HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 01/02/1996 pp
f I
Y�tu i;
i
I °
City of Kent
CounciI Meetin
City
Agenda
E
CITY OF � �
jr6�gSr�= ➢
Mayor Jim White a
Council Members
i
Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Christi Houser
i lids e
` �d, !
Tim Clark Jon Johnson
Connie Epperly Leona Orr
January 2, 1996
is
s Office of the City Clerk
IL
i
CITY OF ZQ,J�JS�J JS
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 2, 1996
Council Chambers
7 : 00 p.m.
MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Tim Clark Connie Epperly
Christi Houser Jon Johnson Leona Orr
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. /UBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Oath of Office - Councilmembers
°'..B Employ0e of the Month
t
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
..A. Street Utility Repeal and Substitute Utility Tax -
\ �' ordinances 3 2 7"2D, ; 3 Z7 q- �,
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
�N L-A: Approval of Minutes
_. Approval of Bills
100th Avenue Extension & SE 244th Street Temporary
Closure
IV D. Parks Department House Demolition - Accept as Complete
/E. Driving Range Roof Extension Project - Accept as
Complete
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
t Glen Kara Preliminary Subdivision SU-95-3
V4rB. Adult Use Zoning Code Amendment - Ordinance 3 L 7 E)
VC. Alternative Medicine as an Economic Development Effort
Resolution 1�4 qj--�
vID. School Impact Fees - Authorization to Amend
Comprehensive Plan - Emergency Resolution 14 SO
VIE. Election of Council President
5. IDS
A. Purchase of Police Patrol Cars
6 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7 . REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION - Potential Litigation
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. Oath of Office - Councilmembers
B. Employee of the Month
r 13
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1996
Category Public Hearinas
1. SUBJECT: Street Utility Repeal and Substitute Utility Tax -
ordinances
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As directed by Council, this date has
been set for a public hearing on the repeal of the City's
Street Utility and the adoption of a substitute Utility Tax.
The Public Works Committee has recommended adoption of the
Ordinance repealing the existing Street Utility. The Committee
also has recommended adoption of the Ordinance creating a 1%
increase in the utility tax specifically designated for street
purposes. The revenues generated by the utility tax would
equal that lost by the repeal of the Street Utility.
Operations Director McFall will give a brief presentation.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee Minutes (11/27/95) , Public
Works Director Memorandum, and ordinances
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember �t j_, moves, Councilmembe,X �t �0 � seconds
1) to adopt Ordinance No which repeals the existing.-!
Street UtilityOrdinance.
------ - -
specifically ' fi g creating a �1% increase in the
to adopt Ordinance No. �_ g
utilitytax, s ecificall desi nated for street urposest
rG thereby replacing the Street Utility Feel _; 1
DISCUSSION• ,
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
January 2, 1996
TO: Mayor &City Coun it
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Street Utility
The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional the residential
element of Seattle's Street Utility. See the enclosed memorandum dated November
16, 1995 from Mayor White for background information, the potential impacts of
this decision on Kent, as well as a recommended course of action. Further, the
enclosed Public Works Committee Minutes of November 27, 1995 provide
additional information on this matter.
Supplementary thereto, it should be noted that if the Street Utility revenues are not
replaced, the grant funds ($13,000,000) associated with both corridor projects will be
lost.
Further, due to the direction that both State and Federal budgets are headed, once
the grant funding is gone, its probably gone forever. As a result, were Council to
decide later to implement these projects, the financial ,,vindow of opportunity to do so
is gone.
Further, the revenue loss would eliminate the funding of the seven staff members
who have been supporting these projects.
Further, the City's ability to meet its obligation in the Meridian Annexation Area
would also be lost The City had anticipated to utilize the Street Utility revenues
generated in the annexation to pay for its $1,800,000 share of the County's 240th
Street Improvement project (from I I6th Avenue SE to 132nd Avenue SE.)
Further, in conjunction with the 240th Street Agreement the County was going to lift
any strings attached to their $5,000,000 obligation per the west leg of the 196th
Street Corridor project, thus assuring its implementation. With no 240th Street
i
Agreement, the County's $5,000,000 for the 196th Street Corridor project would be
gone.
Further, with respect to concurrency, simply lowering the service level standards raises
the opportunity for challenges by any special interest group of the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
Further, State sanctions for not being in compliance with our concurrency standards
are not limited to just state gas tax monies and other State distributed taxes. It also
makes us ineligible for any State grant funds or loan monies.
Finally, for your convenience, attached is a Summary Table which reflects the pros
and cons associated with the available options.
2
SUMMARY TABLE
A) Implement Supplemental Revenue
PRO CON
o Revenue Neutral Program o Implement Supplemental Revenue Source
o Comply with Growth
Management Act
o Mobility remain as planned
o Corridors would get built
0 240th St (116th - 132nd) would
be built)
o Development would continue
o No lay offs
o Monies spent on projects is not wasted
o Life goes on as originally planned
B) Implement Moratorium on all Development versus Supplemental Revenue
Source
PRO CON
o Comply with Growth o Lose $13,000,0000 in State Grant.
Management Act o Lose $5,000,000 in County funding.
o Mobility remains as is o Lose window of opportunity to build
today 272nd Corridor project and 196th
Corridor project.
o Millions spent on corridor projects would
be wasted.
o Lose 240th Street Improvement from
116th Ave SE - 132nd Ave SE.
o Lay off seven staff members.
o City property tax base would remain flat
at best. (No revenue growth)
o Growth businesses may move due to need
to expand.
o Political pressure from development
community.
o Possible loss of jobs in the community.
3
C) Lower Service Standard versus Supplemental Revenue Source.
PRO CON
o Comply with Growth o Lose $13,000,000 in State Grant.
Management Act o Lose $5,000,000 in County funding.
o Development activity o Lose window of opportunity to build
is allowed to continue 272nd Corridor project and 196th
Corridor project.
o Millions spent on corridor project would
be wasted.
o Lose 240th St Improvement from 116th'
Ave SE - 132nd Ave SE.
o Lay off seven staff members.
o Mobility goes to grid lock over time.
o Businesses may move out due to
immobility.
o More auto and pedestrian accidents due to
congestion resulting in property damage,
personal injury and deaths.
o More accidents means more demands on
City staffing (Police, Fire, Legal, Public
Works etc.) thus increasing City costs.
o Immobility eventually affects the quality
of life of the City for both residences and
businesses,
M749
4
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
November 27, 1995
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Street Utility U V
As a result of the State Supreme Court's decision on Seattle's street utility, the
enclosed memorandum explains in detail a course of action as proposed by the Mayor
to substitute an alternate revenue source for our street utility in order to continue
development under the city's transportation plan.
ACTION: As recommended by the Mayor, authorization for the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinances to implement an alternate revenue
source for our street utility and to adopt those ordinances at the next
full Council on December 12th.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Mayor Jim Whit
SUBJECT: Street Utility
DATE: November 16, 1995
As you know, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional the residential
element of Seattle's street utility. Since Seattle's utility is based upon the same statute as our own,
this calls into question the legality of Kent's street utility. On advice of staff. AWC and others, I
have caused this matter to be investigated, and am proposing a course of action to substitute an
alternate revenue source for our street utility in order to continue development under the city's
transportation plan. The balance of the memorandum will outline the issue and the proposed action.
I stand ready to work with Council to resolve this potentially serious issue.
BACKGROUND
The City of Kent adopted its street utility in 1992, and dedicated the revenue to the construction of
the 196th and 272nd corridors. We are one of fourteen cities in the state to adopt a street utility.
Funds have been expended in right of way acquisition, design, environmental review and the like.
Additionally, funds have been accumulating to pay for construction. We now generate
approximately $1.4 million from the utility annually.
COVELL v. SEATTLE
The Seattle case found the residential portion of the street utility to be unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court determined that the utility fee was, in fact, a property tax. As such, it was not based
upon property value, and therefore, invalid. The court did not rule on the commercial fee collected
by Seattle, but the arguments used in the lawsuit invalidating the residential portion of the utility
would appear to apply to the commercial component. The City Attorney advises that Kent should
repeal its street utility,both residential and commercial, as soon as possible to avoid a similar lawsuit-
being filed against us.
IMPACTS OF REPEAL
If the street utility is repealed without replacement revenue, the corridors cannot be built. The
corridors are THE major component of our transportation plan, and are necessary to meet the level
of service called for in the transportation plan. They are also necessary to meet the concurrency .
requirement for transportation required by the Growth Management Act. If we do not build the
corridors, we have two choices. First, we can allow the level of service to deteriorate until we no
longer have concurrency with our transportation plan at which point we can issue NO MORE
BUILDING PERMITS! Development in the city stops. Our second choice is to revise downward
the level of service called for in the transportation plan. This would, in my opinion, result in an
unacceptable level of service. Ultimately, this decision would also effect the economic viability of
the city due to the inability of business and residents to travel through the city at acceptable service
levels.
Both of these impacts are unacceptable. Therefore, we must find a replacement revenue source.
REPLACEMENT REVENUE SOURCE
On November 15, I called together a group of business people to review this situation and to give
me their advice. This group was composed of Jerry Schneider, homebuilder; Rodger Anderson.
REALTORS Association; Elizabeth Warman, Boeing; Roy Moore, VATA; Brad Bell. CPA: Rod
Saalfeld, Chamber of Commerce; and Barbara Ivanov, Chamber of Commerce.
The group reviewed the history of the street utility and the impacts of repeal. They determined that
the revenue MUST be replaced. Further, the group reviewed the options that had been identified by
staff as replacement sources (see attachments), and developed a recommendation as the best source
of replacement funds.
The group's recommendation, with which I concur, is to repeal the street utility and replace the
revenue with a 1% in increase in the utility tax. This would raise our rate to 4.8% on all utilities
except garbage which would be at 7.8%. In all cases we would remain lower than the average utility
tax charged by cities in the State of Washington.
A 1% utility tax would generate approximately $I.4 million which would exactly replace the street
utility revenue. Therefore, such a utility tax increase would be revenue neutral with the street utility
which would be repealed. Moreover, a utility tax has the advantage of being spread across both
residential and commercial users, also mirroring the street utility. Although individual properties
would vary, most properties would probably see their utility bills increase as a result of the utility
tax in approximately the same amount that their bills would decrease from repeal of the street utility.
Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that this is replacement of existing fees, and is not an
additional revenue. In my opinion, this is the only responsible action in light of the consequences
of taking no action, or of not replacing the street utility revenue.
ACTION REQUIRED
I have directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances to implement this
recommendation, and will ask for your action as soon as possible, probably December 12. I am
prepared to discuss this matter further with you, and to answer any questions you may have.
attachments
cc: Brent McFall, May Miller
Roger Lubovich, Don Wickstrom
AGENDA
STREET UTILITY TASK FORCE
November 15, 1995
♦ Welcome and Introductions - Mayor Jim White
♦ History of Street Utility and Corridor Projects- Public Works Director Don Wickstrom
♦ Covell v. Seattle; Impact on Kent- City Attorney Roger Lubovich
♦ Growth Management, Transportation Plan & Concurrency - Don Wickstrom
♦ Options - Director of Operations Brent McFall & Finance Director May Miller
1) Leave Street Utility in Place - Seek Legislative Remedy
2) Repeal Street Utility -No Replacement Revenue
3) Repeal Street Utility- Lower GMA Service Level
4) Repeal Street Utility and Substitute Replacement Revenue
a) Utility Tax
b) Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET)
c) Business License Fee
d) B &. O Tax
e) Voter Approved Property Tax Lid Lift
f) Transportation Benefit District
♦ Discussion- Mayor Jim White
STREET UTILITY FUNDING OPTIONS - 1996 ESTIMATES
S Produced Comments
Do nothing 1,451.449 Possible legal challenge
2. Discontinue street utility tax and 0
accept lower level of service
3. Restructure Street Utility tax to Not feasible
include only businesses
4. 1%increase in Utility Tax
Electric 634,203 Closely matches Street Utility revenues
Gas 140,763
Telephone 345.274 2 months lag
Garbage 89,000
Water 60,302 Meridian start up
Sewer 114.885
Drainage 45,275 Easy implementation-all systems are in place
1,429,702
5. Second 1/4% Real Estate Excise tax 569,144 Only requires a Council vote
Varies, dependent on property sales.
Alone is not sufficient to replace all revenues lost.
6. Business license-head count tax Requires ordinance change
@$35.98 yearly per FTE X 40,340 1,323,152 Increases$13.18 per year per employee
Business picks up residential portion.
OR
@ $22.80 yearly per FTE X 40,340 919,752 No additional burden to business
Combined with second 114 REST. 1,488,896 If combined with Real estate excise would replace
all Street Utility tax revenues.
7. City B&O tax @ .017%( 17 cents/S1000) 1,451,449 +? May deter new businesses from coming to Kent
New Tax would require new systems&staff to implement
Actual rates necessary will be very difficult to determine accurately.
estimates range from .017% to .060"o-but all are expected to be high
based on the high concentration of industrial activity in Kent.
8. Property tax Lid Lift @.3451$1000 valuation 1,453,585 Requires voter approval
Assumes$4,213,288,766 assessed valuation. Not considered very likely to succeed.
9. Transportation Benefit District 1.453,565 Requires majority vote of Council subject to referendum
@ .3451$1000 valuation
Impact on other junior taxing districts undetermined.
r
CCC TAXALT.W81 14-Nov-95
_ITY OF KENT
'1T' '! TAX DATA
7,
1996 ESTIMATED
UTILITY TAX: 001 113 140 170 TOTAL
______________________________________________________________________
ELECTRIC 2,22.9,709 190,261 2,409,970
GAS 492,671 42,229 534.900
TELEPHONE 1.208,460 103,582 1,312,042
GARBAGE 311,501 26,700 267,001 605,202
WATER 211,057 18,091 229,149
SEWER 402,096 34,465 436,561
DRAINAGE 158,461 13,582 172,043
_________________________________________________
TOTAL UTIL TAX 5,003,955 0 428,910 267,001 5,699,366
1996 ESTIMATED (4.50%
UTILITY TAX: 001 113 140 170 TOTAL
______________________________________________________________________
ELE=IC 2,853,912 190,261 3,044,173
GAS 633,434 42,229 675,663
TELEPHONE 1,553,734 103,582 1,657,316
GARBAGE 400,501 26,700 267,001 694,202
WATER 271,359 18,091 289,450
SEWER 516,981 34,465 551,446
DRAINAGE 203,736 13,582 - 217,318
_________________________________________________
OTAL UTIL TAX 6,433,656 0 428,910 267,001 7,129,567
DIFFERENCE 1,429,701 0 (0) 0 1,429,701
Sample Utility Tax Increase Comparison
Effect on Residential Consumers
Annual ' % additional
Billing Utility tax
Electric/Natural Gas 1,020.00 10.20
Phone 360.00 3.60
Garbage 108.00 1.08
Water 150.00 1.50
Sewer 300.00 3.00
Drainage 52.56 0.53
1 ,990.56 19.91
Street Utility @ $1.90 / month (22.80)
Net Effect To Residential Consumers (2.89) -12.7%
CCC TAXALT.WB1 14-Nov-95
Date : April 19 , 1994
To : May Miller, Finance Director
From: Jim Huntington CPA, Field Auditor
subject : Additional 1/4 percent real estate excise tax.
During the 1992 legislative session substantial amendments were
made to the Revised Code of Washington making available_ to certain
cities planning under the Growth Management Act an additional 1/4
of one percent real estate excise tax. This tax is enacted by a
simple majority vote of the council . This tax must be used solely
for financing capital projects specified in a capital facilities
plan element of a comprehensive plan.
The monies collected can be used for planning, acquisition,
construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation
or improvement of streets, roads, highways , sidewalks , street and
road lighting systems, traffic signals , bridges , domestic water
systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems , and planning,
construction, reconstruction, recalr, rehab-ilitat_on, or
improvement of parks .
In 1993 $464 , 909 was collected from the 1/4 of one percent real
estate excise tax currently authorized. An additional 1/4 of one
percent would add an additional $500 , 000 per the 1994 budget .
Following is the status of local cities regarding adding the
additional 1/4 percent real estate excise tax:
CITY Additional 1/4% tax
Auburn Yes
Renton Yes
Tukwila No
Normandy Park No Passed 7/93 Repealed _/94
Seattle Yes
Des Moines Yes
SeaTac No
Mercer Island Yes
Kirkland No
Federal Way Yes
Attached for your convience is a sample ordinance provided to us by
Municipal Research.
Potential B&O tax rate estimates based on various ratios
Estimate based on ratio of statewide Retail taxable to B&O taxable sales.
Utility tax to replace : 1,451,449
Kent 1996 sales tax 14,397,947
Effective net rate to Kent 0.8415%
Projected Kent total retail sales taxable 1,710,985,938
Kent's estimated share of state B&O tax
Projected Kent total retail sales taxable 1,710,985,938 2.82%
Statewide Income subject to retail sales tax (94) 60,586,293,940
Kent's share of state 's B&O sales = 294,502,000,000 X 2.824% = 8.316,877,130
Taroet Revenue 1,451,449 0.017% Estimated necessary rate
Kent's share of state 's B&O sales 8,316,877,430
Note that the City probably does not have the same ratio of taxable sales as the State. A higher ratio of B&O taxable sal
would reduce the necessary rate to accomplish funding replacement.
-------------------- ------- ---------- ------------- ------- ------- ------- ------------
------------------- ------ ---------- -------------- ------- ------- ------- ------------
Estimate based on ratio of assessed valuation
Kent Assessed Valuation (94) 3,911,041,170 1.359%
State Assessed Valuation (94) 287,885,000,000
Kent's share of state 's B&O sales = 294,502,000,000 X 1.359% = 4,000,935,952
Target Revenue 1,451,449 0.036% Estimated necessary rate
Kent's share of state 's B&O sales 4,000,935,952
Estimate based on ratio of population
Kent's Population 4-1-95 44,239 0.817910
State Population 5,414,900
Kent's share of state 's B&O sales = 294,502,000,000 X 0.817% = 2.406.041,474
Target Revenue 1,451,449 0.060% Estimated necessary rate
Kent's share of state 's B&O sales 2,406,041,474
CCC TAXALT.WB1 14-Nov-95
0*
Cry v s m Finance Department (206) 455-6846 - FAX (206) 637-6163
Bell O�of �? Post Office BOX 90012 - Bellevue, Washington • 98009-9012
9StiIN��O
DPOSWt-brand fax transmittal memo 76T1 r or11f 1 I`{A I From' iC'.
P`'°""
April 6, 1995 �"� —�33�/ fu' ��7 (a
Dear City Tax Official:
Enclosed please find the city tax survey results as of March 1995, compiled from data that you
and other Washington cities provided. We believe that you will find this information very
valuable.
Thank you for your.participation_
Sincerely,
Denise C. Ritthaler
Financial Analyst
Budget Office
City of Bellevue offices are located at Main Street and 116th Avenue SE
CPI-' OF BELLEVUE
Tax Survey- Summary
March 1995
1994 Total Regular Average Average Sales Tax
Cities Population Property Property B & 0 Utility City
Surveved: (4/1194) Tax Tax Tax Tax Portion
Auburn 34.970 $3.29 $2.70 4.50% 1.00%
Bellevue 99,140 $2.17 $1.82 0.15001,10 4.75% 1.0090
Bellingham 57,020 $3.11 $2.83 0.238% 6.80% 1.00%
Bremerton 35.920 S3.73 $3.50 0.161% 6.00% 1.000/0
Edmonds 31,100 S2.31 S1.90 5.81% 1.00,%
Everett 78,240 $3.76 $3.26 0.120% 5.85% 1.00%
Federal Way 73.:00 $1.57 $L57 1.00%
Kennewick 46,060 S2.97 S2.97 7.90% 1.00°0
Kent 41,380 $3.08 S2.62 3.80% 1.00%
Kirkland 41.900 $2.32 $1.88 5.00% 1.00'0
Longview 33,080 $3.34 $3.34 . 0.125% 6.400 1.000io
Lynnwood 31.680 S2.60 S2.60 1.000,0
Olympia. 36,740 $3.55 $2.87 0.125% 6.25% 1.00%
Redmond 39,390 $2.46 $1.74 5.500% 1.00%
Renton 43,970 S3.92 $3.55 6.00% 1.00%
Richland 35.430 $3.47 S3.17 8.32% 1.00%
Seattle 5-01.400 S3.20 $2.91 0,265% 8.00% 1.00%
Spokane 185-600 $4.03 S2.95 10.400 1.00%
Tacoma 1817,800 $4.25 $3.60 0.211% 7.000io 1.004%
Vancouver" 59 2-5 $3.57 $3.19 0.082% 9.80% 0.50910
Yakima 59.740 $3.87 $3.40 9.20% 1.00%
City Average -
Tax Rates S3.17 $2.78 0.164% 6.70% 0.980/0
' Only one city, Vanc-ouver, does not levy the optional 0.5% city sales tax.
[_hafticcri:wl�s:u.u1.0 wa- .
