out of pocket expense for 6
properties. The loss of income from the reduced sale of right-of-
way to the City is greater than the savings in the assessment (Col .
5 - Col. 4 = Col. 6) .
Column 7 shows the resulting final assessment after credit if both
sidewalk and right-of-way are deleted.
It should be noted that due to the depth of the properties on the
north side of the road, they received 62% of the assessment and
therefore 62% of any cost savings.
Attachment
D724
i
-- IT7 TiTIT7TTTTI7 I77TTTTT7T77T1T11. .1771 T
7T-1TTlTT77 Tllll7TTTTj�- i�
y l
L.I.D. BOUNDARY
J
S .{
W r' ^.7TT rrrrr*TTT rl -+1
> W
Q J �
J �
S Q
ASSESSMENT NUMBER
co
cn `"
I a
W r
Q~,
a
z '
O r
PROJECT LOCATION m
o �
Lo
O J �
S. 2�8TH ST.
c I
F
14 z I
LL
t c
19 u
1
ItIl IIII Ifi 111111
PROPOSED .L.I.D .
SOUTII 2I8TII STREET IMPROVEMENT
(EAST VALLEY IIIGHWAY TO SR 1. 671
JANUARY 271 1994
a;
b
m m
H MM N Hom mNoo m mHq OO Mom u1
Qq H H .e.u1 0 0 r. .01 . . .d'if. .H 10 m . 41O rC z wQw N n0 NM�D•O.iN r D•10�In O�m�OmN ri - 7
H a fK r-10+m ei NlO.y CI III NCO Hm n IC mNNO IC O
E+ MU I C T M N O N M m h N M H•'- N N r m 1 n r O
a7a7m
to mr ln�vin ai or
WE-MH mMrm - . NHr '+ 0
OwH
o r
`-'P'iFIC3 N1Am NNUlNmIAm NN NVfNm NtA IA Ul ro
3
1
w
O
1
r oo[F eim Oei lC d'm d'r Iflm Mei Nd' IC r.
aW9\ O eiNrMO rNmIDO nm NT mm CIn O IT
I MN mom-- nO nN O CIM 1AIC IO myo He'lmroa+ N .A .{
\ 3 .O d'ONOmrvnmsl'HO V OIC C1N N r {�
} F\ NOInd U10N InMd'u1HinH hN M N w
M1I r.y v In.y H r O
1 1 1 1 + + + + + 1 1 1 1 + I I I I I 1 N
.O on to 1AN NNNNIn IANIA IAN(A VF lnmtoN IA W
F�
N
b
C
ro
0000m mo x
0000l co mH
zz O In In O 1U m 0 m Id
H mHovm
O)
k_O a Q ei H.i ei H •-1 H m
W H
In Wza 0'
HU VINUY I?NVl IAY1NU}NN1n VY 1n V11R Y1N 1A ('
11
a
w
0
3 noo omNMrnoolnor Mm Me+No W w 0 r•. \ o.+Nn�om .r.. . .nm.nmmm om .
rT' rO rNomm oM�n lnoo r.i�nr om r
1 w W 3 d'O N N N 7 •y d' O<'O•M O N u I 1 n N 'O
MN N
zw a ufOm V mr C1 ri d'ul ei Nei iflN >
k H a n•'i 1 in A
V'sfi Q Q H M m
U
[n � O vm v� NIRNNIA IANYYNNUT UI I?(h NUINIA U} N �
1•^I r-I �'I m
[� N fy Ot ID t11MNe1.-Im IO h•-IMHMmNIO N'? U1 y1
N..
ly✓\7' Oq Z�Q7] .�rmoln to Into mM om . . . . +a . 'a
Ha�Ci .�1�dM'mN m�u�i dH'O r�r00�V.M1 d' w0 V
N U O��HNm mmmm in in'1vm Mmmrm O 1
. O �/ N kp.tWS Inm rvo.i ei a'uiomui r.i.onlnm or .+ � 0 'a
A --m H m H mMm HNti e1 eiN M •'i m
WW m [T a
W a O 4 3 0 ..a+' y
[y N U1 Uf(A N U!N N N N N N IAV1 m IA IA IA(A IA ro � � �
1••1 ry_l 'O O1
.iNd'Omnul d'In Md'OMmm V m •O N v p b
O 1.., F•/ \ rmN rOd'V Nd'�OIONu101.i.-10+0� O 0 V
N.0 Ol a' Ol
m m a 1'1 n o l n C I u 1 n r I o O m r n o M r N N L V•-
A m W> h C O V N m N H V n N D N h O D ro ro
/1 1 U Fa NOronM N V M NN N mnr tiH m m ,3
Ha0 m NN eni C Ow 3
N O W V W
YM (��I• ••••IJI••� YINIAVI IAm NVl NIA 1AlANIA IA IANIA IA N '1 '.41 y O
..1 C
ai C maw"� a).C y
N
py N NO U UI ro•01
m
11..]� F OnIOmM.i a\N.i e-11C ID u1Mm MCmN w 3 '�y y L N
Q2Z Q z Q 0 C1Nr.-Ir0001n IC M O.iN V OC10 V m w m a,41 p G
H aao�t�W N In 1C rmm�OlONmd' 441;V'MMOI M I a).A E •C
•1 p
OM IL (1 m•D M y W v N a1 a1
m W 0)
Ha N U H Om IC mINO MM rm Nr oOOm m CI O 410-A m m,1x
./ C m e-1
()�w C nnNN V Nmm iMU M O V rm On C1 -^01.m D o paI O ro
f+m F O M mn.-I HN ei•� H NM ei N w F m Q1U 3
.-IH43 IA In In NIn VlN yr 1AN NNNIANNIA v.In u) " Vo O 0) N a) N.0
w O m w O
_ m ai•.1
m W N y x W
m y C.14 C U a).a
10 O 'O 01 O ?
a
a N.x,aro �wW
U ro'ax a 'O
m a y
E>", a m. . m
m " G Uy0 C CC vvU31 0u
w U P�a O
cd y-� w 3 0.A
y O+ P •.1-N C C U m W ro p y.a W H U ro
C 'D Cal x.0 0 0 m N.-1 O D)y m O a 0 w
7 x 0 O C m m m m y a) 7 H
O t1 C -a 41 N 31 N N 7 m p w y C
U ro m !1 p 0 a) W m 11 m F > C.A 0 al 11 U al ro
>.W U Id C C 'O'O m y N W y V.0 p N
b C t 7 W y+1 C C a) Ol Q H E N y a) [P y
C
DG 0ro ON PS Ito roQ C z CH-A CyC
EOOmH mxw vEvW•, E
4041 ww 10x 0 z OOA wC- 41 U U E U.i m m N y m m m Cal U m
E U U a)-A O w •.A.A•A N-A iJ C C N-A m N O N O A C Id m
O QaU almmy CCMH roWNU11 W h ea lY F 00 Cal w mw Cro m
W ID y -� C m 11 ro ro R a) N N 41 m
mWQb1 a) 7 N Ill .1 m ox m m -
.. m ro N a)a ei.+Pl In 1414 011. Q C D•p M U'A 0
.. a w m H,,qq0 N a{1. Ia V 41 Iz m
H .0 11 y.0'O W a).0.0 a)e-1. W'OO m>I>1 k m w 0,A ro-•CI 7 N O N
z a mwlo �0 W fl m � o ommvaooa > 0 M0 $40 ° Noo
ax
mph w w a a as ca h H BO 0 Hm a H xF
m X 11 N M Ctn Q, mC10 H N Md'mlCn m C1
N O HHe-1 ri.iHHNHr1 .H..NMa..N.IO. r F
4 z k
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
TULY 25, 1994
PRESENT: PAUL MANN TOM BRUBAKER
JIM BENNETT ROD BAILEY
TIM CLARK MR & MRS RUST
DON WICKSTROM
LID 345 — South 218th Street Improvements
yy Wickstrom stated that at the previous Committee meeting, there was
a discussion regarding the deletion of sidewalks and the
implication that would have. He said sidewalks on the south side
of the street amount to about $18 , 000 however, because of the way
the properties lie, the properties do not have much depth on the
south side versus the north side. He said the bulk of that
$18 , 000, if reduced, would be Trammell Crows . He further said
that on the Rust ' s property their savings would amount to $229 . 00,
noting that a sidewalk could not be built for that amount of money.
