The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/01/1997 Colty of Kent +i I ' E i �iiS! C 1 l eetInYCoun ! Agenda I� I j 4 CITY OF I i,�iEe kilt I= I p� �;J{t '• T ��p� ! ! S ' { Y ;I4: ids' Mayor Jim White ae'� I Sd 'N Council Members i r � Christi Houser, President Jim Bennett Jon Johnson Tim Clark Leona Orr ' � I J l Connie Eppery Judy Woods t � 9E3 ' jyk�9 � I;' i April 1 , 1997 ' 4 S I ; gii ' E Office of the City Clerk �a pp f I 3� CITY OF )KP\, JS SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 1, 1997 Council Chambers V 7: 00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Christi Houser, President Jim Bennett Tim Clark Connie Epperly Jon Johnson Leona Orr Judy Woods CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Employee of the Month B. Introduction of Mayor's Appointees C. Proclamation - Washington State Disaster Preparedness Month I 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Personal Watercraft (Jet Ski) Ordinance 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B. Approval of Bills Z� C. Home Occupation Standards ZCA-96-8 - Ordinance D. Building Inspector - Authorization and Budget Change E. King County Medics Lease Agreement - Approval F. Surplus of Fire Apparatus and Selling of Apparatus on Consignment - Approval 3 44 G. Ambulance/Emergency Medical Service - Ordinance �j H. Emergency Sewer System Repairs - Resolution lglsq I. Boating Regulations - Ordinance J. Waterline Easement - Soos Creek Well - Condemnation Ordinance 3.-�4 3 K. Traffic Signal Hardware (Meeker and Russell) - Accept as Complete L. Mill Creek/SR 167 Drainage Tunnel - Accept as Complete M. Green River Natural Resources Enhancement Area - Accept as Complete N. Lake Fenwick Trail Project - Accept as Complete O. Drinking Driver Task Force - Appointment/Reappointment P. Bicycle Advisory Board - Appointment/Reappointments 1Council Absence - Johnson 1�1t''�' J �ICltI 1 CIS �Ct� I ' 'fi'� ` i ..:•�,__,- �� .�5+.1tiC .'� _Ctr :�,�? 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Mixed Use Zoning - Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-96-5 B. Annexation Policy C. Contract for Zoning Code Update 5. BIDS A. Senior Center Re-roof Project 6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7. REPORTS EXECUTIVE SESSION - Property Acquisition S. 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) Employee of the Month B) Introduction of Mayor' s Appointees C) Proclamation - Washington State Disaster Preparedness Month Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1, 1997 " Category Public Hearings T 1. SUBJECT: PERSONAL WATERCRAFT (JET SKI) ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Today is the date scheduled for a hearing on a proposed ordinance regulating the operation of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian. Lake Meridian provides recreational activities to both local residents and members of the public including swimming, water- skiing, fishing and other similar water dependent activities. During the last few years, recreational uses and more speci- fically vessel traffic on the lake have increased dramatically. The increased popularity of personal watercraft has resulted in increasing conflicts with other uses on the lake such as water- skiing, creating concern for public safety. The purpose of the regulations would be to restrict the times when personal water- w craft may operate to give all users an opportunity to utilize the lake and reduce potential conflicts in uses and enhance public safety. The regulations would restrict operation of personal watercraft at speeds in excess of eight (8) mph to the hours of noon to 6 : 00 p.m. on even numbered days from May 16 through and including September 15 of any year. x 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• ` OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilm6mber seconds to adopt Ordinance No. regulating the operation of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian OR to adopt Ordinance No. as amended herein regulating the operation of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian OR -' to send the ordinance back to the Public Safety Committee for further consideration and recommendation to the full Council. ,'bISCUSSION: ACTION: 4ti k Council Agenda Item No. 2A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 4.06 of the Kent City Code relating to recreational vessel and related activities within the City by adding a new subsection regulating the operation of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Chapter 4.06 of the Kent City Code � establishing regulations for recreational vessel use and related water dependent activities within the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, Lake Meridian provides recreational activities to both local residents and members of the public, including swimming. waterskiing. fishing and other similar water dependent activities: and WHEREAS. during the last tee% years. recreational uses and more v I� specifically, vessel traffic on the lake have increased dramaticall, . and i WHEREAS. the increased popularity of personal watercraft has resulted in increasing conflicts with other uses on the lake. such as %vaterskiin«. creating concerns for public safety: and WHEREAS, regulations on water related activities have been in place for I a number of years: however. these regulations did not contemplate the increasing use of personal watercraft: and 'I WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that all different types of I I recreational water dependent activities can be safely enjoyed on the lake: and WHEREAS.restricting the times when personal watercraft may operate will i give all users an opportunity to utilize the lake and reduce potential conflicts in uses and enhance public safety: and WHEREAS:the City Council finds that the regulation of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian would enhance the health, safety, and interest of all recreational users of the lake, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT. WASHINGTON. DOES III HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 4.06 200 of the Kent City code is hereby amended by adding a new subsection. Subsection C.. to read as follows: C. Personal Watercraft. In addition to RCW 88.12.145 adopted in Section 4.06.020. the following regulations shall apply to personal watercraft. 1. Personal Watercraft may be operated on the lake at speeds up to and �I including eight miles per hour any day and any time except during hours of darkness. ?. Personal Watercraft may be operated on the lake at speeds in excess of eight miles per hour only as follows: a. between the hours of 1100 noon and 6:00 p.m.: b. on even numbered days of the calendar: and C. from and including May 16 through and including September 1 5th of any year. SECTION' - Sei,erahilin. If any one or more sections. subsections. or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall it not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION3. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE. MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH. CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 1997. APPROVED: day of 1997. PUBLISHED: day of 1997_ I Ilerebv certif<r that this is a true cope of'Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the Citv of Kent. w ashington. and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK PILAWVORDINANC7PT$KI ORD 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . city council Action: Councilmember � L--moves, Councilmember ,\- seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through .9 be approved. Discussion Action 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 18 , 1997 , and the workshops of February 25 and March 18 , 1997 . 3B. Approval of Hills. Approval of payment of the bills received through February 28 and paid on February 28 , 1997 , after auditing by the Operations Committee on March 14 , 1997 . Approval of payment of the bills received through March 14 and paid on March 14 , 1997 , after auditing by the operations Committee on March 19 , 1997 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 2/27/97 180861-181062 $ 688 , 862 . 94 2/28/97 181063-181413 1 , 367 , 586 . 57 $2 , 056, 449 . 51 3/13/97 181414-181595 $ 902 , 153 . 22 3/14/97 181596-181956 1 523 . 072 . 23 $2 , 425 , 225. 45 $4 481 , 674 . 96 Approval of checks issued for payroll for March 1 through March 15, 1997 , and paid on March 20 , 1997 : Date Check Numbers Amount 3/20/97 Checks 218287-218701 $ 274 , 679 . 80 3/20/97 Advices 43992-44440 616 , 102 . 83 $ 890, 782 . 63 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington March 18, 1997 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 05 p.m. by Mayor White. Present: Councilmembers Clark, Epperly, Houser, Johnson, and Orr, City Attorney Lubovich, Police Chief Crawford, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Parks Director Hodgson, and Finance Director Miller. Councilmembers Bennett and Woods were excused from the meeting. Approximately 35 people were present. The flag salute was led by Boy Scout Troop 436 . PUBLIC Regional Justice Center Update. Tom Brown gave a COMMUNICATIONS final update on the Regional Justice Center Project. He noted that the Justice Center was opened Friday night with a simulated incarcera- tion, an overnight event, and that public tours were held on Saturday and Sunday. He explained that a temporary occupancy permit was granted by the City of Kent to allow for the simulated incarceration, and that it took a great deal of work, cooperation, and collaboration with the Fire and Building Departments. Brown noted that further testing on some of the life safety fire issues are still remaining but that they are real close to taking over occupancy of the building. He stated that the project is still within their target deadline and within budget which is a plus for the City as well as the County. Mayor White commented that the incarceration experience was meaningful and memorable. Introduction of Mayor' s Appointees. Mayor White introduced Tim Gimenez , his appointee to the Civil Service Commission, and Lilly Kato, his appointee to serve as a member of the Kent Arts Commission. Absolutely Incredible Kids Day. Mayor White read a proclamation declaring March 20 , 1997 , as Absolutely Incredible Kids Day in the City of Kent. He encouraged citizens to participate by writing a note or letter to a child and let him/ her know that they are special and appreciated. Ms. Bonner accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Camp Fire. Ms. Bonner thanked the Mayor and the City of Kent for proclaiming Thursday, March 20th, as Absolutely Incredible Kids Day. She noted that every adult is being asked to deliver a loving letter to a child or children in his/her family. She explained that Camp Fire has conducted extensive research, including inter- views with several family psychologists , indicating that the written message of letting 1 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 PUBLIC children know they are important, loved and cared COMMUNICATIONS about can make a lasting, powerful impact in their lives. She noted that a child can hold onto and cherish precious words when they are put into writing and that the goal for Absolutely Incredible Kids Day is for every child to receive at least one letter either by E-mail, put under a pillow, left in a lunch box, or any way to get the message to them. She noted that this day is about making time to communicate love and commitment to our children. She announced that some Camp Fire girls were present to distribute blank stationery to those who were interested in participating. Suburban Cities Association - 1997 Legislative Uydate. Dr. Lynda Ring-Erickson, Executive Director of Suburban Cities Association of King County, was present to give a legislative update on not only the Washington State Legislature but also on what' s happening in King County. She congratulated the City of Kent on the opening of the Regional Justice Center and expressed that it' s a real honor to the City as it will make a great deal of difference on how the City develops. Dr. Ring-Erickson noted that Suburban Cities works a relatively limited legislative agenda trying real hard not to duplicate the work of the Association of Washington Cities. She explained that Suburban Cities may have a higher priority on certain issues or may be in a different posi- tion than other cities and that these are the issues she tries to keep members updated on. She noted that after tomorrow cities will know better of what they are working with because it' s the deadline for bills to make it out of their houses of origin or they' ll be dead. She announced that the change in structure for the RTA Governance Legislation died in committee. Dr. Ring-Erickson noted that a memo was sent out regarding a proposition that would change the distribution of some of the motor vehicle excise tax from transportation to covering sales tax equalization, public health, and criminal justice. She explained that cities were asked to take a look at this proposition to see how relevant it is to their position. She noted that some research was done in terms of sales tax 2 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 PUBLIC equalization and found that most of the cities in COMMUNICATIONS King County stand to lose by this kind of adjust- ment. She explained, however, that there has not been any type of document prepared as of yet and that it would be an adjustment to the budget, not attached to a bill. She noted that this item will continue to be monitored. She explained that information received by the Association of Washington Cities is that it may not have much substance to it, but King County Legislative staff believe there is some support among the County Association to move this type of proposal. She emphasized that this legislation would mean about $9 , 000, 000 in lost revenues for King County cities and about $4, 000 , 000 in revenue coming back into the cities. She also noted that the sales tax equalization for public health, and criminal justice additions would amount to about $4 , 000 , 000 while the city' s loss to transporta- tion projects would be about $9 , 000 , 000 . She noted that the different cities who have responded are not in favor of it and that the Suburban Cities Board will be discussing it tomorrow night. She encouraged the Council to put in writing or make a phone call on how the City of Kent feels about the issue. Dr. Ring-Erickson noted that the gambling tax (House Bill 1404) which would change the tax on gambling from the net to the gross is still alive and that it will have a significant impact on the City of Kent as is the case in a number of other cities. She informed the Council that the Police Officers Bill of Rights did pass out of the House either this evening or is anticipated to do so tomorrow, and that the Council may want to dis- cuss with the City Attorney on how it will impact the City. She noted, however, that the City of Kent does have some fairly well called out officer rights in their contracts as well as through the Civil Service Commission so this bill may have more impact on the smaller cities . She noted that Growth Management bills which have passed out of the House are a different position than what Suburban Cities has chosen to work on in King County, that the Governor will not sign any of these bills, and that there may be some advantages to having a Governor who has just recently come from working on Growth Management in King County. She mentioned that the Council may want to talk to their legislators about where 3 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 PUBLIC Growth Management is in terms of the financing COMMUNICATIONS governance piece for long term strategies, who will provide services, and how those services will be funded. Dr. Ring-Erickson noted that substitute House Bill 1076 is still alive which would subject all associations such as Suburban Cities or the Association of Washington Cities to the Open Public Meetings Act and some audit requirements. She noted that the bill would add a financial and staff burden to associations, such as Suburban Cities, who are still primarily a one staff operation. She explained that the burden of advertising meetings countywide is very signifi- cant for an organization that runs on a budget of $150, 000 a year or less, and that it would have dramatic impacts on some of the bureaucratic requirements. Upon Mayor White' s question, Dr. Ring-Erickson noted that the warehouse tax exemption did die in committee, but that it might be attached to another piece of legislation and that they are trying to monitor it. She noted that the legislation would have crippling impacts for South King County, and she encouraged the .ities to emphasize its impact to their legislators. Mayor White stressed that this would have an impact of about $1, 300, 000 in lost revenue a year to the City of Kent, and that that combined with the sales tax exemptions and gambling tax would be another $1, 500 , 000 in lost revenue. She noted that those lost revenues coupled with the exemp- tions of the past two sessions on equipment and research and development turns out to be a fairly sizable impact to a number of the cities. Upon Clark' s question, Dr . Ring-Erickson noted that the Association of Washington Cities has been received much better this year. She noted that there are legislators in Olympia now who have several sessions behind them and understand that the Suburban Cities role along with the Association of Washington Cities is not entirely parochial but also provides information to the different cities . She noted that many of the legislators have, over the interim, heard from several of their citizens who indicated that they were in cities because cities do a good job of 4 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 PUBLIC providing local service and voicing their con- COMMUNICATIONS cerns. She explained that the communication is much better than it has been the last two sessions. She noted for Clark that the State is looking at water resource, and that Suburban Cities believe there are at least two elected officials in King County who would like to see the County take over water resource. She noted that realistically the County probably still has a role that everyone accepts for the planning of water resource, but that Suburban Cities is still working within the Associations, the cities , and the City of Seattle to look for long-term water resource. She noted that it is restructuring itself to develop the actual infrastructure, and that a water resource roundtable is being formed under the GMPC to look at water governance and finance. She noted some concerns because Suburban Cities has not received a letter asking them to make appointments to that group. She noted that water resource will be discussed at the Suburban Cities Board Meeting Wednesday night because there are concerns about how it' s shaping up. She noted that Suburban Cities needs to give some thoughtful, decision making to who will represent cities on this panel. Upon Clark' s question, Dr. Ring-Erickson noted that she has spoken to both the City of Covington and the City of Maple Valley, and that the can- didates in Maple Valley have asked her to help negotiate some office space for them. She noted that they are looking forward to some assistance from the City' s leadership staff for their first couple of meetings . She noted that they are off to a good start with these two groups, and that the swearing in ceremonies will be held the first week in May. She expressed hope that the City Council would be able to attend these ceremonies. Mayor White informed the Council that he has offered to both the cities of Covington and Maple Valley temporary, short-term help in any areas needed from city staff . He explained that it would be for only a week or two, but not a long term situation just to help them get up and running. Dr. Ring-Erickson noted that a City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk are the three who would be needed for a meeting or two while they get professional advice on how to hire 5 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 PUBLIC and who to hire. She noted that the two cities COMMUNICATIONS have been provided with an information packet on what to look for in a City Manager as well as how to evaluate a City Manager candidate. She noted that cities that have spent a week or two going through this process seem to have come up with people who have had more of the experience that could lead them through to completion of their contracts with the County in a timely manner. CONSENT HOUSER MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through I be approved. Clark seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 4 , 1997 . STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) LID 348 - 64th Avenue South (S. 226-S. 216) Street Improvements. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1488 setting April 15 , 1997 , as the date for a public hearing on the formation of LID 348 - 64th Avenue South Street Improvements, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. ZONING CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) AMENDMENT Home Occupation Standards Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-96-8 - Recrulatory Review. The Land Use and Planning Board has recommended amending the Zoning Code standards for home occupations . The Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter on February 24 , 1997 . Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager, pointed out that this item stemmed from a Regulatory Review filed by Sue Olson who lives on Kent' s East Hill. He explained that it went before the Planning Committee and that they referred it to the Land Use and Planning Board. He noted that after a public hearing was held, it was recommended to amend the City of Kent ' s Home Occupation Regulations . He explained that the amendment would allow in-home teaching of music in groups after an applicant applies for a special home occupation permit which would go before the Hearing Examiner. He noted that it seemed to be a fairly common practice among other jurisdic- tions in certain situations and that this amendment is modeled after the City of Auburn' s regulations. 6 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 ZONING CODE Satterstrom explained that when the ordinance is AMENDMENT written the application will go before the Hearing Examiner who will issue the decision on the permit along with any conditions that may be placed on the approval of that special home occupation permit. He further explained that the actual issuance of the home occupation permit would continue to be done by the Planning Department. ORR MOVED to approve Kent Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-96-8 as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Johnson seconded the motion. Ted Knapp, 824 Marion Place, displayed some photographs of his neighborhood and noted that the City of Kent is considering changing the current laws allowing increased customer traffic to home businesses. He noted that when he purchased a house nine years ago it was located in a cul-de-sac and that he felt it was one of the safest locations to raise a family. He noted that modifying the existing parking laws will increase the risk to his child' s safety and well- being, and that current laws call for no more than one customer visit at a time to any home business. He explained that several neighbors in his area feel that Ms. Olson is in violation of this law because she conducts music classes with up to eight children at a time. He noted that the parents who drive their children to these lessons often remain in the cul-de-sac during the entire class which restricts traffic flow, reduces visibility, and endangers the neighbor- hood children at play. He also noted that Ms. Olson is required by law to use her driveway for the initial parking of her customers, and that she claims to use up to six spaces in her driveway. He noted that the extra cars spill out into the street, park on lawns, within 5 ft. of driveways, or within 10 ft. of U. S. mailboxes causing missed mail deliveries, and that some cars are faced against the flow of traffic. He noted that Ms. Olson' s customers make U-turns in the elbow of the L-shaped cul-de-sac which is a wide turn that passes right in front of his driveway. He also noted that 1/2 of the neighborhood residents signed a petition that Ms. Olson circulated stating that her business 7 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 ZONING CODE did not bother them but that these were residents AMENDMENT who lived the furthest away from her business. He noted that no resident adjacent to or within three houses of her' s signed the petition and, in fact, some of them were not even offered the petition. He noted that no signators spoke on behalf of Ms. Olson at the Land Use and Planning Board meeting in February but all those opposed did, and that this is not a case of half and half because no resident nearby Ms. Olson' s approves of her actions. He noted that many neighbors feel it is time for Ms. Olson to operate within the existing laws and move her apparently suc- cessful business to a commercial site. He explained that all of the photographs shown were taken after the Land Use and Planning Board meeting in February. Jesse Cadena, 822 Marion Place, noted that he opposes the approval of this request for the same reasons that Mr. Knapp spoke about. He noted that Ms. Olson had sent a form letter to the neighbors with a note at the bottom informing them that she has obtained legal counsel, who advised her that the street is a public right-of- way and that people may park where they wish. He noted that it also advised that any further contact with her clients would result in Police notification. He explained that he has not had any contact with her clients whatsoever and that she added in the note that his truck is parked on the corner and she recommends that it be moved about S ft. forward. He noted that her customers can park wherever they want to and then she tries to enforce the parking for the rest of the cul-de-sac. He noted that he moved into this neighborhood 20 years ago for the peace and quiet of a cul-de-sac and now it' s being overrun with people coming and going at all hours of every day. Patsy Braseth, 807 Marion Place, noted that she lives to the right of Sue Olson, has lived in this neighborhood for 19 years, and that one of the reasons they moved to the cul-de-sac was because there wouldn't be any through traffic. She noted that the cul-de-sac is small with very few legal parking areas in it, even for the residents. She noted concerns that Ms. Olson has ignored the zoning laws regarding the music enterprise she retains within her home. 8 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 ZONING CODE Ms. Braseth explained that in late August and AMENDMENT early September of 1996, neighbors' concerns were brought to Ms. Olson' s attention, suggestions were made to her that could help the congestion, safety hazards, and inconvenience brought to the neighborhood from her music enterprise. She noted that it was essentially a flyer given to Ms. Olson' s customers advising them of zoning laws and common courtesies within the neighbor- hood. She noted that Ms. Olson ignored the flyer and went to the Council meeting in September, 1996, to change the zoning laws regarding her home business, and that on January 13th a Planning Meeting was held which was not open for public speaking. She noted that Fred Satterstrom' s comments gave a very condensed version of neighborhood concerns. Ms. Braseth noted that on February 24th a Planning Meeting was held which was open for public comments but even though the neighbors spoke of their concerns it was very apparent that Council had decided to update zoning laws regarding home businesses. She noted that Ms. Olson has been in violation of the zoning laws regarding her home business since its inception (approximately three years) , and that the Council has allowed her to continue to violate the governing zoning laws. She reiter- ated that her personal concerns are traffic, parking, safety, and the inconvenience to the immediate neighbors. She noted that citizens should have the right to earn a living at home, but when the rights of others are doomed it is time to rent space outside the neighborhood which would support the type of traffic •Ms. Olson' s music business generates. Lanette Knapp, 824 Marion Place, noted that this situation is "A Nightmare on Marion Place. " She expressed that she is in strong opposition against the City allowing the increased traffic into their private neighborhood of Kent. She noted that the Planning Commission put her in an uncomfortable spot to provide evidence of what was going on in the cul-de-sac but that the illegal things going on are not fair to the neighbors either. She questioned why one special person is allowed to continually break existing laws, and noted that if her daughter was involved in a private class situation where many neighbors were upset about parking problems she would immediately remove her from the class. She 9 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 ZONING CODE noted that there are plenty of businesses within AMENDMENT Kent with excellent programs for children. Sue Olson, the business owner in Marion Place, noted that she does recognize a home business impacts a neighborhood and that because of the impacts she has made an effort to communicate with the neighbors and hear their concerns. She noted that most of the classes are scheduled during the day when the cul-de-sac is quiet and the neighborhood children are in school. She also noted that this year she purposely selected class times that would not interfere with the mail being delivered and has tried to be pro- active in working through these neighborly concerns. She noted that unfortunately a few neighbors have chosen a spirit of dissention rather than a spirit of cooperation, and that the personal issues involving her business are ones that should be addressed before a Hearing Commissioner. Ms. Olson noted that music, art and dance instructors provide a valuable service to the community, and that statistics show children who are exposed to the fine arts, especially music, at an early age do better academically. She noted that Jr. High and High School students involved in music have better attendance, higher grades, get in less trouble at school, and have less suicide rates. She further noted that parents want their children to succeed and hopefully these home studios will help children become successful adults who know' how to interact appropriately with each other and feel good about themselves . She noted that having a home business seems to be the wave of the future with more people desiring to work out of their homes, and that there are other teachers out there who are wanting to work with small groups of children rather than a large classroom. She explained that another benefit of a home studio is that it will enable children to interact with adults who value these educational opportunities for their children. She noted that teaching out of her home has enabled her to start her business with just a very few children and gradually increase the clientele to where she is almost self- supporting. She noted that she could never have fulfilled this dream if she had to rent a studio 10 Kent City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 ZONING CODE place and that there are other teachers out there AMENDMENT who share the same vision. She noted that the permit will enable these people to have the same opportunity and chance for success that she has had. She noted that even though a variance or a permit will have limitations for a home studio business she believes that the limitations are better than total prohibition. She then thanked the Council for their consideration of this matter. Upon Clark' s question, Ms. Olson noted that there are quite a few things she disputes about the evidence presented tonight but that she didn't want to get into the accusations, statements, etc. at this time. She noted for Clark that she would take a look at the pictures presented which were taken after the Land Use and Planning Board' s meeting in February, if needed. Mayor White noted that a public hearing has been held on this item and that this is a decision that Council must make. Ted Knapp noted that the photographs presented are date stamped and were processed after the last meeting. He noted that these aren't wild accusations and that he hoped the Council wouldn't think that if they don't allow this to happen that there will be any children suicides. Orr noted that this zoning code amendment recommendation is not set up for Ms . Olson exclusively. She explained that she believes it' s an issue that will become more prevalent and happen more often in the future as people decide to work out of their homes and that giving music lessons is just one of the examples . She explained that the Land Use and Planning Board did hold a hearing and after considerable discussion decided that the City of Kent needed to take a look at the broader issue. She noted that Ms . Olson may go before the Hearing Examiner and everyone is certainly welcome to testify there regarding their concerns, but she feels the City needs a mechanism to deal with those kinds of issues. Orr expressed that it is probably the fairest and best way to deal with this issue because it is taken into an objective setting, the Hearing Examiner goes out to the site, and makes a decision based on what' s best for the neighborhood or community at large. She 11 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 ZONING CODE explained that if conditions are placed on AMENDMENT permits and the conditions are not met then the City has a mechanism in place to deal with the business at that time. She noted that Ms. Olson should be commended for bringing this issue to the City. Orr noted that the Land Use and Planning Board determined this was the best and most fair way to deal with these issues and that she will support the motion. Johnson noted that he agreed with Orr because he felt the broader issue needs to be looked at and not this one specific case. He noted that this specific case will be revisited at the Hearing Examiner level and ultimately at the Council level. He felt the Council should support this motion because there are several situations that would benefit the community and the neighborhoods. Mayor White noted that the motion before the Council is to approve Kent Zoning C: - e Amendment ZCA-96-8 as recommended by the Land :;se and Planning Board, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. The motion then carried unanimously. COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) (ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HOUSER) Excused Absence. APPROVAL of an excused absence from tonight' s meeting for Councilmembers Bennett and Woods . PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) RECREATION Surplus of Beeson/Cavendar House. AUTHORIZATION to surplus, demolish, and remove the Beeson/ Cavendar house for construction of a parking lot for the future Kent Historical Museum, as approved by the Parks Committee. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) Jail Services Contract with City of Bonney Lake. AUTHORIZATION to enter into a Jail Services Contract with the City of Bonney Lake for handling their Electronic Home Detention and Work Release individuals . All costs associated with the contract are covered by the fees charged for the individuals to participate. There will be no impact to the Corrections Facility general population. 12 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 RECYCLING (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) King County Grant Agreement - Special Recyclinq Events. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the King County Grant Agreement for Special Recycling Events, and direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget in the amount of $12 , 074 . 00, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) Civil Service Commission. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor's appointment of Tim Gimenez to serve as a member of the Kent Civil Service Commission. Mr. Gimenez and his family are Kent residents and his children attended Kent Schools. He is the owner of TJ's Sports Cards on Meeker Street where he has been in business for eight years. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Kent Downtown Partnership and has served as a member of CBAG, a Regional Justice Center Citizen Advisory group. Mr. Gimenez ' s term will continue until 4/30/98. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) Arts Commission. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s appointment of Lilly Y. Kato to serve as a member of the Kent Arts Commission. Ms. Kato was born and raised in Kent. Moving from a farm in the Kent Valley, Ms. Kato and her family currently reside on the East Hill in Kent and her children attended Kent schools. She had a career in real estate sales until her retirement in 1990 . Through the years Ms. Kato has been active in PTA, 4-H, is active in the Kent-Kaibara Sister City Association, and is associated with the White River Buddhist Temple where she serves as President of the Women' s Association. She is on the Board of Directors of the Kent Historical Society and is involved in the "Public Artwork to Honor the Japanese-American Community" project. Ms. Kato' s appointment will continue until 10/99 . FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. No vouchers were approved because of schedule changes. 13 Kent City Council Minutes March 18 , 1997 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for payroll for February 16 through February 28, 1997 and paid on March 5, 1997 : Date Check Numbers Amount 3/5/97 Checks 217971-218286 $ 268 , 155 . 22 3/5/97 Advices 43545-43991 594 , 110 . 08 $ 862 , 265 . 30 REPORTS operations Committee. Johnson noted that the next Operations Committee meeting will be held tomorrow afternoon at 4 : 30 p.m. Public Works Committee. Clark noted that the next meeting will be held at 3 : 30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. Planning Committee. Orr noted that the next Planning Committee meeting will be held on April 15th at 4 : 00 p.m. Public safety Committee. Orr suggested that as Council gets closer to preparing the budget for next year, they take a very comprehensive look at the Public Safety needs. She noted that if the newspaper report was correct about a week ago, this area has experienced a 26% increase in crime and that she has not heard that figure disputed. She noted that this is not meant to be a criti- cism of the Police Department because they are doing the best job they can do but with the recent annexations, the Police Department may be stretched a little thinner than desired. She noted that only one officer was added per 1000 population given the new annexation area which was probably not quite enough. She felt that Council should probably make this issue a higher priority and give it some serious thought for the next budget cycle. EXECUTIVE Administrative Reports. At 8 : 00 p.m. City SESSION Attorney Lubovich announced that there will be an executive session of approximately 15-20 minutes on property acquisition and pending litigation. He noted that he anticipates action on the pending litigation matter . The meeting reconvened at 8 : 25 p.m. 14 Kent City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 DEFENSE Pending Litigation. HOUSER MOVED to authorize FUNDING the City Attorney to negotiate and enter into a AGREEMENT defense funding agreement with CIGNA Companies, Guarantee Insurance Company, Lincoln Insurance Company, and Safeco under terms and in a form substantially similar to the proposed agreement which is hereby made part of the record for the purpose of defending the Kent Highlands lawsuit. Epperly seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 26 p.m. ' ., — Donna Swaw Deputy City Clerk 15 Kent, Washington February 25 , 1997 A workshop on the Regional Governance and Finance Proposal was held at 5: 00 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Clark, Epperly, Houser, Johnson, Orr and Woods. Approximately 15 people were in attendance, including Mayor White, Operations Director McFall, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom and Parks Director Hodgson. Operations Director McFall explained that the purpose of the workshop is to review and discuss the Suburban Cities Associa- tion' s proposed position with respect to regional governance and finance. He explained the studies which have been done, impacts to the County's budget, regional services which the County will provide to cities, goals, impacts on cities and so forth. He also discussed potential annexation areas, service changes which might be negotiated, services in unincorporated areas, and planning, zoning and permitting. After questions from Councilmembers and further discussion, Council gave direction to vote to go forward with the process. The meeting adjourned at 6: 15 p.m. 5'=�C Brenda Jaco CMC City Clerk Kent, Washington March 18 , 1997 A workshop on the RTA Rail Station was held at 6: 05 p.m. Councilmembers present: Clark, Epperly, Houser, Johnson and Orr. Planning Manager Satterstrom noted that the purpose of the workshop was to update the Council on the Downtown Action Plan and bring in the element of the commuter rail. He noted that a few Planning staff, Engineering staff, and Director of Operations McFall took a field trip to Chicago the first week in March to learn more about commuter rail and its relationship to land use planning. He noted that METRA, who runs the commuter rail service in Chicago, has the most extensive commuter rail service in the United States with approximately 260 rail stations. He noted that the commuter rail was very quiet and the trains were on time. Paul Bay, Vice President/Principal, BRW Inc. , gave some background information on what commuter rail is and the difference between it and light rail . He noted that the RTA will be working with the City of Kent in deciding where the rail station should be located to serve the City, and that it will be a joint decision-making process because of an adopted RTA policy. John Owen, Partner, MAKERS Architecture & Urban Design, briefed the Council on the Chicago Field Trip, gave a slide presentation and shared lessons learned relevant to the Kent Commuter Rail Station. He also described the alternatives for the north and south station concepts to the Council. Paul Bay made a comparison of the alternative sites for the Council and explained how each alternative station location would meet the objectives of the City. John Owen noted that Auburn, Tukwila, Puyallup, Sumner and Tacoma will have rail stations. Satterstrom pointed out that an advantage in this area is that the RTA will give $5. 8 or $6 million to the City of Kent for stations, parking, and circulation improvements. He noted that the City would have a good control on how the money is spent in the budget within certain perimeters. He also outlined the schedule of meetings for the Council and noted that the Council will receive notification of the upcoming meetings along with drafts of the plan as they are available. The meeting adjourned at 6: 55 p.m. /�6�7� J Donna Swaw Deputy City Clerk X//1 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS ZCA-96-8 - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Planning Committee, adoption of Ordinance No. amending Section 15. 08. 040 of the Kent City Code to make certain modifications to the home occupation regulations by providing for a special home occupa- tion permit for in-house music and dance schools and/or studios, art lessons, and academic tutoring. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board (approved by City Council 3/18/97) - (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 15.08 of the Kent Zoning Code relating to Home Occupation Permits by providing for special Home Occupation Permits for in-home music, dance schools and/or studios, art lessons, and academic tutoring. WHEREAS, on February 24. 1997, the Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on a regulatory review request to expand the uses for which Home Occupations would be permitted (No. ZCA-96-8): and WHEREAS,following the public hearing,the Land Use and Planning Board voted to recommend certain modifications to the City of Kent's Home Occupation Regulations set forth in KCC 15.08.040. and WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997_ the Kent City Council considered the i recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board and voted to approve the same: WHEREAS: the City Council finds that allowing home occupation uses i under certain conditions would benefit the citizens of Kent and further be consistent with and enhance the City's commute trip reduction program; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 15.08.040 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 15.08.040. Home occupations. A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to outline �(Teneral conditions in which home occupations may be permitted in all zoning districts. These conditions have 'been designed to help preserve the residential character of the Citv's neighborhoods from 1 commercial encroachment while recognizing that certain selected business activities are compatible with residential uses. B. Home occupations permitted. Home occupations which meet the �I requirements of this section are permitted in every zone where a dwelling unit was lawfully 1�established. The requirements of this section shall not apply to the following home occupations: 1. Home child care. The sale of agricultural products produced on the premises. C. Development standards. All dwelling units in which a home occupation is located must meet the following minimum development standards: I. The residential character of the exterior of the building shall be maintained; � � v < f materials nods, prod ucts or storage or dis la � door sto � P _. The out � P - equipment is prohibited: 3. A home occupation shall not occupy more than three hundred (300) square feet: and 4. The sign regulation of Chapter 15.06 shall apply. D. Performance standards. All home occupations must meet the following minimum performance standards: 1. Emplovees. A home occupation may not employ on the premises more than one (1) person vvho is not a resident of the dwelling unit. ?. Traffic. The traffic generated by a home occupation shall be limited to four (4) two-wav, client-related trips per day and shall not create I a need for additional onsite or offsite parking spaces. 3. Sale of goods and services. The sale of goods and services from a home occupation shall be to one (1) customer at a time, by appointment only, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday only. 4. Electrical or mechanical equipment usage. The use of electrical or mechanical equipment that would change the fire rating of the structure or create visual or audible interference in radio or television receivers or electronic equipment or cause fluctuations in the line voltage outside the dwelling unit is prohibited. 5. Utility demand. Utility demand for sewer, water, electricity, I garbage or natural gas shall not exceed normal residential levels. 6. Other criteria. There shall be no noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat, glare, or other conditions produced as a result of the home occupation which would exceed that normally produced by a single residence. or which would create a disturbing or objectionable condition in the neighborhood. E. Permit required. A zoning permit is required as provided in Section 15.09.020. F. Special home occu42ation hermits A special home occupation permit shall be required for the following home occupations when conducted in sessions of more than one individual: I 1. Music lessons. Dance lessons. 3. Art lessons. 4. Academic tutorine. A special home occupation permit may only be issued as follows: 1. Aplication An applicant for a special home occupation permit shall file an application with the City's planning department Upon �� receipt of a complete application the Planning Department shalt Schedule a public hearing on the application before the Hearin , Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.32 of the Kent City Code. The application fee for a special home occupation permit shall be the same as for administrative variances unless otherwise established by Citv Council resolution. 3 Criteria for cj2j2roval In conducting a hearing on an application for I a special home occupation permit the Hearing Examiner shall consider the nature and conditions of all adjacent uses and structures A special home occupation permit may only be approved by the Hearing Examiner if the Hearing Examiner finds that such permit will not be materially detrimental to the puhlic welfare or injurious to the property in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located and that the issuance of such special home occupation permit will be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this Section. 3. Conditions of a�2nroval Inapproving a special home occupation permiI. the Hearing Examiner may impose such requirements and conditions with respect to location installation. construction. maintenance and operation and extent of open spaces in addition to those expressiv set forth in this Section as may be deemed necessary ror the protection of other properties in the zone or vicinity and the public interest. 4. lssitance Am special home occupation permit application approved by the I{earin-r Examiner shall he forwarded to the Planning Department for issuance. 5. 41212ecil of decision The decision of the Hearing Examiner on a special home occupation permit application may he appealed to the City Council 12Lirsuant to Chapter - ')? of the Kent City Code. 4 SECTION 2. - Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE. MAYOR ATTEST: k BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: �I ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY it ij PASSED: day of 1997. APPROVED: day of 1997. 11 PUBLISHED: day of 1997. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed i 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 P LAW\ORDINANC`JIOMEORD 5 ?,/I Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BUILDING INSPECTOR - AUTHORIZATION AND BUDGET CHANGE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee, authorization for the RJC building inspector position to be retained, following completion of the Regional Justice Center; and to amend the General Fund budget by the addition of $42 ,200 to both Development Services expenditures and permit and plan review fee revenues. 3 . EXHIBITS: Operations Committee minutes and Building Official memorandum with attachments 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $42 200 (001-242-1850) SOURCE OF FUNDS: Additional revenue from building permit and plan review fees (001-1850-221001 . 001-1850-221002 ; and 001 1850 458300) 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION (206) 859-3360 MEMORANDUM March 13, 1997 TO: Council Operations Committee: Jon Johnson, Committee Chair; Leona Orr; Jim Bennett FROM: Bob Hutchinson, Building Official SUBJECT: Building Inspection Service Levels/Staff Resources It has become apparent that planned staff resources for 1997 will not be sufficient to maintain adequate levels of service in building inspections and code enforcement. As a minimal stop-gap measure to rectify this deficiency, it is being proposed that the building inspector position slated to expire upon completion of the Regional Justice Center (RJC) be retained, at a cost of $42,200 for the remainder of 1997. Histo : In early 1995, the Council established a project fund with the RJC permit fees to cover the extraordinary inspection services for that project. Two building inspector positions were authorized for the RJC building inspection phase, with any remaining funds to revert to the General Fund upon completion of the project (now projected for March - April, 1997). The 1997 budget provides for one of these positions to continue to help meet the building inspection workload increase identified last year. It has become apparent that continuing the other inspector position will be essential to cover the currently projected workloads while maintaining adequate service levels. This proposal is to continue funding the remaining RJC building inspector position via the General Fund to meet customer service demand in the face of inspection workload increases. Need: As anticipated, the intense subdivision activity in the Meridian Annexation area is proceeding toward development and construction, which will add to the continued heavy housing construction activity already projected for this year. Building inspection workload projections (developed in August of 1996 - see Exhibit A) clearly demonstrated a need for continuing this inspector position based on construction resulting from heightened platting activity. Events since August, including continued strong SEPA, platting and commercial construction activity, have confirmed the continuance of these trends and the validity of the conclusions presented (Exhibit B). This data contradicts workload assumptions incorporated into the 1997 budget revenue projections of an 11% decrease in permit and plan review fees (Exhibit C). In addition, the Meridian Valley Annexation and the Del Mar Annexation are imminent. While individually they are not expected to immediately require additional inspection staff ( and none are being requested in budget projections for them), the cumulative effect will be noticeable additions to building inspections and code enforcement workload demand, and at least some unbudgeted permit/plan review fee revenue. Progressively heavier permit activity and related inspection workloads in the past few years have resulted in a significant accumulation of expired permits (approximately 2,500), as well as those nearing expiration, for which required inspection approvals have not been obtained. Our experience predicts that many of these will be found to be for work which was never begun, others for work abandoned in varying stages of completion, while most were completed without inspection requests being filed. Nearly all will require follow-up; many with field inspections and code enforcement since it is probable that some of these buildings contain life-safety hazards. Unless we take active steps to deal with this backlog, this problem will continue to grow. If we are unable to stay staffed at current levels, the ability to eliminate the backlog while providing the same level of service, will be diminished. The August, 1996 projections established the need for this building inspector position to be continued based solely on residential construction activity in Kent as it existed then, which remains the major source of expected increases in inspections. While accurate projections of workload increases from other factors are not now possible, the unmitigated cumulative effect of the increased needs is certain. Our service capacity in building inspections will be exceeded (even with completion of the RJC) and our service levels, along with customer relations, will suffer. Continuing this building inspector position can help to adequately address this year's workload , especially if the incumbent (who has some code enforcement experience, has proven inspection capabilities, and is experienced and familiar with the City of Kent) can be retained. Funding: During the budget process last year, the revenue protections developed for 1997 from permits and plan review fees total $1,230,551. This is $150 400 less than the actual 1996 total of $1,380,951; an 11% decrease (Exhibit C). Workload indicators (Exhibit B) indicate that increased building inspection workloads, along with the increased plan review/permit fee revenues that accompany them, are much more certain. Therefore, it now appears highly unlikely that the projected $150,400 decrease will materialize, and much more probable that increased revenues corresponding to increased construction activity will result. Further supporting this probability is the recent history of vastly underprojecting plan review and permit fee revenue, as follows: Year budgeted actual difference % change 1995 $671,350 $1,085,927 $414,577 +62% 1996 $973,094 $1,380,951 $407,857 +42% 1997 $1,230,551 ? ? ? At a minimum, it can be safely assumed that 1997 revenues will exceed projections by at least the $42,200 needed to fund this request. Conclusion: The facts support the need for action for retention of staff capability adequate to maintain building inspection service levels for the remainder of 1997. Retaining the current building inspector position (with the incumbent, if possible) appears to be the least expensive, most efficient way to do it. Revenue has been identified that is more than adequate to fund the request. Recommendation: The Operations Committee recommend to Council that one building inspector position be authorized upon completion of the Regional Justice Center project and that the 1997 budget be amended by the addition of$42,200 to both Development Services expenditures and permit and plan review fee revenues. Attachments: Exhibit A - Excerpts from August, 1996 budget presentation Exhibit B - Platting activity from 1/1/95 to the present Exhibit C - Projected/actual revenues 1995-1997 (FBR-LNARR2) Fiscal Analysis Sheet '97 Budget Presentation Outline 8/30/96 DSO 7 MINUTES Intro: DSD has 3 major functions - organized accordingly.................... ORG CHART Code Enforcement Permit Process includes Permit Technician Team Plans Examiner Team Building Inspections Recent Acomolishments: Code Enforcement - maintained effectiveness without more resources Absorbed Meridian Annexation (though with slowed response times) Permit Process: Maintained service levels expectations through efficiency gains achieved by automation (document imaging); streamlined processes (basics), training, and Division reorganization Participated in & helped coordinate proposal for City-wide integrated multi-department permit process automation plan Processed more permit applications in '96 than YTD '95 without contracting out plan review ($73,000 saved)(1674 ready vs. 1588) (+6 empi/mos) Building Inspections - Maintained service levels, improved consistency & professionalism (Division reorganization, training, high expectations) Unprecedented inspection workload - over10,000 to date this year - 10,000 projected for all of '96 in 8/95) - 7,062 through August, '95 +42% (insp/mos +40%) Overall significance of achievements less obvious than statistics: Significant part is in what we have not done: - NOT increased or requested to increase staff beyond Meridian Annexation & RJC allocations to accomodate other intense growth. - NOT compromised quality of service 1997 Proiections: RJC will be completed, using most of 1996 & 1997 overtime budget to complete. Implementation of permit process automation system. Annexations may or may not happen - our projections & budget requests are based on needs apparent WITHOUT more annexations The intense levels of general development and construction will continue CHART A VERY LARGE increase in single-family construction will occur, predicted by platting activity levels. We will either foster and facilitate that growth and the prosperity that accompanies it - or become an obstacle to it. Need: Major Request: To continue BOTH currently authorized RJC - funded inspector positions after completion of the RJC - MINIMUM necessary to meet conservatively projected workloads. SF more labor intensive (in inspections) per unit of valuation than commercial, industrial or governmental. Charts showing "Short Plat Analysis-# of Lots & Preliminary Plat Analysis-# of Lots" taken together = increase from "95 to '96 of 321 more parcels (half-year actual x 2) 642 total. Charts assume each lot created in '96 will be built on in '97. 321 more CHART new homes create a need for about 3.2 inspectors. We are asking for . less than half that and planning to request more if conservatively projected demand exceeds our capacity. Options considered: Overtime: Most will be used to get over the hump with RJC OT optional with inspectors - seeing burn-out now, will be worse when RJC done; availability not predictable enough for sound management. Contracting out: No ready source (as with plan review); reduced accountability, efficiency, and professionalism. Automation: Work not amenable to efficiency gains (automation) - requires inspectors at sites Through annexation budget: Need is not related to ANY future annexation. need & revenue are based on projections with current City limits Revenue: More than adequate. The approximately $ 48,000 (after $50,000 from RJC) requested would be generated by permit and plan review fees from only 31 more single-family homes (@ $100,000 valuation each). 5% of projection. Conclusion: Requests include both RJC positions, benefits , supplies , etc and are the MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS based on conservative projections - may have to get more. Any less will compromise service & "choke, if not kill, the goose laying the golden eggs". (slowed development, delays in business starts, home completions, revenues collected, bad PR). Short Plat Analysis-# of Lots 1996 compared to 1995 (1st six months) 100 90' # 80 70 f 60 50 43 L 40' 0 t 301 �I s 20 10 0 1995" 1996" Year Number of Lots Increase of 100%. Preliminary Plat Analysis-# of Lots l 1996 compared to 1995 (1 st six months) 400 f I I 307 'I # 300' f I' 200 l, o � t 100 l s 4 I 29 0 1995" 1996" Year I Number of Lots Increase of 959%. BUILDING PERMIT REVENUE PROJECTIONS Preliminary Plats - Number of Lots Revenue Analysis Preliminary Plat Lots in the Preliminary Plat Lots in the Net Increased first six months of 1995 first six months of 1996 Increase Building Permit Revenue (Projected) 29 307 278 +54179000* *This is based on 278 lots times $1,550 (Valuation of a$100,000 home) for potential issuance of building permits. Short Plats -Number of Lots Revenue Analysis Short Plat Lots in the first Short Plat Lots in the first Net Increased six months of 1995 six months of 1996 Increase Building Permit Revenue (Projected) 43 86 43 +5661650* *This is based on 43 lots times $1,550 (Valuation of a$100,000 home) for potential issuance of building permits. mp:c:97permts.rpt Exhibit B Plats - Number of Lots Created 400 ` i 350 � I 300 250 � 200 v 150 100 50 0 1st Half'95 2nd Half'95 1st Half '96 2nd Half'96 - Number of lots by date of filing of short plats, preliminary plats, and plats-in-progress transferred from King County (annexation areas). Total Permits Issued '95-'97 300 2.50 200 150 100 50 0 Jan FebMarcrLApnl May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Legend 1995 i 1996 1997 Total of all "building" permits issued in all categories by month issued. :3R-LNARR2/BDGT COLS,NARR 27-FES-1997 (16:35) APP ORG REV TITLE PRG 95 ACT/4 96 BGT/5 96 YTD/6 97 FRCST/8 97 RED/9 97 8GT/10 CL DE 301 1850 221001 000 -410892 -361000 -494745 -440924 -409133 -440924 221002 000 -152254 -203000 -325512 -267208 -230067 -267208 221003 000 -67980 -47300 -78361 -70341 -53607 -70341 221004 000 -38041 -34560 -54344 -50795 -39168 -50795 229094 000 -3163 -2712 -83 -1283 -2712 -12B3 -672330* -648572* -953045* -830551* -734687* -830551* 415000 000 -17 0 -24 0 0 0 419001 000 -10 0 -20 0 0 0 419501 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 -27* 0* 44* 0* 0* 0* 458300 000 -413524 -324522 -427707 -400000 -324522 -400000 458900 000 0 0 -150 0 0 0 -413524* -324522* -427857* -400000* -324522* -400000* 698101 000 -3 0 0 0 0 0 699002 000 -30 0 0 0 0 0 699003 000 -13 0 -5 0 0 0 -46* 0* -5* 0* 0* 0* <*> -1085927* -973094* -1380951* -1230551* -1059209* -1230551* V71 1850 221001 000 -189139 0 0 0 0 0 221003 000 -18514 0 0 0 0 0 221004 000 -5513 0 0 0 0 0 -213166* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 458300 000 -1378 0 0 0 0 0 -1378* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* > -214544* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* -1300471* -973094* -1380951* -1230551* -1059209* -1230551* CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON FISCAL ANALYSIS 001 1850 242 (object codes - see attachment) FUND DEPT PROGRAM PROPOSAL TITLE: Retention of One (1) Building Inspector Position from RJC Fund in General Fund for 9 months after completion of the RJC to meet growth-associated building inspection and code enforcement service demand while maintaining customer service standards. APPROXIMATE COST: $42,200 BUDGET OBJECTIVE: 0 Maintain adequate levels of customer service in providing timely building inspections. • Provide building inspections for projected significant expansion of construction activity resulting from unexpectedly high levels of subdivision and general development activity by retaining a trained inspector. 0 Meet added workload increases from the Meridian Valley and Del Mar Annexations without added staff. WHAT IS NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH OBJECTIVE: Salary and Benefits S 39,375 Supplies S 1,125 Services and Charges S 1 ,690 Capital Outlay S 0 TARGET ISSUE AND RELATIONSHIP TO TARGET ISSUE: This request is related to Target Issues: 4.Service and Staffing Review and Direction; and 5. Annexation Policv & Action Plan, as well as to the high priority placed by the community, council and administration on providing timely, efficient and effective building inspection services. The anticipated increase in inspections will more than equal the workload relieved by the completion of the.RJC. PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES: • Increases in single-family subdivisions (primarily in the Meridian Annexation area) are expected to produce at least 100 more permits than anticipated in 1997. At$100,000 valuation each, $155,000 additional permit/plan review revenue would be generated. If only 27 of these are built, sufficient revenue is gained to fund this request. • Some (unquantifned) additional plan review/permit revenue will be generated from development and construction in the Meridian Valley and Del Mar Annexation areas. OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES: • Reduce service levels, resulting in delays in development, increases in construction costs, and lengthening response times to inspection requests. PROPOSAL TITLE: Retention of One (1) Building Inspector Position from RJC Fund from 4/l/97 on. Budget: 001-242-1850: Object Codes Breakdown: 1100 $30,546 *30,546 2100 2,444 2200 2,444 2400 3,574 2500 367 *8,839 3112 225 3120 100 3200 300 3261 300 3290 100 3500 100 *1,125 4222 1,000 4242 100 4320 90 4330 100 4340 400 *1,690 Total: *$42,200 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY MEDICS LEASE AGREEMENT - APPROVAL 2 . SumMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Fire Chief to sign lease agreements between King County EMS and the City of Kent for housing Medic Units at Fire Stations 76 (Valley Industrial Area) and 75 (Soos Creek Station) . These agreements are being entered into based upon the need to add a paramedic unit to the Valley area (Station 76) and to maintain the current medic unit at Station 75 (near Soos Creek) . The attached agreement is very similar to the previous agreement that Fire District #37 had to house medics at the Soos Creek Station. These lease agreements will be identical . The attached agreement has received approval from the City Attorney' s office. 3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of Interagency Lease Agreement and Executive Summary 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Admin. & Public Safety Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3E EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MARCH 18, 1997 TO: PUBLIC SAFETY COMIVIITTEE, CITY OF KENT FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF � e SUBJECT: FACILITY CONTRACT WITH KING COUNTY MEDICS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND: We are requesting that the attached agreement be entered into based upon the need to add a paramedic unit to the Valley area (Station 76) to maintain current levels of service. We currently are housing a medic unit at the Soos Creek Station based upon a prior agreement between King County Fire District 937 and King County EMS. We have found it to be beneficial not only in Medic response times, but also in enhancing our firefighters emergency medical skills and the coordination of field operations. The contract is similar to the one currently in place with King County Fire Protection District#37. Given the exchange of ownership of Station 75 (near Soos Creek), we are also requesting authorization to have that contract signed by the Fire Chief. The City Attorney's office has reviewed the attached contract for Station 76. The contract for Station 75 would be identical. BUDGET IMPACT Revenue received per month will be $623.00. RECOMMENDED ACTION& Approve placing the Inter-Agency Lease Agreements for Stations 75 and 76 between King County EMS and the City of Kent on the Consent Calendar for the April 1, 1997 Council Meeting and that the Fire Chief be authorized to sign these lease agreements regarding housing of medic units at fire stations. INTER-AGENCY LEASE AGREEMENT This LEASE AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 1996 between THE CITY OF KENT as LESSOR, hereinafter referred to as "THE CITY" and KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, as LESSEE, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY". WITNESSETH WHEREAS. the CITY and the COUNTY both desire to enter into a certain Lease Agreement for the use of approximately 1377 square feet at 20676 72nd Ave So.,Street, Kent, WA, hereinafter called the "FACILITY" for the stationing of a paramedic unit operated by the King County Emergency Medical Services Division. WHEREAS, paramedic workloads and response times have increased in the Valley areas of South King County, and have exceeded the capability of the existing five paramedic units to maintain performance standards. WHEREAS, the King County Emergency Medical Services Master Plan recommended that a paramedic unit be added in the Valley area to maintain current levels of paramedic service, and a location analysis has demonstrated that the fire station at the above address provides quality paramedic response and allows for the further review of actual response patterns. WHEREAS, King County can provide additional paramedic personnel, paramedic vehicle, and equipment and supplies necessary to provide the additional paramedic services. WHEREAS, the City desires to utilize King County's Emergency Medical Services Programs. NOW THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree as follows 1. DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES: I. Leased Space - 20676 72nd Ave So., Kent_ WA a. Garage space of approximately 480 square feet for one (1) paramedic vehicles including floor drains and automatic garage door openers; additional outside vehicle storage with electrical supply for an additional Medic vehicle. b. Sleeping space totalling 800 square feet consisting of two (2) 1 P x 14'6" sleeping rooms with one (1) bed each. The sleeping quarters include several built-in lockers available for use by the COUNTY. C. A total of 1280 square feet of interior space and two (2) exterior parking spaces for reserve Medic vehicles in addition to the parking spaces as needed for staff. I II. Space Shared By The CITY And The COUNTY a. Bathroom/shower facilities for both sexes shared with Kent Fire Department personnel; b. Office space including a desk and chair; C. Kitchen facilities, dining and day rooms shared with Kent Fire Department personnel; d. Exercise room and equipment shared with Kent Fire Department personnel; e. Facilities for fueling of paramedic vehicles. 2. GENERAL SERVICES OR ('ONDMONS PROVIDED BY THE CITY I. Basic Services a. Heating and Lighting - Heating, lighting and cooling will be provided by the CITY for the FACILITY and those services will be available on a 24 hour basis. b. Stan&y Power - The FACILITY will have an emergency generator available to provide backup power to the building to any area in the building. C. Waste - The CITY will provide a waste receptacle and collection service for all waste; EXCEPT, that the COUNTY shall be responsible for disposal of all contaminated medical waste. d. Storage Space - The CITY will provide storage space for limited storage of non "controlled" operational supplies. 