CITY OF BELLEVUE
Tax Survey - 1995
Property Tax Rates
(per S 1,000 of AV)
Regular Excess Total
1994 Property Property Property
: Cities Population Tax Levy Tax Levy Tax Levy
Survevcd (411/94) Rate(s) S) Rate (S)
Auburn * 34,970 S2.70 $0.59 3.29
Bellevue * 99,140 1.82 0.35 2.17
Bc11ingham 57,020 2.83 0.28 3.11
Bremerton 35,920 3.50 0.23 3.73
Edmonds 31,100 1.90 0.41 2.31
Everett 78,240 3.26 0.50 3.76
Federal Wav 73,500 1.57 0.00 1.57
Kennewick 46,960 2.97 0.00 2.97
Kent * 4I,980 2.62 0.46 3.08
Kirklan* 41,900 1.88 0.44 2.32
Longview 33,080 3,34 0.00 3.34
Lynnwood 31,680 2.60 0,06 2.60
Olympia 36,740 2.87 0.68 3.55
Redmond = 39,390 1.74 0.72 2.46
Renton * 43,970 3.55 0.36 3.92
Richland 35,430 3.17 0.30 3.47
Seattle * 531,400 2.91 0.29 3.20
Spokane 195,600 2.95 1.03 4.03
Tacoma*. 182,800 3.60 0.65 4.25
Vancouver 59,225 3.19 0.39 3.57
yakinia 59,740 3.40 0.47 3.87
City Average -
Property Tax Rate S2.78 S039 $���
* Confirmed rates with 1995 Tax Codes &Levies -King County Assessors Office
CITY OF BELLEVUE
Tax Survey - 1995
Business and Occupation Tax Rates
Average
Cities Population
Manu- B & 0
Wholesale faLLtlrinQ Services Rate (1) Other
Surveved (4/l/94) Retail
Auburn 34,970
Bellevue (2) 99,140 0.130% 0.150% 0.150% 0.150% 0.150% 0.150%
Bel1i� 57,020 0.170% 0.170% 0.170% 0.440% 0.238% 0.1700/0
Bremerton 35,920 0.125% 0.160% 0.160% 0.200% 0,161%
Edmonds 317100
Everett 78,240 0.120% 0.120% 0.120% 0.120% 0.120% 0.120%
Federal Way. 73,500
Kennewick 46,960
Kent 41,880
Kirkland 41.900
0.1D0% 0.100% 0.100% 0.200% 0.125%
Longview 33,080
Lvnnwood 31,680
Olympia 36,740 0.100% 0.100% 0.100% 0.200% 0.125%
Redmond 39,390
Rcnton 43,970
Richland 35,430
°1° 0.215% 0.415% 0.265% 0.022%
Sealde 531,400 0.215% 0.215
SPOkane 185,600
Tacoma 182,800 0A53% 0.102% 0.110% 0.490% 0.211% 0.200%
Vancouver 59,225 0.077% 0.015% 0.1540/6 0.08210 0.077%
Yakim 59,740
Ciry Average-
0.164°% O.D
B & 0 Tax Rate 0.1� 42% 0.133% 0.127% 0.2� _
(1) "Average B&O Tax Rate" represents an unweightcd average of B&0 taxes Ievicd
on Retail,Wholesale, Manufacturing, and Services activities.
(2) The figure of 0.15011/6 for Bellevne's average B&Oo rate does Hours tax of S0 .01 hours
t includc.the Adnli�vo
Office tax of$0.1482 d t
taxable square footage P
- worked per employee. -=
c:%boff"l°Dwl95eurvat:t+�+ut`!
C= OF BEI 1 E VUF
Tax Survey- 1995
Utility Tax Rates
Avg ..
Cities Population Storm Utility Cable
Surveved (4/l/94) Gas Electric Water Sewer Drainage Teleuhone Tax (11 Garbaee TV
Auburn 34.970 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.500% 2.00"o ".500"o
Bellevttc 99,140 4.50% 4.50% 4.5D% 4"50% 4"50% 6.00% :.750% 4.50% 4.80%
Bellingham 57,020 6.00% 6.00% 8.00% 8.000/0 6.00% 6.800% 4,00% 9.00%
Bremerton 35,920 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.000/6 6"00% 6"000% 19,00% 7.00%
Edmonds 31-100 5.75% 6.00% 5.75% 5.75% 5.913% 5.00%
Everett 78,240 5.75% 5.75% 6.00% 6.00% 5.75% 5.850% 5.00%
Federal Way 73,500
Kennewick 46,960 8.50% 8.50% 7.00% 7.00% 5.509u 7.9o0°io 7.00% 7,00�0
Kcnt 41,880 3.8011/0 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 3.8090 3.S00% 6.80% 5.00%
Kirkland(2) 41,900 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.0000io 5"00410 5.00010
Longvicw 33,080 6.00% 6.00% 7.00% 7.00% 6.00% 6.400% 7.D0% 7.00io
Lynnwood 31,680
Olympia 36,740 5.50% 5.50% 7.00% 7.00% 7"009/0 5.50% 6.2504/0 7.000/0 5.00`y°
Redmond 39,390 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.500% 6.00% 5.00%
Renton 43,970 6.00% 6"00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.000% 6.00% 6.000,0
Richland 35,430 7.52%% 7.52% 9.52% 9.520,0 7.529/0 8.320% 9.52% 6.52%
Seattle 531,400 6.00% 6.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10-00% 6.00% 8.0000/4 10.00% 10.00%
Spokane 185,600 6,00% 6"00% 17.00% 17.000/0 6.00% 10.400% 17.00% 5.00%
Tacoma 192.900 6.000/a 6.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 6.00% 7.000% 8.00% 8.32%
Vancouver(3) 59,225 6.0001' 6,00% 15.50% 15.50% 6.00% 9.800% 3.00%
Ynkima 59,740 6.000, 6.00% 14.000/6 14.00% 6"00% 9.200% 10.00% 10.00%
Ciry Average-
Utility Tax Rates ^5.81% _5.821% 8.03% 8.17% 6.26% 5.89% 670% 8.05% 6
(1) "Average Utility Tax" represents an unweighted average of electric, gas, water,sewer, storm drainage.and telephone utility
taxes for cities which charge utility taxes-
(2) Kirkland's residential rates are listed in the chart about. Kirkland's commercial rate is 6%for gas, eiectric.telephone, and
cable, and 6.5%for garbage.water, and sewer.
(3) Vancouver's gas utility tax rate is 6%for the first 52000 of gross receipts per customer Per month, and then 1.250.o for any
additional gross receipts, The electric utility tax rate is 6%for the first 52,000 of gross receipts Per atstomcr per month.
and then 2%for any additional gross receipts. Storm drainage utility taxis S 15"00 annually.
TnT�i 14
n
\ to
, ( ,
[
(/ � $
, g | E
kn
e, !
)\\\
2KRk 2 2
\ \\ \ \\ \\\\ \ �\\
/ EL /
E( l ` ! ` ice «
\ ` } \ ) { ( [ 0
� \
\ o
E Q {/ƒ
_ § (} T )
n0 �( `
no
�
11/27/95
STREET UTILITY
Brent McFall stated that the City has implemented its Street Utility in accordance with
State Statute in 1992 and the revenue from that utility has been designated specifically
for major projects associated with the Transportation Plan which is a component of the
Comp Plan which is required by the Growth Management Act. He noted that the t%vo
most significant projects both in terms of cost and Comp Plan and the ability to achieve
the required concurrency of infrastructure concurrent %vitli development, are the two
corridor projects. McFall said that when the State Supreme Court ruled that the manner
in wluch the State Statute requires cities to impose the street utility was unconstitutional
(they ruled that residential component of the street utility was unconstitutional), there
has been no ruling on the commercial component. There has been no ruling on the
statute, only specifically on Seattle's residential utility. However, McFall noted that it
is clear from the wording in the decision that they would further find other street utilities
that were applied in a similar manner to be unconstitutional. He said that leaves us with
a "hole" in our Transportation Improvement budget - about $1.4 Million Dollars
annually which is dedicated to the corridor projects.
McFall stated that it is the advice of the City Attorney as well as AWC that we need to
- repeal the Street Utility fee. However, the Growth Management Act requires us to have
concurrency between infrastructure - if the infrastructure is not built, it at least has to
have a financially viable plan to have it built within a six year period to accommodate
growth. If we do not have that concurrency, there are potentially state sanctions
regarding the distribution of gas tax monies and other state distributed taxes that come
back to the City. The other implications, if we are not able to build the corridor
projects, are that we basically do not have concun•ency as required by GNIA which means
we then can have a couple of options. One is to stop development activity in the City,
literally issue no more building permits or, as a policy matter simply lower the level of
service.
McFall said that as a staff, we have tried to identify the options that are available. He
referenced the packet of material previously mailed to the Committee, going thru those
options with thein. One option is, a 1% increase in the utility tax would roughly replace
the revenue lost by repealing the street utility. We now charge $1.90/month per
residential unit and $1.90/employee for each business per month. The utility tax would
basically replace that revenue. We could repeal the Street Utility, impose the utility tax
increase at a revenue neutral level and the advantages are that it's in place, it's collected
now, it would simply be at a different rate and we wouldn't add any costs to collect it.
2
It is basically paid by the same people who pays the street utility fee now; residences and
businesses. It is paid in roughly the same ratio. McFall said that what we can't tell you
is that for each individual customer that they will see no impact up or down because the
utility tax is dependent upon usage.
McFall said that this option was the recommendation of the Mayor's Street Utility Task
Force and it is the recommendation of the Mayor to proceed this way in order to fund
the corridor projects, which allows us to have concurrency, which allows continued
development of the City. Further, if that option is taken, it needs to be done in
conjunction with each action in conjunction with the other. And also, that the funds be
dedicated specifically for that purpose.
McFall stated another option is a second quarter percent real estate excise tax which is
collected at the time of sale of property; that's an extremely volatile revenue source in
that it depends on real estate transactions and generates approximately $570,000. He
noted that it's not a reliable source of revenue and by itself does not replace the $1.4
million. The Business License option is something that Renton did a number of years -
they charge $55 per FTE annually as the business license fee. In order to replace the
$1.4 million, we would have to add $36 per FIT per year on top of our existing business
license fee. The disadvantage of this is, it shifts the entire cost to replace the street
utility revenue to business.
Another option is B&-O Tax. This would have significant administrative overhead costs
to collect the B&O tax. Another option - the Property Tax Lid lift. This would require
about $.35 per thousand of assessed value increase in property tax rates and subject to
voter approval. The final option is Transportation Benefit District - also subject to
referendum which would again be about $.35 per thousand of property tax increase.
McFall stated that the Mayor's Task Force felt that the only responsible option was to
provide funds to construct the corridors, which have a significant impact on the future
of the city and to do it in the form of a utility tax increase, earmarked specifically for the
corridor projects and transportation projects, and done concurrently with the repeal of
the street utility. We would then shore that it truly was a replacement revenue not a
new increase in fees.
Mayor White noted that the longer this goes on, the greater the risk of our being
challenged on the utility. Therefore, this needs to be done in a timely manner as soon
as Council is ready to act on it. The Mayor stated that he has made a recommendation
and if Council has some other recommendation, we would be happy to listen. He noted
that we have invested a tremendous amount of City funds in acquiring property,
3
condemnation procedures, etc.
Committee recommended that the City Attorney prepare the appropriate Ordinance
repealing the existing Street Utility fee.
Committee recommended authorization for the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
ordinances to implement an alternate revenue source for our street utility, that alternate
being a 1% increase in the Utility Tax, earmarked specifically for street purposes, which
would be a replacement of the Street Utility and, that those ordinances be adopted at
the next full Council on December 12th.
100TH AVENUE EXTENSION - NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Committee recommended that the I00th Avenue Extension meeting be held at East Hill
Elementary School on Thursday, December 14th at 5:00 P.M
Meeting adjourned: 5:30 p.m.
4
t
f
4�
p.
ORDINANCE NO. 1.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, repealing in its
entirety Chapter 7 . 14 of the Kent City Code
entitled "Street Utility" .
WHEREAS, on or about April 7, 1992 , the City Council,
pursuant to Chapter 82 . 80 RCW, established a street utility for
the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, the City of Seattle, which enacted a similar
street utility, was recently challenged in Court on the
constitutionally of the street utility; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington
in the case of Covell vs . City of Seattle, No. 61178-5, held that
the street utility, as it applies to residential property, was
unconstitutional ; and
WHEREAS, even though Covell did not address the
constitutionality of the street utility as it applies to
businesses, the City Council of the City of Kent believes that it
is in the City' s best interest to repeal the Street Utility Code
in its entirety, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
Street Utility
SECTION 1 . Reveal of Street Utility. Chapter 7 . 14 of
the Kent City Code entitled "Street Utility" is hereby repealed
in its entirety.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity
or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance .
SECTION 3. Effective Date. �' This ordinance shall
take effect and be in force on Januagj 31, 1996 , which is more
than five (5) days from and after i, s publication as provided by
law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
2 Street Utility
PASSED day of 1996 .
APPROVED day of 1996 .
PUBLISHED day of 1996 .
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as
hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
streetu.ord
3 Street Utility
f � M1
V
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington amending Chapter
3 . 18 of the Kent City Code entitled "Utility
Tax on Telephone, Gas, Electric, Garbage,
Water, Sewer and Drainage Utilities, changing
the utility tax rates and dedicating a
portion of the tax revenue for street
improvements .
WHEREAS, on or about April 7, 1992 , the City Council,
pursuant to Chapter 82 . 80 RCW, established a street utility for
the City of Kent ; and
WHEREAS, as a result of a court challenge to the City
of Seattle ' s street utility in the case of Covell vs . City of
Seattle, No . 61178-5 , the City Council repealed the City of
Kent ' s street utility; and
WHEREAS, in order to maintain the same funding levels
for street improvements in the City of Kent , the City Council
believes it is in the City' s best interest to increase the City' s
utility tax rate as a substitute funding source to be dedicated
to street improvements; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION 1 . Chapter 3 . 18 of the Kent City Code is
hereby amended as follows :
Utility Tax
CHAPTER 3 .18 . UTILITY TAX ON TELEPHONE, GAS, ELECTRIC,
GARBAGE, WATER, SEWER AND DRAINAGE UTILITIES
Sec . 3 . 18 . 010 . Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in
this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this
section, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning:
Competitive telephone service means the providing by
any person of telecommunications equipment or apparatus , or
service related to that equipment or apparatus such as repair or
maintenance service, if the equipment oY apparatus is of a type
which can be provided by persons that are not subject to
regulation as telephone companies under RCW Title 80 and for
which a separate charge is made .
Network telephone service means the providing by any
person of access to a local telephone network, local telephone
switching service, toll service, coin telephone services,
telephonic, video, data, or similar communication, or
transmission for hire via a local telephone network, toll line c=
channel, cable, microwave, or similar communication or
transmission system. ' 'Network telephone service ' ' includes
interstate service, including toll service, originating from or
received on telecommunications equipment or apparatus in this
state if the charge for the service is billed to a person in this
state . ' 'Network telephone service ' , does not include the
providing of competitive telephone service, the providing of
cable television service, or the providing of broadcast services
by radio or television stations .
Telephone business means the business of providing
network telephone service, as defined above in . this section. It
includes cooperative or farmer line telephone companies or
associations operating an exchange . Telephone business shall
include one hundred (100) percent of the total service fees from
calls originating and/or billed to subscribers within the city.
Telephone service means competitive telephone service
or network telephone service, as defined in the definitions of
2
' ' network telephone service " and ' ' competitive telephone
service ' ' set out in this section.
Sec . 3 .18 . 020 . Certain utilities subject to tax.
A. In addition to the other business and license fees
required by the ordinances of the city, there is hereby levied
upon all persons (including the city) engaged in certain business
activities a utilities tax to be collected as follows :
1 . Upon every person engaging in or carrying on
any telephone business within the city, an
annual tax equal to three and one-half (3
1/2) percent of the total gross operating
revenues, including revenues from intrastate
toll , derived from the operation of such
business within the city. In addition, there
shall also be assessed an interim tax of 0 . 3
percent effective until 11 : 59 P .M. on
December 31 1996 which revenue from said
interim tax shall be dedicated to youth teen
programs , plus an interim tax of 1 . 0 percent
effective until 11 . 59 p m on April 7 , 2002
which revenue from said interim tax shall be
dedicated to street improvement programs .
Gross operating revenues for this purpose
shall not include charges which are passed on
to the subscribers by a telephone company
pursuant to tariffs required by regulatory
order to compensate for the cost to the
company of the tax imposed by this chapter.
2 . Upon every person engaging in or carrying on
a business of selling, furnishing,
distributing, or producing gaseous gas for
commercial or domestic use or purposes, a fee
or tax equal to three and one-half (3 1/2)
percent of the total gross income from such
business in the city during the tax year for
which the license is required. In addition,
there shall also be assessed an interim tax
of 0 . 3 percent effective until 11 . 59 p .m. on
December 31 1996 which revenue from said
3
interim tax shall be dedicated to youth tee
programs plus an interim tax of 1 . 0 percent
effective until 11 . 59 1.m. on April 7 . 2002
which revenue from said interim tax shall be
dedicated to street improvement programs .
3 . Upon every person engaged in or carrying on
the business of selling, furnishing, or
distributing electricity for light and power,
a fee or tax equal to three and one-half (3
1/2) percent of the total gross income from
such business in the city during the tax year
for which a license is required. In
addition there shall also be assessed an
interim tax of 0 . 3 vercent effective until
11 . 59 p m on December 31 1996 which revenue
from said interim tax shall be dedicated to
youth teen programs plus an interim tax of
1 . 0 percent effective until 11 . 59 x) .m. on
April 7 2002 which revenue from said interim
tax shall be dedicated to street improvement
programs .
4 . Upon every person engaging in or carrying on
a business providing garbage service, a tax
equal to six and one-half (6 1/2) percent of
the total gross income from such business in
the city during the tax year for which the
license is required. In addition, there
shall also be assessed an interim tax of 0 . 3
percent effective until 11 . 59 p.m. on
December 31 1996 which revenue from said
interim tax shall be dedicated to youth teen
programs plus an interim tax of 1 . 0 percent
effective until 11 . 59 p m on April 7 2002
which revenue from said interim tax shall be
dedicated to street imTrovement programs .
S . Upon every person (including the city)
engaging in or carrying on the business of
selling, furnishing or distributing water,
sewer or drainage services, a tax equal to
three and one-half (3 1/2) percent of the
4
total gross income from such business in the
city during the tax year. In addition, there
shall also be assessed an interim tax of 0 . 3
percent effective until 11 : 59 p .m. on
December 31 , 1996 which revenue from said
interim tax shall be dedicated to youth teen
programs plus an interim tax of 1 . 0 percent
effective until 11 : 59 p .m. on April 7 , 2002
which revenue from said interim tax shall be
dedicated to street improvement programs .
B . In computing the tax provided in subsection A. , the
taxpayer may deduct from gross income, the following items :
1 . The. ,actual amount of credit losses and
uncollectables sustained by the taxpayer.
2 . Amounts derived from the transactions in
interstate and foreign commerce which the city is
prohibited from taxing under the laws and
constitution of the United States .
See-3 . 18-925 . certain utilities subject to interim t
i! Deeemhei---31, 1996, t-ire-pi-evisiene of this Beetrein-and
net seet4men-3 . 18 . 929 , shall be in fia3l f�ejf:ea and-e€feeb-aa
i Tn_.additien ce the ethei- hua=Hess and lieen.9. a Eees
requ4:�Feel by the-erdinanees of-tire- ei-ty, there is
city) engaged in eertain-business activities a
utilties tam to lee-assessed--and-eelleete3 as
any teleyen business wither deity, an
annual tare equal te titree-and e=ght tenths
g revenaes Lze2TT—intrastate
bell—de ived-frem the epei-atien-e€ stt
revenues-€e r t hzs-pttrpe s e-Jhazl net i n e l trd
5
eharges wh�-elzi are passed en te the
te FF _ ea by --' - -' a a-e
V
he eeffipany ef the
tax impeseel by this ehapterr
e€—selling,
�, r 3�l
a„ll CQ SIZG a=-TJTOCIII'G'1ng gaseetisgas F. -
r
the—rrccxzse =s-Tccrui-r-eacr
{
dA:stribidtin
`-1 Y
e €ee—e J eqtial to th-r a eight tenths
pereent ef the total
A 15usinC3a a /
b,ds CIIC CiCi during the tax year fe�f
L, 1-. l e a
• ___ __ __ _ business ..F
water,n ar
selling, furnishing er
sewer er a.,._: tam equal t e
^J^
three and e€ghe tenths o ) _ nt e€ ti
tetal Frefa 1. L t t
J V
L
ie
6
a m� aetual Rye nt of eredit 1 ....se and
l
the taxpayer.
_ elJll tlttttl.1. yr 111\.1a the
.J `
ax4:ng tinder the laws
and-eensittit-:en of the United States .
L
an interifft tax rate, shall lee aneremain i:n
effeet , in l : -.L the previsiens
o f ..b. eetien
3:9n r after L. ' L. tiffle
L. ' .15
s e e a_ien s L, l l have
ne fer-ee ea� ef€-eet of et
o nn i.. „ b in f�!!feree and eweet .
4 All- jfe�Eerenees in this chapter _e the i t_.
1 Geese
rfrean-seet i en- 3 . 18-9 2 5 ra t_, the prev3:9±ens _L
seetion 3 16 . 9259tinset en Beee-Fther 31, 199S as
premviEled herein.
Sec. 3 .18 . 030 . Utility tax, when due.
The utility tax imposed by section 3 . 18 . 020 of this chapter
shall be due and payable in monthly installments and remittance
thereof shall be made on or before the last day of the following
month in which the tax accrued. On or before said due date, the
taxpayer shall file with the finance department a return upon a
form to be prescribed and provided by the finance department,
which return shall contain a statement by the taxpayer, stating
the amount of tax for which he is liable for the preceding
monthly period, that the information therein given and the amount
of tax liability therein reported are full and true and that the
taxpayer knows the same to be true; which statement shall be
signed by the taxpayer or authorized agent . Taxpayers expected to
owe less than one thousand dollars ($1, 000 . 00) per month may
submit taxes on a quarterly basis, taxes shall be due on the last
day of the month following the end of the quarter in which the
tax accrued. Quarterly period for the purpose of this chapter
shall mean each three-month period of the calendar year.
Sec. 3 .18 . 040 . Taxpayer' s records .
Each taxpayer shall keep records reflecting the amount of
his gross operating revenues on services within the city, and
such records shall be open at all reasonable times to the
inspection of the finance director or his duly authorized
subordinates for verification of said tax returns or for the
filing of a tax of a taxpayer who fails to make such a return.
Sec . 3 . 18 . 050 . Failure to make returns or to pay taxes in full .
If any taxpayer fails, neglects or refuses to make his
return as when required herein, the finance director is
authorized to determine the amount of tax payable, and by mail to
notify such taxpayer of the amount so determined. The amount s*o
fixed shall thereupon be the tax and be immediately due and
payable, together with penalty and interest . Delinquent taxes,
including any penalty, are subject to an interest charge of
twelve (12) percent per year (or one (1) percent a month) on any
unpaid balance from the date the tax payment became due, as
provided in section 3 . 18 . 030 , until paid.
Sec . 3 .18 . 060 . Overpayment of tax.
Any money paid to the city through error, or otherwise not
in payment of the tax imposed by this chapter, or in excess of
such tax, shall, upon request of the taxpayer, be credited
against any tax due or to become due from such taxpayer
hereunder, or, upon the taxpayer ceasing to do business in the
city, be refunded to the taxpayer .
Sec. 3 .18 . 070 . Appeal to hearing examiner.
Any taxpayer aggrieved by the amount of tax, interest, or
penalties determined by the finance director to be due under the
provisions of this chapter may appeal such determinations to the
city hearing examiner in accordance with, and subject to, the
provisions set forth in Kent City Code Chapter 2 . 32 . Taxpayers
shall be required to remit the amounts determined to be due under
this chapter prior to filing an appeal .