He said the large parcels on the north side, will be pricking up the
major portion of the assessments . Wickstrom noted that deleting
the sidewalk would result in a reduction, however not significant;
if sidewalks ever had to be built the best way is to have them
included in the LID because of the cost, in terms of the smaller
properties on the south side of the road. Wickstrom said that we
also looked at reducing the right of way take along the south side
by two feet, the results being that the properties on the south
side would be getting paid for that right of way. By taking that
(right of way) away, they get less money in return, which in this
scenario, would result in a higher assessment. He said the right
of way amounts to about $38 , 000 .
Wickstrom explained that the issue was , by deleting the sidewalk
and deleting some of the right of way on the south side, the
results are that some of the assessments on the south side would
increase because they have less right of way credit (less money in
return for their right of way) and some of the cost for sidewalks
would be absorbed by Kent Corporate Park which is a parcel with big
depth on the north side.
In response to Clark ' s question regarding eliminating sidewalks in
the curve area possibly making it more feasible for vehicles to
pass at that point, Wickstrom stated that the sidewalk has no
bearing on where the curves go noting it would be a 32 ' wide road .
Wickstrom further explained the structure of the road by reviewing
the plans with the Committee .
In response to Mrs . Rust ' s question on what value this LID has to
the. City, Wickstrom said that the issue here is the safety. concern
with the curves in the road and the fact that we will not allow
development east of the curves because the road is not wide enough
to accommodate the traffic.
Bennett stated that he felt the north side of the road has more
built-in space, even allowing for the number of utility poles which
would need to be removed. He felt it would be more functional to
do the LID on the north side of the road. Wickstrom responded
saying that the issue on the north side of the road was that if we
move those power poles, we would have to go underground per our
ordinance, and that would get costly. He said because of that, we
took advantage of moving it to the south side and using that area
for the Swale; we wouldn't need to relocate the power and that
saves the entire LID money.
Committee voted 2-1 to proceed with the adoption of LID 345 as
presently designed.
Resolution Rail Corridor Passenger Service Objectives
Mann stated that this was discussed between Councilmembers with
regard to incorporating language into the Resolution that would
insure the use of the building owned by Burlington Northern.
Brubaker said his interpretation of this was that Council wanted
the Operations Director to contact Burlington Northern and look
into the possibility of using the building. Mann suggested that
some language be included in the Resolution stating that Burlington
make a stop in Kent.
Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the Resolution as
amended.
Meeting adjourned: 5 : 05 P.M.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 3 , 1995
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: ACCESSORY HOUSING ZCA-95-3 - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Commission has recommended
that the Council consider a Zoning Code amendment allowing
accessory housing in Kent, as outlined in the attached draft
accessory housing regulations.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, regulations, and Planning Commission minutes
of June 26, 1995
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission
(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
to adopt Zoning Code Amend nt JLCA-95-2 relating to accessory
housing, as recommended by h ' Planning Commission, and to
direct the City Attorney to , epare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:—
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
C ITY.OF 7L Lt!2 L
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390 Jim White, 1layor
MEMORANDUM
September 28, 1995
TO: JUDY WOODS, PRESIDENT, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS
FROM: BETSY CZARK, PLANNER
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION -
ACCESSORY HOUSING REGULATIONS - (#ZCA-95-3)
The draft accessory housing regulations that will be reviewed at the Council's October 3rd
meeting is attached. As you are aware, the Washington Housing Policy Act (Senate Bill 5548)
requires all cities of more than 20,000 people to allow accessory housing (a.k.a. mother-ion-law
units) in single family zones. The deadline for cities to enact an accessory housing ordinance was
December 31, 1994. Kent missed this deadline and has yet to adopt an accessory housing
ordinance.
Keep in mind that we are not developing accessory housing regulations simply because it is state-
mandated. Before Senate Bill 5548 was adopted, the Report of the Mayor's Advisory Committee
on Single Family Neighborhoods published by the City of Kent Planning Department in 1989 and
the Growth Management Countywide Policies adopted in June of 1992 mandated the City to
remove regulatory barriers to accessory units. The'Housing Element in Kent's newly adopted
Comprehensive plan also requires that the City implement an accessory housing ordinance.
The attached draft regulations incorporate the input of both the Planning Commission and Kent
citizens. The Commission has had two workshops and two public hearings on accessory housing.
The Commission's concerns regarding the size and parking requirements of accessory units are
reflected in the attached ordinance. Staff has also both informed and received input from Kent
citizens regarding accessory housing. A Mayor's Forum discussing accessory housing and the
ordinance played for over a month on cable channel 28. On May 3, the Planning Department also
facilitated a focus group of Kent residents to discuss how accessory housing can fit into Kent
neighborhoods. The comments of these citizens are represented in the attached draft ordinance.
In short the draft regulations allows accessory housing in all single family dwellings, new or
existing, under certain conditions. They also allow an accessory unit to be created within, added
to, or detached from the principal dwelling unit. However, one of the two units must be owner
occupied for at least six months a year. Also, if the accessory unit is detached from the main unit
220 01h AVE.SQ.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-SS95/TELEPHONE i2061359-33001 FAX F S99-3334
Accessory Housing Regulations - #ZCA-95-3
September 28, 1995
Page 2
its size is limited to 800 square feet or 33 percent of the of the size of the principal unit,
whichever is smaller.
I look forward to discussing this proposal with the Council.
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Lin Houston, Human Services Manager
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
BC\Acceshsg.ord\ahsgord.1cc
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Draft Accessory Housing Regulations
Planning Department File Number
ZCA-95-3
Definition
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a habitable dwelling unit added to, created within, or
detached from and on the same lot with a single-family dwelling that provides basic requirements
for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.
Comment: The Ordinance can dictate whether the AD U can only be created within the principal
unit or can also be added to, and/or detached from the principal unit. Allowing all three
scenarios provides greater flexibility and more feasible options for the creation of an AD U.
Intent
To increase the supply of affordable rental units through better use of the existing housing stock,
much of which is underutilized because the baby boom has been followed by an empty nester
boom, because there are fewer children per family, because there are more single parent
households, and because there are more one and two person elderly households; and
To make homeownership more affordable because it will be easier to buy both new and existing
homes with the help of an accessory apartment, and
To make it more comfortable for older people to retain their homes because an accessory
apartment can provide them with added income, security, companionship, and the opportunity to
trade rent reductions for needed services; and
To make it easier for single parents to meet mortgage payments and hold onto their homes in the
wake of a divorce and, as a result, keep their children in the same neighborhood; and
To increase the opportunity for disabled persons to live independently because accessory units can
provide them with both privacy and the proximity to needed support; and
To reduce the isolation of households that is a result of increased affluence in housing, and/or
longer lifespans and periods of frailty, and/or suburban land use patterns that isolate people who
cannot drive; and
To make better use of existing public investment in streets, transit, water, sewer, and other
utilities.
Standards and Criteria
1. One ADU per dwelling unit is allowed out-right within all Rl, single family residential
zones, and single family dwellings within the city.
Comment: The potential and desirability for more than one ADUper single family
dwelling unit is low. This criteria allows ADUs in single family houses which are in non-
single family districts since approximately 13 percent of Kent's single family units are in
non-single family districts. The central element of this criteria is allowing AD Us as a
principally permitted use in single family zones in Kent.
2. An ADU may be established in a new or existing single family dwelling by the creation
within, addition to, or detached from the principal dwelling.
Comment: Designing an ADU into the construction of a new single family house
allows some people to qualify for mortgage loans and to make monthly housing payments.
3. The ADU, as well as the main dwelling unit, must meet all applicable setbacks, lot
coverage, and building height requirements.
4. The design and size of an ADU shall conform to ail applicable standards in the building,
plumbing, electrical, mechanical, fire, health, and any other applicable codes. When there
are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Ordinance, the
building official may grant modifications for individual cases.