3. GENERAL SERVICES OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY KING COUNTY I. General Services a. pUa_medic Unit - The COUNTY will station a paramedic unit staffed with two (2) paramedics in the FACILITY. b. Securit - The COUNTY agrees to maintain all pharmaceutical supplies, including controlled substances, under mutually agreed upon methods of security and accessible only by COUNTY personnel. 3. GENERAL SERVICES OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY KING COUNTY I. General Services - Continued c. Maintenance - The COUNTY agrees to require all COUNTY personnel assigned to the FACILITY to participate in the daily, weekly housekeeping duties and other periodic cleaning of the FACILITY (building and grounds) in cooperation with Kent Fire Department personnel. d. Special Conditions - The COUNTY further agrees that any problems or issues that arise involving personnel or operations of the respective agencies will be handled as set forth in Exhibit A of this agreement, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4. RENT I. The COUNTY agrees to pay the CITY $605.00 per month, effective December 1, 1996, for space and other systems and services described in Item 1 above. The monthly rate will be adjusted annually based upon the increase in the Consumer Price Index for Seattle and shall become effective the first day of January for each subsequent year of this lease. From the monthly rental, $180.00 each month will be placed in the City/Local 1747 Physical Fitness Program Fund. The remainder will be utilized in the operational or capital fund as the City deems appropriate. 5. TENANT IMPROVEMENTS I. The COUNTY agrees to pay all costs incurred in modifying the FACILITY to meet the COUNTY'S needs, including but not limited to alarm notification and lighting equipment, telephone and computer systems, security (locks) systems. a. All such modifications shall be made by the CITY with the prior written approval of the King County Emergency Medical Services Division Manager and shall be consistent with the FACILITY'S standards as determined by the CITY. Signatures of both parties are required upon completion of the improvements to show that all improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of both parties. b. Pavment for the identified modifications shall be in addition to monthly payments provided for herein. Any additional costs for changes to the original plan will require prior approval by the COUNTY. All payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice by the COUNTY C. Any tenant improvements made subsequent to this agreement shall be made by or with the approval of the CITY with the prior written approval of the King County EMS Division Manager and shall be entered as an Exhibit to this agreement. 3 5. TENANT IMPROVEMENTS - CONTINUED d. The COUNTY agrees to reimburse the CITY for all direct and indirect costs incurred by the CITY for repair and replacement of CITY property which is lost, destroyed or damaged (normal wear and tear excepted) to the extend of such loss, destruction, or damage is caused by equipment or employees of the COUNTY. e. The COUNTY agrees that at the termination of this agreement to restore the classroom, office space and entry areas to the high quality condition they were in originally. This will include removing tenant improvements, refinishing walls, ceilings, replacing carpet, restoring the alarm system, etc. 6. TERM I. This Lease Agreement is for two (2) years beginning December 1, 1996 and expires December 31, 1998. This agreement may be terminated annually for lack of funding. II. Termination for Other Causes: a. This Agreement is subject to termination upon Ninety (90) days written notice by the COUNTY should: i. The CITY fail to comply with the terms and conditions express herein; ii. The CITY fails to provide work or services expressed herein. b. This Agreement is subject to termination upon ninety (90) days written notice by the CITY should: i. The COUNTY fails to comply with the terms and conditions expressed herein. ii. If, in the judgement of the Fire Chief the relationship is no longer compatible with the organizational philosophy or values of the Fire Department. M. Changes: a. Either party may request changes in the services to be performed or provided hereunder. Proposed changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendment to this agreement signed by both parties. 4 7. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION I. The COUNTY agrees to assume responsibility for all liabilities that occur or arise in any way out of occupancy of the rented space at the FACILITY, and to save and hold harmless the CITY, its employees and officials, harmless from all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, loses and damages, including the cost of defense, incurred as a result of anv negligent actions or omissions of the COUNTY, its agents, officers, or employees only arising out of or relating to the performance of this agreement. H. The CITY agrees to assume responsibility for all liabilities that occur or arise in any way out of the performance of this agreement by its agents, officers, or employees, and to save and hold harmless the COUNTY, its employees and officials, from all claims, causes of action, costs expenses, loses and damages, including the costs of defense, incurred as a result of any negligent acts or omissions of the CITY, its agents, officers, or employees only arising out of or relating to the performance of this agreement. 8. INSURANCE I. The CITY understands that the COUNTY is self-insured and is willing to provide the CITY with proof of said insurance upon request. 9. NOTICES I. Official notice under this lease shall be Riven as follows: To City: City of Kent Fire Department 24611 116th Ave. S.E. Kent WA 98031 To County: King.County Real Property Division 500A Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle WA 98104 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. LESSOR: CITY OF KENT LESSEE: KING COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES r BY: BY: TITLE: FIRE CHIEF TITLE: ` z DATE: DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: BYaLSCJ � City of Kent Attorney KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DATE: BY: 1/.-l- � Manager Property Services Division 7 DATE: T� / 6 EXHIBIT A Special Conditions Interagency Cooperation a. The COUNTY agrees to designate one (1) paramedic on each duty shift who will coordinate the station activities and issues with the Station Officer, including but not limited to regular maintenance of the FACILITY by on-duty personnel b. The COUNTY agrees that when issues, conflicts or problems arises, the Station Officer and the designated COUNTY employee shall attempt to resolve the matter at their level. If the matter is unable to be resolved at that level it shall be taken to the nett level of the respective chains of command, up to and including the Fire Chief for the CITY and the Manager of the King County Emergency Medical Services Division for the COUNTY. C. The COUNTY recognizes the importance of the organizational philosophy and values of the CITY and agrees to cooperate with the CITY to support those values. The COUNTY further agrees to abide by Kent Fire Department Policies and Procedures as discussed and agreed to by the Fire Chief and Manager of the King County Emergency Medical Services Division. I Date: Date: Approved: Approved Norm Angelo, Chief Manager King County EMS City of Kent Fire Department 7 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS OF FIRE APPARATUS AND SELLING OF APPARATUS ON CONSIGNMENT - APPROVAL 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to surplus and sell the 1981 Aerial Ladder (Apparatus 750) and the 1974 Ford Pumper (Apparatus 735) and authorization for the Fire Chief to sign the agreement to sell the apparatus by using a consignment vendor. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Chief Administrative Staff and Public Safety Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Consignment fee (10% of amount that apparatus is sold for) SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3F Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: AMBULANCE/EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Safety Committee, adoption of Ordinance No. adding a new chapter to the Kent City Code, Chapter 5. 11, entitled "Ambulances" regulating the operation of ambulance services and requiring a business license for ambulance companies to operate within the City of Kent. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3G ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adding a new chapter to the Kent City Code. Chapter 5.11 entitled "Ambulances" regulating the operation of ambulance services and requiring a business license for ambulance companies to operate within the City of Kent. I WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public's best interest to provide for the highest level of emergency medical services practicable; and WHEREAS; the City Council also finds that it is in the public's interest to provide for the inspection and regulation of emergency medical service providers to provide this level of service; NOW THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON. DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: i SECTION 1. There is hereby added a new chapter, Chapter 5.11. to the Kent City Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 5.11 AMBULANCES See. 5.11.010 - Purpose. The City Council declares it to be in the public interest. and for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City and its environs to provide for the highest level of emergency medical services reasonably practicable. The City Council finds it to be in the public interest to provide for the i 1 inspection, regulation and control of emergency medical services to achieve high standards and thereby to eliminate inadequate, improper and harmful practices that may endanger the health and safety of the people. The City Council also designates the Chief of the Fire Department as the City's representative with respect to matters of emergence medical services and the coordination of health care issues to collate with the Fire Department provision of emergency medical services, health care services and transport. Such issues include but are not limited to the Fire Department responsibilities to be the City's prime provider of emergency medical services, along with related health care and transportation issues which must be coordinated to deliver our overall quality of emergency medical services (Advanced Life Support, Basic Life Support and relationships with related health care providers). Sec. 5.11.020 - Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meaning unless the context clearly requires otherwise: l. "Ambulance" means any privately or publicly owned vehicle that is especially designed, constructed, equipped, maintained and licensed by Washington State for the transportation of patients who are sick. injured or otherwise incapacitated. ?. "Aid trait" means anv publicly owned vehicle that is especially designed, constructed, equipped, maintained. used and licensed by the State of Washington to primarily deliver emergency medical personnel and equipment to an emergency scene. An aid unit has limited means to transport patients who are sick. injured or otherwise incapacitated. This specifically relates to Kent Fire Department Engine./Aid Apparatus. ;. "Ambulance attendant" means any trained or otherwise qualified individual responsible for the operation of an ambulance and the care of the patients, whether or not the medical attendant also serves as a driver. who is the holder of a valid certificate issued under this chapter. 4. "Ambulance company" means any person,corporation or other legal entity who operates an ambulance for hire. 5. "Business License" or "License" means a license to operate an ambulance company within the City of Kent. 6. "Business License Clerk" means such city employees or agents as the Mayor shall designate to issue and administer business licenses under this chapter, or any designee thereof. 7. "City" means City of Kent. S. "City Clerk" means the City Clerk of the City of Kent designated as the official keeper of records. 9. "Fire Department" or "Department" means the fire department of the City. 10. "Fire Official" means the Fire Chief or the Fire Chiefs designee to perform the duties provided for in this chapter. 11. "Patient" means an individual who is sick, injured, wounded or otherwise incapacitated or helpless. 12. "Licensee" means a person in whose name a license to operate an ambulance company within the City of Kent has been issued as well as the individual listed as an applicant on the application for a license. 13. "Person" means any individual, firm,joint venture, co-partnership, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver. or any other group or combination j acting as a unit. See. 5.11.030 - Administration of Licensing. The Business License Clerk, subject to a review and recommendation from the Fire Official, is responsible for issuing, denying, revoking, renewing, suspending, and cancelling business licenses to operate an ambulance company within the City of Kent. The Fire Official is responsible for ascertaining whether a proposed application complies with all the requirements enumerated 3 herein and all other applicable codes and regulations now in effect or as amended or enacted subsequent to the effective date of this chapter. The Fire Official shall make all necessary investigations and inspections for enforcement of this chapter. Sec. 5.11.040 - Conditions of a Business License. The Fire Official is responsible for ascertaining whether a proposed application complies with all the requirements i enumerated herein and all other applicable codes and regulations now in effect or as amended or enacted subsequent to the.effective date of this chapter. The Fire Official shall make all necessary investigations and inspections for enforcement of this chapter. As a condition of issuance of a business license. the operator of each ambulance company consents to the following: 1. The Fire Official shall be permitted to make regular inspections of any ambulance company operating under a business license issued. at alll reasonable hours, with or without advance notice, upon the presentation of appropriate crede ntials to an authorized representative of the company, and shall make such reports relative to conditions existing at such times and in such manner as the Fire Official may direct. ?. The Fire Official is given authority to determine whether and to what extent an ambulance rotation list. Fire Department units. sole contract!franchise approach or a mix of the above will be utilized to transport patients from an emergency medical scene. The Fire Official is authorized to establish procedures. guidelines and contracts for implementing the above mentioned approaches for emergency medical service transport. 3. The Fire Official shall he the linal authority to determine if an ambulance company should he added to or removed from the Fire Department rotation list. 4. It is recognized that the Fire Department currently transports patients where it series the interest of the public. The Fire Official I shall determine the distribution of transportation responsibilities as it relates to calls within the scope of the Fire Department's responsibilities. 5. Further, the Fire Department is authorized to provide transport, preventative and cooperative medical services to serve the interests and needs of our citizens. It is recognized that this may be done in conjunction with other health care providers in order to manage the risk to our citizens and to control the rate of growth in the demand for EMS services. 6. It is understood that a significant expansion of services shall be reviewed by City Administration and any significant additional program costs are subject to Council approval. 7. In the future, if it is determined that it would best serve the interests of the City of Kent to provide ALS services in lieu of the County, i the Fire Department shall be designated as the provider and/or coordinator of ALS services. Such a program change would be subject to review and approval of the Mayor and City Council. See. 5.11.050 - Response Criteria. A. The City shall be the first response provider of Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Ambulance companies receiving a direct request for EMS services shall notify the Fire Department's 9-1-1 communications center immediately so that a Fire Department first response can be initiated. The only exception to this requirement shall be for the transport of stable patients from one medical facility to another and routine medical transports and exams. B. The 9-1-1 system must be activated for all pre-hospital EMS primary examinations and unstable patient care. C. The Department shall establish ambulance response criteria and make such criteria known to each ambulance company at the time of application and renewal of business License. Application for a business license does not automatically qualify an 5 ambulance company to be on the rotation list for the Fire Department for ambulance services. D. Each ambulance company shall submit a response report quarterly or on demand of the Fire Official outlining compliance with the response criteria. Sec. 5.11.060 - Business License Required for Each Ambulance Company. Every person who operates an ambulance company within the Citv of Kent shall be required to obtain a business license from the Business License Clerk. An ambulance company operates within the City if it is: (a) Stationed within the corporate limits of the City: or (b) Dispatched from within or without the corporate limits of the City and repeatedly or customarily makes trips for hire within the City to pick up injured or sick fares: or (c) Making any trips into the City for hire to pick up injured or sick fares after occasional or repeated advertising, within the City, for such service. The business license shall be renewed on an annual basis. The Business License Clerk shall not issue such business license unless the applicant has fulfilled all requirements of !this chapter and any applicable provisions of the state law relating to personnel. equipment and operations including but not limited to Chapter 18.7; RC W and Chapter 246-976 WAC as now or hereafter amended. Provided. that the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to anv ambulance which shall pass through the Cm in the delivery of fares picked up at points beyond the corporate limits of the Cite. Sec. 5.11.070 - Application for Business License - Issuance. A. Application for a business license to operate an ambulance company shall be made upon forms provided by the Cite and shall contain: l. 'Name. home address and telephone number of the applicant: 1 Business name under %%hich the ambulance company will be operated within the City_ and business address and telephone number: 0 ;. The number of ambulances to be initially placed in service within the City; 4. The number of licensed ambulance attendants initially to be employed; 5. A roster of ambulances to be used in the City with proof that each ambulance is currently licensed as an ambulance by the State of Washington; 6. A roster of certified ambulance attendants with proof that each attendant is currently certified as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) by the State of Washington (including certification expiration date); 7. Proof that ambulances and personnel are verified trauma providers as provided in Chapter 246-976 WAC; 8. Certificate of insurance as required by the City of Kent and; 9. The schedule of rates. B. Prior to the issuance of a business license, the application and all pertinent records shall be reviewed by the Fire Official to ensure compliance with the license requirements under this chapter, as well as, any rules or regulations referenced herein or issued hereunder. Upon written approval of the application by the Fire Chief or the Chiefs designee and the payment of fees, the Business License Clerk shall issue an ambulance operator's business license. All equipment proposed for use shall be subjected to random inspection by the designated Fire Official, who shall determine whether said records and equipment conform to all the requirements of this chapter. C. Business License Fee. The business license fee schedule for issuance and renewal of business licenses under this chapter shall be that currently charged for general �Zsiness licenses under Chapter 5.01 until such time as the City Council may, by resolution, modify the fee schedule. Sec. 5.11.080- License Renewal. The Business License Clerk shall mail the forms for application of business license renewals to business enterprises in the city to the last 7 address provided to the director by the licensee. Failure of the business enterprise to receive any such form shall not excuse the business enterprise from making application for and securing the required license or renewal. or for payment of the license fee when and as due hereunder. Sec. 5.11.090 - Licenses Not Transferrable. No business license issued under the provisions of this chapter shall be transferrable or assignable unless otherwise specifically provided for: except that a license may be transferred when a business changes its structure i of ownership, provided, however, that a new license shall be required upon a substantial change of ownership whereby those primarily accountable for the business have changed or upon a substantial change in the type of business operated, whereby the primary business being conducted has significantly chan(Ted. Sec. 5.11.100 - Denial, Revocation or Suspension of Business License. I A. Grounds. The issuance of a business license to operate an ambulance company may be denied, or such license may be suspended or revoked by the Business License Clerk, upon the recommendation of the designated Fire Official, when the public interest will be served therehy, upon any of the following grounds: _ P g � 1. The license was procured by fraud, false representation, or material omission of fact, or for the violation of or failure to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter by the person holding such license. or anv of his servants. agents.. or employees, while acting within the scope of their employment: or The licensee violates am applicable v pp bh Ctt. . State. or Federal law_ or the purpose for which the license was issued is being abused to the detriment of the public, or such license is being used for a purpose different from that for which it was issued: or 3. Overchar_ing of customer rates set forth in the company's schedule of rates tiled with the 'i v g C t Clerk or fraudulent billing . i 4. Failure to maintain ambulances and equipment to the standards set forth in Chapter ?46-1)76 W.AC. 8 5. Repeated complaints by citizens of poor customer service such as rudeness, misrepresentation, unprofessional behavior, etc. B. Suspension and Revocation. A business license procured by fraud or misrepresentation shall be revoked. Where other violations of this chapter or other applicable ordinances, statutes, or regulations are found, the license shall be suspended for a period of thirty (30) days upon the first such violation, ninety (90) days upon the second violation within a twenty-four-month period, and revoked for a third and subsequent violation within a twenty-four-month period, not including periods of suspension, except that where the Fire Official finds that any situation exists in licensees operations which constitutes a threat of immediate serious injury or damage to persons or property, the Business License Clerk may immediately I I suspend any license issued under this chapter, pending a hearing in accordance with this section. The Business License Clerk shall issue an setting forth the basis for the action and the facts that constitute a threat of immediate serious injury or damage to persons or property. C. ,Notice. Except when a business license is immediately suspended as set forth in subparagraph B. above, the Business License Clerk shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice to the licensee of the decision to suspend or revoke the license. Such notice shall inform the licensee of the right to appeal the decision to the hearing examiner and shall state the effective date of such revocation or suspension under grounds for revocation or suspension. An appeal at the denial, suspension or revocation of a business license shall be made within thirty (30) days of notice of such denial. suspension or revocation. Such appeal shall be processed pursuant to the hearing procedures set forth in Chapter 2.32 of the Kent City Code. The Hearing Examiner shall set a date for hearing such appeal, to take place within forty-five (45) days of the date of the receipt of the Notice of Appeal unless such time is extended by mutual consent. At such hearing, the appellant and any other interested persons may appear and be heard, subject to the rules and regulations of the Hearing Examiner. The decision of the Business License Clerk shall be staved during the pendency of any appeal to the Hearin, Examiner and during any appeal unless the license was immediately suspended pursuant to Subparagraph B. above. D. Final .ddministrative Review. Appeal to the Hearing Examiner shall constitute final administrative review. E. peal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with the Superior Court within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the Hearing Examiner's decision was personally served upon or was mailed to the person to whom the Notice of Denial. Suspension or Revocation was directed or is thereafter barred. See. 5.11.110 - Insurance and Identification. No ambulance operator's business license shall be issued. nor shall such license be valid after issuance. nor shall anv ambulance be operated in the City. unless the operator maintains a policy or policies of insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of activities associated with the operation of I the ambulance company. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured. The ambulance company shall also indemnify and hold the City harmless from any causes of action arising from the operation of the ambulance company. The minimum scope and limits of coverage shalt be set by the Citv's Risk Manager or other person designated by the Mayor._ Evidence of such insurance shall accompany the application for license and shall be maintained on a continuous basis through subsequent license renewal periods. Sec. 5.11.120 - State License and Standards and Requirements. All ambulances operating in the City must be licensed by the State of Washington and must meet the standards and requirements set forth in Chapter 246-976 WAC. as now or hereafter amended. Proof of a state license as a transport ambulance must be provided with any application for a Citv business license for each transport vehicle. Sec. 5.11.130 - Ambulance Attendants. Fach ambulance company shall have. for each ambulance in service. on duty and available for immediate response. two (2) ambulance attendants who are currently certified as Emergency Medical Technicians ' lU (EMT), as provided in Chapter 246-976 WAC. A certificate of license shall be carried on the person of each ambulance attendant while on duty. Sec. 5.11.140 - Verification. Any ambulance company operating in the City of Kent must be a verified trauma provider and must meet the requirements for personnel and equipment as required in Chapter 246-976 WAC for trauma providers. The ambulance company must specifically be authorized to act as a trauma provider by the Seattle/King County Trauma Council or successor. Sec. 5.11.150 - Rates to be Filed. Each ambulance company applying for a business license or renewal of license pursuant to this chapter shall, at the time of filing its application therefore, file with the City Clerk its schedule of rates to be charged for services during the license period for which application is made. Such schedule or rates shall be a matter of public record open to public inspection in the City Clerk's Office during normal City business hours and such schedule must be adhered to by the licensee throughout the period for which the license is issued. Sec. 5.11.160 - Community Events. When an ambulance company is contracted �to provide Emergency Medical standby (i.e. 10K Fun Runs, etc.) by community event promoters, the following conditions shall apply: 1. The ambulance company shall notify the Fire Official in writing 14 days prior to the date of the event, or as soon to the event as reasonably possible, stating the date, time and scope of standby responsibilities. 2. Ambulance companies engaging in standby activities shall notify the Fire Department's 9-1-1 communications center immediately on all advanced life support/life threatening or significant Basic Life Support calls as required pursuant to Section I Calls will be i /i�ur 1 considered significant based upon extent of ink ylness or when there are multiple patients (more than three). i� 11 3. Ambulance company standby for handling basic life support calls must obtain prior approval and parameters for care set by the Fire Official. 4. All EMS activity provided by the ambulance company at such events shall be documented and a report forwarded to the Fire Official within one (1) week subsequent to the completion of the event. Sec.5.11.170-Violations; Penalties; Misdemeanor. In addition to other remedies in this chapter. any person who operates an ambulance company within the �provided for P p P P Citv of Kent without a business license as required in Section 5.11.050 above. shall. upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than S 1.000. or by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days, or by both such find and imprisonment at each and every day during which any violation is committed, continued or permitted. shall be deemed a separate offense. Sec. 5.11.180 - Additional Enforcement. The remedies found in this chapter are not exclusive. The Citv may seek any other legal or equitable relief. including but not limited to enjoining any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of anv business license, ordinance. or other regulations herein adopted. SECTION _>. Set cr afiilin If am one or more sections, subsections. or sentences of this Ordinance are held to he unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION3. Effective Dates. This Ordinance shall take effect and he in force thirtv (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by taw. JIM %X 1JITE. MAYOR 12 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 11997. APPROVED: day of . 1997. PUBLISHED: day of 1997. 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 P 9LAW ORDINANC)FIRL4 ORD l� Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EMERGENCY SEWER SYSTEM REPAIRS - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, adoption of Resolution No. certifying that an emergency existed requiring immediate repairs to a portion of the City's sewer system and ratifying all prior acts related to the system' s repair. On January 17th a failed side sewer system was discovered on Railroad Avenue at the Kent Cold Storage. Because sewerage was reportedly spilling on the ground and the failure appeared to be caused by City watermain construction work, the Public Works Director felt this was an emergency that needed to be addressed. The final bill received is $60, 000, however, we are reviewing this and the actual final cost may be considerably less. Monies for same will come from the Downtown Watermain fund and the Miscellaneous Sewer Improvement fund. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum, Public Works minutes and resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember. seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3H DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS March 19, 1997 TO: Public Works Commi tee FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Emergency Side Sewer Repair at James St. &-Railroad Avenue In January of this year, it came to our attention by the property owner of Kent Cold Storage located at the southwest corner of James Street and Railroad Avenue, that their sewer was not functioning and that sewage was flowing out onto the ground. Further, in their attempt to correct the situation, they located the problem within James Street. Our review thereof denoted the problem appeared to be at the approximate alignment of the watermain the City constructed several years ago. Further, based on my experience, it's not unusual due to the sandy valley soils, for problems with side sewers not to surface for several years. In addition, having gone thru several sewer back-up claims, and presently dealing with a lawsuit on one, I felt it was prudent if the City made the repair. Further, since we were dealing with an operating business (food handling) with employees and had sewage on the ground, I felt it was an emergency that needed to be addressed immediately. As such, with a guesstimated cost of $10,000 - $15,000 in mind I ordered my Sewer Superintendent to get it fixed. As it turned out the watermain construction was the cause of the side sewer problem. The fix however turned out to be much more expensive than originally anticipated. The final bill received is $60,000, however we will be reviewing same and the actual final cost could be something less. Monies for same would come from both the Downtown Watermain project fund and the Miscellaneous Sewer Improvement fund. Because the claimed final costs significantly exceed our original guesstimate, Council concurrence as to the emergency and the action taken is sought. ACTION: Adoption of attached proposed Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the Citv of Kent. Washington, certifying that an emergency existed requiring immediate repairs to a portion of the City's sewer system and ratifying all prior acts related to the system's repair. WHEREAS, on or about January 20. 1997, the City staff discovered a failure in a side sewer system near the location of 621 Railroad Aveenue North at Kent Cold Storage that additionally impacted the City's sewer system; and WHEREAS. the City's Public Works Director, after review and analysis of the situation, determined that this failure posed an immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, because of this threat, the Director of Public Works found that an emergency existed and ordered that the necessary work be contracted for to immediately remedy the situation: and WHEREAS. the situation has been corrected and all work has been completed. NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Kent. Washington. does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The above-listed findings and recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. Section 2. The Citv Council hereby certifies that the above-referenced emergency existed. Section 3. All acts taken prior to the effective date of this resolution are hereby ratified. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent. Washington. this day of 1997. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1997. 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, on the _ day of 1997. (SEAL) CITY CLERK p:'\,I awwreso I uti\swremem.pwk water demands and if we can make it additive versus supplemental than that's a great positive because water rights are no longer being issued. Wickstrom said that this is something we can do within our existing rights and doesn't require any outstanding permits which would be difficult to obtain. Committee unanimously recommended that Council authorize condemnation proceedings on the Rehkop property. Emergency Side Sewer Repair - lames & Railroad Wickstrom stated that when we installed the watermain in James St to increase our downtown water supply in conjunction with the Justice Center, we cart off the side sewer at Kent Cold Storage. Even though this project was complete two years ago, it is not unusual to have a side sewer function as a septic system due to the sandy soil or until it becomes totally blocked which is what happened in this case. Wickstrom noted that this facility deals with food and when they presented the problem to us we were not sure if it was something we did, however it was in the alignment of the new waterline. Wickstrom noted that we felt it would be a S 10,000 - S 15,000 repair item and it turned out to be much more expensive. However, we are worl6ng with the contractor on this. He said we are reviewing the bill but because of the dollar amount we need to have Council's concurrence that there was an emergency and we took appropriate steps to resolve it. Committee unanimously recommended adoption of a Resolution related to the emergencv side sewer repair at James (SIT- Railroad .