8
Sec . 3 .18 . 080 . False returns .
It is unlawful for any person subject to this chapter to
fail or refuse to pay the tax when due, or for nay person to make
any false or fraudulent application or return or any false
statement or representation in, or in connection with such
return, or to aid or abet another in any attempt to evade payment
of the tax, or any part thereof, or to testify falsely upon any
investigation of the correctness of a return upon the hearing of
an appeal or in any manner hinder or delay the city or any of its
officers in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.
Sec. 3 . 18 . 090 . Noncompliance; civil penalty.
Any person, firm or corporation subject to this chapter, who
refuses to make tax returns or to pay tax when due, or who makes
a false statement or representation in or in connection with a
utility tax return, or who otherwise violates or refuses to
comply with this chapter, is subject to a cumulative penalty in,
the amount of seventy-five dollars ($75 . 00) per day for each
violation. All penalties thereon shall constitute a debt to the
city and may be collected by court proceedings, which remedy
shall be in addition to all other remedies .
Section 2 . Limitations on Tax Rate Changes . The provisions
of this ordinance shall be subject to the tax rate change
requirements of RCW 35 . 21 . 865 for electricity, telephone and
natural gas utilities .
Section 3 . Severability. If any section, sentence, clause
or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity
or consitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance .
9
Section 4 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force on January 31, 1996 , which is more than
five (5) days from and after its publication as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED day of 1996 .
APPROVED day of 1996 .
PUBLISHED day of 1996 .
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as
hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
Utilityt.ord
10
CITY OF ��,�`_, TI 7�►�1 Irl
CITY OF KENT
STREET UTILITY FUNDING OPTIONS
1996 ESTIMATES
��11�IIh:AA'Il.ti1L /I:P.N'I',AA'\SIIWG'f(IN nglli] SRvi/"I'4:1 I�I'll(1p;P i'_Oni.vSn itllll/F4C US�a ;t i�
STREET UTILITY FUNDING OPTIONS - 1996 ESTIMATES
$Produced Comments
1. Leave Street Utility in place 1,451,449 Seek Legislative remedy
2. Repeal Utility without replacement revenues 0 Non concurrency with Comprehensive Plan
3. Repeal Utility without replacement revenues
0 Lower GMA Service level
4. Repeal Utility and substitute replacement revenue
A. 1%increase in Utility Tax
Electric 634.203 Easy implementation
Gas 140,763 Consistent revenue flows
Telephone 345,274 Not revenue neutral for individual customers
Garbage 89,000 2 months lag
Water 60,302 Meridian start up
Sewer 114,885
Drainage 45.275
1,429,702
B. Second 1/4%Real Estate Excise tax 569.144 Only requires a Council vote
Varies, dependent an property sates.
Alone is not sufficient to replace all revenues lost.
C. Business license-add head count portion Requires ordinance change
@$35.98 yearly per FTE X 40,340 1,323,152 Increases$13.18 per year per employee
Business picks up residential portion.
OR
@$22.80 yearly per FTE X 40.340 919,752 No additional ongoing burden to business
Combined with second 114 REET. 1,488,896 If combined with Real estate excise would replace
all Street Utility tax revenues.
D. City B&O tax @ .036%(36 cents/$1000) 1,451,449 +? May deter new businesses from coming to Kent
Collection&administtration would be less cost effective,
new tax would require new systems&staff to implement
requiring greater total collections
Actual rates necessary will be very difficult to determine accurately.
estimates range from.017% to.0609%
E. Property tax Lid Lift @.345/$1000 valuation 1,453,585 Requires voter approval
Assumes$4,213,288,766 assessed valuation. Not considered very likely to succeed.
F. Transportation Benefit District 1,453,585 Requires majority vote of Council subject to referendum
@ .345/$1000 valuation Impact on other junior taxing districts undetermined.
1
CCC TPXAM VA 14-Nov-95
CITY OF BET LPVUF
Tax Survey- 1995
Utility Tax Rates AV g
Storm Utilinr Cabic
Cities popularion
Warcr Scorer SJrainare Telephone Tax (l) Garbaee
Sarveved (4)1/94) Gas Electric
34,970 4.50% 4.500, 4.30% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50`50 4.500°'0 2.00%
Auburn of ° 6.00% 4.7500'0 4.50% 4.3valu
Bellevuc 99,140 4.50% 5.50% 4.50.0 4,50% 4Sll°0
Bellingham 57,020 6.00% 6.00°" 8.00% S.00% 6.00'0 6.300% 4.00°0 9.00°'0
Bremerton 35,920 6.00% 6.00% 6.000/0 01.00010
6.n0% 6.0000./0 19.00% 7.0000
31.100 5.759'0 600% 5.75010 5.7500 5.813°0
Edmonds 5.75°% 5.8509a 5-�°6
Evert¢ 78 240 5.75% 5.75°'0 6.00% 0.0040
Federal Way 73,500 $_500,0 7.900% 7.0090 7.0090
Kennewick 46,960 8.50010 8.300/0 7.00% 7.00%
Kent 41,880 3.80% 3.800/0 3.80% 3.800/0 3.9000 0 6
3.800/0 3.3009 .809/0 5.0090
ofo
Kirkland (2) 41,900 5,00% 5.00% 5.00°0 5.00% 5.00% 5.400% 7.00°'0 5.00%
Longview 33,080 6.00% 6.0Q90 7.00% 7.00°0 6.
6.009/0 00°.'0 .n09'o i.00
Lynnwood 31,680
Olympia 36,740 5.50010 5.509'0 7.00% i.00% 7.000 5.50°u 6 250°,'o 7.00°0 5.0�0
Redmond 39,390 5.50°% 5.50°%
5.5001 5J0090 6.00°0 °'
Renton 43,970 6.000/0 6.00°a 6.009'0 01.00010 6.00°!, 6.00% 6.000% 000% 6.0000
Richland 35,430 7.520'0 7 52°% 9.52% 9.52°,0
5290 8.320% K,70 6-f 2,0
Seattle 531,400 6.00% 6.00°'0 10.00% 10.00% 10.009,0 6.000'0 8.006% 10.00% 10.00%
Spokane 185,600 6.00% 6.000,0 17.00% 17.00°.'0 6,004/0 10.4000,0 1700% 5.00°5
Taco ?ma 18 800 6.00% 6.00% 8,00% 8.009/0 9.00% 6.00"0 7.000°0 3.00%
° 0i 0i 0/ 6.00% 9.800% 5.00%
Vancorrver(3) 59,225 6.000 6.00,0 1. 10 15. O,o 600°% 4?00% 10.00% 10.00%Yakima 59,740 6.00% 6.00% 14.00% 14.00°0
City Average- S. 6?6°0 5.89%
Ulitity Tax Rates 5 819'0 3=(13`/0_ - - --- -- - -- ---
(I) "Avetagc Utility Tax" represenrs an ikmveightcd average of ele-tic, gas, rv'ater, scnver, storm drainage_and Sdenhone utilin`
t:,xa for clues which charge nrility taxw-
(2) Kirtcland's residential rates are listed in the chart above. Kirkland's commercial,rate is 691&for gas, electric.telephone, and
cablc, and 6.5%for garbaee. %vater, and sewer.
(3) Vancotrver's gas ntiliry tax rate is 6%for the first S2000 of gross receipts per arSromer per month and then 125i lnon��
additional rmss receipts. Tire electric utility tax rate is 6%for the first S2 000 of gross recripts per cusmn cr N
and then "_°0 for any additional gross receipts. Storm drainagcutilin'tax is S1 .On anmtally.
2
.ITY OF KE1TI
'TIILITY TAX DATA
1996 ESTIMATED 3.50t 0.30% 3.00;
UTILITY TAX: 001 113 140 170 TOTAL
_____________________________
ELECTRIC 2,219,709 190,261 2.409,910
GAS
492,671 42,229 534,900
TELEPHONE 1,208,460 103,582 1,312,042
GARBAGE 311,501 26,100 261,001 605,202
HATER 211,057 18.091 229,148
SEWER 402,096 34,465 436,561
DRAINP.GE
158,461 13,582 172.043 -
---------------------
----------------------------
TOTAL. UTIL TAX 5,003,955 0 428,910 267,001 5,699,866
1996 ESTIMATED 4.502 '0 30% 3.004
ITTILITY TAX: 001 113 140 110 TOTAL
______________________________________________________________________
ELECTRIC 2,853,912 190.261 3,044,173
GAS 633,434 42,229 675,663
TELEPHONE 1,553,734 103,582 1,657,316
GARBAGE 400,501 26,700 267,001 694,202
HATER 271,359 18,091 289,450
SEWER 516,981 34,465 551,446
DRAINAGE 203,736 13,582 211,318
_________________________________________________
TOTAL UTIL TAX 6,433,656 0 428,910 267,001 7,129,567
DIFFERENCE 1,429,701 0 101 0 1.429,701
3
Sample Utility Tax Increase Comparison
Effect on Residential Consumers
Monthly Annual 1% additional 1% additional
Billing Billing Utility tax Utility Tax
Annual Monthly
SMALLER HOME
Electric/Natural Gas
85.00 1,020.00 10.20 0.85
Phone
50.00 600.00 6.00 0.50
Garbage
15.00 180.00 1.80 0.15
Water 20.00 240.00 2.40 0.20
Sewer 25.00 300.00 3.00 0.25
Drainage
4.38 52.56 0.53 0.04
199.38 2,392.56 23.93 1.99
Street Utility @ $1.90 / month (22.80) (1.90)
Net Annual Impact To Residential Consumers 1.13 0.09
LARGER HOME AND LAWN
Electric/Natural Gas 168.00 2,016.00 20.16 1.68
Phone 75.00 900.00 9.00 0.75
Garbage 15.00 180.00 1.80 0.15
Water 40.00 480.00 4.80 0.40
Sewer 25.00 300.00 3.00 0.25
Drainage 4.38 52.56 0.53 0.04
327.38 3.928.56 39.29 3.27
Street Utility @ $1.90 / month (22.80) (1.90)
Net Annual impact To Residential Consumers 16.49 1.37
CCC TAXALT3.WB1 27-Dec-95 4
City of Kent
Sample Utility Tax Increase Comparison YEARLY MONTHLY
Yearly Effect On Commercial Consumers
STREET 1% DIFFERENC DIFFERENCE
UTILITY INCREASE INCREASE INCREASE
TYPE OF BUSINESS FTE'S COSTS UTILTAX (DECREASE (DECREASE)
Very Large Manufacturer 966 22,018 20,000 (2,018) (168.17)
Large Manufacturer 300 6,840 3,900 (2,940) (245.00)
Medium Manufacturer 30 684 3,800 3,116 259.67
Medium Warehouse 45 1,026 690 (336) (28.00)
Small Retail 3 68 115 47 3.88
Small Restaurant 9 210 191 (19) (1 .58)
Large Retirement Home 94/units Exempt 6/unit 6 0.50
Common area
Large Retirement Home 1/unit Exempt ' 16 16 1.33
Individual Elec/Phone
5
Date : April 19, 1994
To: May Miller, Finance Director
From: Jim Huntington CPA, Field Auditor
Subject : Additional 1/4 percent real estate excise tax.
During the 1992 legislative session substantial amendments were
made to the Revised Code of Washington making available to certain
cities planning under the Growth Management Act an additional 1/4
of one percent real estate excise tax. This tax is enacted by a
simple majority vote of the council . This tax must be used solely
for financing capital projects specified in a capital facilities
plan element of a comprehensive plan.
The monies collected can be used for planning, acquisition,
construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation
or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and
road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water
systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning,
construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or
improvement of parks .
In 1993 $464 , 909 was collected from the 1/4 of one percent real
estate excise tax currently authorized. An additional 1/4 of one
percent would add an additional $500 , 000 per the 1994 budget .
Following is the status of local cities regarding adding the
additional 1/4 percent real estate excise tax:
CITY Additional 1/4o tax
Auburn Yes
Renton Yes
Tukwila No
Normandy Park No Passed 7/93 Repealed 4/94
Seattle Yes
Des Moines Yes
SeaTac No
Mercer Island Yes
Kirkland No
Federal Way Yes
Attached for your convience is a sample ordinance provided to us by
Municipal Research.
6
Potential B&o tax rate estimates IJased on various ratios
Estimate based on ratio of statewide Retail taxable to 8&0 taxable sales.
Utility tax to replace 1,451.449
397,94T
Kent 1996 sales tax 14, =
Effective net rate to Kent
0.8415410
Projected Kent total retail sales taxable 1,710,985,938
Kent's estimated share of state 8&0 tax
Projected Kent fora( retail sales taxable
1,710,985.938
Statewide Income subject to retail sales tax (94) 60,586,293,940
Kents share of state's B&O sales = - 294,502,000,000 X 2.82d% = 8,316.877,130
iarget Revenue 1,451,419 0.01 i°o E_imateo nece-ssarr rate
Kent's share of state's B&O sales 8,316.877,430
Note that the City probably does not have the same rado of taxable sales as the State. =. nioner nano of B&O taxao(e sal
would reduce the-necessary rate to accomplish funding replacement.
Estimate based on ratio of assessed valuation
Kent Assessed Valuation (94) 3,911.041,170 1.3==`.�
State Assessed Valuation (94) 287,885,000,000
Kents share of state 's B&O sales = 294,502,000.000 X 1.35 95 = 4.000.935,952
Target Revenue 1.451,449 0.036% Estlmareo necessaryv rate
Kent's share of State 's B&O sales 4,000,935,952
Estimate based on ratio of population
Kent's Population 4-1-95 44, 29 0 81-°S
State PnnUlatinn
Kent's share of state 's B?.O sales = 29•;,502.000,000 ;< O.q1-95 .406.041.-1,-1
Target Revenue t,d51,449 0.063% Estimated necessary ?Mate
Kenrs.share of state's B&O sales 2,406,041,474
7
CCC TAXALT.Wrl1 14-Nov-95
CITY OF KENT November 30, 1995
CURRENT BUDGET ANALYSIS AND FORECAST
STREET FUND
1995 Estimated 1996 Meridian 1996
Adj Bud Actual Forecast Annexation Recommend
REVENUES
Intergovernmental Revenue:
684, 883 653, 852 198,052 851, 904
Fuel Tax - Unrestricted 1111 712,012
Fuel Tax - Restricted 1120 332,635 330,876 305,691 92, 594 398,285
Motor Vehicle Registration Fee 350,178 362, 806 350, 178 105, 541 455,719
Street Utility Revenue 1,346, 907 1,377,587 1,346,907 007, 248 1, 007, 248 �'
125,192 1, 007,248 1,007,248
Property Tax - Annexed Streets 48,000
Interest Income 40,000 86,457 48,000
TOTAL REVENUES
2,781,732 2, 967,801 2,704,628 1,507, 977 4, 212,605
EXPENDITURES (TRANSFERS) 41, 847
Debt Service 41,851 , 41,847
Street Utility Operations 297,598 297, 598 98 307,586 21, 172 324,635
Street Projects:
Corridor Improvement Fund 2, 035,000 2,035,000 1,768,000 100,211 1, 344, 211
Asphalt Overlays 267,986 267,986 244,000 105, 000 325,000
Neighborhood Traffic Control 20,000 20, 000 5, 000 49,000
Downtown In-City Transit (Demo) 30, 000 30,000 49, 000
•• Russell/ W Meeker Signal 168,000 168,000
Prager Rd Guardrail 7,222 7,222
4th Ave/James Improvements
20,000 20, 000 192,000
Pavement Markings 100, 000 1n0,000
100,000 100,000 300,000
Bike Paths 300,000
Sidewalk Rehabilitation 300,000 300,000
200
Other Street Projects (30,222) (30,222) 978,483 978,483
Transfer - Street Maintenance 978,483 978,483
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,357,43S 3, 357,435 2,361,433 1,423, 608 4,441, 919
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (575,703) (389, 634) 343, 195 B4,369 (229,313)
Unrestricted 9, 508 181, 981 81,657 81, 657
Restricted 216,411 226, 965
Street Utility 367,796 505, 363 417, 804 417,804
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 595,715 914,309 499,461 499,461
ENDING FUND BALANCE
Unrestricted (135,317) 135, 219 449,662 80,873
Restricted 62,046 90,652 313,691 21,480
Street Utility 93 ,283 298, 804 79, 303 167, 795
ENDING FUND BALANCE 20, 012 524, 675 842, 656 84, 369 270, 148
Variance from Preliminary Budget 25,214
* 1996 Projects are itemized in the Capital Facilities Plan.
8
CCC 11011.PIQ2 19-Dec-95
iU�
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . city Council Action:
Councilmember �(,:k-l� moves, Councilmember_
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through E be approved.
Discussion
7; (o
Action '`
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the Special Council meeting of
December 13 , 1995.
3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through November 30
and December 15 and paid on November 30 and December 15 after
auditing by the Operations Committee on December 27, 1995.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
11/30/95 162182-162756 $2 , 392,419.47
12/15/95 162757-163226 2 , 473, 045. 38
Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 16 through
November 30 and paid on December 5, 1995; and approval of
checks issued for payroll for December 1 through December 15
and paid on December 20, 1995.
Date Check Numbers Amount
12/5/95 Checks 207772-208145 $313 ,202 .70
Advices 29528-30010 593 , 116.29
$906, 318.99
12/20/95 Checks 208146-208455 $264, 658.47
Advices 30011-30425 540,435.36
$805, 093 .83
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
KENT CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
December 13 , 1995
A special meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
5: 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Present: Councilmembers Clark, Mann,
Orr and Woods, City Attorney Lubovich, Finance Division Director
Miller, and Richard King of Lehman Brothers.
Water Revenue Refunding Bonds. At their November 22 , 1995,
meeting,- the Operations Committee recommended adoption of an
ordinance for the refunding of all outstanding water system
revenue bonds. Today's positive interest rates will provide a
savings total of approximately $469 , 000 or 6. 8 percent of the
refunded principal which amortizes to approximately $90, 000
annually in debt service savings for the next nine years.
Authorization in requested for the Mayor to sign the Refunding
Trust Agreement and Refunding Bond Purchase Agreement.
Finance Division Director Miller noted that these interest rates
are the lowest of any bond issue, and that the savings is close
to $100, 000 a year. She noted that this also restructures the
ordinance, allows more flexibility in financing, and helps set up
for future projects. She added that a significant amount of
money was saved by refunding all the issues.
Richard King of Lehman Brothers explained that both Moody's and
Standard and Poor's confirmed the City's A ratings on the water
system. He agreed that this will provide flexibility, and said
that there will be increasing cooperation regionally in the
delivery transmission of water and that this new ordinance will
help. King noted that the market has been quite strong and the
30-year Treasury has gotten down to just above 6%.
WWODS MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3258 relating to the refunding
of all water revenue bonds and authorizing the Mayor to sign the
Refund Trust Agreement and Water Revenue Bond Purchase Agreement.
Mann seconded and the motion carried.
The meeting then adjourned at 5: 05 p.m.
Brenda Jaco er, CMC
City Clerk
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 . 1996
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 100th Avenue Extension & SE 244th Street Temporary
Closure
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This motion authorizes the temporary
closure of SE 244th Street between 104th Avenue SE & 100th
Avenue SE for a duration of 18 months, as recommended by the
Public Works Committee at their October 23rd meeting and
reaffirmed at their December 14th meeting. Further, it
will authorize the adoption of Alternative 'A' as the planned
road network for the neighborhood, subject to including within
the opening of 100th Avenue SE between SE 242nd Street and SE
244th Street, specific traffic restrictor provisions such as
speed humps, chokers, etc. as part of the improvement so as to
prevent high speed and unnecessary pass through traffic
thereon, as recommended by the Public Works Committee.
Finally, it will acknowledge that upon the end of the 18 month
closure period, SE 244th Street will be reopened as per the
adopted road network (Alternate 'A' )
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director Memorandum (12/11/95) , Public
Works Minutes (10/23/95) , Public Works Minutes (12/14/95) ,
Alternate 'A' Map, List of Resident Attendees (12/14/95)
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(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. 3C
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
December 11, 1995
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Neighborhood Traffic Concerns
100th Ave. Southeast & Southeast 244th St.
This issue was originally discussed at the June 26 Public Works Committee (a copy of
the Public Worlcs Committee minutes is attached, as well as my earlier memo ). No
action was taken then and the issue was deferred to the July 1 Oth meeting.
At the Public Works Committee meeting last month, staff was requested to prepare a
detailed traffic study. We were requested to evaluate the impacts of various circulation
alternatives to mitigate the safety, emergency vehicle access, and cut-through-traffic
issues associated with the citizens' request to not construct the missing segment of 100th
Avenue Southeast, and to close the recently opened portion of Southeast 244th Street.
We have prepared these analyses, and have evaluated the consequences of the various
- neighborhood circulation alternatives.
As stated previously, the City is not pursuing on its own the construction of either of
these two streets (SE 244th St. or 100th Ave SE). They have been, and will continue to
be, constructed as a condition of development of the adjacent property.
Both 100th Avenue Southeast, between Southeast 240th Street and Southeast 248th
Street, and Southeast 244th Street between 100th Avenue Southeast and 104th Avenue
Southeast, have long been planned to be built. Much of the right-of-way for these two
roadways was deeded to King County almost 90 years ago, in 1905, and granted to the
City when this area was annexed.
This issue has been prompted by the development of the 'Top of the Hill' subdivision.
(see attached map for plat location) A plat condition thereof required the improvement
of S.E. 244th St. that opened S.E. 244th St. between 100th Ave S.E. and 104th Ave
S.E.. An additional condition required the construction of a pedestrian path along 100th
Ave S.E. right-of-way from 244th St. to East Hill Elementary School. The residents of
the Canterbury/ Eastwood neighborhoods saw the construction activity on both 100th
1
NORTH
SCALE: I"=500'
........................................ ..........i
JgA.ES ST-_—JL----'-J���
. ..... r S.E. 240TH. ST, .... (77
P. EAST HILL
E LE M E
w ................
> ...............
5 T S T
.......... a:
.......
FRED MEYER
5 .... ............ .....5 242N0 ST . ...... T.— ...........
......
5 242NO 'CT
a-
(S. 243A TOP OF
THE H I
SE 244TH ST
SE
.. w 245TH�T = uj —77.
S.E.'245TH P L:'.- >I E Lo —
EASTWOtlD— >
245TH PL C=
C.-,.-NfTERBU-RY ...
;> S.E. 246TH. ST. 246TH PL
cr
7.
SE
�7gE
2147TH PL
....... 2q7TH CT .......