5. One of the dwelling units shall be owner occupied as the owner(s) principal residence for
at least 6 months a year. No permit for an ADU will be legal until the owner files a
statement with the title of the property recorded with the King County Records and
Elections office. This statement shall be agreeable to the City Attorney's Office.
Comment: Owner occupancy is generally desired by neighbors to ensure
neighborhood stability and property maintenance. Requiring a statement with the County
Records and Elections office will assure that all potential purchasers of the property are
aware of the guidelines for maintaining a legal ADU in the residence.
6. If both the ADU or the principal unit ceases to be owner occupied for more than 6 months,
the ADU permit shall be considered revoked and the unit shall cease to be used as an
ADU.
7. The size of an ADU contained within or attached to the principal single family structure
shall be limited by its applicable zoning requirements. The size of a detached ADU shall
be up to 800 square feet or 33% of the size of the principal unit, whichever is smaller.
A legal guest cottage, as defined by Kent Zoning Code, existing prior to the adoption of
this ordinance shall not be denied an accessory housing permit solely because it is larger
than the maximum size stated in this criteria.
Comment: The existing structure, lot size, and setbacks will limit the size of an attached
ADU. This does not put more limits on the size of an attached ADU than exists for an
addition to the same single family home. However, to assure that a detached ADU
structure is not built to an equal or greater size than the principal unit, a size limitation
is proposed for detached units. In addition, Kent Zoning Code allows guest cottages which
are an accessory, detached dwelling without any kitchen facilities. If such a unit can
comply with all the code and other requirements of the accessory housing ordinance, it
should not be denied that status because of its size.
8. One offstreet parking space per accessory unit is required in addition to the required
parking for the single family home. The Planning Director may waive this requirement
where there are special circumstances related to the property and its location (e.g.,
proximity to transit, adequate onstreet parking, etc..). The surface of a required ADU
offstreet parking space shall comply with Kent City Code 15.05.090.C.
Comment: Parking is often perceived as a potential problem by neighborhoods who
envision many cars parked on the street. By requiring an off-street parking space this
potential problem can be mitigated. City Code 15.05.090.C requires that offstreet parking
be paved with asphalt or equivalent material, to be approved by the city engineer.
Therefore, if the city engineer approves, the required AD U offstreet parking does not have
to be asphalt.
9. Every effort shall be made to avoid additional entrances or other visible changes on the
street facade of the house which indicate the presence of an ADU.
Comment: This is to maintain the dwelling's single family appearance. It also allows the
flexibility for a second entry on the street facade in cases where a side or rear entrance
is impractical.
10. A permit application must be completed and approved for all ADUs. The Planning
Department shall determine the application requirements for an ADU permit.
11. ADUs existing prior to the adoption of the accessory housing ordinance may be found to
be legal, if the property owner applies for an ADU permit and complies with all required
standards and provisions. Such property owners have a one year period from the date the
accessory housing ordinance is adopted in which to apply for an ADU permit, after which
time such property owners can be subject to fines described in Kent City Code.
12. Adjacent neighbors of an ADU applicant shall be notified of the ADU zoning permit
application. This notification is- informational only. The decision by the Planning
Department to grant an ADU zoning permit is non-appealable by the neighbors of the
permit holder.
Comment: Informational notification of an ADU serves two purposes. This information
not only lets them know that AD Us are legal now, but also allows them to help enforce the
requirements of their neighbor's ADU.
BC\Acceshsg.ord\drafticc.ord
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 1995
Page 4
ACCESSORY HOUSING ORDINANCE - #ZCA-95-3
Betsy Czark, Planner, said several meetings have been held on this issue so she would not
review the ordinance in its entirety, but would discuss the basic potential changes since the May
22, 1995 meeting. She said the two changes involved surface parking and the size limitation of
the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
Ms. Czark said the proposed ordinance has no size limitation for an attached unit, other than by
the normal setback requirements, and a detached unit is limited to 800 square feet or 33 percent
of the principal unit, whichever is smaller. She explained 33 percent was used because other
jurisdictions used anywhere from 30 to 40 percent. A size limit is recommended for detached
ADU's so that a person with a large lot could not put two full sized houses on that single lot.
When asked if ADU's would be allowed a zero lot line considerations, discussions continued
regarding possibly excluding ADU's from the development standard.
Chair Morrill opened the public hearing.
Rodger Anderson, Seattle-King County Association of Realtors, 12015 115 Avenue NE,
Kirkland testified that he was pleased that Kent is also allowing accessory housing and wanted
to know if the Commission had considered allowing a grace period for non-complying properties
to meet the permit requirements. Mr. Anderson said Federal Way recently adopted a one year
grace period. Ms. Czark said this concept was proposed at a Planning Commission workshop.
Commissioner Stringham added he felt the reason the grace period was not pursued was because
in the City of Seattle, only one person applied. Mr. Harris said staff would look favorably on
a one year grace period.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to close the public hearing. The motion CARRIED.
Commissioner Nuss MOVED to accept accessory units as written by the Planning Department
with the exception of the size, to be 40 percent or less, with a one year grace period to comply
with necessary permits necessary. Commissioner Dahle SECONDED the motion.
Commissioner Stringham asked if the 40 percent for meant for detached units or attached units.
Commissioner Nuss said it would apply to both. Commissioner Nuss read a statement to
supports the 40 percent of the principal square footage limitation for accessory units. She gave
reasons as depletion of the housing variety and affordability for students and seniors.
Commissioner Nuss said her decision was based on several ADU's she has visited throughout
western Washington.
Comments continued concerning the 40 percent limitation for ADU's. Commissioner Stringham
added that market demand would dictate the percentage, and no limitations on attached ADU's
would allow further flexibility and smaller units could still be built. Commissioner Nuss debated
that there is enough multifamily housing and all that would separate an ADU from a duplex is
that an ADU must be owner occupied in one unit. Commissioner Heineman agreed with
#ZCA-95-2 Cluster Housing & Related Development Techniques
#ZCA-95-3 Accessory Housing Ordinance
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 1995
Page 5
that an ADU must be owner occupied in one unit. Commissioner Heineman agreed with
Commissioner Nuss' position, stating that removing the limitation of the size of the ADU creates
a duplex, and that staff's original size limit was 50 percent of the principal unit's square footage,
the same as King County's limit. Commissioner MacIsaac added that every structure is different
and that the City should allow as much flexibility as possible for attached units.
Ms. Czark confirmed that staff's original recommendation was 50 percent, but removed the
limitation on attached units per the Commission's request.
The motion was restated. Commission Nuss MOVED to accept staff's recommendation on
accessory housing, #ZCA-95-3, Accessory Housing Ordinance, as written, with the exception
of the size limitation to be changed to 40% or less of the principal unit, with a one year grace
period, in order to comply with necessary permits.
Commissioner Pattison asked for a ten minute recess to review the report. A recess was
declared at 8:10 pin
The motion was DEFEATED. Vote: Yea - Commissioners Nuss, Heineman Nay -
Commissioners Dozier, Epperly, Dahle, Stringham, MacIsaac, Pattison, Chair Morrill.
Commissioner Stringham MOVED to accept staffs recommendation with the exception of -
adding language allowing a one year grace period. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the
motion.
Discussion: Commissioner Nuss said she wished to go on record as saying this is an abuse of
our citizens and students ability to, establish affordability.
The motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea - Commissioners Dozier, Epperly, Dahle, Stringham,
MacIsaac, Pattison. Nay - Commissioners Nuss, Heineman. Abstained - Chair Morrill
GOOD OF THE ORDER - There were no items.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to adjourn the meeting. The motion CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
U�arrirr e tary
#ZCA-95-2 Cluster Housing & Related Development Techniques
#ZCA-95-3 Accessory Housing Ordinance
/0
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 3 . 1995
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZCA-95-8 -
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On June 26, 1995, the Planning
Commission recommended that Council adopt a Zoning Code
Amendment regarding Single Family Residential Development
Standards. These revisions are proposed to implement the
goals and policies of the adopted Kent Comprehensive Plan.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, staff report, chart, and Planning Commission
minutes of June 26, 1995
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember \moves„touncilmember seconds
to approve Zoning Code Am ndm�nt ZCA-95-8 relating to Single
Family Residential Develo e t Standards as recommended by the
Planning Commission, and t direct the City Attorney to prepare
the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
CITY OFUL1 S
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
Jim White, Vlayor
MEMORANDUM
October 3, 1995
MEMO TO: JUDY WOODS, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: LINDA PHILLIPS, PLANNER
SUBJECT: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS -
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (#ZCA-95-8)
The attached June 26, 1995 Planning Commission memo and chart contain the Planning
Commission recommendations for revised Kent Zoning Code density and lot dimension provisions
for single family development. As stated in the memo, the revisions are proposed to implement the
goals and policies of the adopted Kent Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commission recommendations are based on information compiled from community
forums with local residents and property owners, engineers, architects, and land developers;
analysis of Kent's existing regulations and development history, and regulations from other
jurisdictions (with particular focus on King County regulations); and a public hearing conducted by
the Planning Commission.
Subject to your review and decision, an ordinance to adopt the proposed revisions should be drafted
for adoption by the full City Council.
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
CCPC103.mem
2201th AVE.SO- I KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5595/TELEPHONE (206)859-33001 FAX X 359-3334
C ITY.OF t\Ln!2L]V LS
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�r (206) 859-3390 Jim White, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
June 26, 1995
MEMO TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: LINDA PHILLIPS, PLANNER
SUBJECT: CLUSTER HOUSING & RELATED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES - DENSITIES AND DIMENSIONS
(#ZCA-95-2 AND #SCA-95-1)
BACKGROUND:
Cluster housing and related single family residential development techniques are recommended
by the Comprehensive Plan. However, in order to recommend criteria and development standards
for cluster housing in single family residential districts, it was necessary to review Zoning Code
section 15.04.020, which provides basic density and dimension standards for single family
districts. The section was reviewed for consistency with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies,
relevance to the characteristics of the land currently available for development in Kent and Kent's
proposed annexation area, and for relevance to the permit review experience of planners who
work daily with property owners and developers who wish to subdivide property and build single
family houses. Zoning code revisions are recommended to address the following four issues:
I. Minimum lot Width
2. Minimum setbacks from front property lines.
3. Inability to achieve the stated Comprehensive Plan densities because of the area
required for roads and utilities.
4. Maximum building coverage/maximum impervious surface coverage.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ANALYSIS:
Recommended revisions to the zoning code are summarized below, and outlined in the attached
chart. For each zoning code standard, a comparison is provided between existing standards in the
Kent and King Countv zoning codes and the proposed standard. Please note that the proposed
revised standards are shaded in the chart. Wherever possible, relevant to Kent's specific needs
and development pattern, the standards are coordinated with those of King County. Please note
that the chart does not include Agricultural general district (AG) because, although single family
residences are permitted in AG, they are an accessory use to the agricultural use.
1
204th A�'E.SG KP�T.WASHINGTON 9%11-5895I 1171TP11ONF i 100)859-1700 1 FAX
Planning Commission
RI Densities and Dimensions
June 26, 1995
Minimum Lot Width - The first issue, minimum lot width, occurs frequently because of Kent's
topography and road and utility requirements. The currently required minimum lot widths of 70
and 100 feet are, in many cases unrealistic for parcels currently proposed for development, and
the requirements exceed the standards of other jurisdictions. The following changes are
recommended:
For districts with a density of one (1) residence per acre, and an existing minimum lot width of
100 feet, 60 feet is proposed. The present minimum lot width requirement is 70 feet in districts
which allow two (2) to six (6) residences per acre. The proposed minimum is 50 feet. For
districts with a density of eight (8) residences per acre, and an existing 50 foot minimum lot width
requirement, 40 feet is proposed. To determine minimum lot width for.irregular lots, lot widths
should be measured as follows:
A circle of the applicable diameter is scaled within the proposed boundaries of the lot,
provided that an access easement to another lot is not included within the circle.
Minimum Building Setbacks from Proper Lines - The second issue, minimum building setbacks
from property lines, is often the subject of variance requests, relative to the location of porches
and other architectural features. To provide flexible development standards and provide some
predictability for those who work with King County and Kent, a minimum street setback of 10
feet rather than the presently required 20 feet is recommended in districts with densities of two
(2) to eight (8) residences per acre. In districts with one (1) residence per acre maximum, it is
recommended that the 20 foot minimum front setback be retained. To provide adequate parking
space in front of garages and to encourage a street appearance that emphasizes residences, a
minimum 20 foot garage setback is recommended in all residential zones. Side and rear setbacks
are proposed to remain the same for all residential zones shown on the attached chart.
Minimum Lot Size - The third issue is the inability to achieve comprehensive plan densities in
residential districts because of requirements for roads and utilities. Commonly, reservations
and/or dedications of land for roadways, utilities, drainage and detention systems, and park areas
account for as much as 20% of a subdivision site. Therefore, the proposed minimum lot size
shown in the accompanying chart are approximately 20% less than the existing requirements for
residential lot sizes.
pervious Surface and Building Coverage - The fourth issue is the relationship of impervious
surfaces (surfaces that cannot be penetrated by storm water) and building coverage. The existing
single family residential section in Kent's code does not provide for impervious surface coverage
except the coverage of buildings. To be consistent with King County standards, and to help
prevent stormwater problems such as flooding, the recommended revisions include maximum
impervious surface provisions. To allow reasonable building area in recommended size lots and
to provide adequate space for a choice of accessory buildings, increases in building coverage in
the Rl to R1-5.0 zones are proposed. A decrease in building coverage in the Al and RA zones
is recommended to coordinate with King County regulations. However, to allow accessory
agricultural structures, a bonus coverage of 5% is recommended.
2
Planning Commission
Rl Densities and Dimensions
June 26, 1995
The proposed cluster and related development regulations should be developed based on the
recommended revised single family standards, subject to specific criteria regarding size and open
space or preservation areas, and additional development standards to insure compatibility with
surrounding neighborhoods, and flexible site design opportunities.
CONSISTENCY WITH KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Kent Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies which support the above recommended
changes to the zoning and subdivision provisions for the above standards. The most relevant are
listed below:
Land Use Element:
Goal LU-9 - Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities
throughout the city and the potential annexation area.
Policy LU-9.4 - Allow single-family housing on a variety of lot sizes, including 5,000
square foot lots. Locate smaller lot sizes within close proximity to the urban center or
activity centers.
Goal LU-10 - Revise development regulations to encourage more single-family
development and more flexibility and innovation in terms of building and site design.
Policy LU-10.2 - Calculate the allowable density for single-family developments based on
the size of the overall development site, as opposed to individual lot sizes.
Policy LU-10.4 - allow more flexibility in residential setbacks and parking, particularly
on small lots, to encourage infill development and innovative site design.
Policy LU-10.6 - Adopt minimum density requirements for residential development to
assure the most efficient use of residential land.
Community Design Element:
Goal CD-14 - Attain a wide variety of housing types and densities commensurate with the
community's needs and preferences.
Policy CD-14.1 - Allow single family on small lots (e.g., 5,000 square foot conventional
lots and 4,000 to 5,000 square foot zero lot line lots). Establish design standards to ensure
housing at such densities is a pleasing addition to the neighborhoods.
Housing Element:
Goal H-2 - Provide sufficient, diverse, and affordable housing for the existing and
3
Planning Commission
R1 Densities and Dimensions
June 26, 1995
projected population of Kent.
Goal H-4 - Expand home ownership opportunities for all income groups via land use
regulations, financial strategies, and removal of barriers to lending.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
To gain further insights regarding single family housing development, the Planning Department
facilitated two forums earlier this year to discuss cluster housing and related housing development
techniques. One forum was composed of housing developers, consultants, and engineers, the
other was composed of residents of single family residents in Kent.
The housing providers supported the concept of basing zoning on density, rather than lot size.