-venues. Meeting adjourned: 4:00 p.m. /,dI Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BOATING REGULATIONS - ORDINANCE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Safety Committee, adoption of Ordinance No. amending Chapter 4 . 06 of the Kent City Code entitled "Boating Regulations" relating to recreational vessel operation and related activities within the City of Kent, adopting certain provisions of the Revised Code of Washington and the Washington Administrative Code and making other related amendments. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 4.06 of the Kent City Code entitled 'Boating Regulations" relating to recreational vessel and related activities within the City of Kent adopting certain provisions of the Revised Code of Washington and the Washington Administrative code as a substitute for and in addition to certain provisions of this Chapter and making other related amendments. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Chapter 4.06 of the Kent City Code (Ordinance No. 3248 as amended by Ordinance Nos. 3280 and 3291) establishing regulations for recreational vessels and related activities within the City: and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it appropriate to amend Chapter 4.06 to adopt certain provisions of the Revised Code of Washington. attached to this Ordinance as currently enacted as Exhibit A, and the Washingtoni Administrative Code, attached to this Ordinance as currently enacted as Exhibit B. relating to vessel regulations and by making other amendments: NOW. THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT. WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 4.06 of the Kent City Code entitled "Boating Regulations" is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 4.06. BOA44-NG RECREATIONAL VESSEL REGULATIONS. II Sec. 4.06.010. Application of regulations. The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to all recreational vessels and related uses in and upon all lakes within the geographical boundaries of the City of Kent. The provisions of this chapter shall be construed to i supplement united States laws and state laws and regulations when not expressly inconsistent therewith. Sec 4 06 020 Revised Code of Washington provisions adopted by reference. A. The following provisions of Chapter 88.02 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) entitled "Vessel Registration" Lis currently enacted and as hereinafter amended are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated herein: RCW 88.02.020 Registration and display of registration number and decal prerequisite to ownership or operation of vessel Exemptions. RCW 88.02.025 Registration of vessels numbered under the federal boat safety act. RCW 88.02.010 Exceptions from vessel registration. RCW 88.02.090 Inspection of registration - Violation of chapter. RCW 88.02.1 10 Penalties - Disposition of moneys collected - Enforcement authority. B. The following provisions of Chapter 88.12 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) entitled "Regulation oi'Recreational Vessels" as currently enacted and as hereinafter amended are herebv adopted by reference and incorporated herein: RCW 88.12.010. Definitions. RCW 88.12.01 Violations of chapter punishable as misdemeanor - Circumstances - Violations designated as civil infractions. RCW 88.12.0,)0. Operation of%essel in a ne,Liigent manner - Penalty. RCW 98.12.02� Operation of vessel in a reckless manner - Operation of a vessel under the influence of intoxicatin, liquor - Penalt% . RCW 88.12.035. Failure to stop for law enforcement officer. RCW 88.12.055. Enforcement - Chester to supplement federal law. RCW 88.12.065. Equipment standards - Rules - Penalty. RCW 88.12.075. Tampering with vessel lights or signals - Exhibiting false lights or signals - Penalty. RCW 88.12.085. Muffler or underwater exhaust system required - Exemptions - Enforcement - Penalty. RCW 88.12.095. Personal flotation devices-- Inspection and approval -Rules. RCW 88.12.105. Failure of vessel to contain required equipment-Liability of operator or owner - Penalty. RCW 88.12.115. Personal flotation devices required - Penalty. RCW 88.12.125. Water skiing safety - Requirements. RCW 88.12.135. Loading or powering vessel beyond safe operating abilitv - Penalties. RCW 88.12.145. Operation of personal watercraft - Prohibited activities - Penalties. Sec 4 06 030 Washington Administrative Code provisions adopted by reference The provisions of Chapter 352-60 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) as currently enacted and as hereinafter amended are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated herein. See. 4.06.03$40. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, in addition to the definitions set forth in Section 88 12 010 of the Revised Code of Washington adopted above, the following terms shall have the meaning ascribed in this section: A. "Authorized emergencywfttererft4—vessel" means any authorized waterear vessel of the City's police or fire departments, the united States government. and State of Washington authorized patrol boats or vessels. B. "City" means the City of Kent 3 C. "Obstruction" means any matter which may in any way blockade, interfere with or endanger any _.vessel or impede navigation including but not limited to rafts, log booms, trees, lumber, and other similar material or objects. D. "Oil" means any oil or liquid. whether of animal. vegetable or mineral origin, or a mixture, compound or distillation thereof. F. " means a person who tt� in eantrol y tt-ateret-aft while n n EG. "Person," when necessarv. means and includes natural persons. associations, copartnerships and corporations. whether acting by themselves or by a servant, agent or employee; the singular number. when necessary, means the plural. and the masculine pronoun includes the feminine. F4. "Pier" means any pier, wharf, dock. float. gridiron or other structure to promote the convenient loading or unloading or other discharge of wEtterer vessel, or the moorage of-- rvessel. G�. "Police" or "Police Department" means the Police Department of the City of Kent. H4. "Restricted area" means an area that has been marked in accordance i with and as authorized by the law or regulations of the City. to be used for certain designated purposes such as swimmine and aquatic events or otherwise closed to use by vessels. the method of marking and designation of which shall have been made by the Citv in accordance \yith the provisions of this chapter. IK. "Skin diving" means any free swimming person and/or any person who uses an artificial or mechanical means to replace his or her air, including self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA diying). �norkcl tube equipment and free divine I near. a J. "Vessel" includes but is not limited to, rowboat, sailboat, sailboard, canoe kavak powerboat ski boat, personal watercraft and other similar watercraft, �,T or an1) twelve feet or greater with a beam of f�ttr feet or mare ar used or eapable of being regtiri4less of iength or beam, tised as a-ffleftfts 4trans. er, or reqttired to be registered by the Beat Set n 4197 nn9v!f4EBTIi,'4 t ' (4efinitiatt t II not ineitteleautherize4 emergene-Y b resette purposes. eney 4. u4zfkter skiu or ,water skiirig" mean- —1 -forms, manners or means of b, Sec. 4.06.03050. Motor powered wttte er*ftvessels prohibited - Exception Except on lakes otherwise specifically provided for in this chapter, no motor powered wftterer shall be operated on any lake within the City. Ne person sitall negligently operate any watereraft in a martner so as to See. 4.06.040. Negligent operation. endanger 4te life or limb, or tifffnage the property 4fttiy person. 4 vioiation of tilis seetion shall - ,..J.......,_ftne_ ,.._ 4e fine ' his .t.,,_-t.t,_ b lIIIJ 5 Sec. 4.06.060. Required distance from power-ern€t motor nowered vessels to swimmers and row boat-gather vessels. Except as provided in Section 4.06.200(A)3. fit is unlawful for any motor powered„vessel to be operated while the propeller is engaged within fifty feet of any swimmer or any row boat, canoe or other vessels. Sec. 4.06.070. Dumping trash in lakes prohibited. The dumping, depositing,placing or leaving of any garbage, ashes, debris. brush or other material into any lake, is prohibited. Sec. 4.06.080. Floating objects adrift. All waterer vessels, or any other articles of value found adrift in anv lake in the City. may be taken into possession and removed by the police or other authorized City official or agent and shall be subject to reclamation by the owner thereof, on payment by him or her to the City of any expenses incurred by the City and in case of failure to i reclaim may be sold or disposed of according to law. Sec. 4.06.090. Sunken wale er vessels. When any waterer vessel or obstruction has been sunk or grounded, or has been delayed in such manner as to stop or seriously interfere with or endanger navigation. the police may order the same immediately removed and if the owner, or other person in charge thereof, after being so ordered, does not proceed immediately with such removal_ the police or other authorized city official or agent may take immediate possession thereof !and remove the same, using such methods as in his or her judgment will prevent unnecessary damage to such watercraft or obstruction. and the expense incurred by the Cite in such removal shall be paid by the owner or other person in charge of such tt'atereraftvessel or obstruction: and in case of failure to pay the same, the City may maintain an action for the recovery thereof Sec. 4.06.100. Intoxication. 5 A$. It is unlawful for the owner of any vessel or any person having charge or control of such to authorize or knowingly permit the same to be operated by any person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. BE. Whenever it appears reasonably certain to any police officer that any person under the influence of, or affected by the use of, intoxicating liquor or of any drug is about to operate a wateremoyessel in violation of subsection A above, said officer may take reasonable measures to prevent any such person from so doing. C33. A violation of this section shall constitute aess misdemeanor as defined in this chapter. Sec. 4.06.110. Incapacity of operator. It is unlawful for the owner of anv waterer essel or any person having charge or control of such to authorize or knowingly permit the same to be operated by any person who by reason of physical or mental disability is incapable of operating such watereraftyessel under the prevailing circumstances. Sec. 4.06.120. Accidents. The operator of wtttererftftav vessel involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to any person or in damage to property shall immediately stop such weAerervessel at the scene of such accident and shall give his or her name, address, and j the name and/or number of his or her wfttererafivessel, and the name and address of the owner, to the person struck or the operator or occupants of thewaterer essel collided with or property damaged. and shall render to am person injured in such accident reasonable assistance. Sec. 4.06.130. Accident reports. The owner or operator of any watercraft shall file a written report within forty-eight hours with the police department of any accident involving death or personal injury requiring medical treatment or property damage in excess of two hundred dollars in i which such watercraft shall have been involved on any lake of the City. See. 4.06.440. Overloading. safe c 4.06.4�$ 140. `x' Vessel operation within or bordering park property. Sec. P No person shall have. keep or operate any boat. float, raft, or •�ovessel in or upon any lake, within the limits of any park property, or launch the same at anv point upon the shores thereof bordering upon any park property.. except at places set apart for such purposes by the parks and recreation department and so designated by siens. 1 Sec. 4.06.460150. Restricted areas. In the interests of safe navigation. life safety and the protection of property. the city may designate restricted areas and the purpose for which same shall be used on am lake authorized for Wessel use. No person shall operate a watercraft within a restricted area. provided, that this section shall not apply to -vessels engaged in or accompanying the activity to which the area is restricted. nor to patrol or rescue craft or in the case of an emergency. Sec. 4.06.4-70160. Swimming - Lake Meridian. A. Swimming in Lake Meridian shall he confined to: 1. Restricted swimming areas, or �. To within a distance of tiff% feet from the shore. or a pier. or an occupied vessel accomQanvin<}the swimmer in the water. B. Use of inflatable flotation or similar devices, not propelled by instruments such as oars and paddles. including, but not limited to tubes. boards and inflatable rafts. are onl." allowed within a distance of' lifty feet from shore in non-designated swimming areas. C. No person shall cause to be tied to am.v marker buov. any watercraft. boat or similar craft or flotation device such as a tube. board or inflatable raft. D. No person shall give or transmit a false signal or false alarm of drowning in any manner. E. The Director of Parks and Recreation may establish the hours for lifeguard supervised swimming and may establish rules and regulations for use within or adjacent to designated swim areas. See. 4.06.+90170. Skin diving. Skin diving shall be prohibited in all lakes in the City except as necessary for public employees and their agents or other authorized personnel to perform their duties or in the case of an emergency. Sec. 4.06.440180. Water skiing. Water skiing is prohibited on all lakes within the City except for Lake Meridian which shall be regulated as set forth in Section 4.06.24-9200. Sec. 4.06.404190. Lake Fenwick - Motor-powered watereratvessel prohibited - Exception. It is unlawful to use or operate any waterer essel with motor power on Lake Fenwick, except electric fishing trolling motors, and except as necessary for public employees and their agents or construction company employees to perform their authorized duties or in case of an emergency. Sec. 4.06.7- 200. Lake Meridian - Motor powered watere anressel restrictions - (water skiing and personal watercraft operation. i A. Generallv. The following rules and regulations are adopted for the use of motor-powered wate;eraftvessels on Lake Meridian: .1. It is unlawful to use or operate any watererat vessel powered by motor power on Lake Meridian. except that waterer essels with the following engines will be permitted: 4-a. Water-cooled outboard engines of stock manufacture or stock manufactured inboard engines with outboard drive units (inbe rd utbe _a i inboard/outboards)which vent all exhaust gases through the lower drive unit in conjunction with cooling water and/or vent at a point on the drive unit which is under water at all times. 9 or watercooled direct drive inboard engines equipped with a muffler or silencer of sufficient size and capacity. to effectively muffle and reduce noise similar to that of outboards and inboard/outboards. This includes both propeller and jet propulsion watercraft. 37b. Air-cooled outboard or inboard engines of stock manufacture rated by the manufacturer at ten horsepower or less. rc. Electric fishing trollin�a motors. are wern. datnaged or d•r a in ,_ mattner tts to rermitz1t I C—?. No aierer vessel shall operate in excess of eight miles per hour - after 6 p:00 .m. until the hour of 9:00 a.m. and not in excess of thirtv-five miles per hour from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. �I 44-�. Watereraf4Vessels exceeding speeds of eight miles per hour shall remain at least two hundred feet from the shoreline and one hundred feet from other ' vessels and swimmers and shall proceed around the lake in a counterclockwise direction. E-4. All bettfsvessels operating on Lake Meridian shall carry United States Coast Guard approved personal flotation devices in good condition for each person j in the wttterera4vessel. �. Motor-powered wntererat vessels operating after sundown shall be equipped with and have lit proper running lights. G-6. The anchorage or moora(Ye of unoccupied w af� vessels is prohibited except when tied to a pier or dock with the permission of the owner of the pier or dock. +4 7. No remote controlled vratereraI4,,esscls powered by internal combustion engines shall operate before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. 8. Skin diving is prohibited except as necessary for public employees and their agents or other authorized personnel to perform their duties or in the case of an emergency. B. Waterskiing. The following regulations apply to all water skiing activities as defined in RCW 88 12 010(22)including but not limited to being towed behind a vessel on skis an aquaplane kneeboard tube. or similar device: 1. Water skiing on the lake at speeds up to and including eight miles per hour is permitted any time between dawn and dusk. 2. Water skiing on the lake at speeds over eight miles per hour shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 4-. Water skiing will be iitnited te the hattrs ef 9!90 a.m. to 6:90 P.M. ?71. It is unlawful to water ski within three hundred feet of shore except as follows: a) from privately owned shoreline, water skiers may start at and return to shore by means of the most expeditious route; b) from City owned shoreline, water skiers may start or return (deep water start) from a distance of 200 feet or greater from shore but are prohibited from starting or stopping within 200 feet of shore. For purposes of this provision, City owned shoreline includes the swimming beach and boat launching areas of the park. For purposes of starting at and returning to shore as authorized herein, water Ij skiers may temporarily exceed the speed limit of eight miles per hour. 3. Watereraft towing persons on water skis, fttbes, surfboards, or Simi _�,.4. All persons insvessels towing persons on water skis, tubes. II I surfboards, or similar contrivance shall remain seated at all times. 6:5. All operators of",& vessels having in tow or otherwise assisting a person on water skis, tubes, surfboards or similar contrivance shall comply with Sections 4.96.949, . .06.060. �1 6. Regulations stated in this subsection shall not apple to `vessels used in water ski tournaments_ competitions. expositions. or trials therefore. which have been duly authorized by the Cite. .. , 1 States laws running,as new or hereafter ftmended, and shall be nurnberecl or 4esignated in aeeordattee tk ith an,' See. 4.96.230. 1-4e preservers anti . at fit- . 4.06.210. Personal floatation devices equipment, and navigation lights. ,Secb >� All vessels operating on navigable waters in the City of Kent shall be equipped as required pursuant to the following provisions: WAC 352-60-030. Personal flotation devices required. WAC 352-60-040. Visual distress signals. WAC 352-60-050. Ventilation. WAC 352-60-060. Navi ate ion lights and shapes. WAC 352-60-080. Fire extinguisher required. WAC 352-60-090. Backfire flame control Sec. 4.06.2-40220. Oil. No owner. operator or other person in charge of any ftvessel, and no person along or upon the shore of the waters of the City. shall spill. throw. pump or otherwise cause oil of any description to he or float upon the waters of the City. Any person causing oil to be upon the waters of the Cite as aforesaid shall remove the same and upon his or her failure to do so. the same may he remo%ed by the City or other appropriate agency and the expense thereof shall be paid b- and recoverable from the person causing said oil to be upon the water. The payment of such sum or the maintenance of an action therefore, shall not be deemed to exempt such person from prosecution for causing such oil spillage. Any willful violation of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor as defined in this chapter. See. 4.06.250230. Nuisances. Sunken nvessels, refuse of all kinds, structures or pieces of any structure,timber, logs, piles, boom sticks, lumber, boxes, empty containers and oil of any kind floating uncontrolled on the water, and all other substances or articles of a similar nature, are hereby declared to be public nuisances and it is unlawful for any person to throw or place in, or cause or permit to be thrown or placed, any of the above named articles or substances in any lake in the City, or upon the shores thereof or in such position that same may or can be washed into said lakes of the City, either by storms, floods, or otherwise. Any person causing or permitting said nuisances to be placed as aforesaid shall remove the same and upon his or her failure to do so, the same may be removed by the City or other appropriate agency and the expense thereof shall be paid by and recoverable from the person creating said nuisance. In all cases such nuisances may be abated in the manner provided by law. The abatement of any such public nuisances shall not excuse the person responsible therefore from prosecution hereunder. A violation of this section shall constitute a civil violation under Kent City Code chapter 1.04 for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and abatement may be required as provided therein. In addition to or as j an alternative to enforcement under chapter 1.04. any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor as provided in this chapter. Sec. 4.06.264240. Public health. All watereaaivessels entering or in any lake in the City shall comply with the applicable public health laws and regulations of the United States, the state of i Washington and its political subdivisions. Sec. 4.06.2-7-0250. Liability for damages. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed so as to release any person owning erev. I'or controlling any Wessel, pier. obstruction or other structure, from any liability for damages, and the safeguards to life and property required in this chapter shall not be 13 construed as relieving any person from installing and maintaining all other safeguards that may be required by law. Sec. 4.06.490260. Authorized emergency and patrol Wessels. The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to the operation of any all all era-ftvessels on any lake in the City except that they shall not apply to any I emergency and patrol watercraft performing the authorized duties for which such emergency and patrol watereraf�vessels were established. Sec. 4.06.240270. Directing traffic, restricting waterer*ftvessel speed, suspending activities, emergency powers. i A, The police are hereby authorized to direct all watefetft4vessel traffic on Lake Meridian either in person or by means of visible or audible signal in conformance with the provisions of this chapter, provided. that where necessary to expedite waterera4vLessel traffic, or to prevent or eliminate congestion or to safeguard persons or property, such officers and other authorized officers of appropriate governmental agencies or authorities. may direct -vessel traffic as conditions may require, notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter. B. The Parks Director. or his or her designee, may restrict ve vessel speed or suspend any or all vvatereraftvesscl activities on Lake Meridian due to nab disttsterK lake such as floodin<a, hich water. or other events, conditions. or onditions on the 'i !occurrences when, in the discretion of the Parks Director. such is deemed necessary to protect persons or property from injury or damage ' Sec. 4.06.300280. Penalties. The following, penalties shallapnly for violations of this chapter. �, C- Infraction. Except as provided in Subsections B and C below , a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute :.��an infraction for which a monetary penalty may be assessed in the amount of one hundred dollars (S100.00). Pursuant to Chapter 7.84 RCW. 11 any violation of the provisions of Chapter 88 12 RUIN' adopted herein which constitutes an � infraction shall he assessed a monetary penalt% as established in the penalty schedule 4 currently set forth and as hereinafter amended in Court Rule IRLJ 6.2 adopted herein by reference. Each separate day, or portion thereof, during which any violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation. B. Misdemeanor. Any violation of any provision established in this chapter which constitutes a misdemeanor shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each separate day or portion thereof during which such violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation. C. Gross Misdemeanor. Anv violation of any provision established in this chapter which constitutes a gross misdemeanor shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or by imprisonment not to exceed one year, or by 1 both such fine and imprisonment. Each separate day or portion thereof during which such violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation. Sec. 4.063, 290. Authority of officers to board -, atereraftessels. Commissioned officers of the Citv are hereby given the authority to board any w&tereraftessel found underway on any lake of the City for the purpose of inspection and enforcement of this chapter. Sec. 4.06.420300. Interlocal cooperation. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the City from entering into interlocal agreements with cities and towns for the administration and enforcement of this chapter. See. 4.06.330310. Enforcement. It shall be the duty of the police department or other city department or official as authorized by the mayor to enforce all sections of this chapter. I SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this unconstitutional by a court of competent or P ordinance should be held to be invalid , ,Ijurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence. clause or phrase of this ordinance. III 5 SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage- approval and publication as provided by l aw. JIM WHITE. MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I PASSED day of 1997. APPROVED day of 1997. PUBLISHED day of 1997. I hereby certify' that this is a true cope of Ordinance No. passed b} 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 P4L.AWAORDINAACBOATRECA ORD Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1, 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WATERLINE EASEMENT - SOOS CREEK WELL - CONDEMNATION ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. relating to the Soos Creek Well Improvements project. The Public Works Department has been unsuccessful thus far in negotiations with Ms. Karen Rehkop to grant the City a right of way easement for a waterline on her property located in the vicinity of Kent Kangley Road (SR 516) and 116th Avenue S.E. It has been recom- mended by the Public Works Committee to adopt an ordinance and to authorize condemnation on this property should negotiations continue to fail . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum, Public Works minutes and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3J DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS March 19, 1997 TO: Public Works Commilttee FROM: Don Wickstromr�n 1l 1 I RE: Waterline Easement --JJ Soos Creek Well Condemnation Authorization We have been negotiating with Ms. Karen Rehkop to grant us a right of way easement for a waterline on her property located in the vicinity of Kent Kangley Road (SR516) and 116th Avenue SE (See attached map) The project involves connecting our existing Soos Creek Well facility to the Kent Springs Transmission main. By so doing, it increases our water supply peaking capability by 1 million gallons per day. Because the negotiations have been unsuccessful thus far, we are seeking authorization to condemn, however we will continue to negotiate with this property owner throughout the condemnation process. ACTION: Recommend that Council authorize condemnation proceedings on the Rehkop property. 12" Ti A Sc.0!J, 00 .......... pm, ;;cow I i t4n 0 ie 12' ——————————— nmM' RI— it mm; om n P 150 F1 WATERLINE EASEMENT SOOS CREEK WELL CONDEMNATION Brenda Jacober, City Clerk CITY OF KENT 220 - 4th Avenue South Kent WA 98032-5894 (206) 859-3300 ORDINANCE NO. Grantor(s): Karen Rose Rehkop Grantee(s): City of Kent Legal Description: 1. Abbreviated form: SW quarter of the NW quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington 2. Additional legal description is on page 6 of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Account Number(s): 282205-9013 and 282205-9092 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: 7 (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET AND ALL EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS) f� li ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the Citv of Kent. Washington. providing for the acquisition of certain property and/or property rights in order to construct. extend. improve, alter maintain and reconstruct the City_ 's "Soos Creek Well Improvements" project; providing for the condemnation. appropriation, taking and damaging of such property rights as are necessary for that purpose: providing for the payment thereof out of the Soos Creek Well Improvements Fund (Fund W-41); and directing the Cite Attorney to prosecute the appropriate legal proceedings. together with the authoritv to enter into settlements, stipulations or other agreements: all of said property located within King County. Washington. rights WHEREAS, the acquisition of property and/or property n�hts and the I construction of the Soos Creek Weil Improvements Project (the "Project")is an important part of the City's Capital Facilities Plan for water system improvements: and purchase of all the otiate WHEREAS, the City has attempted to ne g p necessary property and/or property rights for the Project from the property owners and has reached an impasse %Nith the owner whose propert.% is described in Exhibit A: and WHEREAS. in view of the impasse reached with the property owner. the City Council has determined to condemn the propert} and/or property rights necessary for completion of the Project. NOW. THEREFORE. I I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT. WASHINGTON, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. After hearing the report of City staff, and after reviewing the planned improvements for the Soos Creek Well Improvements Project (the "Project"). the City Council finds and declares that the public convenience, use, health, safety and necessity demand that the City of Kent condemn, appropriate, take and damage portions of certain real property located in King County. Washington, in order to acquire the I necessary property and/or property rights for the construction of the Project, including all necessary appurtenances. This parcel is legally described in Exhibit A. attached and incorporated by this reference (the "Property"). The purposes for which this condemnation is authorized shall include, without limitation. all acts necessary to complete the construction, extension, improvement, alteration, maintenance and reconstruction of the Project. SECTION 1. The City authorizes the acquisition by condemnation of all or a part of the Property for the construction, extension, improvement, alteration, i I maintenance and reconstruction of the Project. including acquisition of property and/or property rights, together with all necessary appurtenances and related work to make a complete improvement according to City standards. SECTION 3. The City shall condemn the Property only after just compensation has first been made or paid into court for the owner or owners in the manner prescribed by law. SECTION 4. The City shall pay for the entire cost of the acquisition by condemnation provided for in this ordinance through the City's "Soos Creek Well Improvements" fund (Fund W-41) or from any of the City's general funds, if necessary. as may be provided by law. SECTION 5. The City authorizes and directs the City Attorney to commence those proceedings provided by law that are necessary to condemn the Property. In commencing these condemnation procedures. the City Council authorizes the City Attornev to enter into settlements, stipulations or agreements in order to minimize damages, which settlements, stipulations or agreements may include, but not be limited to. the amount of just compensation to be paid. the size and dimensions of the property condemned, and the acquisition of temporary construction easements and other property interests. SECTION 6. Any acts consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance are ratified and confirmed. it SECTION 7. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. I' I SECTION 3. This ordinance. being the exercise of a power specificall\ delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum. and shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after publication of the attached summary. which is hereh,, approved. I I I .11\1 WHITE, MAYOR I / i I'i ' ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: I I ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I PASSED the day of , 1997. APPROVED the —day of 1997- PUBLISHED the_day of , 1997. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct 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 hereon indicated. Ij BRENDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. I of the Citv of Kent. W'ashin«ton 1997. the City On the _day of Y Council of the Citv of 1 Kent, Washington. passed Ordinance No. _. A summary of the content of this ordinance. consisting of its title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KENT. WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY AND/OR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ORDER �TO CONSTRUCT. EXTEND.. IMPROVE, ALTER MAINTAIN AND RECONSTRUCT THE CITY'S "SOOS CREEK WELL IMPROVEMENTS" PROJECT: PROVIDING FOR i THE CONDEMNATION. APPROPRIATION. TAKING AND DAMAGING OF SUCH PROPERTY RIGHTS AS ARE NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE: PROVIDING ��FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF OUT OF THE SOOS CREEK WELL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (FUND W-41): AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. TOGETHER WITH THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO SETTLEMENTS, STIPULATIONS OR OTHER AGREEMENTS: ALL OF SAID PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. The full text of this Ordinance will he mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 1997. 