> .... ....... ------
S. 248TH�.,.,ST.
;J
cr ------
..........
...........
... ........... .....
..........
C�-—JAM-;
.yt .. ... ....
...........
...........
:'7 ......
S. 252NO. ST.—:
Ave S.E. and S.E. 244th St. and assumed that both roads were being opened to traffic.
Consequently, they became alarmed -- raising issues of lack of proper public notice,
safety to school-age pedestrians, 'cut-through' traffic, and increased traffic accident
potential.
The 'Top of the Hill' subdivision was the subject for numerous public notifications and
public hearings. It went through environmental review [ SEPA ] in September of 1993,
at which time a notice was published both on the site and in the local newspaper.
Further, the project went through a rezone in which both a notice board was posted on
the site, and a public notice printed in the Valley Daily News newspaper on January 21,
1994 and March 8, 1994. Individual property owners within a 200-foot radius were also
notified thereof, and two public hearings were held. Lastly, it went through the platting
process wherein again, both a notice was published ( published in newspapers July 22,
1994, on the site and individual property owners within a 300-foot radius were notified
thereof ) and a public hearing was held.
During this public-notice process, we did not receive any citizen input on this present
issue. Staff reviewed who actually received the individual public notices for the rezone
and the platting process, and determined that the affected properties within the
Canterbury neighborhood were properly notified. The owner listed on the tax rolls at
the time however, was the Chaffee Corporation, the developer of the Eastwood and
Canterbury plats. This explains, in part, why the present owners within the
neighborhood were not involved. However, the developer was aware of the 'Top of the
Hill' subdivision, and the proposed environmental mitigation measures, and obviously
failed to advise the prospective buyers of the Canterbury/ Eastwood plats thereof.
Since the June Committee meeting, the developer of the 'Top of the Hill' subdivision has
completed the improvements on S.E. 244th St.. The street is now open between 100th
Ave S.E. and 104th Ave S.E.. In the time since this has occurred, the City's
transportation engineering staff has performed several traffic studies in this
neighborhood: traffic volumes, accident histories, and prevailing travel speeds on the
local roadways.
I want to remind the Committee that 100th Ave. S.E. itself is designated in the City's
Comprehensive Transportation Plan as a Residential Collector Arterial. As such, its
primary purpose is to provide through access between S.E. 248th Street [ which is
similarly classified as a Residential Collector Arterial ] and James Street/ S.E. 240th
[ which is classified as a Minor Arterial ].
2
100th Avenue Southeast was designed and built as a collector arterial in the
development of the Canterbury, Canterbury Place and Eastwood Subdivisions. In
accordance with this purpose, no homes therein were, or are, allowed to have direct
driveway access onto this roadway. This was deliberately done to prevent the very traffic
safety concerns expressed by the Canterbury/ Eastwood residents.
I would further point out that this area is designated under the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan for high density (8 units per acre or 5,000 sq. ft. lots) single family
development. The 'Top of the Hill' plat was recently rezoned to such 5,000 sq. ft. lot
designation. An adequate road system is absolutely critical to serve such land use
densities. To do otherwise unnecessarily burdens other neighborhood streets, such as
98th Avenue South. It also forces additional traffic on to already-congested arterials and
intersections -- decreasing the safety of drivers and pedestrians, and, encourages the very
'cut-through' traffic that the residents are concerned about.
There is no evidence that the opening of S.E. 244th St. may have resulted in
significantly more non-local traffic through the Canterbury/ Eastwood neighborhoods.
The majority of the traffic is generated from the existing neighborhood.
In the future, with the development of the adjacent vacant land, traffic volumes will
continue to increase along 100th Ave. S.E.. Once the link to S.E. 240th St. is completed,
it will be no different from many other urban residential collector'through' streets in the
area. Jason Street, for example, which provides a direct connection between Canyon
Drive/E. Smith Street and James Street/ S.E. 240th Street, has a total daily traffic
volume of 1700 vehicles per day and it has homes that have direct access onto the street.
Woodland Way, near South 262nd Street, carries more than 3100 vehicles per day, and
similar to Jason Street, has homes that have direct access onto the street. Woodland
Way, further, provides direct access to the Scenic Hill Elementary School -- in a virtually
identical manner as 100th Avenue Southeast provides direct access to Kent East Hill
Elementary School. Furthermore, the travel speeds upon Woodland Way are higher than
either exist upon 100th Avenue Southeast, currently, or are reasonable to expect in the
future.
Neither Jason Avenue nor Woodland Way has a significant accident history. There have
been only 4 accidents upon Woodland Way over the past three years. Of these four, two
were run-off-road-type accidents due to the lack of proper roadway shoulders, in general,
and the curve at Tilden Avenue in particular. None of these involved pedestrians, in
spite of the lack of sidewalks or improved road shoulders combined with the heavy
volume of school-age pedestrian traffic.
3
Even when 100th Avenue Southeast is completed, the route that it provides is so
circuitous that there is nothing to indicate that the 'cut-through' traffic volumes on
100th Ave S.E. -- even with the proximity of the Fred Meyer Store -- would approach
the current level of those upon either Jason Street or Woodland Way. The speed of
traffic can be restricted by means of roadway'chokers' should the prevailing travel speeds
increase beyond 35 MPH.
There is no credible evidence to suggest that the opening of 100th Avenue Southeast will
create a significant safety problem to school-age pedestrians. The peak period for school-
age pedestrians is in the early/ mid afternoon -- generally in the 2:30 to 3:30 PM time
frame. The traffic generated by the adjacent residential development peaks, on a typical
day, in the time period from 4:45 to 5:45 PM -- based upon our studies of the area.
Peale hour flows generated by the adjacent commercial land uses -- the Fred Meyer
Department store, for example -- similarly, peak during the period when school-age
pedestrian volumes are at among their lowest volumes. Further, 100th Avenue Southeast
already has concrete curbs and gutters, and raised concrete sidewalks, along the entire
existing improved portion of roadway, and the future unconstructed segment will
similarly have full-width concrete sidewalks separated from the roadway surface.
The prevailing traffic speeds along 100th Ave S.E., after Southeast 244th Street was
opened up to through traffic, range between about 28 and 29 miles per hour. Over a
one-week period a total of 1700 vehicles used 100th Ave. S.E. ( 243 vehicles per day,
or and average of 16 vehicles per hour between 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M.) Of those
1700 vehicles, only 4 vehicles were traveling faster than 35 miles per hours (35 miles per
hour is the lowest speed at which the Kent Police Department would normally issue
speeding citations to drivers ).
The volume of traffic after S.E. 244th Street was opened to through traffic, is at a level
consistent with the number of homes along 100th Avenue Southeast. This indicates
that there is no measurable diversion of non-local traffic. In fact, there has been evidence
provided that residents from within the neighborhood are using the recently opened
portion of Southeast 244th Street to drive to and from their homes.
Staff has prepared an inventory of the existing roadway conditions, and a detailed traffic
analysis of the surrounding area based upon full development of the properties
surrounding the Canterbury/ Eastwood/ Canterbury Place neighborhoods -- the area
bounded by 96th Avenue South, Southeast 240th Street, Southeast 248th Street, and
104th Avenue Southeast.
Our analysis is based upon full development of the area under its current Comprehensive
Land Use designations. The trip generation was determined by using nationally-
recognized standards for trip generation characteristics for both single-family and multi-
4
family residential development. Trip distribution onto the City's roadway system was
based upon computer forecasts recently utilized for our Comprehensive Transportation
Plan. 'Pass-through' traffic from the multi-family residences to the south of Southeast
248th Street was factored into the trip analysis. In addition, recent changes to the single-
family residence development standards have been factored into the analysis. The
number of developable lots within any given subdivision will be significantly increased
by these changes.
The following four roadway circulation schemes were evaluated:
Alternative A - this represents the longstanding proposed [ and the one by which
the impacts of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan were evaluated ]
roadway system. Under this alternative, the currently unimproved portion of
100th Avenue Southeast would be improved.
Alternative B - an extension of the 'northerly' section of 100th Avenue westerly
toward -- and connecting with -- 98th Avenue South, along the alignment of
South 244th Street.
Alternative C - an extension of Southeast 244th Street from 100th Avenue
Southeast to 98th Avenue South. In this alternative, 100th Avenue Southeast
would be cul-de-sailed at approximately Southeast 242nd Street and, on the
north, at approximately the 24300 block.
Alternative D - this alternative reflects the current system pattern, except that
Southeast 244th Street would be closed, and turnarounds [ cul-de-sac 'bulbs' ]
would be constructed at the easterly end of the 10100 block, and in the other
direction, in front of the drainage tract for the 'Top of the Hill' subdivision. As
with Alternative C, 100th Avenue Southeast would be cul-de-sac'ed at
approximately Southeast 242nd Street and, on the north, at approximately the
24300 block.
Each of these alternatives, except 'D', would retain the recent improvement to Southeast
244th Street.
As can be expected, the Canterbury/ Eastwood residents' request to not improve 100th
Avenue Southeast has its most significant impacts upon 98th Avenue South and
Southeast 246th Street. Current traffic volumes along 98th Avenue South would more
than double from roughly 1100 vehicles per day to nearly 2800, under Alternative D
[ that requested by the residents along 100th Avenue Southeast ]. Under Alternative C,
the existing traffic volumes would nearly triple.
5
w
{— c0 N O a o C 0 0 (p O o M M
W J MOO MO) -. rr M O � cO M D
¢ In r 0 M O N M
> LL r Cl) 'd' O (C) CA r 0 N O N V' M ¢ w
N N N T r N M T T r T M ` a'
F- z
U z
z
Q w w wo
�. Q m O � O 00 LOLO00 (p0 OOP C) U)
ON N N Cl)Lo co (O V co N ((7 Q LU
ULi
LL Q o 0 0 o 0 0 o
Q J (O (M O M0) Cl) r C) Q) 000
Li ¢ V Cl) OO Lr) (p t0 (DON a) ON_ N (0
O NN N V' r NM V MN N
F- Q
W
w
N Q ? CD
OMN Lo � (M � Oo co � O LO � V'
LO
O > a)
r
U
in ¢ o 0 � � � � � o o � o e N
T COM O a o 0 0 o 01 p o T O
Q W J M O 00 (O 00 M M O O
¢ N N O M U-) U-) O
a V N N LO CO N N M N O
Q OT T T T N T N W
O tW w- 0
-1 0Q � Loo � o0 (pn0 CD((D BLOC) o F-
L O T T T T r N N N (D V r r M Z
Cf) > E2
W Q \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � Jw d.
= Q o 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 ( 0 o a F-
H O p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U)
J O O O O O O O O O O O O O
w li ¢ 666 C) o6Oo 0 006 an' >"
> a o00 00000 0 000 02U)
O
Z � O
Lu W W > J
Q ? MOO V Nm co co
OM M OOO (00aa
Z O T T T Cl) N T T . V) N r r a
U
w > ¢
a� m m > Y m r m L w w
Q 1) a)(D H 3 0 0 o M � � �, � U)
F m m o o m
= cn (n (n m > U) U)) d cn y ta) C � a, v>
L Z L w 'co = mow (n = '�' � aa) aci •�"
r W `t" c C: � -0Nv 'nM > >C'4 to N
O Ur O V V N (7 N N N N G'IT IT O +_.. a7 Q Q v N
O � LrL_ owLUw a ¢ a ¢ o � � ¢
r a = = 7a CU) (n NL N : p � NL
1' O O � a7 d O 0 O y (D HM TT yc0
> O Q a am 0 a) o m m o
O 0
Q L c c c � 0
O coo c 0 0 0
a' Of ♦- V) (n (n
The traffic volumes along 98th Avenue South, under Alternative C would very nearly be
more than twice the maximum volume that would normally be allowed on a roadway of
its current planned-for classification. The level-of-service along 98th Avenue South
would degrade from LOS 'D' -- the level of service that we design for -- to 'F' under either
of these two alternatives.
From the perspective of overall traffic volumes and levels-of-service, the two most
impactive alternatives are Alternatives C and D. Alternative B also negatively impacts
the existing residences along 98th Avenue South, but to a lesser extent than C or D.
Southeast 246th Street 94th Avenue South and South 242nd Street
Additional impacts, would also occur on Southeast 246th Street, South 242nd Street
and 94th Avenue South under these alternatives.
Under Alternative A, that which reflects the current plan of circulation in the area, traffic
volumes would remain much the same, but increasing slightly, on 94th Avenue South
and South 242nd Street. Traffic volumes on Southeast 246th Street, between 98th
Avenue South and 100th Avenue Southeast, would decrease from 280 trips per day to
an estimated 150 daily trips.
The current traffic volumes along Southeast 246th Street would more than double from
roughly 280 vehicles per day to nearly 500, under Alternative D [ that requested by the
residents along 100th Avenue Southeast ]. Under Alternative C, the existing traffic
volumes would increase by nearly 50%. Compared to Alternative A, however, the
Alternative C traffic volumes on Southeast 246th Street would be more than doubled.
Under Alternative D, as compared with the longstanding plan, the volumes would more
than triple.
Based upon of the existing traffic volumes, the level-of-service along South 242nd Street
would reach LOS V. Currently, the level-of-service is estimated to be at LOS 'B'. 94th
Avenue South is currently at LOS 'F'. Even with full improvement, the segment of 94th
Avenue South between South 248th Street and James Street would be at LOS 'C' under
today's traffic volumes. Under Altematives 'B', 'C', or'D', the levels-of-service will degrade
to LOS 'D'.
Again, from the perspective of overall traffic volumes and levels-of-service, the two most
impactive alternatives are C and D. Alternative B also negatively impacts the existing
residences along these roadways, but to a lesser extent than either Alternative C or D.
6
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation of the direct and attributable impacts to the request to close 100th Avenue
Southeast would include the following:
► Widen 98th Avenue South to the City's Standard for a Residential Collector
Street, with asphalt shoulders for pedestrians. Install a traffic signal at 98th
Avenue South/ James Street.
Construction Cost: $575,000
Right-of-way acquisition: $350,000
Associated Costs: $150,000
Signal Costs: $150,000
SUBTOTAL: $1.2 Million
► Improve the intersections of 94th Avenue South at South 248th Street and South
242nd Street, to improve sight distance, and increase capacity.
Construction Costs: $300,000
Right-of-way acquisition $100,000
SUBTOTAL: $0.4 Million
The estimated cost to mitigate the closure of 100th Avenue Southeast, under Alternative
C, is at least $1.6 Million.
Under Alternatives B and D, further improvements would be required.
► Install a traffic signal system at the intersection of 104th Avenue Southeast/
Southeast 244th Street.
Signal Costs $180,000.
Under Alternative D, Southeast 244th Street would likely need to be improved between
104th Avenue S.E. and the approximate alignment of 102nd Place S.E.
There are some very serious concerns about the potential requirement to install traffic
signals at either of these two locations [ 98th Avenue South/James Street and Southeast
244th Street/ 104th Avenue Southeast ].
First, it is our opinion that this will encourage the diversion of through traffic into the
neighborhoods, as drivers attempt to avoid the wait through multiple signal timing
7
cycles. Second, the vertical alignment of James Street, west of 98th Avenue, is such that
there is a significantly increased probability of rear-end-type accidents for eastbound
traffic. Lastly, there is the attendant construction and right-of-way acquisition costs to
widen James Street to provide a left-turn pocket to avoid the long traffic delays, and
increased number of rear-end-type accidents which would be created by a signalization
of the existing roadway configuration.
The associated cost to widen James Street/ Southeast 240th Street has not been precisely
determined, but is preliminarily estimated at approximately $500,000 for construction,
and another $200,000 to $300,000 for right-of-way acquisition.
The total estimated cost to mitigate the closure scheme requested by the residents of the
Canterbury/ Eastwood/ Canterbury Place neighborhood -- Alternative D -- is $2.6
Million. The estimated cost for Alternative B would be $2.3 Million.
The estimated cost to the City and/or the nearby property owners for Alternative A--the
present roadway system plan -- is $0.
We would note that these estimates do not include the costs that would be a condition
of subdivision approval, and paid for by the property's developer. The construction the
various new roadway segments -- Southeast 244th Street, between 98th Avenue and
100th Avenue Southeast, in Alternatives B and C, for example; the construction of the
cul-de-sac turnarounds on 100th Avenue Southeast in Alternatives C and D, for another
example -- would be required at the time of subdivision of the adjacent properties. The
cost, again, would be paid for by the subdivider -- and thence, transferred to the
purchasers of these new homes through higher home prices.
There are no outside -- State or Federal -- funding sources available for this
improvement. The entire financial burden, therefore, would have to borne by the City
and/or the property owners south of James Street/ Southeast 240th Street .
In summary, the impacts of the various Alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 'A':
Minor increases of traffic volumes along 98th Avenue South, but well within the
design capacity for its classification. May require widening.
Significant increases along 100th Avenue Southeast, but well within the design
capacity for its classification. Requires construction of the planned-for segment
between Southeast 244th Street and the 24200 block.
8
Minor increases of traffic volumes on South 242nd Street, but well within the
design capacity for its classification and state of improvement.
Minor increases of traffic volumes on 94th Avenue South, well within the design
capacity for its classification. But this continues the current situation of traffic
volumes exceeding the design capacity for the roadway's current state of
improvement.
Alternative 'B':
Requires construction of the extension of 100th Avenue Southeast south, and west along
the alignment of Southeast 244th Street, to 98th Avenue South [ subdivision
improvement ]. Also requires the installation of traffic signalization systems at 98th
Avenue/ James Street and Southeast 244th/ Benson.
Significant increases of traffic volumes along 98th Avenue South but well within
the design capacity for its classification, although not for its current state of
improvement. Requires widening of the roadway.
Negligible increases along 100th Avenue Southeast, but well within the design
capacity for its classification.
Minor increases of traffic volumes on South 242nd Street, but within the design
capacity for its classification and state of improvement. May require
improvements at the intersection of South 242nd Street/ 94th Avenue South.
Minor increases of traffic volumes on 94th Avenue South, well within the design
capacity for its classification, but continuing the current situation of traffic
volumes exceeding the design capacity for its current state of improvement.
Minor increase of traffic volumes on Southeast 246th Street, between 98th
Avenue South and 100th Avenue Southeast.
Alternative 'C':
Requires construction of the extension of Southeast 244th Street westerly to 98th
Avenue South, and also cul-de-sac 'turnarounds' on 100th Avenue Southeast
[ subdivision improvement ].
Significant increases of traffic volumes along 98th Avenue South but within the
design capacity for its classification, although not for its current state of
improvement. Requires widening of the roadway.
Substantial increases of traffic volumes along 100th Avenue Southeast, but well
within the design capacity for its classification and current state of improvement.
9
Minor increases of traffic volumes on South 242nd Street, but within the design
capacity for its classification and state of improvement. May require
improvements at the intersection of South 242nd Street/ 94th Avenue South.
Minor increases of traffic volumes on 94th Avenue South, well within the design
capacity for its classification, but continuing the current situation of traffic
volumes exceeding the design capacity for its current state of improvement. May
require improvements at the intersection of South 248th Street/ 94th Avenue
South.
Minor increase of traffic volumes on Southeast 246th Street, between 98th
Avenue South and 100th Avenue Southeast.
Alternative 'D' [ requested by Canterbury/ Eastwood residents ]:
Requires improvements noted above, including signal systems at 98th/James and 244th/
Benson. Also requires construction of the cul-de-sac 'turnarounds' on 100th Avenue
Southeast, and the widening of Southeast 244th Street east of the Top of the Hill plat
[ subdivision improvement ].
Significant increases of traffic volumes along 98th Avenue South exceeding the
design capacity for its current state of improvement and its classification.
Requires widening of the roadway.
Minor increases of traffic volumes along 100th Avenue Southeast, though well
within the capacity for its current state of improvement and classification
Minor increases of traffic volumes on South 242nd Street, but near the design
capacity for its classification and state of improvement. May require
improvements at the intersection of South 242nd Street/ 94th Avenue South.
Minor increases of traffic volumes on 94th Avenue South, exceeding the design
capacity for its classification, and continuing the current situation of traffic
volumes exceeding the design capacity for its current state of improvement. May
require improvements at the intersection of South 248th Street/ 94th Avenue
South.
Significant increase of traffic volumes on Southeast 246th Street, between 98th
Avenue South and 100th Avenue Southeast. Volumes would be remain within the
capacity for its current state of improvement and classification.
10
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 23, 1995
PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker
Tim Clark Gary Gill
Don Wickstrom Ed White
Neighborhood Representatives along I00th &z 244th
ABSENT: Jim Bennett
Neighborhood Traffic Concerns - 100th Ave &z 244th St
Wickstrom stated that this item has been brought back to Committee from the June
26th meeting. He stated that the issue is - the neighborhood became concerned when
they noticed that construction activity had begun on S. 244th & 100th Ave per the
development of the Top of the Hill plat. The community believed that both roads
would be opened and with that, there would be a significant traffic impact. Since the
June 26th meeting, 244th is now opened; Top of the Hill has completed their
improvements but have not finalized their plat. Wickstrom said that 100th Ave was
going to be a gravel trail from 244th to East Hill Elementary School to allow a walking
area for school children. He further stated that staff has conducted traffic studies since
244th has been opened; our traffic analysts took a one-week count and over that period
of time, they counted a total of 1700 vehicles using 100th Ave. which equates to 243
vehicles per day. Of those 1700 vehicles, they observed 4 vehicles traveling over 35
mph. which is the lowest speed the police will site vehicles. Wickstrom said this area is
high density, single family residential with high density being 5,000 sq ft lots which is
what it is ultimately zoned for. Top of the Hill went thru a rezone and that plat is 5,000
sq ft lots. 100th Ave was tied between 240th and 248th Streets and was designed as a
residential collector arterial, tying 240th to 248th together, primarily servicing just the
neighborhood in the area. When you speak of ultimate development, with that kind of
zoning they will be needing other roads of access out of the area.
Wickstrom further explained that with those traffic counts, we looked at our adopted
Neighborhood Traffic Control Plan to see how that criteria would fit with respect to
1
what we could do under those criterias to help resolve the problem. Under that Plan,
they did not even meet some of the basic criteria. He stated that under our program,
there needs to be at least 300 vehicles per day on the street, and this is not met in this
instance. The 85 percentile speed must be greater than 35 mph and this also is not met.