They advised that housing providers need more flexible lot dimension standards to be able to
design sites which will provide quality housing at a reasonable price. Most of the attendees had
worked with the revised King County single family provisions, and encouraged Kent to provide
similar standards to make the permitting process more predictable and consistent as the City
expands into the annexation area.
The neighborhood residents discussed cluster housing and concepts of basing the zoning code on
density rather than lot size. They agreed that basing density on the gross area of a lot and
averaging the lot sizes allows a more efficient use of land. They recommended a safeguard on
minimum lot size such as 80% of the existing minimum lot size in each district. They also
recommended that the City increase lot coverage allowances as lot sizes are reduced.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department staff recommends that the proposed single family development standards
outlined in the chart contained in this staff report be recommended to the City Council for
adoption.
PC626.MEM
4
PROPOSED DENSITIES AND DIMENSIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION-JUNE 26, 1995
AG/RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
ZONE A-1 RA RI-20 R1-12 R1-9.6 R1-7.2 111-5.0
PERNHTTED DENSITY 1DU/A 1DU/A 2DU/A 3DU/A 4.5DU/A 6DU/A 8DU/A
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
KING COUNTY 35 35 NA NA NA 30 30
KENT EXISTING 100 100 70 70 70 70 50
KENT PROPOSED 60 60 So i i 40
MIN. STREET SETBACK
KING COUNTY 30 30 NA NA NA 10 10
KENT EXISTING 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
KENT PROPOSED 20 t 10 10 to to 10
MIN. INT. SETBACKS
KING COUNTY 10 10 NA NA NA 5 5
KENT EXISTING S-15 S-15 S-5 S-5 S-5 S-5 S-5
R-20 R-20 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
KING COUNTY 35 35 NA NA NA 35 35
KENT EXISTING 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
KEN I PROPOSED 35 35 35 3i 35 3 51 35
MAX. BLDG. COVERAGE
KING COUNTY 15% 15% NA NA NA 50% 55%
KENT EXISTING 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 40%
'MAX. IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE
KING COUNTY 20% 20% NA NA NA 70% 75%
KENT EXISTING NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
KING COUNTY NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
KENT EXISTING 43,450 SF 43,450 SF 20,000 SF 12,000 SF 9,600 SF 7 200 SF S,000 SF
tt SF
61A NA is used in the chart where no regulations currently exist relative to the development standard.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
1. Minimum lot width,building setbacks,and minimum lot size regulations may be modified under zoning code provisions for zero lot line and cluster housing
development.
2. At least 20 linear feet of driveway shall be provided between any garage,carport or other parking area and the street property line with the exception of
an alley property line.
3. Porches and private and shared courtyard features may be built within the front building setback line.
4. On any lot over 1 acre in area,in the A-1 and R-A districts,an additional 15%of building coverage shall be permitted for buildings related to agricultural
practices. In cases where building coverage exceeds the basic permitted 15%,the maximum impervious surface requirement shall be adjusted to allow 5%
impervious area in addition to building coverage.(This section refers to the staff recommendation. It should be deleted if Planning Commision recommendation
is adopted.)
5. Except for lots used for agricultural practices,the maximum impervious surface area allowed shall be 10,000 square feet when the lot is greater than 1 acre.
6. To determine minimum lot width for irregular lots,a circle of applicable diameter shall be scaled within the proposed boundaries of the lot,provided that
an access easement to another lot is not included within the circle.
DD5I.TAB
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Public Hearing
June 26, 1995
The regular meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kent Morrill
at 7:00 p.m. on June 26, 1995 in Kent City Hall, Chambers West.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kent Morrill, Chair
Russ Stringham, Vice Chair
Gwen Dahle
Kenneth Dozier
Connie Epperly
Edward Heineman, Jr.
Robert MacIsaac
Janette Nuss
Mike Pattison
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James Harris, Planning Director
Betsy Czark, Planner
Linda Phillips, Planner
NanSea Potts, Administrative Secretary
OTHER CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MAY 22, 1995 MINUTES
There were two corrections in the minutes of May 22, 1995. On page three, relating to
Accessory Housing, it was noted that Mr. Morford's North Park project was not a duplex
project, as recorded. Also, Commission Dahle said she only voted "nay" on accepting staff's
recommendation for the Accessory Housing Ordinance.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept the minutes of the May 22, 1995 meeting as
corrected. The motion CARRIED.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS
Commissioner Dahle questioned if a public hearing was scheduled for accessory housing, or if
only a vote was to be taken. Jim Harris said the public hearing on Cluster Housing and related
#ZCA-95-2 Cluster Housing & Related Development Techniques
#ZCA-95-3 Accessory Housing Ordinance
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 1995
Page 2
Development Techniques would be first, followed by the continuation of the public hearing last
month for Accessory Housing.
COMMUNICATIONS - There were none.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS - There were none.
CLUSTER HOUSING AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES - #ZCA-95-2 &
#SCA-95-1
Linda Phillips, Planner, said this evening's discussions will be on the basic zoning standards for
single family development, which need to be resolved before creating the cluster ordinance. Ms.
Phillips said the purpose of the recommended changes is to achieve consistency between the
zoning code and the comprehensive plan, as required by Washington State. As stated in the
Goals and Policies of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, she said the basic goal of the
proposed change is to provide a climate for land owners and developers to build the needed
housing as Kent grows, in single family neighborhoods, without resorting to additional
multifamily zoning. Another goal is to encourage single family housing for a variety of family
types, to accommodate the diversified housing needs.
Ms. Phillips reviewed four zoning code issues to be considered for revision. . They are: 1)
Minimum lot width; 2) Minimum setbacks from front property lines; 3) Inability to achieve
the stated Comprehensive Plan densities because of the area required for roads and utilities; 4)
Maximum building coverage/maximum impervious surface coverage.
Ms. Phillips referened the density and dimension requirement chart included in her memo dated
June 26, 1995. The information included Kent's existing requirements, King County's
requirements, and proposed changes to Kent's requirements. She said the chart indicates the
residential capacities in both units per acre as well as the minimum lot square footage. She said
that in the future density should be calculated using the comprehensive plan units per acre
standard.
Ms. Phillips said lowering the street setback requirements from 20 feet to 10 feet was another
area Kent is proposing to coordinate with King County, to provide the opportunity for innovative
site plans and larger back yards. Also discussed was the importance of limiting the impervious
surface and building coverage, so as to lessen problems of floods resulting from stormwater.
She said consideration was given to requests made by developers and individuals who attended
community forums, who asked that Kent's requirements resemble King County's standards.
Ms. Phillips answered questions raised by the Commissioners. She said ADU's (Accessory
Dwelling Units) would be allowed on small residential lots, providing the balance of the
requirements are also met. In response to a comment regarding the difficulty a 20 foot garage
setback with a house setback of only 10 feet would cause, she said by using alleys and through
#ZCA-95-2 Cluster Housing & Related Development Techniques
#ZCA-95-3 Accessory Housing Ordinance
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 1995
Paee 3
design modifications, this standard could be met, which would also help to alleviate cars parked
2-deep in driveways from extending on to the public right-of-way. Mr. Harris added that this
proposed change would allow flexibility and some options to current zoning restrictions.
Another issue raised was recommended maximum building coverage for larger lot sizes.
Commissioner Stringham was concerned that larger homes may be designed, but not be allowed
to build because they exceed the allowable square footage coverage. The question was asked
how minimum lot width determinations are made with smaller and odd shaped lots. Ms. Phillips
said a specific method for the City has not been set, however lot width averaging and building
"footprints" have been used. She said a circle of varying diameters is proposed to determine
minimum lot widths.
Chair Morrill opened the public hearing. No one present wished to speak.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to close the public hearing. The motion CARRIED.
Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept Planning Department's recommendation as
summarized on the staff report. Commissioner Nuss SECONDED the motion.