13[FNDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK 11 1 AN".ORDNAFC':C0%DE%1,1 ORD That portion of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the center line of the Kent-Black Diamond Road No. 173, which point in 482 feet southeasterly of the west line of said Section 28 (measured along the center line of said road) ; thence southeasterly along said road, 170 feet; � thence soutIN h to the south line of the northwest quarter of said a section; Q thence westerly along said south line to a point 329 feet east of M the west line of said section; thence northeasterly to the point of beginning; EXCEPT Kent-Kangley Highway (County Road Number 173, SSH Number 5) ; AND EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the State of Washington for Kent-Kangley Highway, (County Road No. 173, SSH No. 5-A) by deed recorded under Recording Number 7907060276 . FiL SD That portion of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows : Beginning at the point of intersection of section line between Sections 28 and 29, said Township and Range with the center line of Kent-Black Diamond Road, known as Road No. 173; thence in a southeasterly direction along the center line of said road 482 feet; thence southwesterly 436 feet, more or less, to a point in the quarter line running east and west through said Section 28, which is 329 feet east of said section line; 1 thence west along said quarter line tu the west line of said Section 0 28; M thence north to the point of beginning; EXCEPT portion described as follows : Beginning at a point of intersection of section line between said Sections 28 and 29 with the center line of Kent-Black Diamond Road; thence southeasterly 290 feet; thence southwesterly 525 feet, more or less, to the south line of said southwest quarter which is 155 feet east of said section line; thence west along said south line to 'he west line of said section; thence north to point of beginning; and EXCEPT portion thereof lying within Kent-Black Diamond Road; AND EXCEPT portion condemned under King County Superior Court Cause Number 80-2-12898-1 . EXHIBIT A PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE March 19, 1997 PRESENT: Tim Clark Don Wicicstrom Leona Orr Tom Brubaker Christi Houser Ed White 38th Avenue/Reith Road Crosswalk Jeff Kolgard a resident near West Fenwick Park noted that the street in question is not 38th Avenue, it is 42nd Avenue. Mr. Kolgard referred to the stop sign on 42nd - a driver failed to see Mr. Kolgard's son in the crosswalk and nearly hit him. Wicicstrom said we have budget approval in '97 to install a full traffic control signal this ,year at 42nd Ave &- Reith Rd. Waterline Easement - Soos Creek Well Condemnation Authorization �V Wicicstrom explained that we are rerouting where we outlet the water from our Soos Creek Well and are taking it to our Kent Springs Transmission Main versus our Clark Springs Transmission Main because this will give us an added capacity. When we put it into our Kent Springs Transmission Main it reduces the amount of water we can take from Clark Springs. We have to work around at the sources to get any added capacity and by changing it into our Kent Springs Main, it gives us the full 1 Million Gallons per day of additional capacity. Wicicstrom said we have been in negotiations with Ms. Karen Rehkop for sometime on trying to acquire an easement and negotiations have not gone well. He said that at this point we are asking for condemnation authority however, we will continue to negotiate. Clark asked if the easement has any impact visually upon Ms. Rehkop's property. Wicicstrom explained that this is all underground. In response to Clark, Wicicstrom noted that immediately across from this property is our Seven Oaks well facility in an open area, however it has a quality problem so we can't release it into our existing distribution system. We have to either treat it or mix it with other water and the only feasible thing is to mix it. Right now it is going into our Clark Springs supply which is in Kent Kangley and then goes into the reservoir near Valley Comm. This is the first place it comes out as drinking water. Kent Springs and Clark Springs are the two sources that come from the east. Wicicstrom stated that the issue here is public health. We need the water to meet our 1 1—/ water demands and if we can make it additive versus supplemental than that's a great positive because water rights are no longer being issued. Wiccstrom said that this is something we can do within our existing rights and doesn't require any outstanding permits which would be difficult to obtain. Committee unanimously recommended that Council authorize condemnation proceedings on the Rehkop property. Emergency Side Sewer Repair - James Railroad Wicicstrom stated that when we installed the watermain in James St to increase our downtown water supply in conjunction with the Justice Center, we cut off the side sewer at Kent Cold Storage. Even though this project was complete two years ago, it is not unusual to have a side sewer function as a septic system due to the sandy soil or until it becomes totally blocked which is what happened in this case. Wiccstrom noted that this facility deals with food and when they presented the problem to us we were not sure if it was something we did, however it was in the alignment of the new waterline. Wicicstrom noted that we felt it would be a S 10,000 - S 15,000 repair item and it turned out to be much more expensive. However, we are working with the contractor on this. He said we are reviewing the bill but because of the dollar amount we need to have Council's concurrence that there was an emergency and we took appropriate steps to resolve it. Committee unanimously recommended adoption of a Resolution related to the emergency side sewer repair at James & Railroad Avenues. Meeting adjourned: 4:00 p.m. Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL HARDWARE (MEEKER AND RUSSELL) - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Traffic Signal Hardware for the Meeker & Russell Road signal installation as complete, and release retainage to McCain Traffic Supply upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens. The original contract amount was $74, 421. 04 . The final construction cost was $74,421. 04 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3K RY 5 IP N u5T REI IQl` S22Q Y zu ti RVE S 1e0 Cl-a �:Sa9 9M15T AVE i S 45TH PL S N � a ~ 3j PENNICK RO 1 00 N 9 O 1 m n o` f,N ` � 1 t 1V j� l LRKESIGE \\\ BLVO E FRRGER I 1 Cy -`-- - 64TH AVE S m � \ rn r W N -3 m :` SR S8S j NRSHINGTON FIVEs y c / `\`\ O 1 I � \- '� i r I ! THCMPSCN z o 71 74TH AVE S NROEN AVE LINCOLN RYf a / � O ( 1 E " 6 H AVE SIN FIV (PCD AY.I _ S STH RVE S 5TH FIVE m 3: .� N STH AVE 1\i ao i .3 Co' S 4TH TV s toN 4TH AVE \ I I S 3RO AVE 7 N 3RD AVE S 2ND AVE 2ND AVE 1ST AVE1A r' S IST AVE N 1ST AVE m AVE H N S RRILRCIRo 0Ea RR LACAD I -- m -i S BRIDGES AVE SCENIC NRT LID 347 - MEEKER/RUSSELL SIGNAL IMPS. w r W m y 9 m < RLp INE NY Aye Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1, 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MILL CREEK/SR 167 DRAINAGE TUNNEL - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SU10MY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Mill Creek/SR 167 Drainage Tunnel as complete and release retainage to Northwest Boring upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens. The original contract amount was $246, 760. The final construction cost was $285, 956. 40. 3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3L T III -ST—� S 212TH ST 213 1 C. 21 216TH ST 5 216TH Sl 2 1 8TH s 2167H ST E- s 220TH ST 222NO 5 5_222N0 —s—T rn S 224TH ST co o 5 227ffi FL 9 228TH ST lyfL Z 5 22JTH 5 T S 23 NCVPF LN PROJECT LOCATION 5 234TH ST 'OLE 237T BOULD N. WAY 444 W CLOU13T Si CLOU" PL $ 238TH ST CLOUCY ST z 5 238TH PQ c GEORGE ST USES ST S 240TH ST s 2391ti PIL z a S SAM ST E- CEI�fl AM PIONEER ST z E- K7H—IL I L AN TEMP ST �ih ST SMITH ST —---------- HARRI ON mi HARRISON MEEKER 51 MILL CREEK/SR 167 DRAINAGE TUNNEL 3 246TH ST) CMIF 'T ��/11 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: GREEN RIVER NATURAL RESOURCES ENHANCEMENT AREA - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Green River Natural Resource Enhancement Area project as complete and release retainage to Kiewit Pacific upon standard releases from the state and release of any liens. The original contract amount was $9, 399, 334 (includes Council approved $700, 000 Change Order) . The final construction cost was $9,460, 180. 06. 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3M B91TISH COLUMBIA WASHINGTON WASHING TON STATE Spokane O ` o Seattle a Kent `� UI _W Tacom } ) u W OO/ymPla PROJECT 1 = - NGrp SITE z EGlay co Portland O VICINITY MAP o J I 3 S 212TH ST In WEII.C. DITCH S - 2uTH sT PROJEC NT BOUD Y/ CI AFK• I///i // % tr / KENT 'SEATAC _n 181 k BENT �� v r S 228TH ST Li 2lal� S ' 0 co to rn Q 516 tw LS AES 5T JAMES ' ST O p z N 2 z Z In I i. _ > z 0 ^T _.• Q Q w SMITH ST p�NNR1GfIF4 ..i/IEr. i z s J, CITY Uf Y,EI 1 -- w MEEHER ST S 246TH ST 246THZ PURPOSE= VICINITY MAP IN: GREEN RIVER AREA Green River AT: KENT IS 1/2 SEC 11, T22N, RZIE) Natural Resources IDoo 200D 3000 COUNTY OF: KING STATE: WA Enhancement Area SCALE IN FEET APPLICATION BY: City of Kent DATUM= NGVD 1929 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY: Public works Department CAD CONTROL DAIE:I610JD 04-AUG-109d CH2M HILL INC. SHEET 1 OF 11 <o.00Le. /'J'el Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1, 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LAKE FENWICK TRAIL PROJECT - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the Lake Fenwick Trail Project as complete and release of retainage to the contractor, Ohno Construction, upon releases from the State of Washington. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3N X111 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE - APPOINTMENT/ REAPPOINTMENTS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appoint- ment of John Bond, Signal Engineer in the Transportation Department, to serve as a member of the Drinking Driver Task Force. Mr. Bond is a Kent resident and a long time City employee. He serves as a member of the Fatal Accident Investigation Team, teaches traffic control flagging, and serves as a Safety Officer with Ken Chatwin, Risk Manager. Additionally, he is very active with Boy Scouts of America and is a veteran volunteer with the Kent Fire Department. Mr. Bond will replace Kristin Langley, whose term expired, and his appointment will continue until 1/1/2000. Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappointment of Mr. Ford Kiene and Ms. Sally Johnson to continue serving as members of the Drinking Driver Task Force. Their new appointments will continue until 1/l/2000. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 30 MEMORANDUM TO: CHRISTI HOUSER, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR),-,J DATE: MARCH 27, 1997 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE KENT DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE I have recently appointed John Bond, Signal Engineer in the Transportation Department, to serve as a member of the Drinking Driver Task Force. Mr. Bond is a Kent resident and a long time City employee. He serves as a member of the Fatal Accident Investigation Team, teaches traffic control flagging, and serves as a Safety Officer with Ken Chatwin. Additionally, he is very active with Boy Scouts of America and is a veteran volunteer with the Kent Fire Department. Mr. Bond will replace Kristin Langley, whose term expired, and his appointment will continue until 1/1/2000. I have also reappointed Mr. Ford Kiene and Ms. Sally Johnson to continue serving as member of the Task Force. Their new appointments will continue until 1/1/2000. I submit this for your confirmation. JW:jb 11KT Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BICYCLE ADVISORY BOARD - APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappoint- ment of Mr. Bob Schneider to continue serving as a member of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. His new appointment will continue until 12/31/98. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3P MEMORANDUM TO: CHRISTI HOUSER, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS '0 �'� �n FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR DATE: MARCH 27, 1997 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT TO THE KENT BICYCLE ADVISORY BOARD I have reappointed Mr. Bob Schneider to continue serving as a member of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. His new appointment will continue until 12/31/98. I submit this for your confirmation. JW:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL ABSENCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of an excused absence from tonight's meeting for Councilmember Jon Johnson. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Councilmember Johnson (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3Q MEMORANDUM TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR CHRISTI HOUSER, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS y i FROM: JON JOHNSON, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER . DATE: MARCH 27, 1997 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE I would like to request an excused absence from the April I, 1997 City Council meeting. I will be out of town and unable to attend. Thank you for your consideration. JJ J b Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1 1997 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: MIXED USE ZONING - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-96-5 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Committee reviewed the recommendations of the Land Use and Planning Board with regard to the Mixed Use Zoning Amendment on February 4 , February 28 , and March 18 , 1997 , and voted to pass on the Board' s recom- mendation with amendments. The proposed zoning amendments will allow mixed use development, under certain circumstances, in portions of the General Commercial (GC) , Community Commercial (CC) , and Professional and Office (0) zoning districts. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo; Planning Committee minutes of 2/4/97 , 2/18/97 , and 3/18/97 ; Land Use and Planning Board minutes of 10/28/96; Land Use and Planning Board staff report dated 10/28/96; and Mark Hinshaw' s reported dated 8/8/96 4 . RECOMMENDED BY:Land Use and Planning Board & Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember ' ` moves, Councilmember 0 illZ seconds to adopt the Zoning Code Amendments (ZCA-96-5) in the GC, CC, and O zoning districts related to mixed use development as recommended by the Planning Committee on March 18 , 1997 , and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION: M' ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4A CITY OF 'u� L]V CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jim White, Mavor ?TTW'y MEMORANDUM April 1, 1997 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #ZCA-96-5 - MIXED USE ZONING Attached is the recommendation of the City Council Planning Committee relating to proposed amendments to the zoning code regarding the allowance of mixed use development in certain commercial zoning districts. The Planning Committee considered the recommendations of the Land Use and Planning Board on this issue at their meetings on February 4, February 18, and March 18, 1997 (see attached meeting minutes). Previous to the Planning Committee's deliberation, the Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing on this issue on October 28, 1996, and made its recommendation to the City Council on November 25, 1996. Minutes from these meetings, as well as a staff report outlining the complete set of recommendations (dated October 28, 1996), is also attached for your review. This proposed zoning code amendment is an important component of the City's efforts to implement the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. As outlined in the attached staff report the proposed amendments involve changes to permitted uses and development standards for three zoning districts: General Commercial (GC), Community Commercial (CC), and Office (0). Due to the complex nature of the project. the Planning Department hired Mark Hinshaw, an architect and urban design consultant, to help outline alternatives for administering mixed use development. His recommendations are also attached for your consideration (see report dated August 8, 1996'). At their meeting on March 18. 1997, the Planning Committee passed a motion to recommend to the full City Council that the zoning code amendments in the GC. CC, and 0 zoning districts relating to mixed use development as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board be adopted, with the following amendments: 1. Revise the definition of "mixed use development" to require that at least 25 percent of the gross floor area be a permitted commercial use, and require that the residential component of a mixed use development cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the commercial component. 1204th AVE. SO. /KEVT WASHINGTON 980_i'_-14 TELEPHONE '00;850-11001 FAX 4 Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning April 1, 1997 Page 2 2. Delete the existing zoning provisions which allow multi-family residential uses in the CC and O zones as part of a mixed use development (Sections 15.04.100(D)(2) and 15.04.150(C)(1), respectively). 3. For site coverage and building height, add a provision that in order to qualify for increased coverage and/or height, at least 25 percent of the floor area would need to be residential use. Similarly, for off-street parking, add a provision that in order to qualify for reduced parking standards for residential development, at least 25 percent of the floor area would need to be in commercial use. 4. Expand proposed overlay boundary to include the parcel at 10611 Kent-Kangley Road. 5. Planning Department staff shall work with the City Attorney's office to develop procedures and criteria for amending the mixed use overlay boundary and, their provisions shall be included in the final ordinance. Planning Department staff will be available at the April 1 City Council meeting to discuss these recommendations and answer any questions about the proposal. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please call me at 850-4799. KON/mp:a:muccrec.mem CC: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Mark Hinshaw Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX (206)850-2544 .lames P. Harris, Planning Director CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES March 18, 1997 Planning Committee Members Present: Citv Attornev's Office Leona Orr. Chair Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Tom Brubaker Jon Johnson Planning Staff Other Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Barbara Ivanov Bob Hutchinson, Building Official Rita Bailie Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Kathy Larson Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Rachel Simpson Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary Carol Vass Joe Gagnetz Mark Hinshaw # ZCA-96-5 MIXED USE ZONING - (K. O'Neill) Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that this item is a continuation of the deliberations regarding the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation. He explained that the Committee previously discussed the Board's recommendation and ways to refine the recommendation. Mr. O'Neill stated that the first issue was that the zoning code does not clarify the definition of mixeduse development in relation to how much of each use constitutes a mixed use development. He recommended requiring 20 percent of the gross floor area be a permitted commercial use and that the residential component of a mixed use development cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the commercial component. The second issued Mr. O'Neill addressed was that the zoning code currently allows for multifamily and residential in a mixed use development in the Community Commercial and Office zones with a conditional use permit. He explained that the continued allowance of mixed use development through the conditional use process would undermine the overlay concept. He recommended deleting the provisions that allow for mixed use development through the conditional use permit. The third issue was that greater clarity is needed in establishing the development standard bonuses proposed when developers provide specific amenities. The current recommendation establishes bonuses for site coverage, building height, and parking standards when developments add specific amenities. Mr. O'Neill suggested establishing a 25 percent threshold requirement of either use in order to qualifv for a bonus. 1 The fourth issueed Mr. O'Neill discussed was that at the last meeting the Committee discussed amending the overlay area on East Hill to include the Lien property directly adjacent to a proposed overlay area. The property owner had contacted the Planning Department and requested the change to the overlay area. Mr. O'Neill recommends expanding the East Hill overlay area to include the property. The last issue is establishing a process to allow for future overlay amendments once mixed use zoning is adopted. Mr. O'Neill recommended working with the City Attorney's office to develop procedures and criteria for amending the mixed use overlay boundary similar to the M 1- C rezone procedure. He explained that he is requesting that the Planning Committee recommend to the City Council to adopt the mixed use zoning development standards as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board with the five above mentioned amendments. Mr. Clark asked for further clarification of the overlay boundaries. He stated that he was also concerned with neighborhood compatibility which would require establishment of neighborhood identity as a part of the mixed use. Mr. O'Neill explained that essentially the Land Use and Planning Board is recommending these regulations for certain established overlay areas and those are the areas shown in the staff report. He stated that the Land Use and Planning Board recommended criteria to identify the overlay areas. The overlay boundaries are very specific that are being brought forward as part of the recommendation. Mr. Clark stated that he understands how they would be established. At this time he is concerned with the expansion of the overlay areas in the future. Mr. O'Neill explained that in order for the overlay area to be expanded in the future there would need to be a process similar to a rezone. Chair Leona Orr questioned whether property owners would be guaranteed an expansion of the overlay area just because their property was adjacent to the overlay area. Mr. O'Neill explained that being adjacent to an area may give them a better argument but it would be ultimately the Council's decision. Orr questioned whether there would be a public process to go through that would give the public an opportunity to address any concerns they may have. O'Neill stated that such a process would be established. Committee member Tim Clark questioned whether it would be appropriate to require that mixed use development would be fiber optic compatible. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that type of issue deals more with the zoning requirements for the telecommunications moratorium and the overall telecommunications plan that is in the process. Satterstrom explained that it may be logical to develop that type of language into the zoning concerns there. Clark disagreed with Mr. Satterstrom statement. Clark explained that infrastructure costs could be reduced significantly by requiring that a mixed used development be fiber optic compatible. 2 City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 Clark expressed his concern with the types of commercial business that will be allowed as part of mixed use developments. He asked for clarification of the terms regarding mixed use developments being community compatible. Mr. O'Neill explained that the overlay areas are set up to allow mixed used development with already established commercial zones that have be specifically selected. The only commercial uses would be those uses that have previously been allowed in that specific commercial zone. O'Neill explained that the intent of the overlay is to have new development standards and a design review process in place for new _ development so that the compatibility issue is addressed. The overlay areas were identified to try to avoid those impacts before they even happened. He explained that design review will mitigate some of those issues. Consultant Mark Hinshaw explained that the compatibility issues can be addressed during the design review. not through uses. He stated that as the residential use in the overlay area should be observed to allow for alteration of the permitted uses in the future if neccessary. Mr. Hinshaw clarified that if someone wanted to expand the overlay area they could argue that since they are near the existing overlay area that it is worth considering. Mr. Ilinshaw pointed out that the only areas eligible for a change request in the overlay areas are those areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as mixed use. Areas not designated as mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment before an adjustment to the overlay boundaries could be considered. Chair Orr questioned whether the City could require the fiber optic capability on the outset. Assistant City Attomev Tom Brubaker stated that he would have to review this issue as to whether the City has the ability to require that. Mr. Clark explained that what he is suggesting is creating the conduit and that is already in the ground running toward the building without any fiber optic wiring until we have a provider of services. Mr. Brubaker again stated that he would like to do more research on whether or not the City can make such a requirement. Chair Orr questioned whether Committee member Tim Clark would like to delay action until this issue is determined. Mr. Clark stated that he would like to move forward with this item and questioned if this item could be added at a later time. Mr. Brubaker stated that this item could be approved as staff recommends and an amendment could be made if needed when this item �uoes before the Council. Mr. Brubaker explained that this would Live him sufficient time to research that issue. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom questioned whether this issue couldn't be looked at on a broader spectrum. He explained that generally planning works from general to specific and may be laying ground work for a general policy later. Mr. Clark stated that fiber optic has different requirements and is nioae 3 City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 difficult to put in. He explained that coax cables can be run above ground. However, the fiber optic cable has to be protected and should be run underground. Mr. Satterstrom explained that this issue seems like a development by development issue depending on the size of the development rather than a general zoning code condition. Mr. Clark explained that he is recommending that the conduit be laved in the ground so that it would be in place when it comes time to make the connection. Chair Leona Orr discussed the definition of a mixed use development that was outlined in the staff report. She stated that she is more comfortable with 30% but would accept 25% not the 20% that the staff has recommended. Committee members Johnson and Clark concurred with Orr's recommendation. Committeemember Clark MOVED to recommend to the itv Council the zoning code amendments in GC. CC, and O zoning districts related to mixed use development as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board be adopted with the amendments as listed, and with consideration to the change from 20 percent to 25 percent. There was breif discussion about the fiber optics potential installation. Committeemember Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. 4 CITY OF �� J-S i Jim White, Mavor Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES February 18, 1997 Planning Committee Members Present: Citv Attomev's Office Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Jon Johnson Other Mark Hinshaw Planning Staff Daniel Moberly Jim Harris. Planning Director John Turner Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Jason Cooper Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Florence Lien Margaret Porter, Administrative Assistant III Robert Goodwin Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary Fred High # ZCA-96-5 MIXED USE ZONING - (K. O'Neill) Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that this item was continued from the February 4, 1997 special meeting. Mr. O'Neill and Consultant Mark Hinshaw presented the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation for Mixed Use Zoning at that time. Committee member Tim Clark questioned whether there was any known resistance to adopting mixed use zoning. Mr. O'Neill explained that the propem, owners in the areas designated as mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan were notified of the Land Use and Planning Board public hearing. He explained that there was no negative testimony given at the Land Use and Planning Board public hearings and no opposition has been expressed to his knowiedge. Committee member Clark questioned whether this item had been screened through Public Safety. Planning Director Jim Harris revealed that items from the Land Use and Planning Board are not normally brought to Public Safety. Clark questioned whether mixed use zoning would bring additional stress to law enforcement. Mr. Hams explained that he didn't see how it could add any additional stress to law enforcement as it is just another use. The notion of locatine residential and commercial uses clustered is not a new idea. Mr. O'Neill explained that the areas in the overlay were selected because they are in close proximity of other residential uses. He stated that additional problems are not anticipated. 1 '20 arh AVE_SO. KEN-.WASHINGTON 080,'-"Q1 TELEPHOyE 206,859-"'.00�FAX 1 vto-n» City Council Planning Committee Minutes February 18, 1997 Mr. O'Neill explained that the zoning code does not clarify what mixed use means in terms of the amount of space in relation to one use versus the other. This concept is particularly applicable for East hill because the only way to develop multifamily is within a mixed use development. Mr. O'Neill explained that one way to define a mixed use development is to designate a certain percentage to each type of development. He suggested the use of 25% commercial and 75% residential. He explained that other jurisdictions have defined mixed use buildings as having twenty percent (20%) of the total floor area ratio in the commercial development. This would establish a clear definition of mixed use development. Mr. O'Neill explained that the current zoning code allows mixed use development in the Community Commercial and Office zoning districts by a conditional use permit. He explained that staff is recommending eliminating the allowance of mixed use developments through the conditional use process. Mr. O'Neill discussed the need to work with the City Attorney's office to establish a procedure for future amendments of the overlay area. He explained that it may be necessary to change the overlay area over time. The overlav area could be amended in a manner similar to the rezone process and would require holding a public hearing. Chair Leona Orr questioned the reasoning behind establishing the twenty-five percent (25%). She asked if there was anv historical information to justify that twenty-five percent (25%) is a good mix. She stated that 25% seemed low. Consultant Mark Hinshaw illustrated some examples of the 25% for mixed uses. Mr. Hinshaw explained that a small amount of commercial development related to the neighborhood is workable. He explained that the number chosen has to be workable and desirable. Committee member Tim Clark questioned the idea of eliminating some of the parking requirements. Mr. O'Neill explained that the enclosed interior parking would not be eliminated however. it would be excluded in the calculation for floor area ratio to determine the 25% mix. Committee member Clark questioned if there is something that can be done to ensure compatible integration with the neighborhood. Mr. O'Neill explained that the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board includes an administrative design review process. O'Neill explained that the design review process is the closest thing that staff has in the current regulatory framework to ensure that new development projects are done in a thoughtful way and to try to integrate the development with the surrounding area. O'Neill stated that one of the reasons the Planning Board recommended the overlay areas rather than a blanket change is that the areas designated are already established as commercial entities. He City Council Planning Committee Minutes February 18, 1997 explained that part of the criteria that the Board developed for the overlay areas were close proximity to existing public facilities and residential areas. Planning Director Jim Hams explained that Clark's concerns go a step further than what is being established. Harris stated that it is an important step and staff hasn't looked at these angles. Chair Leona Orr explained that the Board received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Fred Lien regarding a piece of property on East hill. The property owners would like to be considered as part of the mixed use overlay area. Mr. O'Neill indicated where the property was located and explained that this parcel is adjacent to the existing boundaries of one of the overlay areas. He stated that staff has no objection to including this parcel in the overlay area. Committee member Jon Johnson explained that he was concerned with the percentage and questioned whether multifamily was limited enough. Johnson was concerned with a developers ability to build only a small commercial element (25%) and then being able to establish a large multifamily development (75%). Mr. O'Neill explained that the restriction is based on the overall floor area. He explained that if someone built a 3.000 square foot commercial development they could only build 9,000 square foot of residential (which would be less than ten units). O'Neill explained that it is important that the City establish a threshold that has a reasonable amount of commercial but one that is not too restrictive. Clark clarified that the enclosed interior parking would be excluded from the twenty-five percent calculation. Mr. O'Neill explained that the City of Kent is unusual in that parking is part of the building calculation. He stated that the floor area calculation for 25/75 would not include the parking areas just the usable areas of the building. Chair Leona Orr asked for staff to put all the information together for the Committee and bring this item back to the March 18. 1997 meeting for action. Planninc Director Jim Harris confirmed that staff could brine this item back for action. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES - (J. Harris) Chair Leona Orr explained that Building Official Bob Hutchinson was unable to attend today's meeting and therefore the Committee would not be discussing the collection of school impact fees. Chair Orr asked the Committee if they would feet comfortable making a recommendation to renew the School Impact Fee Ordinance for additional year. She explained that this ordinance will expire shortly. She stated that the Chamber of Commerce Task Force recommendations are being considered through separate Committees but meanwhile there is a need to make a recommendation to the full Council as to whether to extend the fees for another year. CITY OF 1 a Jim White, Mayor CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMN=EE MINUTES February 4, 1997 Planning Committee Members Present: Citv Attomev's Office Leona Orr, Chair Tom Brubaker Tim Clark Jon Johnson Other Planning Staff Mark Hinshaw Jim Harris, Planning Director Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kim Marousek, Planning Intern Margaret Porter, Administrative Assistant III Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary # ZCA-96-5 MIXED USE ZONING - (K. O'Neill) Senior Planner Kevin O'Neil: explained that mixed use development is a mixture of residential and commercial uses together in the same building or on the same site. The concept of mixed use development in the City of Kent was first introduced in the 1989 Downtown Plan. The Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in 1995 established areas that were designated as mixed use. Mr. O'Neill explained that the area designated as mixed use on the east hill is '.imited in that residential development is only allowed when it is a pan of a mixed use development. Stand alone residential development would be allowed c--right in the other mixed use areas. Mr. O Neill stated that mixed use development is a new concept. The City hired a consultant, Mark Hinshaw, to help with the implementation. Mr. Hinshaw is an architect and an urban design and planning consultant. Consultant Mark Hinshaw explained that single district regulations have been dominant for the last 50 years. He stated that this makes it difficult to establish comfortable and compatible mixed uses.. Mr. Hinshaw remarked that it is important to develop a certain character of development to eliminate the possibility of negative impact from the different uses. Mr. Hinshaw explained the different options the City has to establish mixed use development. The first option is to amend current zoning that exists in the mixed use areas to permit residential uses.. The second option is to create a new zoning district, rezone all the areas, and develop a new set of rules to go by. The disadvantage to both those options is that we're assuming mixed use would be appropriate in all the areas. There are some established patterns in some of the areas that are not immediately conducive to residential living. 