There are also threshold levels which we did not have. There are site distances and
horizontal problems (i.e. physical barriers) to control traffic and closing off 244th would
essentially be construed as a physical barrier. If 244th were to be closed in this
neighborhood, than the criteria that has been established under the Neighborhood
Traffic Control Plan should be met. Wickstrom said that's what we looked at. We
looked at additional signing and there was one point in the vicinity of 244th at l 00th
where additional speed signs could be installed. Basically, because of.the need for these
roads, due to the high density zoning, Public Works does not support closing off 244th.
We recommend installing additional speed limit signs; we also recommend that.once Top
of the Hill is developed with additional homes, take another traffic study to see if it
meets the minimum criteria so some action could be taken such as "chockers". This
means narrowing the road down to a minimum of two lanes access. That would take
curb, gutter and certain types of improvements. Wickstrom said that Public Works also
recommends that future developments on either 100th or 244th be conditioned to build
these "chockers" where they meet the horizontal and vertical alignment - where there are
no site distance problems and where no safety issues exists. Wickstrom stated that this
is our recommendation on the issue.
In response to Mann, Wickstrom said that the "action" on this item would be if you open
up 100th Ave, we get the comments in and either defer this to another Committee
meeting after the neighborhood comments are heard and again review the whole thing.
Wickstrom said that after the citizens give their input, if there is something ne%v that
comes up that we should be addressing which could change our recommendation, we
would want the opportunity to review their input and possibly change the
recommendation.
At this time Mann opened the discussion up to the citizens in the audience.
Vonda Finseth 10006 SE 244th Court asked if we had a copy of the original petition.
She stated that the petition shows there are 55 children in the neighborhood. She did
not agree with the recommendation of waiting until there is future developmeent before
244th is closed. She asked when the traffic control minimum requirements were set and
is there a possibility in having those re-addressed. She felt that 300 vehicles per day
were high. Ed White responded noting that our normal criteria for residential streets
is 1,000 vehicles per day. He went on to explain the procedures on taking the traffic
counts. White stated that with the traffic counters laid out on the street, we do not have
2
the ability to determine whether the traffic is "neighborhood" traffic or "thru" traffic and
we can only surmise that the majority is local neighborhood traffic. He said that 300
cars is a very, very small number.
Dennis Ryerson of 10012 SE 244th Ct. stated that he has not yet heard one reason why
244th should go thru. He said that it was unanimous in two different petitions that no
one wanted this. Wickstrom responded by saying when we look at streets we have to
plan for the long term - we are talking about full build-out of the city; in order to meet
the Growth Management Act and that's what we use in planning streets. For a high
density single family lot we need to service the area. Before 244th was opened, you were
in a long cul-de-sac which has problems in itself - it exceeds the length beyond our
standard length (600 feet) for a cul-de-sac. In response to Ryerson, Wickstrom stated
that the neighborhood would benefit by opening 244th from better access, as well as
better emergency access. Ryerson stated that they are 100% satisfied with the present
access. Wickstrom stated that there are several undeveloped properties adjacent to this
street. You may be satisfied today but when they develop you may not be satisfied
because the neighborhood will be cluttered with vehicles. Wickstrom stated that we do
have to plan for roads to service an area especially when high density zoning is added.
Rob Dempsey 10021 SE 245th PI stated that reference is being made to the 'overall
plan" which could be the root of all this and, is there a way to get that plan changed?
Wickstrom said that the overall plan is the Growth Management Plan which can be
changed once a year and has just been adopted. It would address 100th Ave because
100th is in the Transportation Plan which is a part of the Growth Management Plan
that Council has adopted. It is part of the road system that was developed to address our
concurrency issues related in the Transportation Plan. 244th is the local access street
simply being opened as part of the normal process of development of the area.
The Committee heard additional comments from other neighborhood residents all.in
opposition of opening 100th Ave and 244th Street.
Mann explained that as a Committee, they do listen to the citizen concerns and if they
feel that those concerns are good for the city as a whole, then the Committee will take
action. He noted that the next step is for the Council members to consider what has
been said at this meeting and then if we feel that the right thing to do would be to shut
down 244th or install a barrier so that emergency vehicles could still get thru, or put
speed humps on 100th Ave., we will take action.
Clark stated that at the Council meeting he heard the Mayor very specifically state, they
3
would not run 100th Ave directly thru. That would be restricted in terms of dealing
with fire and emergency vehicle service. Clark also said that the Growth Management
Act is binding and it basically says that we need to plan for the future; we have to deal
with the growth and there has to be a certain level of service to accommodate those
people. In other words, the new people coining in also have rights just as your property
carries a certain amount of rights to it. The fact is there will be greater density and
there is absolutely nothin we can do about that. Clark said that there is a tendency to
tie 244th and 100th and treat them as if they are identical issues when in fact they are
not. Clark said that right now 244th is connected. He asked Wicicstrom what the
status is of housing in the Top of the Hill development. Wickstrom said they haven't,
final-platted yet but that is coming up at the next Council meeting for final approval
which essentially complies with the conditions established in 1994 and 1995 when they
rezoned and platted. Clark said that within the framework of that final plat, are the
roads already set? Wicicstrom said that the roads they built were strictly the roads that
were conditioned. They built the roads as part of the plat and that is how 244th St. was
opened. Clark asked, what are the potential number of residences that will feed out onto
244th? Wickstrom said that Canterbury can feed out that way and Top of the Hill will
feed out onto 244th. If you close it, they will go out to 104th versus taking an alternate
route thru 100th and Canterbury. Gill stated that was one of the considerations -
trying to provide ingress and egress and not for all trips out onto an arterial street
and thru intersections that are already at level of service at peak hours.
Clark stated there was an agreement among councilmembers and somehow that
agreement has not reached staff. He said that the point was, will 100th Ave be opened?
Wicicstrom said that when a development comes in, we condition that development at
that point in time. He stated that until we get a property developer coming to us, we do
nothing. Clark noted that the original plan basically called for 100th Ave to actually be
thru at one point, because there was to be an access road for emergency vehicles.
Wickstrom said that was suppose to be a collector arterial. Gill said that is why
Canterbury was developed the way it was. He said those lots were not allowed direct
access onto 100th because 100th has always been planned as a collector arterial.
Mann asked if we could place a barrier up that would be acceptable for emergency
vehicles. John Bond noted that both Fire and Police Chiefs should concur on this.
Clark stated that the one thing we can do right now is temporarily close 244th St.
Eventually we need to deal with access in and out of Top of the Hill development and
that is tied to the issue of 100th. Clark stated that we have no interest in turning 100th
Ave into a straight "shot" arterial. However there are some other concerns tied to that
and part of it is a piece of land not in the Top of the Hill development but immediately
4
adjacent to it. Clark said what we would like to do now is go back to staff, ask them to
try and make that approach, at the very least, to make sure that 100th is not a straight
"shot". We can temporarily close 244th but we cannot leave those people at risk.
Clark moved to temporarily close S. 244th Street, that motion being contingent upon
approval of Police and Fire for their respective roles in the community; that we come
back and revisit this issue of access on S. 244th Street 18 months from this time and
that directions are given to staff that 100th Ave. be so designed that it cannot be a direct
access arterial thru and that other access routes tying Top of the Hill be provided in
whatever plan is involved in that particular process.
Mann seconded the MOTION.
Discussion: Brubaker noted that the developer of Top of the Hill was not in attendance
and we don't know if 18 months is an appropriate time frame.
Committee concurred with the motion.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 14, 1995
PRESENT: Paul Mann Don Wickstrom
Tim Clark Gary Gill
Jim Bennett Tom Brubaker
I OOTH AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONCERNS
Wickstrom opened the meeting explaining the history of this issue beginning with the
petitions the City had received several months ago requesting the closure of S. 244th
which was built in conjunction with the development of"Top of the Hill" and the "non-
opening" of 100th Ave. near the East Hill Elementary School. He noted that the City
has received another petition from the residents on 94th Ave asking for the reverse
effect; that I OOth Ave should be opened in the future. Wickstrom explained that 100th
Ave has been on our long term Comprehensive Plan as a collector arterial tying 244th
- to IOOth. However, 100th Avenue would only be opened at the time of property
development adjacent to IOOth Avenue and would be made as a condition of such
development He said that we had a meeting in June with no action at that time - it was
deferred to another meeting however,we did not get back to this issue until October due
to Councilmember and staff vacation schedules. At the October 23rd Public Works
meeting, the action from the Committee was to temporarily close 244th for a period of
up to 18 months. This was a temporary action. After that meeting, there were concerns
from property owners not receiving adequate notice to give their input. Wicicstrom said
that after that meeting, staff did an extensive traffic analysis to determine the impact on
closing both 244th and IOOth because they affect the entire neighborhood community
as far down as 94th Ave.
Kristen Langley gave an in-depth explanation of the traffic flow throughout the
neighborhood and explained how the level of service is designated.
In response to Mann, Wickstrom explained that the last Committee action was a
recommendation to temporarily close S. 244th for a period of 18 months subject to
concurrence by the Police and Fire Chiefs. At the Council meeting we asked if we
could bring this issue back to another Conunittee meeting and, we were instructed to do
I
additional traffic studies to show what the impacts are. We found the impacts to be
neighborhood wide - from 94th to 104th and from 248th to 240th. At the earlier
meetings, the Eastwood and Canterbury plats were the only affected residents in
attendance. Wickstrom stated that the temporary action can proceed at anytime. We
are now looking at the long term action - what do we do at the end of 18 months?
Continue with the closure, and what do we do about 100th Ave? That property may
develop before the 18 months time-frame and we need a decision of how does that
property develop in terms of the Council's concept.
Police Chief Crawford stated that after looking at the traffic patterns he had a good
argument for all 4 alternatives. He noted the excessive traffic counts in the streets. He
stated that his department could police any of the areas as noted, but he said from his
view, there can be an inequity if one part of the community is forced to have more traffic
than another part.
Fire Chief Angelo stated that the department's general concern is, the more restrictions
that are placed on an access to an area the more difficult it is for fire personnel to get in
and out in a timely fashion. He noted that the Fire Department solicits to keep access
to areas open. He said that if 244th were to remain closed, someone should consider the
possibility of signalization on the Benson Road.
Pete Goforth, a resident in the Canterbury area, expressed concerns about safety. He
noted that 244th is now opened without so much as a centerline painted down the
street. Wickstrom noted that the lines can be painted; that's not the issue. Gill said that
we had the contractor hold off on doing the striping because we knew there was a
possibility that the road might be closed. He said that the developer is required to put
the striping in. However, because this issue has not been resolved as to what the
ultimate configuration was, we did not want to require Mr. Goodwin (Top of The Hill
developer) to spend additional money unnecessarily.
At this time Langley explained in detail the four alternatives offered to satisfy the needs
of the neighborhood community. At the end of Langley's presentation, there were
questions and comments from the audience. The general consensus of opinion from the
residents in attendance, was that Alternate "A", the opening of 100th Avenue, was the
most suitable to meet everyone's needs. However, they did stress that traffic restrictions
of some sort should be implemented; i.e., speed bumps, chokers or some device to keep
the speed down.
Mann closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
2
Committee unanimously recommended Alternative "A" with certain conditions.
Committee's amendment to the recommended motion was that the City guarantee to
have either chokers or turn-arounds or something to prevent 100th Ave from becoming
a full-fledged arterial.
Bennett stated that he will work with the neighbors on 98th Avenue to work toward
resolving the traffic problems in terms of improvements on 98th.
Meeting adjourned: 7:00 p.m.
3
DECEMBER 14, 1995
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
EAST HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
NAIVE ADDRESS PHONE
Ed Angevine 24411 98th Avenue So 630-3777
Joel Haggard 1200 IBM Bldg., Seattle 682-5635
Bonnie Colton Kent School Transportation 813-7442
Don Walkup Kent School Transportation 813-7442
Robert Nesbitt 9648 S. 241st 631-7436
Art Fluke 24635 104th Ave SE 852-0667
Todd & Mindi Mattson 9836 S. 245th PI 852-2315
Vern Birkel 10206 SE 244th 852-2376
Pete Goforth 9825 S. 246th St 852-6919
Wilbur Repp 10936 SE 235th PI 852-6213
Gary Brooks 24629 98th Ave So. 852-3919
Jesus Enviquez 24020 96th Ave So
Annett Noyce 9820 S. 245th Pl 859-5075
Don Carrico 10204 SE 248tyh St 859-8910
Trent Spurgeon 10023 SE 246th PI 854-4825
Patty& Chris Dunmire 24021 96th Ave S 854-1281
Brenda Ackerson 10036 SE 238th St. 850-0985
Bill Ruth 12410 SE 248th 852-4682
Debra Jones 10027 SE 247th Pl. 854-6156
James Thomas 824-3372
Jeffrey Kephart 9919 S 246th PI 852-9459
Gregory Wills 10050 SE 244th St 820-0337
E. H. Larcom 10057 SE 244th St 852-0772
Steve & Cathy Wilson 10021 SE 247th PI 852-9248
Rob Dempsey 10021 SE 246th PI 854-9957
Bernie Reichlin 9425 So 247th 854-2594
Sally & Kathleen Nelson 430 Summit 852-8943
Ann Eggers 9627 S. 243rd St 852-8031
Mary Grab 9912 S. 244th PI 643-8052
Steve & Cathy Wilson 21007 SE 247th PI 852-9248
Elizabeth Law 10012 SE 247th PI 850-0105
Mary Louise Raspet 9623 S. 248th #E2 852-7244
Jim&Becky Schmidt 10019 SE 246th Pl 813-1961
John Talbot 10008 SE 245th PI 854-5622
Walt Seifried Kent School District 813-7539
William & Shirley Riechers 9635 S. 243rd St 852-8801
Kenneth Jones 10027 SE 247th PI 854-6156
Mark Curran 24316 94th Ave S 852-2537 -
Jerry Prouty 27608 114th Ave SE 852-4682
J R M E S §T � IT - - -- ------ -----_-, ; . S E 2 4 0 T H S T ------- -I----
t I'�
r' 1
rl
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
._r --POTENTIAL. SUBDIVISION
li '1 ALTERNATIVE 'AI I ----------POTENTIAL NEW ROADWAY
N
r r
1
. 3V I
SEII
242N!D PUJ L'�
fl -=-__ -----------
r
P L
; S 242ND_ CT ;I ( a` h ;I
-- - -- -- SE I24__2 ST,
I ;• ---fS 243FiD STI �i :<� I _ /--- , `_, ��"^ ___, ,
ow II
n
r
.. I
r
1 Q1, 11
r
1,
I r�
r
r
-- -- -= ----- t`I
I r
SE------
rl
45 H 7
3 /
E S_ 5
r
r
'-------24 -TH PL w
-- i :-----I
1 EfI _
r
r
r ---- ------ u
r
11 I I'4ii. 45TH\ PL
O
S 246TH �PL -E
I, I____________________________� 150
- ----'- �y;
' --- -.fy
�" .a 'i" I
w r
246TH P/L'
r of {
E
i
J
2477H�l �47TH �CT I'�' �I �`; ;SEl 248TH STi' 'I
i(J3
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1996
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: House Demolition Project
2. SWMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the demolition of the
Parks Department house at 8121 South 259th, and release
retainage to RJC Inc. 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. 3D
7u�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 . 1996
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: Driving Range Roof Extension Project
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete, the Driving Range
Roof Extension Project at the Riverbend Golf Complex, and
release retainage to Golf Landscaping 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
TO5
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 . 1996
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: Glen Kara Preliminary Plat SU-95-3
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to consider the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation for conditional approval of
an application by Lakeridge Development, Inc. for a 34-lot
single family residential preliminary subdivision. The
property is located west of 100th Avenue S. and north of S.
222nd Street.
r
r
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, Findings and recommendations, and
preliminary plat map.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEU IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember titi moves, Councilmember /�f `� ` seconds
to accept;0WI the findings of the Hearing Examiner
and to adopt S4t6* the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation of approval with twenty-one (21) conditions of
the 34-lot single family residential preliminary subdivision.
�'L L•
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
CITY OF J_O\Lt!) -
vsi�� Jim White, Mayor
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
(206) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunter
Hearing Examiner
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO: GLEN KARA SUBDIVISION #SU-95-3
APPLICANT: LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT, INC.
REQUEST: A request to subdivide 9.0 acres into 34 residential lots.
LOCATION: The subject property is located west of 100th Avenue S. and
north of S. 222nd Street.
APPLICATION FILED: August 17, 1995
DETERMINATION OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: July 31 , 1995
MEETING DATE: October 18, 1995
November 1 , 1995
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: November 16, 1996
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
Bill Wolinski, Public Works Department
Gary Gill, Public Works Department
Bob Hutchinson, Development Services
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: David Casey, representing applicant
Wayne Jones, representing applicant
Others
Bhrett Monroe
Jeff Vigna
Charles Couvrette
1
220 Jth AVE.SO.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (106)859-3300/FAX N 959-3334
Hearing Examiner Findings
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None
EXHIBITS: 1) Hearing Examiner file (DNS, Public Notice,
Staff Report)
2) Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
3) Letter from David Casey to Gary Gill, dated
October 12, 1995
4) Water Well Impact Report prepared by Nelson-
Couvrette & Associates dated 10/31/95
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date
indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject
property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public
hearing, the following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the
Hearing Examiner on this application.
FINDINGS
1 . The owner of the property proposed for subdivision Lakeridge Development, Inc.
of Renton, Washington. Exhibit 1, Application. The applicant was represented
at the public hearing by Mr. David Casey, agent, and Mr. Charles Couvrette,
P.E.
2. The property proposed for subdivision is located west of 100 Avenue South and
north of South 222nd Street on Kent's East Hill. Exhibit 1, Staff Report.
3. The property is 9.0 acres. The applicant proposes thirty four single family lots
with the smallest lot of 7,200 square feet. The applicant submitted a site plan
dated June 21 , 1995, that shows all lots in conformance with minimum lot size
requirements. Exhibit 1, Site Plan.
4. The property is zoned R1-7.2, Single Family Residential with a 7,200 square
foot minimum lot size. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the
property as SF 6, Single Family Residential with six dwelling units per acre.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report.
5. Land use all around the property proposed for subdivision is single family
residential. There are two abandoned houses now existing on the subject
2
Hearing Examiner Findings
Glen Kara
#S U-95-3
property. These residences will be removed under the proposed plan. Exhibit
1, Staff Report.
6. There are several significant trees of 6-inch caliper or greater on the property.
Many of these trees can be preserved to enhance the aesthetic value of the area
as well as help control stormwater runoff and water quality. A tree retention
plan has not yet been submitted to the City. Exhibit 1, Staff Report.
7. There are some wetlands on the site. A wetland assessment and conceptual
mitigation plan has been prepared. The plan provides the information the city
needs to mitigate impacts to these wetlands. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Wetland
Assessment Plan prepared by Jeffery S. Jones (Attached in Exhibit 1, Staff
File); Testimony of Mr. Wolinski on behalf of City.
8. Several wells exist around the site. Some users of these wells that are
neighbors to the site proposed for development expressed concern about the
impact of the development on the existing wells. Testimony of Mr. Monroe and
Mr. Vigna. A detailed well map was prepared and submitted by the applicant.
An assessment of the impact of the development on the wells nearby was also
prepared and submitted by the applicant. The report concludes that the wells
would not be impacted by the proposed development as the wells are located
up-gradient from the proposed development. However, the report does
recommend that all sanitary sewers be located a minimum of 100 feet from
existing wells and that any groundwater encountered during site development
be filtered and prevented from polluting the well recharge area. Exhibit 4,
Water Well Impact Report, pages 5 -6.
9. The site would be accessed off of S. 222nd Street (a Residential Street) and
100th Avenue South (classified as Residential Collector Arterial) that both carry
less than 1 ,000 vehicle trips per day. The traffic impacts from the proposed
development would be 33 PM Peak Hour trips per day. Exhibit 2, MDNS. This
increase in number of vehicles will contribute to the congestion of surrounding
streets if no improvements are made to those streets. Improvements should
include street widening, lighting, drainage and walkways. A bicycle lane is also
important to help reduce the number of motor vehicles associated with
development of the subject property. The applicant has agreed to mitigate
traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. Testimony of Mr.
David Casey, Exhibit 2, MDNS (There was no appeal of this).
10. The City of Kent water system and sanitary sewer system can be extended to
each lot. Stormwater mitigation measures were applied as conditions to the
3
Hearing Examiner Findings
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
issuance of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. These mitigation
measures have been agreed to by the applicant and will address stormwater
quantity and quality issues. Testimony of Mr. David Casey; Exhibit 2, MDNS
(There was no appeal of this). Because the Monroe/Vigna well is located within
100 feet of the street right-of-way, careful monitoring of activity in the street
right-of-way will be necessary to ensure no contamination of that well occurs
as a consequence of that activity. Testimony of Mr. Gary Gill, Exhibit 4.
1 1 . The environmental review for this application resulted in a conclusion by the
City's Responsible Official that the project has no probable significant adverse
impacts on the environment that cannot be mitigated. A final Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued for the proposed
subdivision on July 31 , 1995 pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act.
It was not appealed by the applicant or any citizen. The conditions of mitigation
address several areas of environmental concern including traffic impacts,
stormwater detention facilities, mitigation of impacts to wetland areas and
dedication of land for utilities and streets. Exhibit 2, MDNS.
12. Public notice of this application was given by posting, publication and mailing.
Exhibit 1, Affidavits of Harris and Holden.
13. (a.) At the public hearing on October 18, the Planning Department
recommended approval of this application subject to specific conditions. The
applicant requested revisions to some of the recommended conditions to allow
for increased flexibility in meeting the conditions. Exhibit 3. The City agreed
that the requested changes to the recommendations would adhere to the intent
of the staff when drafting the recommendations. Testimony of Mr. Satterstrom.
Two citizens who live near the proposed subdivision expressed concerns about
the surface water runoff created by the development, especially at it might
impact existing wells in the area, and asked that the proposal be further
conditioned to allow some compensation if wells became contaminated.
Testimony of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Vigna. The applicant agreed to continue the
hearing until November 1 in order to provide additional information about the
wells to address the issues raised at the October 18 public hearing.
(b.) At the November 1 public hearing, the applicant presented a Water Well
Impact Report with a map showing the location of wells around the site
proposed for development. Exhibit 4. Mr. Monroe testified that the report
addressed most of his concerns but requested additional time to allow Mr. Vigna
to review the report as he was not in attendance at the public hearing. With the
consent of the applicant and the city, the Hearings Examiner stated that
4
Hearing Examiner Findings
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
Mr. Vigna could submit comments in writing to the Hearings Examiner. No
comments were received.