Discussion: Commissioner Nuss read a section from the Seattle Solid Waste Utility stating in
part "basing on density rather than lot size in the key building block necessary to secure the
goals of the Kent Comprehensive Plan." She also stated that she learned after the
comprehensive plan had moved on from the Planning Commission to the Planning Committee
of the City Council, there was a potential discrepancy as to what Kent's housing density really
is, between what was proposed and what we really need to have. She also said there must be
concurrency with Olympia, as to what they say we need and what is happening in Kent, before
we start working on issues as density for cluster housing. Mr. Harris clarified that tonight's
action is related only to building setbacks and single family residential standards, and that cluster
housing will be discussed at a later time.
Commissioner MacIsaac said existing standards should remain in the A-1 and RA Zones, rather
than using the proposed percentages for Maximum Building Coverage/Impervious Surface.
Discussions continued regarding adding a friendly amendment to change the A-1 and RA
standards. A vote was taken on the original motion without a friendly amendment.
The motion was DEFEATED. Vote: Yea - Commissioners Nuss, Dahle, Heineman. Nay -
Commissioners Dozier, Epperly, Stringham, MacIsaac, Pattison, Chair Morrill.
Commissioner Stringham MOVED to adopt staff s recommendation, changing the lot coverage
in A-1 and RA to 30 percent, and changing the impervious surface in the same classifications
to 40 percent. Commissioner Dozier SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED. Vote:
Yea - Commissioners Dozier, Epperly, Stringham, Maclsaac, Pattison, Chair Morrill. Nay -
Commissioners Dahle, Nuss, Heineman.
#ZCA-95-2 Cluster Housing & Related Development Techniques
'ZCA-95-3 Accessory Housing Ordinance
;1fl,
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 3 . 1995
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: KENT SPRINGS WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN REPAIR (180TH
AVENUE SE TO 204TH AVENUE SE)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 project consists of installing approximately 81000 LF of
24" ductile iron water main pipe and various related
appurtenances in accordance with the plans and specifications.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum,/and vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Directo
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, CompIssion, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL 1APACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $89 871. 10
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Kent rings Transmission Main Proiect
Fund (W22) ,T
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember -/Ila,'"L"�" movej, Councilmember seconds
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.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 28, 1995
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works
RE: Kent Springs Water Transmission Main Repair
180th Avenue Southeast to 204th Avenue Southeast
Bid opening for this project was held on Thursday, 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.
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Kent Springs Water Transmission
Main Repair contract be awarded to Frank Coluccio Construction Company.
BID SUMMARY
Coluccio Construction $ 895,871.10
Robison Construction $ 917,476.76
Gary Merlino Construction $1,073,070.25
Paramount Pacific $1,151,416.79
Scoccolo Construction $1,163,428.07
DPK, Inc. $1,165,887.46
Mike M. Johnson Construction $1,187,127.20
Aurora Engineering $1,219,693.16
Tri-State Construction $1,225,476.72
Kar-Vel Construction $1,270,576.91
Stan Palmer Construction $1,305,474.12
Taggart Construction $1,342,762.00
R.W. Scott Construction $1,738,611.70
MOTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that
the Kent Springs Water Transmission Main Repair project be awarded to Frank Coluccio
Construction Company for the bid amount of$895,871.10.
I.'rB95277
ddw )iINIDIA
O1
IMTH APE SE'
ANAT
21P, co
i
s r,r) Oca
z lS9TTI � m Z
1 cn
f V c ca
19 TN .j.
h
� a
205r l _ 2OZ-;
2'
� z
v �v cn
m ; Th'AM Sf cn II
m
Ll
Y �
's
? Ell
l 2167J/AMC SS
a�
y /
�i
a � B
� 1 y
M
ti r
O
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 1996 Budget
CITY OF BRENDA JACOBER
(Please put in Council
agenda packet)
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES Jim White, Mayor
September 5, 1995 4:00 PM
Committee Members Present Citv Attomevs Office
Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich
Jon Johnson Laurie Evezich
Tim Clark
Planninsz Staff
Fred Satterstrom
Kevin ONeill
Lin Ball
Betsy Czark
Margaret Porter
Carolyn Sundvall
Cyndi Wells
NEW HUMAN SERVICES PLANNER- (LIN BALL)
Lin Ball, Human Services Manager, introduced our new Human Services Planner, Carolyn
Sundvall. She replaces Sally Gilpin, who moved to Hawaii.
1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) - METSY CZARK)
Planner Betsy Czark informed the Committee the total proposed 1996 CDBG program is
estimated at $365;361. This is a 24 percent ($116,458) reduction from our 1995 CDBG
funding level of$481,819. There is $170,000 more in block grant requests than we have money
available. The majority of the funds will be for our Home Repair program. The summer
painting program will not be funded by block grant; we have requested that General Fund pay for
that program. There are two portions to this program. As reviewed and recommended by staff,
the capital Planning and Administration funding portion is $317,438. As recommended by the
Human Services Commission, the public (human) services funding portion is $47,923.
Human Services Manager Lin Ball indicated that General Fund may not pay for the summer
painting program. If this Program is not funded through the general fund, it will be deferred for a
year in hopes that it may be funded in 1997. Planner Betsy Czark discussed the contingency plan
for the block grant funding.
1
^OlihAV'E.SO_ 1KENT.W\SHIVGTON"O.,t:q)5/TELEPIIOXF.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 5, 1995
Lin Ball talked about the request for two staffing changes in the Home Repair program. The
minor home repair specialist position would go from part-time to full-time, the Home Repair
Coordinator would be upgraded to the level of similar positions in the city.
There was some discussion regarding CDBG funding. There were some reductions in funding
for some of the human services programs because of reduced funding and a new program has
been added for the 1996 funding year, the Kent School District Futures Club. One Committee
member voiced concern that some programs would rely on our funds to operate and would we be
liable if funding became unavailable? Roger Lubovich and Laurie Evezich said we are covered
in our contracts with the agencies.
Betsy Czark discussed the contingency plan and a change or clarification in that plan. In the case
that there would be additional funds available, the first increase would go to the Highline kitchen
renovation, an additional $5,000 would go to the Parks Department only instead of the Parks
Department and MHCP. Any funds after those two allocations would be split between Parks and
MHCP to their full funding. Any additional beyond that would be allocated to the Home Repair
Program. If, after Highline Community College receives its full request, there is not an
additional $5,000 available for the Parks Department Tot Lot, then the Parks Project would get
nothing, and MHCP would get the additional dollars. A decrease in funds would be divided
between the Children's Home Society and MHCP. The minimum funding provided by the
Federal Government is $5,000 for a program and since the Parks Department is not funded in the
original proposal the contingency plan must fund them a minimum of$5,000, or not at all.
There was discussion about Planning and Administration funds. Lin Ball requested additional
funds for Administration in a budget meeting with Brent McFall so that we may continue to keep
our current staff because at the Federal level the funds may be cut. There was further discussion
about programs and the number of Kent residents they serve and Administration and Planning
funding. Jon Johnson asked, if the General Fund allocates funding for Planning and
Administration, could the funds freed up from CDBG help cover other programs. Staff replied
that they could.
Councilmember Clark MOVED and Councilmember Johnson SECONDED the motion to
approve the proposed 1996 CDBG program including the contingency plan (as amended) and
forward for adoption to the full City Council and schedule a public hearing on September 19,
1995 to consider adoption of the proposed 1996 CDBG program. Motion carried.