1191tr 1VF. SO KF\- W. �:,{IVr;Tny ovpt' -��. rc :'✓4n :n - n, =n ri n t<o._,.., City Council Planning Committee Minutes February 4, 1997 The third option which was approved by the Land Use and Planning Board was focused on the idea of creating overlay districts that introduce this concept, selectively apply it, and tailor it to areas that are more conducive to mixing commercial and residential uses. The development community can start to move in that direction. Mr. Hinshaw explained that in time the City could expand the overly district to cover more areas. Mr. Hinshaw stated that in order to promote mixed use development some key concepts had to be considered. One would be to eliminate the need for a conditional use permit. Developers are discouraged from initializing a mixed use development when there exists an uncertainty as to whether a conditional use permit would be approved or not. He also explained that establishing an incentive system to encourage adding residential uses to a commercial development. Mr. Hinshaw clarified that the '`incentive" would in no way discourage stand alone commercial. Mixed uses allow for a greater efficiency in the use of parking. It's possible to have a reduction in parking requirements. Finally, the key concept is to add to the quality of the community, building a new form of neighborhood, a new choice of living. The best way to ensure a certain quality of development is by establishing a laver of design guidelines and an administrative design review process. This would assure that as the new projects are proposed they go through a process of scrutiny and evaluation so you can tailor the development to fit the individual attributes of each project. Mr. Hinshaw described some of the key attributes of the proposed code. Establish two overlay districts. Overlay district A would incorporate the north and west of downtown and B would be the area on East Hill. As described in the Comprehensive Plan. overlay district A would allow multifamily development outright, either free standing, part of a commercial development, or part of a commercial building. However, overlay district 3 on the East Hill will not allow residential development unless it is proposed as a part of a mixed use deveiopment. Mr. Hinshaw explained the concept of floor area ratio (FAR) and gave an example of how the concept could be used to encourage mixed used development. Committee member Tim Clark questioned what would happen if aexisting commercial deveiopment wanted to expand and added a guard shack to the property and called it a mixed use development. Mr. Hinshaw explained that the guardshack would have to fit the definition of what constitutes a resident. The addition of residential uses on a properr✓ would need to be significant to affect the amount of FAR that would be increased for the commercial �omponent. Committee member Clark voiced his concern regarding intense traffic patterns during peak hours. Mr. Hinshaw explained that there tends to be problems in very intense urban areas. The commercial traffic is generally the cause of peak hour congestion not so much the residential. City Council Planning Committee Minutes February 4, 1997 Committee member Clark questioned the safety issue mixing residential uses that would bring families to commercial areas. Mr. Hinshaw explained that the residential uses would appeal to seniors, singles and young couples. He explained that it may be a long while before conventional families perceive this kind of environment for families. Committee member Clark questioned if there were any significant issues regarding insurance claims. Mr. Hinshaw explained that he wasn't aware of anything and asxed Committee member Clark for an example. Committee member Clark explained that he was referring to robbery, cross use of plumbing facilities, security issues, fire hazards, etc. Mr. Hinshaw explained that mixed use will immediately trigger different sections of the building and fire code to be brought into play. He stated that developers will bc, hit with a wrath of other applicable codes that are already in place. Mr. Hinshaw stated that he has heard a lot of evidence indicating that when uses are mixed together the crime tends to decrease in the area. He attributed the decrease in crime to having more eyes watching. He explained the idea of a bonus program for establishing basic height limits and mitigating a greater allowance when the ievelopment adds specific amenities. Setbacks could be eliminated except to accommodate a front sidewalk or when the development is adjacent to a residential zone. A more complex parking standard could be developed to accommodate the overlapping uses. Mr. Hinshaw presented different sketches of possible developme. options. He displayed examples of the standard commercial building with surface ^arking, and ideas of mixing the different uses between separate buildings. as well as. on separat- doors in the same building. Mr. O'Neill explained the proposed criteria to be used in designating the boundaries of the mixed use overlav areas. The criteria was outlined in the October '18 staff report. Mr. O'Neill stated that mixed use development is allowed at this time through a conditional use permit process. He explained that the overlay areas could be expanded if the mixed use development guidelines work in the smaller targeted areas. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that it was not clarified through the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation what to do with the existin, conditional use permit that would allow mixed use development. Fred stated that it is staff recommendation to eliminate the conditional use permit that would allow for mixed use outside of the overlay areas. Chair Leona Orr questioned if requiring a conditional use permit delayed the application process. Fred explained that a conditional use permit does require the applicant to c through the Hearing Examiner process. 3 City Council Planning Committee Minutes February 4, 1997 Mr. O'Neill explained the following steps necessary to implement mixed use zoning: • Amend the zoning code to implement a mixed use overlay boundary • Amend the zoning code to allow mixed use development within the overlay. • Limit the overlay area on East Hill so residential development would only be permitted as part of a mixed use development • Amend the zoning code to adopt amended development standards within the designated mixed use overlay(FAR, building height. lot coverage, off-street parking, and set backs) Amend the zoning code to require that new development within the mixed use overlay be reviewed through an administrative design review process. Mr. Hinshaw presented a brief slide show displaying existing mixed use development from other local jurisdictions. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m. U:\DOC',PCOM\MINUTES\PCO2-4.MCN 4 CITY OF 7 Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544 James P.Harris,Planning Director LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing October 28, 1996 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell at 7:00 p.m. on October 28, 1996, in Chambers West of Kent City Hail. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Dowell, Chair Brad Bell, Vice Chair Thomas Brotherton Jerry Daman Ronald Harmon Gloria LaBore David Malik LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT None PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary OTHER CITY STAFF PRESENT: Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF JULY ". 1996 MINUTES Board member Brad Bell MOVED to approve the minutes from the July 22 meeting. The motion was SECONDED by Board member Jerry Daman. Motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None. COMMUNICATIONS None. NOTICE OF UPCOMING :MEETINGS Planning Director James Harris informed the Board that the November Planning Board workshop will be moved to Tuesday, November 12 due to the Veteran's Day holiday. The next public hearing is scheduled for Monday, November 25, 1996. "Oakh AVE SO i KENT WASHINGTON 9N032-5995!TELEPHONE FA\#859-�371 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 28, 1996 OZ e_46_5 N=D USE ZONING (K. O'Neill) Chair Steve Dowell discussed the issue regarding some of the Board members owning property within the area being considered for mixed use zoning. The City of Attorney's Office determined that it is legal for the Board members to participate in this vote. Chair Dowell expressed his concern regarding his ability to remain impartial hearing this item due to the fact he personally owns property within the area considered for mixed use zoning. Dowell declined to participate in the mixed use hearing and stepped down leaving Vice Chair Brad Bell to preside. Vice Chair Brad Bell felt uncomfortable presiding over the mixed use item having a vested interest in property within the study area and also stepped down. In the absence of a Chair and the Vice Chair, Bell instructed the remaining members to select an acting chair. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 28, 1996 After little discussion, Board member Jerry Daman MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED the motion to select Ron Harmon as the "acting" Chair. The motion carved unanimously. Acting Chair Ron Harmon asked staff to begin their presentation. Planning Director Jim Harris explained that this item has been previously heard during the Land Use and Planning Board Workshops and notices were mailed to property owners notifying them of this hearing. Mr. Hams introduced Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill presented background information regarding mixed use zoning. He explained that the Kent Comprehensive Plan promotes mixed use activity centers and designates certain areas in the city for mixed use development. There are three areas designated for mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan within the City. These areas include sites on West Meeker Street and Washington Avenue North, North Central Avenue between James Street and SR-167, and a large area along 104th Avenue SE from 235th to 264th including an area down Kent-Kangley. He explained that there are several goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan which support mixed use development. In order to implement these policies. amendments must be made to the City's Zoning Code. The proposed amendments would change the zoning in specific areas to allow mixed use development and/or residential development. The amendments would also affect permitted uses, development standards, and design review. All the areas selected for mixed use are presently zoned for commercial use. The areas along West Meeker Street and North Central are zoned General Commercial (GC), while the area along 104th Avenue SE is zoned Community Commercial (CC) and Office (0). Currently, residential uses are neither allowed as a principal use nor as a conditional use in the GC zone. Mr. O'Neill explained that staff is proposing three alternatives which could allow mixed use development. 9=4-96-5,Wiixed Use Zoning IZC.4-96-6 Single Family Development Standards Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 28, 1996 Alternative 1 would be to amend the existing teat for the GC, CC, and the O zoning districts. The amendments would allow mixed use or residential uses as a principally permitted use, and would recommend different development standards. Mr. O'Neill pointed out that there are areas in the city which are zoned GC, CC, and O that are not designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan and typically any zoning text amendment would affect all areas which had that zoning designation. He explained that this alternative could result in zoning changes applying to an overly broad area. Alternative 2 would establish a new Mixed Use Zoning District. This alternative would amend the zoning text and the zoning map by creating new zoning districts for the areas designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan. Mr. O'Neill explained that this alternative would have the advantage of creating an entirely new set of regulations for these districts, which would clearly indicate a new direction for development in these areas. Problems arise with existing commercial uses that are not compatible with residential uses as'well as a potential to create a number of noncomfotming uses. Alternative 3 would establish a mixed use "overlay" district. A zoning overlay combines features of both a zoning text amendment and a zoning map amendment. The proposed overlay would change the permitted uses and development standards of the General Commercial, Community Commercial, and Office district. It would only apply to the areas defined within the overlay. With this alternative, Mr. O'Neill explained that the proposed zoning overlay could be applied to the entire area designated as mixed use, or could be applied to only part of the area designated for mixed use development. Staff recommends Alternative 3 and as a first phase, the overlay not include all of the area designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan. Mr. O'Neill also recommended developing specific criteria in designating boundaries of the overlay area. The specific criteria is outlined in the staff report. Using the criteria outlined Mr. O'Neill illistrated the staff recommended boundaries (map labelled Attachment C in staff report). The underlying zoning designations would still apply except for specific changes to permitted uses and development standards. Again parcels outside the overlay boundary would not be affected. O'Neill explained that mixed use refers to both mixed use buildings and mixed use developments. A mixed use development might contain residential uses in a building or buildings separate from buildings which contain commercial uses. Mr. O'Neill also expained the different designations in the Comprehensive Plan allowing and disallowing residential development outright. Staff is recommending changing the development standards for the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), building height, lot coverage, setbacks and offstreet parking. Mr. O'Neill explained that all these standards would be reduced for a mixed use development in order to encourage new mixed use developments. 3 4ZC.4-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning 4ZC.4-96-6 Single Family Development Standards Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 28, 1996 The policies in the comprehensive plan also state that design review will be implemented for new development in these areas. The design review process is particularly important in a mixed use development to ensure compatability of the residential and commercial uses. Mr. O'Neill outlined the recommended design guidelines to be considered during an administrative review process. Acting Chair Ron Harmon OPENED the public hearing. Heath Harris, 1230 South 336th Street, Suite F, Federal Way, WA 98003. Mr. Heath is a commercial real estate agent who is attending this meeting on behalf of the property owners of four adjacent parcels located at the southeast comer of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 235th. Mr. Heath indicated that he and his clients are in favor of the mixed use zoning. He requested that the Board that they look hard at the site in quesiton. The parcels are all presently zoned Community Commercial. Mr. Heath explained several problems dealing with site access and little or no visibility. He indicated that a mixed use development could open up opportunities that weren't already there. His clients would ultimately like to develop the site as multifamily outright but concedes that mixed use is a step in the right direction. Dick Coltran, 1720 Edwards Court, Bellingham, WA 98226. Mr. Coltran owns property at 10817 Kent Kangley Road, Kent, WA 98031. Mr. Coltran's property is approximately two acres and he would like to develop this property. He is pleased with what he has heard regarding the mixed use proposal. He is concerned with whether or not you could have separate building developments. He indicated that you need to have an ability to separate the developments. (Separate the commercial and the residential). He questioned how this situation would occur. Mr. Coltraii's parcels are currently zoned Office and he questioned if the commercial on his property would still be limited to Office and would retail be allowed? He very much likes the idea of mixed use and thinks it gives a great deal of flexibility for his propery. He indicated that this could be very beneficial. Acting Chair Ron Harmon asked for any additional input from the public. There were no more requests to speak. Board member Jerry Daman MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. The motion carried. Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill addressed the questioned that were presented during public's testimony. Mr. O'Neill clarified that the proposal allows mixed use development. Which allows development to be in separate buildings on a particular site. He indicated that the consideration to a 9ZC.1-96-5.Wixed Use Zoning 9ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 28, 1996 allow multifamily residential uses outright in the Easthill area would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr O'Neill further explained that there is no revision that requires the development to be a mixed use development. The properties could still be developed within the current uses (Office, GC, CC). Mr. O'Neill offered an opportunity to get with Mr. Coltran to inform him of the allowed uses in the Office zone. Board member Tom Brotherton questioned whether there was any limitation or concern with having the mixed use development spread over a period of time. Brotherton questioned whether the developer would have to committ to a plan. Mr. O'Neill explained that on Easthill it would be important for the developer to committ to a plan expecially since stand alone residential would not be allowed. Mr. O'Neill explained that in order to allow the mixed use development to happen in the Easthill area particularly staff would have to be certain that it would indeed be a mixed use development. The applicant would have to show a clear obligation to build both components of the development. Mr. O'Neill indicated thhat it would not be as big of a concern in the Valley areas because stand alone residential and stand alone commercial would both be allowed. Acting Chair Ron Harmon reopened the public hearing to allow for rebuttal testimony. He asked the public if they had any input. Steve Dowell, 4301 Glenwood Lane, Kent, Mr. Dowell addressed the issue of firmer development standards in the Commercial zones if the parcels designated for mixed use are developed commercial outright. He voiced his concern with the ability to toughen development standards from what is allowed outright today. Mr. O'Neill outlined the recommended standard changes and clarified that the reason behind staff recommending reducing standards for stand alone commercial in a mixed use overlay zone is solely being done to promote mixed use activity. He explained that the Board has the option to recommend to Council to keep the stand alone commercial standards at what they are today. Chair Ron Harmon MOVED and Board member David Malik SECONDED a motion to re-open the public hearing. Motion carried. Bill Keppler, 9654 Rainier Avenue S, Seattle, WA 98118. Mr. Keppler owns a small piece of property in the Valley and believes it is important to get the maximum lot coverage and the least setback requirements. He is against any changes that would reduce the current stand alone commercial standards. 5 MZC.4-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning 4ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 28, 1996 Heath Harris asked for further clarification of lot coverage and questioned whether there would be a fixed ratio used to determine the allowable mix of residential to commerical. Dick Coltran questioned the abililty to subdivide the different uses for future sale. Jack Olson, 26220 108th Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98031. Mr. Olson is concerned with whether he will have the ability to develop his property. He feels mixed use could allow him better flexibilty and an opportunity to build marketably. Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED and Board member Jerry Daman SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Mr. O'Neill addressed Mr. Keppler's question regarding lot coverage. He explained that the proposed amendment would reduce lot coverage to 25% from 40% for stand alone commercial. He also stated that setbacks would be less restrictive. Mr. O'Neill explained that the Binding Site Plan process segmentation that divides condiminiums for individual sale and suggested a similar process when subdividing for future sale. Mr. O'Neill explained that the office zone would allow some retail use and the retail use is expandable with a conditional use permit. Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED to continue the deliberations to the November 25, 1996 Planning Board meeting at 7:00 p.m. The motion was SECONDED by Board member David Malik. Motion carried. #ZCA-96-6 SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the single family development standards had been recently amended by Ordinances 3268 and 3290. Mr. Satterstrom explained that it was staffs intention to reduce the standards and promote in-fill development. The single family zoning districts were renamed establishing maximum permitted density. A problem was brought to the attention of the Planning Department when an applicant tried to subdivide and couldn't. Staff is recommending to calculate the maximum permitted density without rounding. Mr. Satterstrom described the individual changes as referenced in the staff report. He also clarified that the reason no change was recommended for the SR-1 zone was that this zone was not effected. Chair Steve Dowell asked the Board if there were any questions for Mr. Satterstrom. Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. 6 9ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning 4ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 28, 1996 Jim Flick, 9408 S 218th Street. Mr. Flick described his situation and explained that he is currently unable to subdivide his property. He requested that the Board make a recommendation to accept staff s proposed changes. Board member Ron Harmon MOVED to close the public hearing. The motion was SECONDED by Board member Tom Brotherton. Motion carried. Ron Harmon MOVED to recommend to City Council that they approve the staff recommended changes to the maximum permitted densities in the single family zones. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Brad Bell. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully, �� J es P Harris Recor ing Secretary 7 #ZC.4-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning -4ZC,4-96-6 Single Family Development Standards CITY OFs`��s� Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM OCTOBER 28, 1996 MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: 4ZCA-96-5 - MIXED USE ZONING STUDY INTRODUCTION One of the central themes in the Growth Management Act, as well as in regional and countywide planning goals, is the notion of utilizing urban land more efficiently in order to reduce urban sprawl. One mechanism to accomplish this which is referenced in both Vision 2020 and the King County Countywide Planning Policies is the idea of creating mixed use activity centers, which would combine commercial and residential land uses. These areas would be designed to allow a compatible mixture of uses to bring housing closer to jobs and commercial services, support public transit, and increase housing options. In addition to being consistent with regional policies, the notion of mixed use development was also supported by citizens during the Community Forums and Visual Preference Surveys undertaken during the development of the City's Comp- rehensive Plan. The Kent Comprehensive Plan designates certain areas in the city for mixed use development, meaning development which would combine residential and commercial uses. The Land Use Plan Map in the comprehensive plan designates specific areas on West Meeker Street, North Central Avenue,and 104th Avenue SE as Mixed Use(see attached Land Use Plan Map, labelled Attachment A). The plan also contains several goals and policies which support mixed use development. In order to implement these policies, amendments must be made to the City's zoning code. This memo will review the goals and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan related to mixed use development and then will outline proposed amendments to the Kent zoning code in order to allow 220 a[h AVE SO /KENT WAS HINGTON 980 2-5895 1 TELEPHONE I'061859-3300/F.AX#859-3334 Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 2 and encourage mixed use development in certain parts of the city. These proposed amendments would affect permitted uses, development standards, and design review. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES As stated,the Land Use Plan Map designates the areas outlined on the attached maps for mixed use development. There are also several policies in the Land Use Element which support mixed use development, and the establishment of mixed use activity centers. These goals and policies are outlined below. Goal LU-6 -Designate activity centers in portions of the city,and in the annexation area. Allow in these areas a mix of retail, office, and residential development. Policy LU-6.1 - Locate activity centers in areas which currently contain concentrations of commercial development with surrounding medium- density housing. Intensify these areas to support transit and to curtail additional sprawling development patterns. Poliev LU-6.2 -Allow residential uses in activity centers. Develop residential uses as part of a commercial area in a mixed use development or on a stand-alone basis in designated areas. Goal LU-7 -Develop activity centers in such a way as to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation. Policy LU-7.1 - Implement design review for development in designated activity centers to ensure pedestrian and transit orientation. Policy LU-7.2 - Develop site and parking design standards in activity centers which support transit. Policy LU-7.3 - Ensure that the City's street and construction design standards in activity centers enhance pedestrian circulation, transit, and aesthetics. The decision to allow for mixed use development in the comprehensive plan was driven by several factors. In the public participation process used during the formation of the plan, citizens at community forums expressed support for the concept of mixed use development. Furthermore, when the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the plan was done, citizens were asked to evaluate three land use alternatives: continuation of the existing plan, a plan which focussed a large percentage of future growth in the downtown area, and a plan which focussed new growth Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 3 in several mixed use centers, including the downtown and the areas shown on the attached Land Use Plan map. The mixed use plan alternative was strongly favored over the other two. Mixed use development has the advantage of locating residential and commercial uses in closer proximity to one another, therefore creating more vibrant areas and promoting transit. In addition, one of the biggest challenges that the City faced during the comprehensive planning process was finding ways to accommodate its projected housing target. Many of the residentially- zoned areas within the city are already developed, and there was a real resistance on the part of the community and the City Council to create more housing opportunities by zoning single-family areas to multi-family, which is how growth was accommodated in the 1980's in Kent. Therefore, the plan outlines several strategies for accommodating more housing without significantly changing the zoning in single-family areas. Mixed use development is one of these strategies, along with allowing smaller single-family lot sizes, more flexible development standards for single-family development, and accessory dwelling units. PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS The following sections of the memorandum will outline the recommended amendments to the zoning code to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan which are discussed above. The memorandum will discuss the scope of the zoning amendments with regard to the area affected by the changes, and will then outline specific recommendations with regard to permitted uses, density, development standards, and design review. Due to the complex nature of this project, and the fact that it is a relatively new concept for the City of Kent, the City hired Mark Hinshaw, an architect and urban design consultant, to help outline recommendations regarding zoning amendments for mixed use development. Many of his recommendations, which have been presented to the Land Use Board in workshops, have been incorporated in the staff recommendation. His recommendations, and further background regarding mixed use development, are outlined in a report, which is attached as an appendix to this memorandum. GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF MIXED USE ZONING The attached maps (Attachment B) show the areas which are designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan. These areas are located along West Meeker Street, North Central Avenue, and 104th Avenue SE. As outlined in the plan, the areas along West Meeker Street and North Central Avenue would allow residential uses as a principally permitted use, while residential uses would need to be part of a mixed use development in the area along 104th Avenue SE. Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 4 These areas are presently zoned for commercial use. The areas along West Meeker Street and North Central are zoned General Commercial (GC), while the area along 104th Avenue SE is zoned Community Commercial (CC) and Office (0). Currently, residential uses are neither allowed as a principal use nor as a conditional use in the GC zone. Residential uses can be developed in the CC and O zones as part of a mixed use development, but also must be approved through a conditional use permit. With regard to proceeding with zoning code amendments to allow mixed use development, staff considered three broad alternatives. These are discussed below. Alternative 1--Amend Existing GC, CC, and O Zoning Districts This alternative would amend the existing zoning text for the GC, CC, and O zoning districts. The amendments would allow mixed use or residential uses as a principally permitted use, and would recommend different development standards. However, there are areas in the city which are zoned GC, CC, and O which are not designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan and typically any zoning text amendment would affect all areas which had that zoning designation. Therefore, this alternative could result in zoning changes applying to an overly broad area. Alternative 2--Establish New Mixed Use Zoning District(s) This alternative would amend the zoning text and the zoning map by creating new zoning districts for the areas designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan. This alternative would have the advantage of creating an entirely new set of regulations for these districts, which would clearly indicate a new direction for development in these areas. However, these are all existing commercial areas with a variety of existing uses, some of which are presently not compatible with residential development. This is particularly true for areas which are zoned GC, which allows uses such as automobile sales and repair and other uses which are distinguished by outdoor storage and high traffic volumes. A rezone to a mixed use zone would potentially create a number of nonconforming uses, thus creating uncertainty and opposition by many property owners in these areas. Alternative 3--Establish Mixed Use "Overlay" District With regard to this alternative, it is important to emphasize that the zoning code consists of both text and a map. Amendments to the zoning text apply to any area in the city which has that zoning. For example, changing a development standard in the GC (General Commercial) zone such as building setback requirements would apply this standard to any parcel zoned GC. On the other hand, zoning map amendments affect only the specific parcels which are changed. Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 5 A zoning overlay combines features of both a zoning text amendment and a zoning map amendment. The proposed overlay would change the permitted uses and development standards of the underlying zoning districts (in this case, General Commercial, Community Commercial, and Office). However, it would only change these standards for the area defined in the overlay. Other areas within these zoning districts, such as the GC area on Pacific Highway South, would not be changed. This is the major advantage of using an overlay for this project, as opposed to simply proposing an overall text amendment to the applicable zoning district. Under this alternative, the proposed zoning overlay could be applied to the entire area designated as mixed use, or could be applied to only part of the area designated for mixed use development. The advantage of a broad overlay is that the zoning designation would mirror the comprehensive plan designation, which conforms to the requirement in the Growth Management Act that development regulations implement and be consistent with comprehensive plans. A narrower overlay, on the other hand, would allow for a more "tailored" approach to implementing mixed use. All of the mixed use areas are established commercial areas, and there is existing development which may not be compatible with new mixed use or residential development. A smaller overlay would allow the areas which seem best suited for this type of development to be targeted in the initial phase of this zoning amendment. If there were successful projects constructed, or if more property owners wanted to see the overlay apply to their properties, then the overlay could be expanded in the finure. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Alternative 3, a zoning overlay, be implemented. Furthermore, staff recommends that, as a first phase, the overlay not include all of the area designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan. While over time it is hoped that much of this area will redevelop in ways which will make for a viable,vibrant mixed use community, it must be recognized that at the present there are several areas which are not conductive to this type of development. Furthermore, there are many new developments in these areas which will likely not redevelop in the 20-year time horizon of the comprehensive plan. In designing a smaller overlay area for the first phase of this zoning amendment, it is important to develop criteria to guide the selection of the overlay boundaries. These criteria should provide guidance to staff, the Board, and the City Council with regard to why certain parcels were selected for the overlay while other parcels were not. It also will prevent these decisions from being made in an arbitrary manner. Staff recommends the following criteria be used in designating the boundaries of the overlay area: • Subareas with the potential to aggregate vacant and/or redevelopable parcels • Proximity to existing residential uses Subject: 4ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 6 • Proximity to existing commercial uses which would support residential use and help make the commercial component of a mixed use building or development more viable • Separation from existing, "high impact" commercial uses which would not be compatible with housing • Subareas with better potential to support pedestrian-oriented development • Proximity to transit stops, existing parks, and community facilities Based on these proposed criteria, staff has recommended boundaries for the overlay area. This is shown an the attached maps, labelled Attachment C. The attached maps show the areas which are proposed for the mixed use overlay. Within these areas, the underlying zoning designations would still apply, except for specific changes which will be recommended below. These changes relate to both permitted uses and development standards. It is important to note,however,that all existing permitted uses in the applicable zoning districts would still be permitted. Also, parcels located outside of the overlay boundary would not be affected. PERMITTED USES It should be clarified that the notion of"mixed use" refers to both mixed use buildings and mixed use development (meaning a mix of uses located side by side, instead of in one building). This is discussed at some length in the attached report by Mark Hinshaw. Staff recommends that the notion of"mixed use" apply to mixed use developments, not only mixed use buildings. Therefore, a mixed use development might contain residential uses in a building or buildings separate from buildings which contain commercial uses. This is consistent with the existing definitions in the Kent zoning code, which are noted below. Mixed use building or structure(emphasis added)means a building that contains two (2) or more separate and distinct uses permitted in the zoning district where such building is located. (Section 15.02.259, Kent Zoning Code) Mixed use development(emphasis added) shall mean two (2) or more permitted uses or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one another on the same site. (Section 15.02.260, Kent Zoning Code) This distinction is important, since the comprehensive plan states that for the area designated as mixed use along 104th Avenue SE, residential uses should only be allowed if they are part of a Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 7 mixed use development. Therefore, it should be made clear that a nixed use development could mean two or more separate buildings. As stated earlier,the comprehensive plan makes a distinction between the mixed use areas located in the valley (along West Meeker and North Central Avenue) and the mixed use area on East Hill (along 104th Avenue SE). The plan states that in the mixed use areas in the valley, residential uses may be permitted outright in a stand alone condition; while on East Hill, residential uses would be allowed only in conjunction with a mixed use development. Therefore, the following sections will distinguish the mixed use overlay areas in the valley with the overlay areas on East Hill with regard to proposed zoning amendments. In terms of permitting residential uses, the following is recommended, in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Use Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area Multifamily Residential Permitted Permitted only as part of a mixed use development DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Kent zoning code regulates both uses and development standards within zoning districts, such as height, setbacks, and parking. The areas designated for mixed use development are now zoned for commercial uses, and the existing development standards within the GC, CC, and O zoning districts are outlined to regulate primarily auto-oriented commercial development. Different standards are appropriate for residential and mixed use developments. Furthermore, the policies in the comprehensive plan discuss ensuring that new development in these areas enhance pedestrian circulation, transit, and aesthetics. The following sections will outline proposed amendments to development standards which would apply within the mixed use overlay. Development Intensity Typically, development intensity in commercial and industrial zoning districts is regulated by specific development standards such as height, setbacks, and site coverage. These standards will be explained in more detail in subsequent sections. In residential zones, development intensity is regulated by these development standards, but also by allowing a certain number of units per acre. For the mixed use overlay, it is recommended that development intensity, or density, be regulated by utilizing floor area ratio, or FAR. FAR is the ratio of gross building floor area to site area. Therefore, a building with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area on a lot consisting of 20,000 square feet would have an FAR of 0.5. Floor area ratio provides a uniform way of measuring the allowable Subject: 4ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 8 intensity of both commercial and residential development (as opposed to units per acre, which is only applicable for residential development), which is why it is appropriate in mixed use areas. It also provides a mechanism for offering incentives for mixed use development, by providing a "base density" for commercial development, but allowing this to be increased for mixed use development. The recommended FARs for the mixed use overlay are outlined below. Standard Valley Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area Floor Area Ratio .25 for commercial .50 for commercial with residential' 1.0 for residential' Site Coverage Site coverage is the portion of a lot which is covered by buildings or structures. For example, a building with a building envelope of 10,000 square feet on a 40,000 square foot lot would have a site coverage of 25 percent. Site coverage is one of the ways that bulk and scale are regulated in commercial and industrial zoning districts. Currently, maximum site coverage in the GC and CC zones is 40 percent, while maximum site coverage in the O zone is 30 percent. Similar to the FAR standards, it is recommended that a slightly lower "base" lot coverage be established for commercial uses, with the opportunity to expand the standard for mixed use or residential development. Within the mixed use overlay, the following lot coverage standards are recommended: Standard Valley Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area Site Coverage 25 percent for commercial 75 percent with residential 60 percent with residential 'Commercial floor area may be increased by one square foot for each one square foot of residential floor area provided up to a maximum commercial FAR of .5. 2Residential FAR may be increased by .5, if parking is provided below grade, up to a maximum of 1.5. Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 9 Height Another way that building bulk and scale is regulated in the Kent zoning code is by controlling the maximum height of buildings. Within commercial zoning districts,building height is regulated both by the number of stories and the total height. In the CC and O zones, the maximum building height is three (3) stories or 40 feet, while the building height requirement in the GC zone is two (2) stories or 35 feet. Within the mixed use overlay, it is recommended that building height be regulated by building height(number of feet) only, as opposed to number of stories, since a "story" may be quite different for a commercial space as opposed to a residential space. It is recommended once again that a base building height be established for commercial uses, with the option to build higher based on the provision of certain amenities, as noted in the footnotes. Standard Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area Building height' 25 feet basic standard 50 feet maximum 40 feet maximum Setbacks Setback (also referred to as yard in the zoning code) is the distance a building must be from a property line. Within the commercial zoning districts, there are currently front yard setback requirements of 15 feet in the CC zone,20 feet in the GC zone, and 25 feet in the O zone. Front yard setbacks are typically required in commercial zoning districts which allow automobile-oriented uses, in recognition of the fact that parking lots are often developed in front of buildings. However, as mentioned, the policies in the comprehensive plan encourage not only that residential and commercial uses be integrated in these areas, but that new development occur in a way which is more pedestrian- and transit-oriented. One of the best ways to accomplish this is to allow buildings to be constructed right up to the sidewalk. This type of commercial development, which is now found primarily in the downtown area, allows pedestrians to move comfortably between businesses and between buildings and public sidewalks. It is recommended, therefore, that front setback requirements be eliminated within the mixed use overlay. The recommended side and rear yard setback requirements outlined below are no different from the ones which currently exist. 'Basic heights may be increased up to the maximum, according to the following formula: 5 foot increase for development containing residential 5 foot increase for placing parking under the building 5 foot increase for using a pitched roof form 5 foot increase for stepping back from the top floor (min. of 5 feet) Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 10 Standard Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area Setbacks Front: None (0 feet)' Rear and side: None (0 feet)' Off-Street Parking Off-Street parking standards are regulated in the Kent zoning code by use, and are typically uniform throughout zoning districts. Off-street parking is regulated based on the amount of floor area for commercial and industrial projects, and the number of dwelling units for residential developments. Off-street parking facilities can often be used more efficiently in a mixed use area, since the peak demand periods for commercial and residential uses are often at different times of the day. However, the City's existing parking standards for mixed use development do not recognize this, and currently require that when two or more uses are located in the same building, the total requirements for off- street parking spaces be the sum of the uses computed separately(Section 15.05.040(I), Kent Zoning Code). Therefore, within the mixed use overlay, the follow-ing standards are recommended: Standard Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area Off-Street Parking Retail/Office': 3.5 spaces/1,000 sf floor area 4 spaces/1,000 sf floor area Residential: Studio: .75/du without comm., .50/du with comm One bedroom: 1.5/du without comm., 1.0/du with comm Two bedroom: 2.0/du without comm., 1.25/du with comm 'Some setback may be required in the front yard to accommodate a sidewalk which shall be at least 10 feet in width. 'Setbacks of at least 20 feet would be required in any side or rear yards that are adjacent to a residential zoning district. 6In order to encourage retail in mixed use developments, the first 300 square feet of retail or office space that is part of an individual residential unit would be exempt. Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 11 DESIGN REVIEW In addition to encouraging the establishment of mixed use areas, the policies in the comprehensive plan also state that design review be implemented for new development in these areas. Design review of projects can help ensure that new development is well designed, and is compatible with both the surrounding neighborhoods and prospective new development. This is particularly important in a mixed use area, to ensure that both new residential and commercial development can be mutually supportive. Design review is currently implemented for all multi-family residential projects, and for all new development in the downtown area. It is recommended that design review also be implemented for all new development within the mixed use overlay. The following section will describe the proposed design review process, followed by a summary of recommended design review guidelines. Design Review Process Design review in the City of Kent for multi-family and downtown development is done administratively, meaning that no public hearing is required. The multi-family design review process involves review of projects by Planning Department staff, while the downtown design review process involves final review and approval by the downtown administrative design review committee, which consists of representatives from the Planning, Public Works, and Parks Departments. In both cases, design review occurs as part of the building permit review process. Applicants submit site plans, landscaping plans, and building elevations, which are reviewed based on specific criteria relating to site design, landscaping, and building design. Design review is meant to be a collaborative process, where staff work with the developer to mutually achieve a quality project. It is recommended that design review for the mixed use overlay also be an administrative process, meaning that prospective developers would work with city staff. This type of process offers both flexibility and predictability, as opposed to projects being reviewed by a separate design review board. It is also recommended that projects be reviewed administratively by Planning Department staff, similar to the multi-family design review process, as opposed to being approved by a committee. Design Review Guidelines Many of the design criteria which are presently used for multi-family design review would also be applicable to the mixed use overlay. These are attached for your review. However, mixed use development is different from many types of multi-family development, in that it combines Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 12 commercial uses, and would also be constructed in a more developed, urban environment. Therefore, some different criteria need to be developed for these areas. Mark Hinshaw has recommended that development projects in the mixed use area include the following design features: • Some common recreation space -roofs, terraces, indoor rooms, courtyards • Lighting features that are shielded, directing light downwards • The residential portion of the building should incorporate residential details, such as window trim, trellises, balconies, and bay windows • The residential component should have an obvious, generous entrance, within features suggesting a "front door", for example a lobby. trellis. gate, archway, or courtyard The following design features are recommended for mixed use buildings: • Parking lots, if used, should be divided into small increments, separated by landscaping and structures, so that parking does not dominate the site • Ground-level commercial space should be articulated by use of different materials, generous windows with low sill heights, "store" doors, canopies, and planters • Residential floors should be expressed in an obvious manner, with stepbacks, change in materials or color, and overhangs • Commercial signs should be contained within the first floor commercial base and not extend up into the residential floor facades. In addition, the following criteria should apply to mixed use developments (or "horizontal" mixed use): • If the residential component is located away from the main street, a landscaped pedestrian path should be provided between the entrance and the public sidewalk • Although the commercial and residential components may have different architectural expressions, they should exhibit a number of elements that produce the effect of an integrated development. Subject: 4ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study October 28, 1996 Page 13 • Surface parking should be generously landscaped to serve as an amenity. Lighting fixtures should not exceed the height of the first floor. CONCLUSION This memorandum summarizes the recommended zoning amendments for the proposed mixed use overlay. The overlay boundaries and development standards should be considered as a first phase of implementing mixed use zoning in these areas. It will be possible to expand the boundaries of the overlay area, either now, based on public testimony, or in the future. In summary, staff recommends that the Land Use and Planning Board make the following recommendations to the City Council: A. Amend the zoning code to implement a mixed use overlay, the boundaries of which are outlined in the maps identified as Attachment C B. Amend the zoning code to adopt the proposed permitted uses and development standards within the designated mixed use overlay, as outlined in the staff report. C. Amend the zoning code to require that new development within the mixed use overlay be reviewed through an administrative design review process. The design review criteria would be modeled after the Citv's existing multi-family design review process,but would be supplemented as indicated in the staff report. KON/tb:MULUB 102.MEM cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager • I p .y { �41 � Lf } f . n ax O �. S Y i C u d rf) o -r3 m m .. Ct c - 4 i r•j C�7 � Y C r p t7— z �° Y a y z ATTACHMENT B USE LCLM ST JAM L-2 rrrr iz LLI cr VER CII) - - rl — -- - -- OC) S_228_ S T -- — - Ali L- st � 3 T - - - QWIN- _ Q� NO BOULDRON_WY'jI I Cr Cc PLJ 777 JED w -�..- -- 777 N �! 'tea L= �=�� arm,' ` Q � m. _-Q] J� � �xrFI;J? � x_t0 �.y`.. za`n' F� r_� �•, I --tn -,(n- __ SF 7 w- S� 25E PL f MIXED. USE fig .. n �=_ Y Zvi Lu OE 4 4. 6 i ' _- - > — -1 jL5rk`- 245 - I �Ft c r c F+ _- 1 III !il_6rE-�24 -P � 4_Y_ -__ -----� --- ---- ----`— --.---=— V fS ILE'2147 ,FL ; rj SE Lj _ - - — at t _ F ATTACHMENT C MIXED USE I = i C I -D4 5T S. B✓- _ JAMES -ST ;k x j SM'I T H r (S 246 ST) 1 1 l - .RI✓ER _ a R s --- i to F -cc I I - - I � MIXED USE OVERLAY AREA nvin-rr MIXED USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOUNDARY �) 1 f � MIXED USE ! r I ' — — - i 228_ S T MIL®I _ L ST i I ILI > -- - - i N t -- - s N co K 1 '��e�a^.� �� 'r� a- ..�•r.sY"� is � � � I �_yc -- ti f t BOULDRON HT. .a 9F j Q - - i ` x El ¢ i cr cr I r-� t`1—i I I , _.sue. ,• a _. _ ,.� i, --Fil OC ! -, i �P _ �cg 7z 3 LJ I MIXED USE OVERLAY AREA { ^v'^TT MIXED USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOUNDARY RESTRICTED MIXED U S E _ ___..------------___-- I - j L 23 > - s nl aE 5E d-" 239' Pair r 5` <T ^T L 9 > t 242 sr- •_Oml 2Q • ` `�!>> ` — may 1 - - �� ax- -- 244 ET i ojUk-245 PLI_ LS€`246 ILL J r _ i I aria✓ �4� 1 $47 PL; ili4tt ~ I SK I i i l' K 4 t W = ! SELu -� i —ts: ! 256. — _ w ! - - --: SSE 26 T ! - r agues. MIXED USE OVERLAY AREA ^T^'** MIXED USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOUNDARY APPENDIX City of Kent Mixed Use Zoning: Alternatives, Issues & Recommendations n � �TRIO l�lnl � ill 16 I YV Nrw� Yy August 8. 1996 Mark L. Hinshaw FAIA AICP Table of Contents Pase Introduction I Alternatives 3 Issues and Recommendations 7 Forms of Mixed Use 7 Geographic Coverage 8 Standards 9 Design Review 17 Introduction Throughout the Pacific Northwest, as well as elsewhere in the country, communities are grappling with ways of redesigning zoning to produce more positive results than what has been achieved over the past fifty years. Conventional development during the post-war decades has produced a pattern of land use that blurs the distinction between communities: single-purpose commercial buildings surrounded by seas of asphalt, with little opportunity for movement except by automobile, no public spaces or amenities, and no real sense of character other than provided by franchises. The development pattern along West Nfeeker, Central Avenue and 104th Avenue are examples of this trend. Communities like Kent are beginning to explore ways of altering this generic pattern by re-examining both the form of public investments and development regulations. But accomplishing a major shift is not a simple task. Many factors serve to maintain the current situation. such as the attitudes of financial institutions, mainstream marketing of real estate, goods, and services, established methods of development, and consumer behavior. Change is possible, but needs to occur over time and with opportunities for adjustments in the market place that are neither sudden nor risky. The Citv of Kent has recognized the value of encouraging mixed use development in its recently-adopted comprehensive plan. The Land Use Plan Map designates several areas (cited above) as appropriate for mixed use. (These areas are currently zoned for commercial use. The West Meeker and North Central areas are zoned GC and the area along 104th is zoned CC and O.) The plan identifies two designations: one allowing multifamily residential as a permitted use, together with retail and office uses and another allowing multiple family residential only as part of a mixed use development. Crafting new forms of regulations that will produce a different development pattern requires a "targeted and tailored" approach, not one than is sweeping and massive. Few developers want to take a risk in breaking an established form of development; business decisions can be tenuous enough without trying to introduce new configurations and types of buildings. However, some things can be altered or at least encouraged through incentives, bonuses, and design guidelines. So long as there is flexibility, new development and redevelopment can gradually adjust and accommodate itself. It may only take a few key elements to begin to change the character of strip commercial areas; but. regardless, the change will be incremental. In order to implement the goals and policies of Kent's comprehensive plan, mixed use regulations should achieve a number of objectives: o Contribute toward meeting Comprehensive Plan target for population increase / housing needs. o Stimulate more efficient use of land in the vicinity of public transportation, services and jobs. o Encourage infill development and redevelopment by the private sector. o Create a safe, convenient, attractive, and livable environment for households of varying income, age and composition. o Focus new higher density residential development in already established, more central parts of the city, rather than in new areas at the edges. 2 Alternatives A number of concepts should be common to all alternatives: o Remove procedural disincentives (CUP) / Allow residential by-right. o Weight development potential in favor of housing. o Offer bonuses for including housing (FAR, height, coverage). o Offer incentives for other desired amenities and features. o Reduce parking requirements in recognition of increased efficiency. o Require design review and use of design guidelines. Three distinctly different alternatives are possible. They are described, along with their advantages and disadvantages. below. 3 Alternative 1 Amend Existing GC, CC, and O Districts to Allow/Encourage Residential In this alternative, the current zoning would be revised to allow mixed use, offering incentives, incorporating new standards, and adding design guidelines. Advantages: o Established districts that people are familiar with. o Text amendments can be made relatively easily. o Doesn't require new or adjusted boundaries Disadvantages: o Changes each district as a whole, which may be too broad. o Could result in many incompatible uses and conditions. o Could be controversial, given the geographic expanse. o Might not be effective in producing a livable environment. o Could produce scattered pockets of housing, some in undesirable areas. 4 Alternative 2 Create Mixed Use "Overlay" District This alternative would involve applying a special set of regulations to all or some portion of each of the areas identified in the plan for mixed use. Advantages: o Allows for limited application. o Allows for different standards (either more or less restrictive). o Can be done through a text amendment (which can include maps). o Can initiate long-term change by starting small and focusing. o Involves a more "tailored" regulatory technique. Disadvantages: o May still require some changes to underlying district(s). o Introduces a level of complexity. o May be perceived as unfair if some portions of the underlying district are treated differently than others. 5 Alternative 3 Establish New Mixed Use District(s) In this alternative, the current zoning classifications would be removed and replaced with a completely new classification, with unique standards, incentives and guidelines. Advantages: o Dramatically signals a new desired direction. o Allows for completely fresh regulations. o Offers clarity for property owners desiring the new direction. Disadvantages: o May require more than one, to reflect different situations. o Would involve a map change, with required notice. o Might not be appropriate for all areas being considered. o Perception of major change can cause uncertainty in private sector. o Can upset property owners who don't agree with new direction. o Could result in numerous non-conforming developments. 6 Issues and Recommendations 1. Forms of Mixed Use In recent years, it has been popular to propose a return to a "romanticized" version of mixed use. Specifically, this is the notion of people living above the store. This form of mixed use -- mixed use building -- has been encouraged through development regulations that either require or offer incentives for developers to build both housing and commercial uses within the same structure. While this form has been built in areas throughout the region, it has often not been successful because of a number of factors. First, the development industry has become specialized. Firms know how to develop given types of uses to meet specific markets. but they rarely understand how to design, market. and operate combinations of use. Second, building and fire code requirements are considerably more complex when uses ("occupancies") are mixed, driving up costs. Third. mixing uses, especially housing and commercial, complicates maintenance, security, advertising, parking, ownership, leasing, and management. Fourth, income produced by each type of use can radically differ from what was originally anticipated and where one use does not perform adequately, the other use suffers. Finally. for all of the above reasons, banks are extremely reluctant to provide financing for mixed use buildings. Another form of mixed use that achieves virtually all of the benefits and has few of the liabilities is mixed use development. Sometimes called "horizontal mixed use," this places the housing component on a different pad than the commercial component. Each could even be on parcels that are owned by different parties, so long as their design is integrated together. Many features could be shared, such as access, parking, open space, pedestrian connections, security, etc. But each can also be independently financed, developed and managed. Another advantage of this form is that the commercial component can be placed along a busy arterial street, buffering the residential units. A third form of development is called mixed use neighborhoods. This involves using a finely-grained pattern of zoning to encourage different uses to be in close proximity to one another. This is somewhat more of a fragmented 7 approach and does not always result in development that fits together well. However, strong design guidelines and review by the city over a sustained period of time can produce desirable results. In fact, achieving mixed use requires using all of these forms of development. No one technique will be sufficient. Re-introducing the concept of mixed use, after decades of single use development, will necessitate promoting and using a variety of forms. It is recommended that mixed use buildings be considered only one form of mixed use. Current code language that produces developments and neighborhoods containing both residential and commercial uses should be continued. 2. Geographic Coverage To encourage the development of mixed use sites and buildings, there are two basic options with respect to land area designated for such development. One option would be to use the already existing areas designated for GC, CC and O zoning. However, intensive commercial use is so new or so firmly established in some areas in which mixed use may be extremely difficult to achieve. There would need to be a designator such as "GC/A" to indicate specific areas where this pattern is more possible or desired. Another approach is to carve out smaller portions of area currently zoned GC. CC and O (and designated for mixed use in the comprehensive plan) and establish either a new zoning designation or an overlay designation. An overlay designation could involve different standards for various areas. if desired (eg. MUl, MU2). The overlay approach is recommended, for several reasons. First, not all existing GC, CC and O areas may be appropriate for, or likely to be developed with, mixed use. The physical characteristics and environmental qualities necessary for an area to be conducive to living may not be present. Second, the overlay approach allows the concept of mixed use to get a foothold in areas that already have attributes supporting residential use. Third, the overlay technique both sends out a clear, focused message about new development possibilities and allows for a more tailored. area-specific set of standards and incentives. Finally, the overlay method can be achieved through a text amendment, which could avoid costly notices to individual property owners. 8 3. Development Standards Mixed use, whether vertical (stacked) or horizontal (co-located), is a form of development which used to be common in North America but has not been so for four or five decades (outside major cities). In this time, the development industry has become so specialized that only a very few companies understand how to successfully mix uses. Furthermore, financial institutions have noted failures of a number of mixed use buildings and, not wanting to incur risks, have tended not to look favorably on such investments. Moreover, codes and regulations have not really encouraged the mixing of uses, making this form of development costly and procedurally complex. While local government cannot have much direct influence over the development capabilities and financing constraints, it can at least affect the climate for doing mixed use by establishing standards that are clear, simple and favorable toward this form of' development. Residential as an Outright Permitted Use If a mixture of residential uses with commercial uses is truly desired, special permitting involving public hearings cannot be a requirement. Such hurdles present an additional degree of uncertainty to an already difficult and somewhat risky form of development. Residential should simply be made an outright (or "by-right") permitted use in areas designated for mixed use. This does not preclude having a requirement for certain areas, such as East Hill, that residential use must be a part of a mixed use project. However, to require that residential must be part of a mixed use building, is overly restrictive and would not produce many examples of mixed use. Allowing the option of mixing uses horizontally or laterally, can actually produce more immediate results. Different developers can tackle portions of a project that they are expert in, building, code requirements apply easily to each component, and financing may be more available. (This approach should allow for subdividing into different ownership parcels, with cooperative parking agreements set forth in the deed of record, so long as the project is integrated together by design.) It is recommended that residential use be allowed outright, although in some areas, allowed only as part of a mixed use development. 9 Allowable Residential Densitv Conventional land use regulations have tended to set forth a maximum number of units per acre as a control on density. Over time, what this has done is to work against housing that is affordable to middle income households. (If a developer can only build x number of units on a site, the tendency is to make them relatively large and therefore relatively more expensive, so as to achieve a higher financial return.) In the last decade or so, many communities have begun to use another means of regulating the intensity of development. This is the technique of "Floor Area Ratio" (or FAR for short). FAR indicates the amount of development as a multiple of lot area. For example, an allowable FAR of 1 would mean that a 20,000 square foot site could hold a 20,000 square foot building. The built form containing this area can be varied: it could be a one story building covering all of the lot, a two- story building covering half of the lot, or a three story building covering a third of the lot. Moreover, using FAR instead of measures like "dwelling units per acre" or "lot area per unit" allows a development to be configured to meet the needs of smaller households (eg. singles, single-parent households, seniors) in that a greater number of smaller units could be built. This tool allows the marketplace to determine exact density in any given location, so long as parking requirements and other standards are met. In practical terms, parking requirements, along with height limits and lot coverage, pose an effective limit on density: only so many spaces can be fitted onto a parcel. This constraint would prevent someone from cramming a site with tiny dwelling units. But, it provides an incentive to produce more compact, less costly units. Also, FAR encourages developers to have a greater mix of unit types within a given development, so that a greater range of household sizes and types are possible. There are other reasons for using FAR as a regulatory tool. Mixing residential and commercial uses together can be confusing if the amount of development potential cannot be calculated on a common basis, ie, if residential potential is based on units/acre and commercial potential is based on heights and lot coverage. Using FAR (along with other standards of height, coverage, parking, etc.) puts both uses on an even basis and development potential is simpler to determine. In addition. using FAR allows the city to suggest what use is preferable and to make use of an incentive system to encourage development to occur in a certain form or provide public amenities. FAR, in short. provides 10 much more flexibility and is a technique that developers find very useful and workable in more urbanized, mixed use areas. FAR does not produce precise densities, because unit sizes can vary widely (which is a principal advantage of using this technique). However, a range of density relates to given FAR limits. For example: .5 FAR would produce 10-30 units per acre 1.0 FAR would produce 25-45 units per acre 1.5 FAR would produce 40-60 units per acre It is recommended that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be adopted as the method of controlling the intensity of development in mixed use districts. Furthermore, in order to encourage the development of housing within areas which are currently dominated by commercial development, allowable FAR should be significantly higher for residential use as compared with commercial. Finally, as an incentive to provide residential, additional commercial FAR could be granted in return for including housing within a project. Height Limits The concept of mixed use is identified by the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for areas now zoned GC, CC and 0. Height limits for these districts 35', 40' and 40', respectively. The code also states the number of stories allowed in each: 2, 3 and 3, respectively. However, the zoning code allows an additional increase of one story in GC and CC by the Planning Director and yet another story by the Planning Commission. There are several awkward and confusing complexities in these standards. First, building height as measured by feet is the most important element in maintaining the sense of scale; the number of stories is not relevant. Setting numbers of "stories" is not logical because there is a great difference between floor-to-floor heights for various types of development. Commercial buildings can have stories that are l5 feet in height, while typical residential stories are 11 9-10 feet in height. Stories devoted to parking would be in the range of 8-9 feet. Therefore, although it is a popularly-used term, "story" as an actual measure of building height is confusing and even counter-productive. (Eg. three stories of residential are equal in height to two stories of commercial.) Height limits should be established by number of feet only. Second, the prospect of increases in stories through some special action, introduces a degree of uncertainty that confuses developers. The allowable envelope is a basic determinant of yield and, therefore, return on investment. Developers need to know, up front. what they can do on a parcel of property. A better approach would be to specify the amount of increase allowable in return for providing a specific feature, and then allow the increase administratively. Third, it is not clear whether an increase in the number of stories also involves an increase in dimension. Again, this supports using height dimensions only, not stories. A creative way of addressing height would be to set a basic height limit at a relatively low point and then let it be increased through the inclusion of certain, specified features that achieve public objectives. An increase could be given for including residential use. An increase could be given for concealing parking. Increases could also be granted for using sloped roofs or stepped-back terraces to soften the bulk of buildings. Critical to this approach is that such increases are automatic: provide this and you receive that_ This approach offers flexibility, predictability and variety in result. It is recommended that allowable building heights for mixed use districts have a "basic" allowable height that is lower than what is currently allowed in any of the above districts_ Additional height would be granted according to a specific schedule of features and increments of increase. 