CONCLUSIONS
1 . The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold a public hearing on this
application; to consider all evidence presented at the public hearing; and, based
on that evidence, to present a recommendation to the City Council to approve,
disapprove or approve with conditions the preliminary plat application. KCC
12.04.360, KCC 2.32.090.
2. Notice of the public hearing on this application was properly given in accordance
with applicable state statutes and city ordinances including Chapter 58.17 RCW
and KCC 12.04.360. Finding of Fact No. 12.
3. The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner must be supported by the
evidence presented, as stated in the Findings of Fact of this recommendation,
and must be consistent with the standards and criteria for review specified in
state statutes and city ordinances. The standards and criteria for review of
preliminary plat applications are found in Chapter 12.04 of the Kent City Code
(KCC) and Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). These
review criteria include:
(a) KCC 12.04.020 which provides that the purpose of the
city's subdivision regulations is to:
provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for
subdividing land in the City of Kent, ensuring that the highest
feasible quality in subdivision will be attained; that the public
health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent
shall be promoted and protected; that orderly growth,
development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of
land shall be ensured; that proper provisions for all public facilities
(including circulation, utilities, and services) shall be made; that
maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be taken into
consideration; and that conformance with provisions set forth in
the City of Kent Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plans shall
be ensured.
(b) KCC 12.04.330 which specifies eight requirements that must be shown on
the preliminary plat map including appropriate names and dates, proposed
5
Hearing Examiner Findings
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
platted property lines, contours and elevations, proposed public service areas,
square footage calculations for developed and open space, dimensions of each
lot, statements of soil type and drainage conditions, a description of existing
land cover, and a description of wildlife present.
(c) KCC 12.04.370 which requires a written statement from the Seattle-King
County health department as to the general adequacy of the proposed means
of sewage disposal and water supply.
(d) KCC 12.04.430 which provides for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable
environmental amenities so that urban development may be as compatible as
possible with the ecological balance of the area including preservation of
drainage patterns, protection of ground water supply, prevention of erosion and
preservation of trees and natural vegetation.
(e) KCC 12.04.440 which specifies requirements for utilities including sanitary
sewers, a proper drainage plan and a proper water distribution system.
(f) KCC 12.04.450 which requires due consideration to the allocation of public
service usage areas and due regard for all natural features including large trees,
water courses, historical spots and other community assets that would add
attractiveness and value to the property.
(g) KCC 12.04.490 which provides for mitigation of any adverse effects of
development upon the existing park and recreational facilities in the City of
Kent.
(h) RCW 58.17.1 10 which requires an inquiry into the public use and interest
proposed to be served by the subdivision and a determination "that appropriate
provisions are made for public health, safety and general welfare and for such
open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit
stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation,
playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including
sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for
students who only walk to and from school."
5. Based on the Findings of Fact specified above, and with the specific conditions
recommended below, the Examiner concludes that this preliminary plat
application is consistent with the standards and criteria of applicable state
statutes and city ordinances and should be approved. Findings of Fact No.
3,4,5,7,8,9, 10, 1 1, 13.
6
Hearing Examiner Findings
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner recommends that this preliminary plat application be APPROVED
subject to the following conditions:
A. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL PLAT
1 . The subdivider shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way, across the entire
property frontage on 100th Avenue Southeast, for the widening of 100th
Avenue Southeast to City Standards for a Residential Collector street,
augmented with bicycle lanes, for a total half-street right-of-way width
of 31 .5 feet. This deed of right-of-way shall be provided based upon a
survey to be performed by a licensed land surveyor of the subject
property, 100th Avenue Southeast, and South 222nd Street, and shall
clearly delineate the existing public right-of-way, curb lines, and public
improvements on 100th Avenue Southeast, and South 222nd Street, and
the additional right-of-way needed to widen 100th Avenue Southeast,
and South 222nd Street as noted.
This dedication of right-of-way shall include all property necessary to
construct a 35-foot radius curb returns, with five [ 5 ]-foot wide
sidewalks and utility strips, at all intersections of the plat streets and
100th Avenue Southeast, and South 222nd Street.
2. The subdivider shall waive abutter's access rights across the entire
subdivision frontage of both 100th Avenue Southeast and South 222nd
Street. This access restriction condition shall be clearly stated and shown
on the face of the final map.
3. The subdivider shall provide engineering drawings for review and approval
by the City, and either construct or bond for the following:
a) Provide a gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The
sewer system shall be extended to 100th Avenue Southeast and
northerly along the entire frontage thereon, and shall be sized to
serve all off-site properties within the same service area.
b) Provide a water system meeting domestic and fire flow
requirements for all lots. Water service to the subject property will
7
Hearing Examiner Findings
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
be provided by the Soos Creek Water District. Contact the
district for details on necessary improvements.
c) Provide storm drainage system meeting the Kent Standards for
conveyance, detention, water quality treatment, etc. The minimum
detention standard to be met for this project shall be that for
Hillside development.
d) A 32-foot wide paved roadway for all of the interior streets: 99th
Avenue South, South 220th Street, and 98th Avenue South;
concrete curbs and gutters; five[ 5 ]-foot wide concrete sidewalks
along both sides of these streets; street lighting; drainage
facilities; street channelization; utilities and appurtenances, and
cul-de-sac turnaround on 99th Avenue South, per City Standards.
This shall include a minimum 49-foot right-of-way along the
roadway, a minimum 51 .5-foot right-of-way radius [45-foot at
curb line] in the cul-de-sac turnaround, and 25-foot radii curb
returns at internal street intersections.
e) A half street widening/improvement of South 222nd Street across
the entire subdivision frontage. The paved half street roadway
width shall be 16 feet from centerline to face of curb and shall
also include street lighting; sidewalks; drainage facilities; street
channelization; utilities and appurtenances.
These improvements shall also include sufficient pavement to
provide a 12-foot wide eastbound lane on the southerly side of the
roadway centerline across the entire frontage of the subdivision;
and necessary pavement transitions to the existing roadway
pavement to the west of the subdivision.
In addition, the subdivider shall install "No Parking" signs across
the entire subdivision frontage on South 222nd Street.
Finally, these improvements shall include a overlay of the existing
roadway pavement, as necessary, to provide a 2 percent crown
across the pavement; and, as necessary to meet City Standards
for roadway pavement section for a Residential Street.
f) A half street widening/reconstruction of 100th Avenue Southeast
across the entire subdivision frontage to City standards for a
8
Hearing Examiner Findings
Glen Kara
- #SU-95-3
Residential Collector Street augmented with bicycle lanes. The
paved half-street roadway width shall be 23 feet from centerline
to face of curb and shall also include street lighting; sidewalks;
drainage facilities; channelization; utilities and appurtenances as
well as a 35 foot radius curb return at the intersections with South
222nd Street and South 220th Street.
The owner/developer shall also improve the easterly half of 100th
Avenue Southeast to provide a 12-foot wide northbound lane on
the easterly side of the roadway centerline across the entire
frontage of the subdivision. These improvements shall include
necessary pavement transitions to the existing portion of 100th
Avenue Southeast to the north and south of the subdivision. The
roadway improvements shall meet city standards for pavement
section design, and shall provide a 2 percent crown slope. The
owner/developer's engineer shall perform an evaluation of the
existing roadway pavement, and design an asphalt concrete
overlay of the existing pavement per City of Kent Construction
Standards. The minimum overlay shall be 2 inches. Based on this
evaluation, and the review and approval of the City, the
owner/developer shall either reconstruct or overlay the east side
of 100th Avenue S.
At the southwesterly corner of the intersection of 100th Avenue
Southeast and South 222nd Street, the subdivider shall construct
a minimum 25-foot radius pavement edge connecting 100th
Avenue Southeast and South 222nd Street, on the southwesterly
quadrant of the intersection.
g) Widen and improve the easterly shoulder of 100th Avenue
Southeast from South 222nd Street to the Countryview Estates
subdivision (SE 225th Place) with an asphaltic concrete pedestrian
walkway -- minimum pavement depth of two [21 -inches of
asphaltic concrete, and a minimum five [51-foot width. Incorporate
drainage improvements as necessary.
4. If any wetland impacts are proposed, a wetland mitigation plan shall be
submitted to Kent Public Works for review and approval prior to
recordation of final plat. The wetland boundary delineation for the site
has been reviewed and approved, but the conceptual mitigation plan that
is contained within the delineation report is unacceptable. The
9
Hearing Examiner Findings
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
conceptual plan does not address avoiding or minimizing impacts to
wetland 1 by analyzing alternatives that would avoid the impact, as
stated in KCC 11 .05.120, 2b. The avoidance of wetland impacts shall
be pursued to the maximum extent.
5. The approved wetland boundaries need to be surveyed and marked with
permanent monuments. The survey shall be completed using City of
Kent coordinates and the surveyor shall provide the City a copy of the
final survey map on 3.5 inch diskette in DXF format. Four copies of the
full size (22 inch by 34 inch) wetland map prepared to scale by a licensed
professional surveyor which shows the wetland boundary, the approved
wetland buffers, and the areas of each are required. These maps will be
attached to the copies of the report we have on file.
6. The entire approved and preserved wetland(s) and it's buffer(s) shall be
permanently protected as a separate sensitive area tract in accordance
with the Kent Wetland Management Code. The proposed lot #33 is
inconsistent with this condition. The buffer areas shall be isolated from
intrusion and/or disturbance using landscaping, signage and/or other
appropriate screens, as well as an approved fence.
7. The subdivider shall execute stormwater maintenance covenants
prepared by the City of Kent Property Management Section for the entire
parcel before the issuance of any construction permits.
8. The subdivider shall conduct a detailed storm drainage analysis upstream
of the subject drainage basin, downstream to Garrison Creek. Based upon
this analysis and previous modelling work by the City of Kent, the City
will review the recommendations of the subdivider's professional
engineer to determine what off-site downstream improvements are
necessary, and/or what additional detention is required to not adversely
impact downstream properties. The drainage improvements shall be
adequate to convey the most critical design storm (up to a 100-year
event) as determined by the Public Works Director.
9. Any drainage systems that releases stormwater down the slope toward
Garrison Creek shall be tight-lined to protect the slope surface.
Appropriate erosion control measures, as determined by the City
Engineer, shall be used. The existing conveyance and outfall installed as
part of the Willow Way project will be determined by the City Engineer
to be adequate to convey potential stormwater.
10
Hearing Examiner Findings
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
10. All roof-drains from properties along the westerly edge of the plat shall
be intercepted and either: 1 . piped into the storm drainage system; 1 .
directed to lot filtration systems; or 3. discharged to the wetland area to
provide compensating hydrology.
11 . The subdivider/developer shall submit a detailed tree plan which shows
the location of all significant trees of six inch caliper or greater. This plan
shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to any
construction activity taking place on-site for road or utility grading
purposes.
12. The subdivider shall dedicate all necessary public right-of-way for the
improvements listed in Section B and provide all public and private
easements necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of
the required improvements identified in Section B, above.
13. The map of well locations provided in Exhibit 4, Figure 2, shall become
part of the preliminary plat map. The owner/developer shall comply with
all public health regulations regarding private wells and shall implement
all recommended measures identified in Exhibit 4 to insure that private
water systems in the area are not adversely affected by the proposed
development of the subject property.
B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON ANY LOT:
1 . The subdivider shall construct the improvements noted in Section A.
above.
2. Development on all lots shall protect solar access to properties to the
north of each lot according to the calculations specified in Kent Zoning
Code section 15.08.234.
Dated this 16th day of November, 1995
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
11
Hearing Examiner Findings
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS.
Request of Reconsideration
Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by the Hearing
Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b)
new evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 Fourth Avenue S., Kent, WA 98032. Reconsiderations are answered in writing
by the Hearing Examiner.
Notice of R_aht to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to the Council is
filed by a party within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City
Clerk. Usually, new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant information
and arguments should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council.
There is no appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to the City Council. The
City Council shall consider the recommendation at a regularly scheduled public meeting
within 30 days.
c:su953.fin
12
1
c-�� 1
CITY c 'Lt?�U
- Jim White, Nf layor
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1995
FILE NO: GLEN KARA SUBDIVISION #SU-95-3
APPLICANT: Lakeridge Development, Inc.
P. O. Box 146
Renton, WA
REQUEST: Preliminary plat request to subdivide 9.0 acres into 34 lots
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The applicant proposes to subdivide one tax parcel into 34 single family
residential lots. The specific development application is for preliminary plat.
B. Location
The subject property is located west of 100th Avenue S. and north of S. 222nd
Street on Kent's East Hill.
C. Size of Property
The proposed subdivision is approximately 9.0 acres in size.
1
Staff Report
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
D. Zonin2
The subject property is zoned R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, with a 7200
square foot minimum lot size. Properties in the general vicinity of the site are
zoned single family residential.
E. Land Use
The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Map designates the property as SF6,
Single Family Residential, with a six unit per acre maximum density. There is
one existing residence in use located on the site. Two smaller, abandoned houses
also are located on the site. Adjacent land uses are generally large-lot single
family residential. A recently approved subdivision, the Willow Way plat, is
presently being developed to the south of the subject site.
F. Site History
The subject property was annexed to the City in October 1994 as part of the
Jones/Hobbs annexation. Initial City zoning was applied in May 1995.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for this preliminary
plat was issued on July 31, 1995 (Planning Department File No. #ENV-95-43).
A copy of the MDNS will be a part of the record for the preliminary plat.
B. Significant Phvsical Features
The subject property is characterized by sloping terrain. Slopes are generally less
than 7 percent, with some areas (mostly on the west side) ranging up to 15
percent. The site is generally wooded with a variety of large evergreen and
deciduous trees. The developer will have to submit a tree preservation/removal
plan for Planning Department approval prior to development on any lot.
2
Staff Report
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
There are also some wetlands on the site. According to wetland reports submitted
by the applicant, one class 2 and one class 3 wetland are located on the west side
of the site.
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street Svstem
The subject property has access to S. 222nd Street (classified as a
Residential Street) and 100th Avenue S (classified as a Residential
Collector Arterial). Both streets have a public right-of-way width of 60
feet while the width of paving is 22 feet. There are no curbs, gutters, or
sidewalks on either street. A widening strip will be required to be deeded
to the City on 100th Avenue S. but not on S. 222nd Street. The average
daily traffic count on 100th Avenue and S. 222nd Street is less than 1000
vehicle trips per day.
2. Water Svstem
The site is served by an 8-inch water main provided by the Soos Creek
Water District.
3. Sanitary Sewer Svstem
The site is served by an 8-inch sanitary sewer provided by the City of
Kent.
4. Stormwater Svstem
A stormwater system is necessary to accommodate new development. The
developer is required to construct an aboveground stormwater treatment
system in accordance with Kent Construction Standards as a condition of
the MDNS.
5. Local Improvement Districts (LID's)
None.
3
Staff Report
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this application:
Director of Operations City Attorney
Director of Public Works Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building Official City Clerk
Kent School District
King County Parks, Planning & Resource Department
Soos Creek Water and Sewer District
Puget Sound Power and Light Co.
Seattle-King County Health Department
Washington Natural Gas
U.S. Postal Service
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 300 feet
of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable.
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City of Kent has recently adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan pursuant to
the Growth Management Act. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the
future of Kent and the area within the potential annexation area. The
Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission,
Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide decision-making relative to
development and capital facility spending.
The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan is made up of eleven elements which
contain written goals and policies as well as a land use map. The Kent
Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the subdivision site as SF-6, Single
Family Residential, six units per acre maximum.
4
Staff Report
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use element outlines the proposed general distribution and location of
the various uses of the land within the planning area. The Land Use element is
designed to guide where and when development occurs, as well as the character
Of Kent's development pattern. Goals and policies which are relevant to the
proposed plat include:
Goal LU-1: Designate an urban growth area and Potential Annexation Area
which will define the City's planning area and projected'city limits
for the next 20 years.
Policv LU 1.1: Provide enough land in the City's urban growth
area to accommodate the level of household growth
projected to occur in the next 20 years.
Goal LU-8: The City of Kent adopts a 20 year housing target of 7500 new
dwelling units within the existing city limits. Coordinate with
King County through an interlocal agreement on housing targets in
the unincorporated area within Kent's Potential Annexation Area.
Policv LU 8-1: Provide in the land use plan adequate land'and
densities to accommodate both city and county
targets within the Potential Annexation Area.
Average net residential densities throughout the
PAA should be at least four units per acre in order
to adequately support urban services.
Planning Der)artment Comment:
The proposed subdivision supports several goals and policies in the Land Use
element. The proposed development is located near existing urban services and
infrastructure. The City supports the development of close-in vacant or
underutilized properties which limits further urban sprawl on the edges of the
planning area. In addition, infill development provides a much more efficient
means of providing services and enhancing pedestrian mobility. The overall
density of this subdivision provides an acceptable level of net density to support
urban services. In addition, one of the overall objectives of the comprehensive
plan is to provide a wide variety of housing types and opportunities. to
5
Staff Report
Glen Kara
##S U-95-3
accommodate projected population growth without converting single family land
to multifamily. Development of single family subdivisions on vacant single
family zoned land is consistent with this objective.
B. STANDARDS FOR GRANTING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
The purpose of the City of Kent Subdivision Code is to provide rules,
regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the City of Kent,
insuring that the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be attained; that the
public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be
promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development, and the conservation,
protection and proper use of land shall be insured; that proper provisions for all
public facilities (including circulation, utilities, and services) shall be made; that
maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be taken into consideration; and
that conformance with provisions set forth in the City of Kent Zoning Code and
Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be insured.
C. FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT ON PROPOSED LOTS
Development on all lots in the proposed subdivision will be subject to Zoning
Code requirements for development in the R1-7.2, Single Family Residential,
zoning district.
All proposed lots meet minimum lot size and width requirements. Development
on the proposed lots will have to meet solar setback requirements. The purpose
of the solar access setback provision is to provide a reasonable amount of solar
access to lots in the City so that the economic value of solar radiation falling on
those properties will be preserved and the option to use solar energy will be
encouraged. Any structures built on the lots in a single family residential lot
must maintain solar access to the adjacent lots to the north.
The site is heavily wooded and zoning standards encourage the retention of
significant trees where roads, utilities, and site improvements are not proposed.
Tree retention plans will be required for the plat and development of each lot.
V. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a preliminary
subdivision, staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Glen Kara preliminary plat
subject to the following conditions:
6
Staff Report
- Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
A. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL PLAT
1. The subdivider shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way, across the entire
property frontage on 100th Avenue Southeast, for the widening of 100th
Avenue Southeast to City Standards for a Residential Collector street,
augmented with bicycle lanes, for a total half-street right-of-way width of
31.5 feet. This deed of right-of-way shall be provided based upon a
survey to be performed by a licensed land surveyor of the subject
property, 100th Avenue Southeast, and South 222nd Street, and shall
clearly delineate the existing public right-of-way, curb lines, and public
improvements on 100th Avenue Southeast, and South 222nd Street, and
the additional right-of-way needed to widen 100th Avenue Southeast, and
South 222nd Street as noted.
This dedication of right-of-way shall include all property necessary to
construct a 35-foot radius curb returns, with five [ 5 ]-foot wide sidewalks
and utility strips, at all intersections of the plat streets and 100th Avenue
Southeast, and South 222nd Street.
2. The subdivider shall waive abutter's access rights across the entire
subdivision frontage of both 100th Avenue Southeast and South 222nd
Street. This access restriction condition shall be clearly stated and shown
on the face of the final map.
3. The subdivider shall provide engineering drawings for review and
approval by the City, and either construct or bond for the following:
a) Provide a gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The
sewer system shall be extended to 100th Avenue Southeast and
northerly along the entire frontage thereon, and shall be sized to
serve all off-site properties within the same service area.
b) Provide a water system meeting domestic and fire flow
requirements for all lots. Water service to the subject property will
be provided by the Soos Creek Water District. Contact the
district for details on necessary improvements.
c) Provide storm drainage system meeting the Kent Standards for
conveyance, detention, water quality treatment, etc. The minimum
7
iL
Staff Report
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
detention standard to be met for this project shall be that for
Hillside development.
d) A 32-foot wide paved roadway for all of the interior streets: 99th
Avenue South, South 220th Street, and 98th Avenue South;
concrete curbs and gutters; five[ 5 ]-foot wide concrete sidewalks
along both sides of these streets; street lighting; drainage
facilities; street channelization; utilities and appurtenances, and
cul-de-sac turnaround on 99th Avenue South, per City Standards.
This shall include a minimum 49-foot right-of-way along the
roadway, a minimum 51.5-foot right-of-way radius [45-foot at
curb line] in the cul-de-sac turnaround, and 25-foot radii curb
returns at internal street intersections.
e) A half street widening/improvement of South 222nd Street across
the entire subdivision frontage. The paved half street roadway
width shall be 16 feet from centerline to face of curb and shall also
include street lighting; sidewalks; drainage facilities; street
channelization; utilities and appurtenances.
These improvements shall also include sufficient pavement to
provide a 12-foot wide eastbound lane on the southerly side of the
roadway centerline across the entire frontage of the subdivision;
and necessary pavement transitions to the existing roadway
pavement to the west of the subdivision.
In addition, the subdivider shall install "No Parking" signs across
the entire subdivision frontage on South 222nd Street.
Finally, these improvements shall include a overlay of the existing
roadway pavement, as necessary, to provide a 2 percent crown
across the pavement; and, as necessary to meet City Standards for
roadway pavement section for a Residential Street.
f) A half street widening/reconstruction of 100th Avenue Southeast
across the entire subdivision frontage to City standards for a
Residential Collector Street augmented with bicycle lanes. The
paved half-street roadway width shall be 23 feet from centerline to
face of curb and shall also include street lighting; sidewalks;
8
Staff Report
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
drainage facilities; channelization; utilities and appurtenances as
well as a 35 foot radius curb return at the intersections with South
222nd Street and South 220th Street.
The owner/developer shall also improve the easterly half of 100th
Avenue Southeast to provide a 12-foot wide northbound lane on
the easterly side of the roadway centerline across the entire
frontage of the subdivision. These improvements shall include
necessary pavement transitions to the existing portion of 100th
Avenue Southeast to the north and south of the subdivision. The
roadway improvements shall meet city standards for pavement
section design, and shall provide a 2 percent crown slope. The
owner/developer's engineer shall perform an evaluation of the
existing roadway pavement, and design an asphalt concrete overlay
of the existing pavement per City of Kent Construction Standards.
The minimum overlay shall be 2 inches. Based on this evaluation,
and the review and approval of the City, the owner/developer shall
either reconstruct or overlay the east side of 100th Avenue S.