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 5, 1995
ENERGY ASSISTANCE LETTER OF SUPPORT - (L. ORR)
A sample letter was presented that could be used to send to our elected officials requesting
continued funding of this program. There was some-discussion regarding deadlines in getting the
letter to the officials. It was asked if it was required to go to the full City Council to request
signature from the Mayor. Our City Attorney, Roger Lubovich, said it was not necessary. There
was some concern because the House Appropriations Committee has recommended to cut the
program totally. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Clark SECONDED a
motion to bring this to the full City Council September 5, 1995 meeting to request a letter of
support preferably with the Mayor's signature. Motion carried. The letter will be drawn up by
tonight by the Law Department to be presented at tonight's full Council meeting as an urgent
item.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA &
DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY TO PROCESS - (Kevin O'Neill)
Planner Kevin O'Neill presented an explanation of this item at the meeting. He said under the
direction of the Mayor, the Meridian Annexation area Zoning will be completed at the time the
Annexation goes into effect, which is planned for January 1, 1996. The Planning Commission and
City Council will be conducting public hearings on the pre-annexation zoning this fall. The Council
ordinance is related to procedures on how to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment
process will occur once each calendar year. The Growth Management Act allows a provision that
in emergency situations amendments can be processed more than once per calendar year. The
Growth Management Act requires that all zoning decisions be consistent with the comprehensive
plan. The zoning proposed for the Meridian annexation area will be for the most part similar to the
Land Use Plan Map as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. There could be certain changes with
regard to land use designations. Kevin said that the staff anticipates the need to piepare proposed
amendments to the Land Use Plan Map for review along with the zoning for the Meridian
Annexation area. The best way to do this is by resolution declaring an emergency to allow staff to
process a Comprehensive Plan amendment separate from other Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Staff requests that this recommendation be forwarded to the full City Council. There was some
discussion about having one of the two public hearings in the Meridian area. Chair Orr suzuested
that per the second "special" meeting be the one held in the Meridian area.
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 5, 1995
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom took a moment to go over the proposed timelines with the
Planning Committee:
Planning Commission September 25th and 26th
October 2nd\Recommendation
City Council October 17th
November 21 st
After looking at the timelines, Chair Orr said that it would not be feasible to hold a meeting in the
annexation area as non-annexation subjects would also be discussed. She suggested that we hold
a "special" meeting the week after the last meeting in November for this item(November 28, 1995).
Fred Satterstrom added that the City will be holding two open houses in the Meridian annexation
area on November 8th and 9th. City Attorney Roger Lubovich stated that public hearings must be
held within the city limits. Planner Kevin ONeill stated that a decision regarding this timeline must
be made by October 3rd, which is when the City Council would set the dates for the two hearings.
Mr. O'Neill then asked that the Planning Committee make a recommendation to the City Council
that an emergency be declared by resolution to pursue a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the
Meridian annexation area.
Councilmember Clark MOVED and Councilmember Johnson SECONDED a motion to approve a
declaration of emergency by resolution to pursue a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the
Meridian annexation area in conjunction with the initial annexation zoning. MOTION CARRIED.
ADDED ITEMS
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES L Evezich
The City of Kent is going to meet informally with Fred High of the Kent School District on the 7th
at 1:30, a proposed draft ordinance was sent for his review prior to the meeting. The ordinance was
drafted as close to the existing ordinance in King County. Concerns that we have are that the school
district lies in four different jurisdictions and although King County does not currently entertain
interlocal agreements with other jurisdictions when collecting fees on behalf of the Kent School
District as long as they are still in unincorporated King County. When other jurisdictions are
involved an interlocal agreement is required by their ordinance. Our proposed ordinance could
require an interlocal agreement to serve only not that purpose but also to protect the City in the event
4
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 5, 1995
of a legal challenge to the manner in which or the amount of fee collected for a particular type of
development. Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich said we hope to be able to discuss this once
or twice prior to your next meeting in September and we have requested that this be put on the
September 19, 1995 meeting agenda as an information item so that we can create a draft ordinance.
Roger Lubovich said it must be acted on in November in order to be effective before the end of the
year, so we will be bringing that to the September 19, 1995 meeting to get some direction on policy
issues like whether or not we impose impact fees on the development stages as well as the building
permit stage.
ADULT USE ZONING (R. Lubovich)
City Attorney Roger Lubovich said adult entertainment zoning has been sent out of the Planning
Commission and Roger has asked that the Council consider scheduling this matter. The moratorium
has been extended once, and it expires October 3, 1995, which is the council meeting date in
October. Roger has requested a recommendation for an extension to cover what we think we need
for our planning stages in this issue and have the zoning issue scheduled. Councilchair Orr asked
if it would be better to take action today regarding the moratorium instead of waiting until the
expiration date and risking a lag-time. Roger said an emergency ordinance is effective immediately.
Councilchair Orr said to bring the request for an extension to September 19th meeting then the
Committe will send it to the October 3, 1995 meeting. Roger said the latest we would have the
zoning issue itself would be in December hopefully and then it would take effect in January 1996.
Councilchair Orr said that the Committee can take action today to send to the Council on September
19th an extension of the moratorium until January 15,1995. Or we can bring it to the Committee on
the 19th,make a recommendation then,and go to Council on October 3rd, bearing in mind that that
is the same day that the moratorium expires. City Attorney Roger Lubovich advised that we should
be scheduling a hearing on the 19th of September.
Councilmember Clark MOVED and Councilmember Johnson SECONDED a motion to send to the
Full City Council September 19, 1995 public hearing a request for approval an extension of the
expiration date on the Adult Use Zoning Moratorium. MOTION CARRIED.
There was some further discussion about adding this item to tonight's consent calendar.
Councilchair Orr said it would be added as other business. There was some discussion about having
two Planning Committee meetings in October because of the volume of items to be heard.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.
5
CITY OF LLD
-� Jim White, Mayor
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 19, 1995
4:00 p.m.
Committee Members Present Citv Attornevs Office
Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich
Jon Johnson Laurie Evezich
Tim Clark
Plannine Staff Other Guests
Jim Harris Fred High, Kent School District
Fred Satterstrom
Margaret Porter
Public Notice Board Code Amendment #ZCA-95-7 (Fred Satterstrom) .
Planner Fred Satterstrom summarized the existing code relating to the Public Notice Board
Requirement. The original code, Section 15.09.060, states the actual dollar amounts charged for the
use of the signs and the City is regretting that now.
The City of Kent rents a generic Public Notice Board to the applicant. The City requires a $60.00
deposit per ordinance up-front and refunds $45.00 after the sign is returned in good.condition. The
total cost to rent the Public Notice Board is only $15.00. An applicant, who over time will have
several applications that require the use of the Public Notice Board, it behooves them to keep the
sign. It costs an applicant $60.00 to keep the sign and if they need the sign four times they break
even. Some applicants may use the sign even more than four times. At this time we have one
applicant who is holding a sign for that reason. There is no need to continue renting the sign if they
hold on to the sign.
King County and other jurisdictions that require Public Notice Boards actually require a special
purpose board to be made and to be specially painted for individual use. This "special" board costs
hundreds of dollars, is used once and is then discarded.
The problem is that the cost to replace the Public Notice Board is more than the $60.00 deposit. The
original cost to reproduce the sign from the vendor we contracted with was $60.00 and now it costs
closer to $100. We have been losing signs and therefore losing money. People have been keeping
signs for various reasons. The prospect of getting $45 back has not been a sufficient motivator to
return the signs.
The Planning Staff is asking the Committee to authorize a code amendment. The Staff would like
to eliminate the actual dollar amount and put in verbiage to indicate the fee should be determined
by the Planning Department based on the current cost of reproduction. Seventy-five percent of the
1
"Il}[h A\F sn IKFVT W-0¢HIACTCA IN01'-�Vni I TFI FPH01:7, 'N,n'<O.1:001 FAA v c:U_',11
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 19, 1995
fee would be refunded to the applicant upon return of the sign in good condition. We would like to
keep the dollar figures in a percentage of the original cost of production. Therefore, if our expenses
go up, the cost of the rental sign will go up. The public will continue to receive 75% of the original
fee refunded when they return the sign in good condition.
The question was addressed as to the risk of still having the public keep the signs for multiple
projects. Mr. Satterstrom indicated that the amendment would not discourage this problem. The
amendment would allow the City to charge the actual replacement cost and eliminate the City losing
money when someone does not return the Public Notice Board.
There was discussion regarding the issue of applicants not returning the sign. The Committee
decided there should also be verbiage added to indicate that every applicant will be charged the
current replacement cost of a Public Notice Board for each application that requires a Public Notice
Board.
Tim Clark MOVED to send a request to the Planning Commission to amend the Section 15.09.050
as follows:
1. Eliminate the verbiage of the exact dollar amount.
2. Replace the exact dollar amount to indicate the fee to be the current replacement cost.
3. Indicate the refund for returning the sign will be 75% of the current replacement cost.
4. Require each applicant requiring a public notice board to pay the current replacement cost.
5. If the applicant does not return a previous sign, they will still be charged the fee for a Public
Notice Board for a new project.