At the southwesterly corner of the intersection of 100th Avenue
Southeast and South 222nd Street, the subdivider shall construct a
minimum 25-foot radius pavement edge connecting 100th Avenue
Southeast and South 222nd Street, on the southwesterly quadrant
of the intersection.
g) Widen and improve the easterly shoulder of 100th Avenue
Southeast from South 222nd Street to the Countryview Estates
subdivision (SE 225th Place) with an asphaltic concrete pedestrian
walkway -- minimum pavement depth of two [2] -inches of
asphaltic concrete, and a minimum five [5]-foot width. Incorporate
drainage improvements as necessary.
4. If any wetland impacts are proposed, a wetland mitigation plan shall be
submitted to Kent Public Works for review and approval prior to
recordation of final plat. The wetland boundary delineation for the site has
been reviewed and approved, but the conceptual mitigation plan that is
contained within the delineation report is unacceptable. The conceptual
plan does not address avoiding or minimizing impacts to wetland 1 by
analyzing alternatives that would avoid the impact, as stated in KCC
9
Staff Report
Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
11.05.120, 2b. The avoidance of wetland impacts shall be pursued to the
maximum extent.
5. The approved wetland boundaries need to be surveyed and marked with
permanent monuments. The survey shall be completed using City of Kent
coordinates and the surveyor shall provide the City a copy of the final
survey map on 3.5 inch diskette in DXF format. Four copies of the full
size (22 inch by 34 inch) wetland map prepared to scale by a licensed
professional surveyor which shows the wetland boundary, the approved
wetland buffers, and the areas of each are required. These maps will be
attached to the copies of the report we have on file.
6. The entire approved and preserved wetland(s) and it's buffer(s) shall be
permanently protected as a separate sensitive area tract in accordance with
the Kent Wetland Management Code. The proposed lot #33 is
inconsistent with this condition. The buffer areas shall be isolated from
intrusion and/or disturbance using landscaping, signage and/or other
appropriate screens, as well as an approved fence.
7. The subdivider shall execute stormwater maintenance covenants prepared
by the City of Kent Property Management Section for the entire parcel
before the issuance of any construction permits.
8. The subdivider shall conduct a detailed storm drainage analysis upstream
of the subject drainage basin, downstream to Garrison Creek. Based upon
this analysis and previous modelling work by the City of Kent, the City
will review the recommendations of the subdivider's professional engineer
to determine what off-site downstream improvements are necessary,
and/or what additional detention is required to not adversely impact
downstream properties. The drainage improvements shall be adequate to
convey the most critical design storm (up to a 100-year event) as
determined by the Public Works Director.
9. All off-site drainage systems shall be tight-lined to Garrison Creek with
appropriate erosion control measures.
10. All roof-drains from properties along the westerly edge of the plat shall
be intercepted and piped into the storm drainage system.
10
Staff Report
-- Glen Kara
#SU-95-3
11. The subdivider/developer shall submit a detailed tree plan which shows
the location of all significant trees of six inch caliper or greater. This
plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior
to any construction activity taking place on-site for road or utility grading
purposes.
12. The subdivider shall dedicate all necessary public right-of-way for the
improvements listed in Section B and provide all public and private
easements necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of
the required improvements identified in Section B, above.
13. The owner/developer shall have an engineering study prepared by a
licensed professional engineer or firm, specializing in groundwater
hydrology, geotechnical engineering, and related fields to address the
concerns raised by a neighboring resident, Mr. Bhrett Monroe, during the
SEPA review process. Mr. Monroe's house, which is situated on the east
side of 100th Avenue SE, just across the street from the subject property,
is connected to a shallow private well system for domestic water supply.
The engineering study shall investigate potential adverse impacts to private
water systems in the area from the Glen Kara Plat improvements, as well
as future residential construction on the site. Based on recommendations
of the professional engineer, and review and approval of the engineering
report by the City, the owner/developer shall implement all necessary
measures to insure that private water systems in the area are not affected
by the proposed development of the subject property.
B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON ANY LOT:
1. The subdivider shall construct the improvements noted in Section A.
above.
2. Development on all lots shall protect solar access to properties to the north
of each lot according to the calculations specified in Kent Zoning Code
section 15.08.234.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
October 11, 1995
c:su953.rpt
11
City of Kent - Planning Department
SE 212 ST
BgPC SE 213
1 3 SE 213
5 213 PL S 13 ST SE 213 PL O I�I= �, 21 S
¢ N > N m _
> i SE 214 PL
m > c ¢ ¢
\ m - SE O T w '
o w
I ..
QJ I
S 218 ST dl " 218 ST
Q' N w
��•. II'STq'1��
N c�
E 220 ST 41 O
¢ � ✓5�� 4�.X� m 00 C �
W -a\U�
S 22 ST 'S' S -'' ?s`":'" i 1pp
SE 222
5l a SE 223�
CS E 224 ST
�9 SE 2
9
SE 225 ST S
N �Z SE W
225 PL '^
SE 225 P ,wn
S 228 ST S c
" SE CT N e Oe SE 228
O 3
H SE A ` fC 3 ST
SE e
c;
O
m E 231 ST SE -0 PL 0 Q c
APPLICATION NAME: Glen Kara
NUMBER: #SU-95-3 DATE: October 18, 1995
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat `
LEGEND N
Application site
Vicinity Map 1� Railroad tracks
,v-v,v-v"-r Kent City Limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
L� �I - •t'�'1 I�(i i �% �`'� Oap ' .; r�I I _�"�'�j \` A , 1 ry `
1 •I,. , I
1 1'
2 1 \ I 1 ful JI 1•`.1 i AAA[[ I 1
3 Y r Ili
_p�
JV.10
• , Ir
L-
�\ \ i 1 _III\}� I �� I �'' ��(^•I I �--�
' n 2r h r
D
APPLICATION NAME: Glen Kara
NUMBER: #SU-95-3 DATE: October 18, 1995
`EQUEST: Preliminary Plat
Ak
LEGEND N
Application site
Zoning / Topography Zoning boundary
r..rrr.r Kent City Limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
:so z'a zw
3I0 l[0 II AO
30 29 28 } 27! 26- 24,
va I 1
1
10
6 —
�� I j U
i 11 CD 1
a 13 12
TRACT'.B 20 IF
CACTLA 0 ANO 01FFEi)
7'
' I�R,A-,CT�A 2 18
L�IST" *AM
R0 FA/� 't6 I
t
APPLICATION NAME: Glen Kara
NUMBER: #SU-95-3 DATE: October 18, 1995
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat A
LEGEND N
Application site
Site Plan
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1996
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: Adult Use Zoning Code Amendment
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This ordinance amends the City's
existing Adult Use Zoning provisions by eliminating setbacks
for Adult Use businesses in residential use commercial zones.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and memorandum of April 12 with maps
depicting previously considered options.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council/Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember U; ;, � _ moves, Councilmember ` "`, seconds
to adopt Ordinance No. �-� , amending certain Adult Use .
Zoning Code requirements in the City of Kent. Ci
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
14`
i
1
r
f� k
J 4
II
I ORDINANCE NO.
i!
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding the
!! amendment of the zoning setback restrictions
for adult uses .
i!
WHEREAS, the secondary effects of the activities
defined and regulated in Chapter 5 . 10 of the Kent Zoning Code are
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City, and, therefore, such activities must be
regulated as provided in Chapter 5 . 10 of the Kent City Code; and
WHEREAS, regulation of the adult entertainment industry
is necessary because, in the absence of such regulation,
significant criminal activity has historically and regularly
, occurred. This history of criminal activity in the adult
entertainment industry has included prostitution, narcotics, and
liquor law violations, breaches of the peace and the presence
within the industry of individuals with hidden ownership
interests and outstanding arrest warrants; and
WHEREAS, contact between entertainers and patrons of
adult entertainment businesses facilitates prostitution and other
related crimes and the concern over unlawful sexual activities
and related crimes as a legitimate health concern of the City
i
�I
which demands reasonable regulation of adult entertainment
businesses in order to protect the health and being of the
i
citizens; and
WHEREAS, in the absence of regulation, the activities
described in this section occur regardless of whether the adult
entertainment is presented in conjunction with the sale of
alcoholic beverages; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent desires
to prevent these adverse effects and thereby protect the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizenry; protect the citizens from
increased crime; preserve the quality of life, preserve the
, property values and character of surrounding neighborhoods; and
deter the spread of urban blight ; and
WHEREAS, it is not the intent of this ordinance to
suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment
or Article I , Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution, but
. to enact content neutral regulations which address the secondary
effects of the adult entertainment businesses, as well as the
health problems associated with such businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City' s adult entertainment zoning
restrictions were recently found, by the U.S . District Court for
the Western District of Washington, to deny adult entertainment
businesses reasonable alternative avenues of communication by not
providing an adequate number of alternative sites for the
location for such facilities; and
2
i
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the legislative history
which supports the City of Kent ' s adult use zoning setback
restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the legislative history supports a finding
that there are negative secondary effects associated with the
operation of adult entertainment businesses within 1, 000 feet of
churches, parks , schools, libraries and residential zones ; and
WHEREAS, the legislative history, in support of the
zoning setback restrictions for adult entertainment businesses,
do not indicate that there are negative secondary effects
associated with the operation of adult entertainment businesses
( within 1, 000 feet of legal non-conforming residential or multi-
family uses in commercial zones; NOW THERFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION I . The above listed recitals are found to be
true and correct in all respects .
SECTION 2 . Section 15 . 08 . 270 is hereby amended as
follows :
Sec . 15 . 08 .270 . Adult uses .
A. Adult uses, as defined in section 15 . 02 . 008 , are
prohibited within the area circumscribed by a circle which has a
3
radius consisting of the following distances from the followins.-
specified uses or zones :
1 . Within one thousand (1, 000) feet of any residential
zone (RA, A-1, AG, R1-7 . 2 , R1-9 . 6, R1-12 , R1-20 , MR-D,
MR-G, MR-M, MR-H and MHP as provided in chapter 15 . 09) _
er any single—er mtiltiple family residential tise .
2 . Within one thousand (1, 000) feet of any public or
private school .
3 . Within one thousand (1, 000) feet of any church or other
religious facility or institution.
4 . Within one thousand (1, 000) feet of any public park.
5 . Within one thousand (1, 000) feet of any public library.
B . The distances provided in this section shall be measured
by following a straight line, without regard to intervening
buildings, from the nearest point of the property or parcel upon
which the proposed use is to be located, to the nearest point of
the parcel of property or the land use district boundary line
from which the proposed land is to be separated.
C. Violation of the use provisions of this section is
declared to be a public nuisance per se, which shall be abated by
the city attorney under state law, including procedures set forth
in section 15 . 09 . 090 .
4
D. Nothing in this section is intended to authorize,
legalize or permit the establishment, operation or maintenance of
any business, building or use which violates any city ordinance
or statute of the state regarding public nuisances, sexual
conduct, lewdness or obscene or harmful matter or the exhibition
or public display thereof .
SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity
or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause c--
phrase of this ordinance .
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall tare
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its
passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
5
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED day of 1995 .
APPROVED day of 1995 .
PUBLISHED day of 1995 .
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as
hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
adltzone.ord
6
CITY OF �LtL? u
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
ZTaaacc°s.� MEMORANDUM
April 12, 1995
MEMO TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR, AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERTSROM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ADULT USE ZONING REGULATIONS -
#ZCA-95-1
Background:
The Planning Commission held its first public hearing on proposed changes to Kent's
adult use zoning regulations on February 27, 1995. At this meeting, the Planning
Commission requested that other alternatives be explored and continued the public
hearing to March 27, 1995. At the March meeting, staff requested additional time
to analyze proposals and assess impacts. The Planning Commission agreed to hold
a workshop on April 10, 1995 to review proposed options, and continued the public
hearing to April 24, 1995.
Existing Adult Use Regulations in Kent:
Adult entertainment businesses are regulated by Section 15.08.270 of the Kent
Zoning Code. These regulations require that such establishments be located at least
1000-feet from certain "protected uses." Protected uses include churches, public
parks, schools, libraries, and residential zones and uses. Therefore, in order for an
adult entertainment business to locate in Kent, it must first find a suitable zoning
district (i.e., commercial zoning) and locate at least 1000-feet from any protected use.
Kent's adult use zoning regulations were adopted in 1986 and were based on a
comprehensive 1982 study conducted by the Planning Department. This study
included an examination of the land use impacts of adult businesses, adult use law
and legal guidelines, as well as zoning alternatives for mitigating the adverse impacts
of adult uses. Also, Kent's regulations were modeled after the City of Renton
ordinance which was found constitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court.
Kent's adult use zoning regulations were challenged in 1994. A topless dancing club
was proposed at S. 218th Street/East Valley Highway in the GWC (Gateway
Commercial) zone. The proposed site fell within the "protected circle" of a residential
unit in the GWC zone and, therefore, the application was denied. The proponent filed
1
a lawsuit against the City of Kent which was brought before the U. S. District Court
in Seattle. The Court found that an insufficient number of sites were available to the
project proponent and ruled in favor of the Club. Concerned that other challenges
could successfully be launched, the Kent City Council passed a temporary moratorium
on adult uses and directed that the City's regulations be reviewed for possible
amendment.
Alternative Zoning Amendments for Adult Use Requlation:
Based on the outcome of the April 10, 1995 workshop with the Planning Commission,
four alternatives have been identified for adult use regulation. These alternatives are
outlined below:
Option #1 . No Action. This alternative would simply maintain the
existing adult use zoning regulations as they are.
Option #2. 250-foot buffer for nonconforming residential uses. This
alternative would maintain the existing 1000-foot buffers
for residential zones, churches, schools, parks, and
libraries. However,the buffer for nonconforming residential
uses in Commercial and/or Industrial zones would be
reduced to 250-feet.
Option #3. Implement Option #2 and Allow Adult Uses in M1-C zone.
This alternative would implement Option #2, above, and
add adult entertainment businesses as principally permitted
uses in the M1-C zoning district. The M1-C zone comprises
approximately 35 acres at the intersection of S. 212th
Street/West Valley Highway.
Option #4. Zero buffer for nonconforming residential uses. This
alternative would remove the buffer distance for
nonconforming residences in Commercial and/or Industrial
zones altogether. However, the 1000-foot buffer would be
maintained for residential zones, churches, schools, parks,
and libraries. (This alternative is the original staff
recommendation presented at the February 27, 1995 public
hearing.)
Analysis of Alternative Amendments:
Implementation of any one of the above alternatives has different results in terms of
the number of potential sites for adult entertainment uses. GIS staff from the
Planning and Public Works Departments have applied the above alternatives to the
City's zoning basemap. The results of their work reveal the following number of
potential sites:
2
Alternative Description #
Sites
Option #1 No Action 1
Option #2 250-buffer for nonconforming residences 12
Option #3 Option 2 with addition of M1-C zone 19
Option #4 Zero buffer for nonconforming residences 32
The location of potential sites is illustrated on the attached Options maps. All
potential sites affected by these alternatives are located in the Kent Valley; there are
no potential sites on either West or East Hills.
Option #1 (No Action) results in only one potential site located at the north end of the
Valley near the S. 180th/East Valley Highway intersection.
Option #2 (250-foot buffer) results in 12 potential sites. Eleven (11) of these sites
are located along East Valley Highway, as shown on the map, and one (1 ) potential
site is located on West Valley Highway at S. 180th Street.
Option #3 (Add M1-C zone) results in 19 total potential sites. The 12 potential sites
of Option #2 are included in addition to seven (7) sites near S. 212th Street/West
Valley Highway which are currently zoned M1-C.
Option #4 (Zero buffer) results in 32 total potential sites. Thirty-one (31 ) potential
sites are located along East Valley Highway, most of which are in the GWC (Gateway
Commercial) zone between S. 212th Street and the SR 167 overpass.
Discussion and Evaluation:
All of the options outlined above result in potential sites which are located on the
Valley floor in areas which are generally characterized by heavy commercial and
manufacturing/warehouse uses. This is a direct result of the 1000-foot buffer
distances for protected uses and zones which eliminate the entirety of East and West
Hills. In addition, the North Park and South of Willis neighborhoods, together with
other protected uses, eliminate the downtown area as a potential site for adult uses.
All options also give protection to existing residential areas along East Valley Highway
- such as the Willow Vista mobile home court - that are zoned for residential use.
Options 2, 3, and 4 would reduce or eliminate the buffer distance of residential units
which are located in Commercial and Industrial zones, a predicament which gives
these units a nonconforming status. Options 2 and 3 would maintain a 250 buffer
while Option 4 would require none. There are five individual residential units located
in the East Valley Highway corridor north of S. 228th Street, according to the City's
inventory of land use. These units are scattered about in area that has been going
3
through a transition from rural to urban over the past 30 years. The character of the
East Valley corridor is now commercial/industrial with heavy volumes of traffic along
the roadway. There are no residential neighborhoods along East Valley Highway as
such, only a small scattering of older homes that pre-date much of the commercial
and industrial zoning in the corridor. Existing zoning does not distinguish new single
family residences as principally permitted uses and, the long-term retention of existing
residences is tenuous. Therefore, because of their dispersed locations and the
transitory nature of residential use in the East Valley corridor, the adverse secondary
impacts of adult uses on individual residential units is anticipated to be insignificant.
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission endorse Option #4
(Zero buffer). Specifically, staff recommends that the words "...or any single or
multiple family residential use" be omitted from Section 15.08.270(A)(1 ) of the Kent
Zoning Code, which presently reads: "Within one thousand (1000) feet of any
residential zone (RA, A-1, AG, R1-7.2, R1-9.6, R1-12, R1-20, MR-D, MR-M, MR-H,
and MHP as provided in chapter 15.09) or any single or multiple family residential
use." A copy of this section of the Zoning Code is attached for the Commission's
reference.
This alternative will maintain the current 1000-foot buffer distance for residential
zones and other protected- uses but drop the setback for nonconforming residential
uses. The effect of the changes, as outlined earlier, will result in 32 potential sites
for adult entertainment businesses. Most of the potential sites would be in the East
Valley corridor.
FNS/d#5.a:adultus e.pc
4
IB0 Sf
\ I j
AT
J ' 1 Is
1 \\;\\ \
�..
\
\\
\
c �\ F! i
17-
. y a
--- IL `P
_ - � \
J
F
Um
21,
OPTION 1
NO CI-ACNGE TO MSTE iG REGULATIONS
Shaded sites refer to eligible parcels
under this alternative
\ \.
s 180 ST
HA
It
Is �. \ \_ \
s lec sT
17
\z '
\\ \\ I \
\\ \
\\ rk
OPTION 2
250-FOOT BUFFER FOR NONCONFORIIIVG
RESIDENTIAL USES
Shaded sites refer to eligible parcels
under this alternative
S 100 ST
Bc
u
S IOc ST —
— i
pffmmi
• \ stet c s-e
T Z_ �I 1 S is ST \ _S \\� ....
e 220 ST iy \• \
_l_ \ —
—^\� \\\\-• \\ \\\\�� ---i-- �\
OPTION 3
250-FOOT BUFFER FOR NONCONFOR1NMII G
RESIDENTIAL USES
AND
ADD ADULT USES TO MI-C ZONL tG DISTRICT
Shaded sites refer to eligible parcels
under this alternative
S IqG ST
FA
777
1-0
_ pI
!1 -
1 i ]4,2
-
-
! ' s 228 kRl
OPTION 4
ZERO BUFFER FOR NONCONFORINIING
RESIDENTIAL USES
Shaded sites refer to eligible parcels
under this alternative
City Council Planning Committed Minutes
November 21, 1995
STREAM BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN THE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA -
DRAFT INTERIM ZONING CONTROL ORDINANCE AND REGULAR DRAFT
ORDINANCE - (T. Brubaker)
Mr. Tom Brubaker explained the need to preserve the existing stream buffers relating to the major
streams in the Meridian annexation area. In the existing Kent zoning code there is a 50 foot setback
requirement for impervious surfaces. No impervious surfaces can be constructed within 50 feet of
the high water mark of major streams. However, under the existing County code there is a 100 foot
buffer which prohibits changes of any kind except replanting indigenous Northwest vegetation.
Mr. Brubaker requested an interim zoning control. This would preserve the same development
standards within the buffer area for up to six months. Mr. Bill Wolinski from the Public Works
department explained that the King County buffers were established after a lot of research. Mr.
Wolinski has received calls from King County and the Muckleshoot Indian tribe questioning Kent's
plan for preserving the existing buffer requirements.
Committee member Woods MOVED to send the proposed Ordinance to the City Council on
December 12 under the consent calendar for a public hearing and Council's approval. The motion
was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. The motion carried
ADULT USE ZONING 4ZCA-95-3 - (R. Lubovich)
Ms. Laurie Evezich presented the Committee with a copy of the proposed Ordinance and
recommended that the Ordinance be brought before the City Council for approval. The proposed
Ordinance is similar to the existing adult use zoning Ordinance with the exception that the existing
set back restriction of I X0 feet from any single family or residential use is eliminated to allow for
a zoning for adult use businesses in commercial areas consistent with a U. S. District Court Order
from earlier this year. This would establish at least 19 locations for adult use businesses.
Chair Leona Orr questioned if the proposed Ordinance would satisfy the Court Order. Ms. Evezich
explained that this amendment-would allow adult use business to locate in the commercial district
but it has the least amount of impact on protected areas. She further explained that the Law
Department is confident that this Ordinance is defensible under the First Amendment analysis.
Committee member Johnson MOVED to recommend to send the proposed adult use zoning
Ordinance to the City Council under other business. Committee member Woods SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER AND ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT
ZONING CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENTS 9ZCA-95-2 & 4SCA-95-1
(L. Phillips)
Planner Linda Phillips presented the Committee with an article and some examples of cluster
housing developments. The main reason for proposing cluster development is to implement the
2
` I-17
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1996
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: Alternative Medicine as an Economic Development
Effort
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The proposed resolution has been
recommended by the Natural Medicine Economic Task Force
promoting Kent as the "Wellness Capital of America" and
encouraging the establishment of wellness-oriented medical
practices and associated businesses in the City of Kent.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum to the City Council Operations
Committee, proposed resolution, presentation materials
outlining proposal and comparison to the Mayo Clinic community.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
�. , �,!
Councilmember -- � y"L- moves, Councilmember seconds
L-
to adopt Resolution No. /LJ -( endorsing Kent as the "Wellness
Capital of America" and encouraging the establishment of
wellness-oriented medical practices and associated businesses
in the City of Kent.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION.
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
MEMORANDUM
TO: OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
FROM: BRENT MCFALL XA
SUBJECT: NATURAL MEDICINE RESOLUTION
DATE: DECEMBER 22, 1995
Attached is a draft of a resolution being proposed by the Natural Medicine Economic Development
Task Force. The resolution notes the emergence of natural and alternative medicine practices, and
suggests that Kent has already established a reputation as a center for these practices. It further notes
that this presents an opportunity for economic development in Kent,if we are successful in attracting
more practitioners to our city. Finally, the resolution states the City's support for this economic
development activity, and requests that the Mayor develop programs to encourage practitioners to
locate here.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Operations Committee recommend to the City Council adoption of the
proposed resolution.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the Kent City Council stating its
endorsement of Kent as the "Wellness Capital of America" and
encouraging the establishment of wellness oriented medical
practices and associated businesses in the City of Kent.
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council cares about the quality of life in Kent including the
health and well being of it's citizens, and
WHEREAS, medical practices are changing dramatically to include many different
disciplines, techniques, and approaches, and
WHEREAS,consumers are looking for alternative approaches to medical care such as natural
medicine, and
WHEREAS,natural medicine is defined as the cure or prevention of disease through the use
of vitamins,minerals,amino acids,enzymes,herbs, and other natural substances; sensible avoidance
of toxins, allergens, pollutants, chemicals, and unhealthy food additives; or the use of non-surgical,
drugless approaches, such as acupuncture, that support the body's own healing processes, and
WHEREAS, in addition to its superior conventional medicine professionals, Kent is home
to several nationally, and internationally recognized leaders in the field of natural medicine, and
WHEREAS, these natural medicine practitioners are establishing Kent's reputation as a
"Wellness Capital", drawing patients from around the country and world, and
WHEREAS, policies at all levels of government are changing to properly acknowledge the
efficacy, professionalism, and licensure of natural medicine practitioners; and to respond to the
demand by an overwhelming number of citizens for choice in their health care, and
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council recognizes the economic benefits to the city from such
medical practices, and desires to encourage additional natural medicine practitioners, and other
alternative medicine professionals to locate their practices in Kent, further establishing Kent as the
"Wellness Capital of America"; NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. In recognition of the significant role that alternative and natural medicine can
play in the economic health and vitality of the city, the City of Kent desires to become the home to
the most comprehensive array of alternative and natural medicine services in the United States.
Service providers are encouraged to consider Kent as the location to establish their practices, taking
advantage of the already strong reputation that Kent enjoys for the availability of quality alternative
medicine.
Section 2. The Mayor is hereby requested to develop programs to cooperate with
alternative and natural medicine professionals, colleges, professional associations, land developers,
and the like,to encourage the development of facilities for such medical services, and to encourage
such professionals to select Kent as the location for their practices.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this
day of 1996.
Concurred by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1996.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the
City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 11996.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
0
■
� o
a�
H
U U �
cis
�., • ct
- � Ct
c N N U
m bA ,7 CC3
—' CCd
r :�
U
ct o � .
0
0
V
U �
ct
CIS ct
Cld
� N �
� H
c
O 00 O
• ® ct
• "-+ ct
n �
a� •
O ' rmmq
ct
U
CC3 CIS ° M bi)
W o ct O �, m
o
ct
CN
C,�
Ct■ O
� � O O �
{ O
a)
cn
U M 6AY
4-4
� Ln
all
ct
N
c r!� ct3 0
^ ^
Oo 0o
oo r—+ N Ln Goq
U _
® o -+
• •
..
cnct
4�
ct
O
U
ct
• `r? N v . •
� � O
� � O
� � O
ct
O ct b g
U r� O
Uct
c
U
4-4
c °
ct
4—j � �" � • °�
N O ,-� O U
U U
O
CIS
U U O c �
O � �
00
ct �--+
N � �
ct .
� o
w �, U
ct
N U
O ct
ct U
4-4
v P4
sa� • ' U
O +
cct v '� ct
� �
O U Ct
03
^' � • U N � � O V1
■
Cd
M
O �
.. ct • O
. cn
U
cd N
O � • U OO,, U
cz
U � O
. � � Cld
4 0
0cn
0
V
Cl) O O us
U 0 cn Ct O
U U �
O 'rm�
p cn � . .
ct3
.O c
cc3 M 4 U 4
�, U
•� t cn
N N `n
cn ,� v r-4
c O v
s' tb
d U N N
0
c
• � u
a� �
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1996
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: School Impact Fees - Authorization to Amend
Comprehensive Plan - Emergency Resolution
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This resolution declares an emergency
pursuant to City Ordinance No. 3237 and authorizes the
preparation of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to
adopt the Capital Facilities Plans of school districts who
choose to participate in the City's school impact fee program.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ X
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTTION:
Councilmember k C\ moves, Councilmember l� ' k" seconds
to adopt Resolution No. �`"f�>� declaring an emergency and
authorizing the City to consider the addition of School
District Capital Facilities Plans as sub-elements of the City' s
Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of
Kent, Washington, declaring an emergency to
pursue an amendment to the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Capital
Facilities Plans of School Districts within
city boundaries as a sub-element of the
City' s Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act
authorizes the adoption of school impact fees to address
identified impacts of development pursuant to RCW 82 . 02 . 050
through 82 . 02 . 100 ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent
considered a school impact fee program ordinance and took public
testimony at its meeting on November 21, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a workshop to further
consider the proposed school impact fee program on December 5 ,
1995 ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the
proposed school impact fee program on December 19 , 1995; and
WHEREAS, the City Council moved to adopt the school
impact fee program with an amendment to add a low income housing
exemption to the proposed ordinance on December 19, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Washington Growth Management Act requires
that jurisdictions who adopt school impact fee programs adopt the
capital facilities plans of school districts who participate in a
school impact fee program as a sub-element of the enacting
jurisdiction ' s comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the Washington Growth Management Act and City of
,Kent Ordinance ##3237 authorize the City of Kent to amend its
comprehensive plan only once per calendar year, except in the
case of an emergency which is defined as "an issue of community-
wide significance that promotes the public health, safety and
general welfare; " and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the affects of the
absence of a school impact fee program upon the recently annexed
areas that were collecting school impact fees and has determined
that the potential lost impact fees and benefits to the taxpayers
of Kent constitute an issue of community-wide significance that
promotes the public health, safety and general welfare; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS :
Section i . The City Council of the City of Kent finds that
the absence of a school impact fee program within the "Meridian
2
Annexation Area" and the potential lost impact fees and benefits
to the citizens of Kent constitutes an issue of community-wide
significance that promotes the public health, safety and general
welfare .
Section 2 . The City Council of the City of Kent therefore
declares that an emergency exists necessitating the preparation
of a comprehensive plan amendment 'to adopt the School Districts '
Capital Facilities Plans as a sub-element of the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 82 . 02 . 050 (4) and RCW
36 . 70A. 070 .
Section 3 . That a comprehensive plan amendment be prepared
for the adoption of the capital facilities plans of School
Districts who wish to participate in the city' s school impact fee
program.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1995 .
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1995 .
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
3
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A.. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, the day of 1995 .
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
REST.KK
4
T
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1996
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: Election of Council President
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Pursuant to the City's Resolution No.
1094, the City Council must elect its president, who shall also
serve as the City's Mayor Pro Tem, in January of this year for
a two-year term.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ("
Councilmember uy ) moves, Councilmember (L,,i seconds
that Ti4j,v serve as City Council President for a
two-year term until January, 1998.
y
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 . 1996
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: Purchase of Police Patrol Vehicles
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Equipment Rental Division solicited
bids for the purchase of eleven police patrol vehicles. These
vehicles are normally purchased from the State of Washington
Acquisition Contract. However, due to limited supply, the
State closed all requests before the City was notified of the
submittal date, which was November 15, 1995. As such, there
was no opportunity to place the order as in years past.
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that
eleven 1996 Crown Victoria Police Interceptors be purchased
from the sole source supplier, Arendale Ford, of Arlington,
Texas for the amount of $19, 058 . 00 each, plus tax, plus $616. 68
delivery fee per vehicle.
3 . EXHIBITS: Bid Summary Memorandum, Public Works Operations
Memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $216 ,421.48
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Equipment Rental
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
[ '�
Councilmember �u. :�moves, Councilmember j seconds_
that the purchase of eleven 1996 Crown Victoria Police
Interceptors be awarded to Arendale Ford, Arlington, Texas for
the bid amount of $19, 058. 00 each, plus tax, plus $616. 68
delivery fee per vehicle.
DISCUSSION•
� j I
ACTION.
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
December 26, 1995
TO: Mayor & City Coun�'1
FROM: Don Wickstrom,�ublic Works Director
RE: Purchase of Eleven Police Patrol Vehicles
Equipment Rental division is requesting approval to purchase eleven 1996 Crown Victoria Police
Interceptors from Arendale Ford of Arlington, Texas. The City normally purchases these vehicles
from the State of Washington Acquisition Contract. However, due to the limited supply, the
State closed all requests before the City was notified of the submittal date, which was November
15, 1995. The City of Kent, and many other Cities, did not have the opportunity to place the
order as we have in years past.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the purchase of eleven
1996 Crown Victoria Interceptors, Police Patrol Vehicles be purchased through the sole source
supplier; Arendale Ford, Arlington Texas, in the amount of$19,058.00, each plus tax, with an
additional $616.68 per vehicle for delivery.
COST SUMMARY
State of Washington Contract 1996 Crown Victoria Police Interceptors $18,462.00, each plus tax
Arendale Ford, Arlington, TX 1996 Crown Victoria Police Interceptors $19,058.00, each plus tax &
$ 616.68 each for delivery
MOTION:
Counciimember moves, Councilmember seconds that the Purchase of Eleven Police Patrol Vehicles
awarded to Arendale Ford, Arlington, TX for the bid amount of$19,058.00, each, plus tax with an additional
$616.68 each for delivery.
SAAENDALE
PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS
MEMORANDUM
Phone: 859-3365 Fax: 859-366
hFu
Date: December 20, 1995 DEC 2 6
19S5
To: Brent McFall,Chief of Staff ,CITY o. 1,_
From: Eddy Chu, Operations Manager �✓ op�h,nT(
Subject: Purchase of Eleven (11)Police Patrol Vehicles
Equipment Rental Division is requesting approval to purchase eleven 1996 Ford Crown Victoria Police
Interceptors from Arendale Ford in Arlington,Texas.
The City normally purchases these vehicles from the State of Washington Acquisition Contract,however,
due to the Iimited supply,the State had closed all requests before the City was even notified of the
submittal date which is November 15, 1995. The City of Kent,along with many other Cities,had not had
the opportunity to place the order as we have every year in the past.
Fortunately,with the help of Chief Crawford,we have located the only Ford dealership,Arendale Ford,
that specializes in police vehicles. They happen to have a good inventory of the vehicles that meet the
City's need. Also,Ford is the only supplier of full size police fleet vehicles this year. The staff has
compared prices and found the price quoted by Arendale is reasonable:
State of Washington Contract: $18,462 plus tax
Arendale Ford,Arlington,TX $19,058 plus tax,plus$616.68 for delivery
The eleven vehicles are itemized as follows:
0 Six (6)cars are scheduled for 1996 replacement as approved in the 96 budget
0 Four(4)cars are approved in the 96 budget under the annexation plan
0 One(1)car is to replace a wrecked K9 unit. Funds have been collected from insurance.
The other options are to wait for other dealership to come up with the vehicles we need or wait for next
year's State contract,both of which are neither practical nor advisable.
Recommendations:
Based on the above information,we recommend: Gr
�/a215r ��. /
1. the City to authorize the purc ase of eleven p ice vehi es,and
2. issue Purchase Orders to Are dale Ford in Arlington Texas as the sole source supplier.
Recommended by: Date:
Approved by: Date:
cc: Ed Crawford,Chief of Police
Don Wickstrom,Public Works Director
encl.
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
CITY OF �
Jim White, Mayor
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
November 21, 1995
Plannine Committee Members Present• Citv Attomev's Office
Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich
Judy Woods (City Council President) Laurie Evezich
Jon Johnson Tom Brubaker
Planning Staff Public Works
Jim Harris Gary Gill
Fred Satterstrom Bill Wolinski
Linda Phillips
Margaret Porter Other City Staff
Teresa Beener Mayor Jim White
Bob Hutchinson
Other
Craig Sears, Land Use Consulting
Francis E. Leever
Kenneth Dozier
Sam Vass
Barbara Ivanov, Kent Chamber of Commerce
Elmira Forner
Connie Epperly
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KENT AND KING COUNTY FOR
ANNEXATIONS - (J. Harris)
Planning Director Jim Harris presented the Committee with a boiler plate interlocal agreement he
received from King County. Mr. Hams explained the differences between the boiler plate agreement
and the proposed Interlocal agreement. The major differences in the Kent proposed agreement was
the addition of a home repair section and the jurisdiction for the State Environmental Policy Act
("SEPA").
Mr. Harris recommended forwarding the proposal to the City Council for action on December 12.
Committee member Judy Woods MOVED to send the Interlocal Agreement for Annexations
between Kent and King County to other business at the City Council meeting on December 12 with
any refinements that may occur as a result of ongoing negotiations. Committee member Jon Johnson
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
''II Jih AVE0 SO. /KEVT WASH I VOTOV 98032-5891/ 1 EIEPHOA+F '060x 9_app FA.0
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
November 21, 1995
STREAM BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN THE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA
DRAFT INTERIM ZONING CONTROL ORDINANCE AND REGULAR DRAFT
ORDINANCE - (T. Brubaker)
Mr. Tom Brubaker explained the need to preserve the existing stream buffers relating to the major
streams in the Meridian annexation area. In the existing Kent zoning code there is a 50 foot setback
requirement for impervious surfaces. No impervious surfaces can be constructed within 50 feet of
the high water mark of major streams. However, under the existing County code there is a 100 foot
buffer which prohibits changes of any kind except replanting indigenous Northwest vegetation.
Mr. Brubaker requested an interim zoning control. This would preserve the same development
standards within the buffer area for up to six months. Mr. Bill Wolinski from the Public Works
department explained that the King County buffers were established after a lot of research. Mr.
Wolinski has received calls from King County and the Muckleshoot Indian tribe questioning Kent's
plan for preserving the existing buffer requirements.
Committee member Woods MOVED to send the proposed Ordinance to the City Council on
December 12 under the consent calendar for a public hearing and Council's approval. The motion
was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. The motion carried
ADULT USE ZONING #ZCA-95-3 - (R. Lubovich)
Ms. Laurie Evezich presented the Committee with a copy of the proposed Ordinance and
recommended that the Ordinance be brought before the City Council for approval. The proposed
Ordinance is similar to the existing adult use zoning Ordinance with the exception that the existing
set back restriction of 1,000 feet from any single family or residential use is eliminated to allow for
a zoning for adult use businesses in commercial areas consistent with a U. S. District Court Order
from earlier this year. This would establish at least 19 locations for adult use businesses.
Chair Leona Orr questioned if the proposed Ordinance would satisfy the Court Order. Ms. Evezich
explained that this amendment would allow adult use business to locate in the commercial district
but it has the least amount of impact on protected areas. She further explained that the Law
Department is confident that this Ordinance is defensible under the First Amendment analysis.
Committee member Johnson MOVED to recommend to send the proposed adult use zoning
Ordinance to the City Council under other business. Committee member Woods SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL L TER AND 7FRO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT
ZONING CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENTS #ZCA 95 2 & #S A 95 1
(L. Phillips)
Planner Linda Phillips presented the Committee with an article and some examples of cluster
housing developments. The main reason for proposing cluster development is to implement the
2
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
November 21, 1995
Comprehensive Plan Policy regarding providing affordable housing, saving open space, and offering
flexibility.
Cluster housing allows property owners and developers to utilize buildable areas on properties which
might otherwise be undeveloped. This proposal does not increase the density allowed. Rather, this
proposal allows the ability to cluster the total number of allowed units into a smaller portion of a
larger lot.
Ms. Phillips explained that the Planning Commission failed to reach a majority agreement on this
issue. The two issues discussed in detail by the Planning Commission when trying to reach an
agreement were:
1. The requirement for a conditional use permit. The Planning Commissioners
were divided on whether the neighbors should be given an opportunity to be
heard at a public hearing. Some felt it was important to give the community
an opportunity to voice any concerns, while the others felt is was too
complicated and unnecessary.
2. The 3,000 square foot lot size. Some of the Commissioners debated that this
lot size was too small and wanted a higher minimum lot size.
Ms. Phillips summarized the proposed cluster development and subdivision code amendments.
Public testimonv:
Mr. Craig Sears, 2134 NW 204th, Shoreline, WA 98177. Mr. Sears commended the City for
considering clustering housing. He commented that cluster housing can help eliminate urban sprawl
and allow for more affordable housing.
Mr. Sears questioned where the City was in regards to the revised street and storm standards. Mr.
Harris explained that Planning is unable to answer that question since those revisions would be done
by the Public Works Department.
Committee member Johnson questioned whether the street and storm revisions were going to be
included in the cluster development Ordinance. Mr. Harris explained that the cluster development
standards would be a part of the zoning code whereas street and storm standards are a separate entity
and a part of the Public Works standards.
Chair Orr suggested presenting all revisions that are effected by cluster development together.
Committee member Woods commented on bringing the Planning and Public Works Departments
together on these issues and address them collectively. Mr. Harris suggested a matrix in the zoning
code that would show what the street standards would be in cluster developments. Chair Orr also
suggested including the Fire Department in this process.
3
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
November 21, 1995
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom commented that the cluster development regulations are not
dependent on the revisions of street standards. Certainly an incentive for building cluster
developments is taking advantage of lower costs and revised street standards could provide for less
street to build and further savings.
The Committee recommended that this issue be brought back at date to be determined for further
information from the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments collectively.
ADDED ITEM:
DISSOLUTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION (L. Orr)
Chair Orr commented that in the light of the resignation of four Planning Commission members she
presented the Committee with an Ordinance to dissolve the Planning Commission and create a Land
Use and Planning Board. Chair Orr recommended sending the Ordinance to tonight's City Council
meeting for adoption.
The Ordinance would dissolve the Planning Commission and the Planning Committee would take
over the duties until such time a Land Use and Planning Board can be established.
Committee member Johnson MOVED to send the Ordinance to the City Council tonight for
immediate consideration.
Committee member Johnson discussed his previous reign with the Planning Commission. General
discussion followed.
Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
C AUSERS\DOCTCOMMNUTESTC01121.MIN
4
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 14, 1995
PRESENT: Paul Mann Don Wickstrom
Tim Clark Gary Gill
Jim Bennett Tom Brubaker
100TH AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONCERNS
Wickstrom opened the meeting explaining the history of this issue beginning with the
petitions the City had received several months ago requesting the closure of S. 244th
which was built in conjunction with the development of "Top of the Hill" and the "non-
opening" of 100th Ave. near the East Hill Elementary School. He noted that the City
has received another petition from the residents on 94th Ave asking for the reverse
effect; that 100th Ave should be opened in the future. Wickstrom explained that I00th
Ave has been on our long term Comprehensive Plan as a collector arterial tying 244th
to 100th. However, 100th Avenue would only be opened at the time of property
development adjacent to 100th Avenue and would be made as a condition of such
development He said that we had a meeting in June with no action at that time - it was
deferred to another meeting however, we did not get back to this issue until October due
to Councilmember and staff vacation schedules. At the October 23rd Public Works
meeting, the action from the Committee was to temporarily close 244th for a period of
up to 18 months. This was a temporary action. After that meeting, there were concerns
from property owners not receiving adequate notice to give their input. Wickstrom said
that after that meeting, staff did an extensive traffic analysis to determine the impact on
closing both 244th and 100th because they affect the entire neighborhood community
as far down as 94th Ave.
I(xisten Langley gave an in-depth explanation of the traffic flow throughout the
neighborhood and explained how the level of service is designated.
In response to Mann, Wickstrom explained that the last Committee action was a
recommendation to temporarily close S. 244th for a period of 18 months subject to
concurrence by the Police and Fire Chiefs. At the Council meeting we asked if we
could bring this issue back to another Committee meeting and, we were instructed to do
1
additional traffic studies to show what the impacts are. We found the impacts to be
neighborhood wide - from 94th to 104th and from 248th to 240th. At the earlier
meetings, the Eastwood and Canterbury plats were the only affected residents in
attendance. Wickstrom stated that the temporary action can proceed at anytime. We
are now looking at the long term action - what do we do at the end of 18 months?
Continue with the closure, and what do we do about 100th Ave? That property may
develop before the 18 months time-frame and we need a decision of how does that
property develop in terms of the Council's concept.
Police Chief Crawford stated that after looking at the traffic patterns he had a good
argument for all 4 alternatives. He noted the excessive traffic counts in the streets. He
stated that his department could police any of the areas as noted, but he said from his
view, there can be an inequity if one part of the community is forced to have more traffic
than another part.
Fire Chief Angelo stated that the department's general concern is, the more restrictions
that are placed on an access to an area the more difficult it is for fire personnel to get in
and out in a timely fashion. He noted that the Fire Department solicits to keep access
to areas open. He said that if 244th were to remain closed, someone should consider the
possibility of signalization on the Benson Road.
Pete Goforth, a resident in the Canterbury area, expressed concerns about safety. He
noted that 244th is now opened without so much as a centerline painted down the
street. Wickstrom noted that the lines can be painted; that's not the issue. Gill said that
we had the contractor hold off on doing the striping because we knew there was a
possibility that the road might be closed. He said that the developer is required to put
the striping in. However, because this issue has not been resolved as to what the
ultimate configuration was, we did not want to require Mr. Goodwin (Top of The Hill
developer) to spend additional money unnecessarily.
At this time Langley explained in detail the four alternatives offered to satisfy the needs
of the neighborhood community. At the end of Langley's presentation, there were
questions and comments from the audience. The general consensus of opinion from the
residents in attendance, was that Alternate "A", the opening of 100th Avenue, was the
most suitable to meet everyone's needs. However, they did stress that traffic restrictions
of some sort should be implemented; i.e., speed bumps, chokers or some device to keep
the speed down.
Mann closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
2
Committee unanimously recommended Alternative "A" with certain conditions.
Committee's amendment to the recommended motion was that the City guarantee to
have either chokers or turn-arounds or something to prevent 100th Ave from becoming
a full-fledged arterial.
Bennett stated that he will work with the neighbors on 98th Avenue to work toward
resolving the traffic problems in terms of improvements on 98th.
Meeting adjourned: 7:00 p.m.
~ 3