The motion was SECONDED by Jon Johnson. No Discussion. Motion carried.
School Impact Fee Ordinance
Laurie Evezich introduced Mr. Fred High from the Kent School District. Ms. Evezich, Mr. High,
and Mr. Lubovich have met previously to discuss the optimum language the School District and the
City would like to see for the School Impact Fee Ordinance. The major area of concern for the City
was the division of the responsibility in calculating the fee, determining what the needs were which
established what the fees would be upon new development, and avoiding any risk of a legal
challenge in the matter that the fee was either collected or as the result of the private property
regulatory legislation that's pending, Referendum 164, now in the Legislature.
While we were trying to determine what might be the best possible approach, we were contacted by
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
-- September 19, 1995
the attorney for the Kent School District, Preston, Gates, and Ellis. Their attorney said they had
reached an agreement with one of the other school districts that they were attempting to develop and
enter into a local agreement with. We now have an example from the other agreements to use as a
model. Ms. Evezich stated she had just received the sample yesterday and has not yet had an
opportunity to go over the Agreement in depth.
The Interlocal Agreement does seem to address the main concern. As discussed in part of the
Indemnification and Hold Harmless Section beginning on the bottom of page 3 and continuing on
to page 4, "the District agrees to protect, defend indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers,
employees, and agents, from any costs, claims,judgments, or awards of damages, resulting from a
challenge to the legality of Ordinance No. , or resulting from any claim for compensation under
Initiative 164 or similar legislation . . ." This is about as direct as we could look to have it.
The Ordinance itself is essentially establishing a framework for the collection of the fee. The fee
calculation schedule is attached to the back of the Ordinance. Mr. High explained the framework
of the plan is essentially to allow the Kent School District to establish what their needs are based on
the increases to any grade. This calculation will determine what impacts there are to the districts
from the new development. It is the City's responsibility to collect the fee, interest, and to provide
a trust fund for the safe keeping of those funds.
Both the City and the School District have reporting responsibilities associated with the different
responsibilities that each entity will have. The Kent School District will also provide the City of
Kent a copy of its Capital Facilities Plan on an annual basis. The School District's Capital Facilities
Plan will be incorporated as a sub-element of the City's Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis.
This is a required element of both the Growth Management and RCW 8202. This is presented as
an information item only. We could take some of your questions or concerns at this time and discuss
this at another meeting.
The Ordinance example handed out was primarily modeled after the impact fee ordinance that was
developed in King County and it has been updated to a more contemporary version by the cities of
Issaquah, Bothell, and Renton. The city of Issaquah is the one city that has a Interlocal Agreement
with a School District based on this plan.
Mr. Lubovich added that this particular Ordinance has been drafted basically with the Kent School
District in mind however we do have a few other school districts that are affected. We will probably
need to change this Ordinance to be more generic so that basically any school district that wants to
participate with the Capital Facilities Plan can. We do have schools in Kent that are in the Federal
Way, Renton, and Highland school districts. The Ordinance will need to be more generic to
incorporate other school districts.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 19, 1995
The question was addressed regarding the collection of fees in Federal Way, Renton, and Highland.
The City of Renton is in the process of collecting a fee, while the City of Federal Way is already
collecting a fee.
The Committee decided to make comments and changes to the sample ordinance and return those
changes to Laurie Evezich. The changes will be discussed at the next Planning Committee meeting
scheduled for Tuesday, October 3, 1995.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
4
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
September 25, 1995
PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker
Jim Bennett Mr. &Mrs. Rust
Tim Clark Rod Bailey
Don Wickstrom Don Rust
Gary Gill Jim Rust
LID 345 - S 218th STREET SIDEWALKS
Wickstrom noted that this is the second time this same issue (sidewalk on one side or both) was
referred back to Committee for a recommendation. Prior to this, it was referred back after being
thoroughly discussed at the Public Hearing on the formation of the LID.
Wickstrom noted the Committee's recommendation at that time was to go with sidewalks on both
sides and to supplement the LID funding in the amount of$166,000 which compensated for the cost
of the widening, the road to full width and installing curb, gutter and sidewalks. Wickstrom referred
back to his October 10, 1994 memo which described the analysis leading to the Committee's
recommendation at that time.
Wickstrom said that because of the City's contribution ($166,000), the final assessment would be
lower than originally denoted. He said that if you now go back and delete the one sidewalk, there
isn't any savings to the property owners. Said savings rightly goes towards reducing the City's
contribution because the City is essentially paying for the sidewalks and, therefore, the final
assessment will be higher than they were anticipated to be.
Mrs. Rust inquired to what extent the assessments would higher. Wickstrom explained that due to
the assessment distribution the properties on the north side, such as Trammell Crow, were paying for
approximately 60% of the assessment. So for every dollars' worth of improvements, they were only
being assessed 30 cents therefore. As such, the increase on the south would be small. For the Rust's
property it would be $200 to $300. Mr. Rust remarked if you take out the sidewalk it would be a
savings. Wickstrom stated there would be a slight savings if they were paying 100% and there were
no City contributions.
Wickstrom reiterated the history of this issue noting that after the Council closed the Public Hearing
on the LID they referred the issue back to Committee to address sidewalks on both sides. Wickstrom
said he went back to the Committee with the recommendation that property owners should pay for
some basic services and the City would compromise by paying for the widening, curb, gutter and
sidewalks. That's when the Committee authorized contributing $166,000. Wickstrom said the
proposal went back to Council, but at that time there was no hearing, and the ordinance was passed
incorporating our additional funding into the project.
-2-
Rod Bailey questioned why the City would no longer contribute if you took one sidewalk out.
Wickstrom responded that that was the whole premise of why we were contributing in the first place
and if you start deleting everything, you are back to where the City is paying for the basic road and,
in reality, it should be a local issue paid by the abutting property owners. Wickstrom said deleting
the sidewalk would be fine until someone redevelops or adds onto their development. At that point,
they would be required to put that piece of frontage sidewalk in. Wickstrom said what we'd be doing
here is pulling out essentially a "no cost" item to the property owner and resulting in him paying a
higher assessment and then when he redevelops his property, he would have to put in his section of
the sidewalk along his frontage.
Clark mentioned that sidewalks were in high demand now in all developed areas in the City and that,
in fact,the City is spending$300,000 a year putting sidewalks in where they didn't have them before.
Wickstrom commented that we were contributing so that the property owners could get all the
improvements and still end up costing them less.
On a Motion of 2 to 1 (Mann and Clark for and Bennett no),the Committee recommended no change
in the project design. They also wanted Staff to develop a table denoting the increase in the
assessment attributed to deleting the sidewalk and have it available for Council review at the October
3rd meeting.
ADDED ITEM STREET SWEEPERS
Mann said he received a call from Jean Ford with regard to the street sweepers. She felt that the
street cleaners were working too late, charging the City a great deal of money in overtime and were
not necessary. Mann told her, however, that the street sweepers were contracted out. Ms. Ford told
Mann on their street the property owners take care of their own street, picking up papers & other
debris, but Mann said this was not true of other parts of the City and there was no way we could
control it unless we had the streets swept. Ford felt that the sweepers were not taking up the dirt,
just moving it around the community. Mann said maybe as a condition to the various vendors we
could monitor or inspect them from time-to-time and make sure when they get to the final destination
their truck is, in fact, filled with dirt. Wickstrom and Brubaker both commented that they were
inspected and were paying the tonnage for disposal of the sweepings at the landfill.
Wickstrom said the City has been very lucky with the current contractor and that he has been very
responsible unlike others in the past. Brubaker said from our City Shops prospective, this contractor
has performed admirably and has done a great job, performed timely, stuck to the schedule and
delivered the goods 100%. Brubaker said we have the right to monitor, but he will incorporate
Mann's suggestion and make sure there is some express clause that allows us the right to confirm that
the work is being done adequately in the next RFP.
Meeting adjourned: 5:45 PM
PWMIN