12 Lot Coverage Normally lot coverage is not much of a constraint in single use development, given that parking consumes the great majority of a site anyway. However, when uses begin to be mixed together, particularly in a horizontal manner, lot coverage can .be a constraint. Furthermore, the increased development intensity begins to justify placing some or all of the parking within or under a building. This requires a higher permissible lot coverage to accomplish. Currently, lot coverages for the districts cited above range from 30% to 50%, all of which are too low to encourage the mixinu of uses. Similar to height limits, coverage can be expressed in a manner that offers an incentive to build in a particular way. Lot coverage could be increased in return for doing a mixed use development. It could also be set lower for single use development, as a disincentive. It is recommended that a "basic" lot coverage of 25% be set for mixed use districts. If residential use is included, the coverage could then be as much as 75%. A stricter variation on this is to require that a minimum percentage (eg. 30% or-50%) of the development be in residential use for the higher coverage limit to be available. Setbacks One of the advantages of mixed use development is that it can create, over time, an environment that is conducive to walking between places to live, work, shop and recreate. One of the key factors in accomplishing this is to allow and even encourage buildings to be directly adjacent to public sidewalks. so that destinations are prominent and easily accessible, goods and services are in plain view from sidewalks, and there is a high degree of continuity in building form. Requiring setbacks prevents this from occurring. (However, setbacks are useful in achieving a comfortable transition between more intense commercial/mixed use development and lower intensity residential development.) 13 There is one aspect to setbacks that is frequently overlooked for districts in which greater intensity of development is expected and where better provisions for pedestrians is desired. That is the need to establish wider sidewalks. The typical 5 to 8 foot wide sidewalks found in strip commercial districts are not adequate for pedestrian movement, safety and comfort, particularly as street trees take up some of the width. (Street trees, with a minimum caliper of 3" and a maximum spacing of 25-30' should be required in order to help make the districts liveable.) While street improvement projects can purchase easements or additional right-of-way, it is often not possible for a city to undertake such a major project. Therefore, incremental enhancements are the principle means of achieving a pedestrian setting. Accordingly, setbacks should be required along street frontages for the purpose of providing sidewalks that are at least 10 feet wide. (Widths greater than 12 feet are only necessary in downtown areas.) This may mean that some or all of the sidewalk width is situated on private property. It is recommended that, for mixed use districts, setbacks not be required. Exceptions would be for sidewalks and where projects are adjacent to residential districts. Design guidelines might also address the concept of "maximum setback" in certain locations, to encourage retail uses to be oriented to the street. Parking One of the greatest benefits of mixed use development is that area devoted to parking is much more efficiently used. This is due to a number of reasons. First, some trips are "internalized;" some people will walk between dwellings and nearby retail shops and offices. This can allow for a reduced number of households who need two cars. Second, for any use, but particularly commercial uses, there is some degree of turnover of parking spaces, leading to some spaces always being available. Different uses, co-located can take advantage of this "inefficiency" (so long as commercial spaces are not assigned). Third, different uses, such as office and residential, have different times of peak use so that at night, the office stalls can be available to meet some of the residential demand. Finally, conventional parking ratios have been 14 based upon peak periods of use; much of the time parking stalls around the perimeter of a development are unused. All of these factors suggest that combining residential with commercial uses should allow for shared supply of parking. However, the possibilities for sharing have some limitation. The residential component will need a core number of spaces that are dedicated for residents and, perhaps, even secure. Commercial uses probably cannot depend upon access to residential stalls; ratios might be somewhat reduced but probably not dramatically unless there is very good access to public transportation for employees. (Some portion of parking ratios are meant for employees; that portion might be reduced if alternatives are available.) Like other standards, parking ratios can also be used to induce the mixing of residential and commercial. Normally, the provision of parking is a direct expense to the developer with little possibility of income. If the amount of land dedicated to parking can be reduced, and. therefore, more of it made available for income-generating use, there will he some people interested in mixing residential and commercial. This concept needs to recognize two factors. however. Parking ratios cannot be so low as to generate "spillover" demand that is met on adjacent streets or properties. In addition, financial institutions. regardless of parking codes, will insist upon enough parking to make a project marketable. Blending all of these factors together, along with recent research that suggests that parking ratios are higher, in general. than they really need to be, it should be possible to allow for some reduction in parking for mixing uses together. It is recommended that, for mixed use districts, parking required for office and retail uses be reduced to 3.5 stalls/1000 square feet. If a project includes residential, the ratio for residential should be I stall/dwelling unit. However, the ratio for developments containing only residential should be 1.5/du, since there is no other use with which to share parking supply. A variation on this would be to have a more complex set of ratios based on the number of bedrooms in each unit, with lower ratios required when uses are mixed, such as the following: 1� Residential Parking (spaces/unit) Dwelling Size Not mixed Mixed with Commercial with Commercial Studio .75 .50 One Bedroom 1.5 1.0 Two Bedroom 2.0 1.25 16 4. Design Review Requiring design review is an important consideration when encouraging mixed use. Design review can ensure that new. more intensive development tits comfortably within the context of the city in general and the surrounding neighborhoods in particular. In addition, one objective of mixing uses is to attract people to live in close proximity to jobs. shops, and services. If these places are to be truly livable, qualities associated with desirable neighborhoods need to be present and improve over time. A district dominated by generic, flat-roofed commercial buildings surrounded by seas of asphalt and punctuated by large, glaring signs by will not likely be seen as a good place to live. Therefore design review can help direct the character of both new residential and commercial development to be mutually supportive. This will require the use of design guidelines to inform the decisions of private developers as well as public official. The City of Kent has a set of guidelines that govern multiple family projects and many of these can apply to mixed use development. However, it will be necessary to add other guidelines addressing conditions involving the mixture of uses. Guidelines should also be specifically devised for stand-alone commercial buildings so that the total effect reinforces the desired character. Finally, design review should be an administrative process to make sure that the overall permitting process is expeditious. Both the public sector and the private sector must recognize that design review is a collaborative process, not an adversarial one. This is particularly the case if mixed use districts are to merge and thrive and become decent. healthy places in which to both live and conduct business. 17 Design Guidelines for Mixed Use Development Design guidelines are currently used by the City in the review of projects within downtown and multiple family districts. Because the mixed use districts are a hybrid of relatively intense commercial uses and relatively dense residential uses, neither set of existing guidelines is entirely sufficient to address the conditions associated with mixed use. However, many of the guidelines used for multiple family development are appropriate. All but three guidelines are applicable. Two guidelines (I.e. and 2.c.) indicate a need for an open space network. In denser, mixed use areas, this is difficult to achieve. Another guideline Q.a.) suggests maintaining neighborhood scale. Because mixed use is contemplated for areas that are now mainly strip commercial, design attention would need to be directed toward helping to establish a new type of neighborhood rather than being compatible with the surroundings. As described in previous sections, mixed use can occur either within the same building (vertical mixed use) or within the same site (horizontal mixed use). A. Guidelines for All Mixed Use Development All mixed use development, regardless of the configuration, should include the following design features: 1. Some common recreation space. ea. roofs, terraces, indoor rooms, courtyards d S ' Q e 71111 ii. �— o 2. Lighting fixtures that are shielded, directing light downward. 3. Residential portion should incorporate residential details. eg. window trim, trellises, balconies, bay windows 4. The residential component should have an obvious, generous entrance, within features suggesting a "front door." eg. lobby, trellis, decorative gate, archway, courtyard to - S. Any walls fronting on public streets should contain windows, irrespective of the use at the level. eg. at least 20% of the ground floor facade must be clear glass (a combination of decorative grillwork, art, and landscaping may be substituted) v 1 r B. Guidelines for Vertical Mixed Use Development In addition to meeting guidelines in section A. above, vertical mixed use should include the following: 1. Parking lots, if used, should be divided into small increments, separated by landscaping and structures, so that parking does not dominate the site. 2. Ground level commercial space should be articulated. eg. different materials, generous windows with low sill heights, "store" doors, canopies or awnings, planters o ill;'I II!I I!i I I II I II l i( i i 3. Residential floors should be expressed in an obvious manner. eg. stepbacks, change in materials/color, overhangs 4. Commercial signs should be contained within the first floor commercial base and not extend up into the residential floor facades. j Y � C. Guidelines for Horizontal Mixed Use Development In addition to meeting the guidelines in Section A. above, horizontal mixed use should include the following: 1. If the residential component is located away from the main street, a landscaped pedestrian path should be provided between the entrance and the public sidewalk. ® Q 2. Although the commercial and residential components may have different architectural expressions, they should exhibit a number of elements that produce the effect of an integrated development. 0 1-U()'' 000 O 1 3. Surface parking should be generously landscaped to serve as an amenity. Lighting fixtures should not exceed the height of the first floor. APPENDIX City of Kent Mixed Use Zoning: Alternatives, Issues & Recommendations l \ " �j J � � I O w � N r�� August 8, 1996 Mark L. Hinshaw FAIA AICP Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Alternatives 3 Issues and Recommendations 7 Forms of Mixed Use 7 Geographic Coverage S Standards 9 Design Review 17 I Introduction Throughout the Pacific Northwest, as well as elsewhere in the country, communities are grappling with ways of redesigning zoning to produce more positive results than what has been achieved over the past fifty years. Conventional development during the post-war decades has produced a pattern of land use that blurs the distinction between communities: single-purpose commercial buildings surrounded by seas of asphalt, with little opportunity for movement except by automobile, no public spaces or amenities, and no real sense of character other than provided by franchises. The development pattern along West Meeker, Central Avenue and 104th Avenue are examples of this trend. Communities like Kent are beginning to explore ways of altering this generic pattern by re-examining both the form of public investments and development regulations. But accomplishing a major shift is not a simple task. Many factors serve to maintain the current situation, such as the attitudes of financial institutions, mainstream marketing of real estate, goods, and services, established methods of development, and consumer behavior. Change is possible, but needs to occur over time and with opportunities for adjustments in the market place that are neither sudden nor risky. The City of Kent has recognized the value of encouraging mixed use development in its recently-adopted comprehensive plan. The Land Use Plan Map designates several areas (cited above) as appropriate for mixed use. (These areas are currently zoned for commercial use. The West Meeker and North Central areas are zoned GC and the area along 104th is zoned CC and 0.) The plan identifies two designations: one allowing multifamily residential as a permitted use, together with retail and office uses and another allowing multiple family residential only as part of a mixed use development. Crafting new forms of regulations that will produce a different development pattern requires a "targeted and tailored" approach, not one than is sweeping and massive. Few developers want to take a risk in breaking an established form of development; business decisions can be tenuous enough without trying to introduce new configurations and types of buildings. However, some things can be altered or at least encouraged through incentives, bonuses, and design guidelines. So long as there is flexibility. new development and redevelopment can gradually adjust and accommodate itself. It may only take a few key elements to begin to change the character of strip commercial areas; but, regardless, the change will be incremental. In order to implement the goals and policies of Kent's comprehensive plan, mixed use regulations should achieve a number of objectives: o Contribute toward meeting Comprehensive Plan target for population increase / housing needs. o Stimulate more efficient use of land in the vicinity of public transportation, services and jobs. o Encourage infill development and redevelopment by the private sector. o Create a safe, convenient, attractive, and livable environment for households of varying income, age and composition. o Focus new higher density residential development in already established, more central parts of the city, rather than in new areas at the edtes. I 2 Alternatives A number of concepts should be common to all alternatives: o Remove procedural disincentives (CUP) / Allow residential by-right. o Weight development potential in favor of housing. o Offer bonuses for including housing (FAR, height, coverage). o Offer incentives for other desired amenities and features. o Reduce parking requirements in recognition of increased efficiency. o Require design review and use of design guidelines. I Three distinctly different alternatives are possible. They are described, along with their advantages and disadvantages, below. 3 Alternative 1 Amend Existing GC, CC, and O Districts to Allow/Encourage Residential In this alternative, the current zoning would be revised to allow mixed use, offering incentives, incorporating new standards, and adding design guidelines. Advantages: o Established districts that people are familiar with. o Text amendments can be made relatively easily. o Doesn't require new or adjusted boundaries Disadvantages: o Changes each district as a whole, which may be too broad. o Could result in many incompatible uses and conditions. I o Could be controversial, given the geographic expanse. o Might not be effective in producing a livable environment. o Could produce scattered pockets of housing, some in undesirable areas. 4 Alternative 2 Create Mixed Use "Overlay" District This alternative would involve applying a special set of regulations to all or some portion of each of the areas identified in the plan for mixed use. Advantages: o Allows for limited application. o Allows for different standards (either more or less restrictive). o Can be done through a text amendment (which can include maps). o Can initiate long-term change by starting small and focusing. o Involves a more "tailored" regulatory technique. Disadvantages: I o May still require some changes to underlying district(s). o Introduces a level of complexity. o May be perceived as unfair if some portions of the underlying district are treated differently than others. 5 Alternative 3 Establish New Mixed Use District(s) In this alternative, the current zoning classifications would be removed and replaced with a completely new classification, with unique standards, incentives and guidelines. Advantages: o Dramatically signals a new desired direction. o Allows for completely fresh regulations. o Offers clarity for property owners desiring the new direction. Disadvantages: o May require more than one, to reflect different situations. o Would involve a map change, with required notice. I o Might not be appropriate for all areas being considered. o Perception of major change can cause uncertainty in private sector. o Can upset property owners who don't agree with new direction. o Could result in numerous non-conforming developments. 6 Issues and Recommendations 1. Forms of Mixed Use In recent years, it has been popular to propose a return to a "romanticized" version of mixed use. Specifically, this is the notion of people living above the store. This form of mixed use -- mixed use buildings -- has been encouraged through development regulations that either require or offer incentives for developers to build both housing and commercial uses within the same structure. While this form has been built in areas throughout the region, it has often not been successful because of a number of factors. First, the development industry has become specialized. Firms know how to develop given types of uses to meet specific markets, but they rarely understand how to design, market, and operate combinations of use. Second, building and fire code requirements are considerably more complex when uses ("occupancies") are mixed, driving up costs. Third, mixing uses, especially housing and commercial, complicates maintenance, security, advertising, parking, ownership, leasing, and management. Fourth, income produced by each type of use can radically differ from what was originally anticipated and where one use does not perform adequately, the other use suffers. Finally, for all of the above reasons, banks are extremely reluctant to provide financing for mixed use buildings. Another form of mixed use that achieves virtually all of the benefits and has fevk✓ of the liabilities is mixed use development. Sometimes called "horizontal mixed use," this places the housing component on a different pad than the commercial component. Each could even be on parcels that are owned by different parties, so long as their design is integrated together. Many features could be shared, such as access, parking, open space, pedestrian connections, security, etc. But each can also be independently financed, developed and managed. Another advantage of this form is that the commercial component can be placed along a busy arterial street, buffering the residential units. A third form of development is called mixed use neighborhoods. This involves using a finely-grained pattern of zoning to encourage different uses to be in close proximity to one another. This is somewhat more of a fragmented 7 approach and does not always result in development that fits together well. However, strong design guidelines and review by the city over a sustained period of time can produce desirable results. In fact, achieving mixed use requires using all of these forms of development. No one technique will be sufficient. Re-introducing the concept of mixed use, after decades of single use development, will necessitate promoting and using a variety of forms. It is recommended that mixed use buildings he considered only one form of mixed use. Current code language that produces developments and neighborhoods containing both residential and commercial uses should be continued. 2. Geographic Coverage To encourage the development of mixed use sites and buildings, there are two basic options with respect to land area designated for such development. One option would be to use the already existing areas designated for GC, CC and O zoning. However, intensive commercial use is so new or so firmly established in some areas in which mixed use may be extremely difficult to achieve. There would need to be a designator such as "GC/A" to indicate specific areas where this pattern is more possible or desired. Another approach is to carve out smaller portions of area currently zoned GC, CC and O (and designated for mixed use in the comprehensive plan) and establish either a new zoning designation or an overlay designation. An overlay designation could involve dif�'erent standards for various areas, if desired (eg. MU1, MU2). The overlay approach is recommended, for several reasons. First, not all existing GC, CC and O areas may be appropriate for, or likely to be developed with, mixed use. The physical characteristics and environmental qualities necessary for an area to be conducive to living may not be present. Second, the overlay approach allows the concept of mixed use to get a foothold in areas that already have attributes supporting residential use. Third, the overlay technique both sends out a clear, focused message about new development possibilities and allows for a more tailored, area-specific set of standards and incentives. Finally, the overlay method can he achieved through a text amendment, which could avoid costly notices to individual property owners. 8 3. Development Standards Mixed use, whether vertical (stacked) or horizontal (co-located), is a form of development which used to be common in North America but has not been so for four or five decades (outside major cities). In this time, the development industry has become so specialized that only a very few companies understand how to successfully mix uses. Furthermore, financial institutions have noted failures of a number of mixed use buildinLys and, not wanting to incur risks, have tended not to look favorably on such investments. Moreover, codes and regulations have not really encouraged the mixing of uses, making this form of development costly and procedurally complex. While local government cannot have much direct influence over the development capabilities and financing constraints, it can at least affect the climate for doing mixed use by establishing standards that are clear, simple and favorable toward this form of development. Residential as an Outright Permitted Use If a mixture of residential uses with commercial uses is truly desired, special permitting involving public hearings cannot be a requirement. Such hurdles present an additional degree of uncertainty to an already difficult and somewhat risky form of development. Residential should simply be made an outright (or "by-right") permitted use in areas designated for mixed use. This does not preclude having a requirement for certain areas, such as East Hill, that residential use must be a part of a mixed use project. However, to require that residential must be part of a mixed use building is overly restrictive and would not produce many examples of mixed use. Allowing the option of mixing uses horizontally or laterally, can actually produce more immediate results. Different developers can tackle portions of a project that they are expert in, building code requirements apply easily to each component, and financing may be more available. (This approach should allow for subdividing into different ownership parcels, with cooperative parking agreements set forth in the deed of record, so long as the project is integrated together by design.) It is recommended that residential use be allowed outright, although in some areas, allowed only as part of a mixed use development. 9 Allowable Residential Density Conventional land use regulations have tended to set forth a maximum number of units per acre as a control on density. Over time, what this has done is to work against housing that is affordable to middle income households. (If a developer can only build x number of units on a site, the tendency is to make them relatively large and therefore relatively more expensive, so as to achieve a higher financial return.) In the last decade or so, many communities have begun to use another means of regulating the intensity of development. This is the technique of "Floor Area Ratio" (or FAR for short). FAR indicates the amount of development as a multiple of lot area. For example, an allowable FAR of 1 would mean that a 20,000 square foot site could hold a 20,000 square foot building. The built form containing this area can be varied: it could be a one story building covering all of the lot, a two- story building covering half of the lot, or a three story building covering a third of the lot. Moreover, using FAR instead of measures like "dwelling units per acre" or "lot area per unit" allows a development to be configured to meet the needs of smaller households (eg. singles, single-parent households, seniors) in that a greater number of smaller units could be built. This tool allows the marketplace to determine exact density in any given location, so long as parking requirements and other standards are met. In practical terms, parking requirements, along with height limits and lot coverage, pose an effective limit on density; only so many spaces can be fitted onto a parcel. This constraint would prevent someone from cramming a site with tiny dwelling units. But, it provides an incentive to produce more compact, less costly units. Also, FAR entourages developers to have a greater mix of unit types within a given development, so that a greater range of household sizes and types are possible. There are other reasons for using FAR as a regulatory tool. Mixing residential and commercial uses together can be confusing if the amount of development potential cannot be calculated on a common basis, ie, if residential potential is based on units/acre and commercial potential is based on heights and lot coverage. Using FAR (along with other standards of height, coverage, parking, etc.) puts both uses on an even basis and development potential is simpler to determine. In addition, using FAR allows the city to suggest what use is preferable and to make use of an incentive system to encourage development to occur in a certain form or provide public amenities. FAR, in short, provides 10 much more flexibility and is a technique that developers find very useful and workable in more urbanized, mixed use areas. FAR does not produce precise densities, because unit sizes can vary widely (which is a principal advantage of using this technique). However, a range of density relates to given FAR limits. For example: .5 FAR would produce 10-30 units per acre 1.0 FAR would produce 25-45 units per acre 1.5 FAR would produce 40-60 units per acre It is recommended that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be adopted as the method of controlling the intensity of development in mixed use districts. Furthermore, in order to encourage the development of housing within areas which are currently dominated by commercial development, allowable FAR should be significantly higher for residential use as compared with commercial. Finally, as an incentive to provide residential, additional commercial FAR could be granted in return for including housing within a project. Height Limits The concept of mixed use is identified by the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for areas now zoned GC, CC and 0. Height limits for these disltricts 35', 40' and 40', respectively. The code also states the number of stories allowed in each: 2, 3 and 3, respectively. However, the zoning code allows an additional increase of one story in GC and CC by the Planning Director and yet another story by the Planning Commission. There are several awkward and confusing complexities in these standards. First, building height as measured by feet is the most important element in maintaining the sense of scale; the number of stories is not relevant. Setting numbers of "stories" is not logical because there is a great difference between floor-to-floor heights for various types of development. Commercial buildings can have stories that are 15 feet in height, while typical residential stories are 11 9-10 feet in heiuht. Stories devoted to parking would be in the range of 8-9 feet. Therefore, although it is a popularly-used term, "story" as an actual measure of building height is confusing and even counter-productive. (Eg. three stories of residential are equal in height to two stories of commercial.) Height limits should be established by number of feet only. Second, the prospect of increases in stories through some special action, introduces a degree of uncertainty that confuses developers. The allowable envelope is a basic determinant of yield and, therefore, return on investment. Developers need to know, up front, what they can do on a parcel of property. A better approach would be to specify the amount of increase allowable in return for providing a specific feature, and then allow the increase administratively. Third, it is not clear whether an increase in the number of stories also involves an increase in dimension. Again, this supports using height dimensions only, not stories. A creative way of addressing height would be to set a basic height limit at a relatively low point and then let it be increased through the inclusion of certain, specified features that achieve public objectives. An increase could be given for including residential use. An increase could be given for concealing parking. Increases could also be granted for using sloped roofs or stepped-back terraces to soften the bulk of buildings. Critical to this approach is that such increases are automatic: provide this and you receive that. This approach offers flexibility, predictability and variety in result. It is recommended that allowable building heights for mixed use districts have a "basic" allowable height that is lower than what is currently allowed in any of1the above districts. Additional height would be granted according to a specific schedule of features and increments of increase. 12 Lot Coverage Normally lot coverage is not much of a constraint in single use development, given that parking consumes the great majority of a site anyway. However, when uses begin to be mixed together, particularly in a horizontal manner, lot coverage can be a constraint. Furthermore, the increased development intensity begins to justify placing some or all of the parking within or under a building. This requires a higher permissible lot coverage to accomplish. Currently, lot coverages for the districts cited above range from 30% to 50%, all of which are too low to encoura!e the mixing of uses. Similar to height limits, coverage can be expressed in a manner that offers an incentive to build in a particular way. Lot coverage could be increased in return for doing a mixed use development. It could also be set lower for single use development, as a disincentive. It is recommended that a "basic" lot coverage of 25% be set for mixed use districts. If residential use is included, the coverage could then be as much as 7.5%. A stricter variation on this is to require that a minimum percentage (eg. 30% or-50%) of the development be in residential use for the higher coverage limit to be available. Setbacks I One of the advantages of mixed use development is that it can create, over time, an environment that is conducive to walking between places to live, work, shop and recreate. One of the key factors in accomplishing this is to allow and even encourase buildings to be directly adjacent to public sidewalks, so that destinations are prominent and easily accessible, goods and services are in plain view from sidewalks, and there is a high degree of continuity in building form. Requiring setbacks prevents this from occurring. (However, setbacks are useful in achievins a comfortable transition between more intense commercial/mixed use development and lower intensity residential development.) 13 There is one aspect to setbacks that is frequently overlooked for districts in which greater intensity of development is expected and where better provisions for pedestrians is desired. That is the need to establish wider sidewalks. The typical 5 to 8 foot wide sidewalks found in strip commercial districts are not adequate for pedestrian movement, safety and comfort, particularly as street trees take up some of the width. (Street trees, with a minimum caliper of 3" and a maximum spacing of 25-30' should be required in order to help make the districts liveable.) While street improvement projects can purchase easements or additional right-of-way, it is often not possible for a city to undertake such a major project. Therefore, incremental enhancements are the principle means of achieving a pedestrian setting. Accordingly, setbacks should be required along street frontages for the purpose of providing sidewalks that are at least 10 feet wide. (Widths greater than 12 feet are only necessary in downtown areas.) This may mean that some or all of the sidewalk width is situated on private property. It is recommended that, for mixed use districts, setbacks not be required. Exceptions would be for sidewalks and where projects are adjacent to residential districts. Design guidelines might also address the concept of "maximum setback" in certain locations, to encourage retail uses to be oriented to the street. Parking I One of the greatest benefits of mixed use development is that area devoted to parking is much more efficiently used. This is due to a number of reasons. First, some trips are "internalized;" some people will walk between dwellings and nearby retail shops and offices. This can allow for a reduced number of households who need two cars. Second, for any use, but particularly commercial uses, there is some degree of turnover of parking spaces, leading to some spaces always being available. Different uses, co-located can take advantage of this "inefficiency" (so long as commercial spaces are not assigned). Third, different uses, such as office and residential, have different times of peak use so that at night, the office stalls can be available to meet some of the residential demand. Finally, conventional parking ratios have been 14 based upon peak periods of use; much of the time parking stalls around the perimeter of a development are unused. All of these factors suggest that combining residential with commercial uses should allow for shared supply of parking. However, the possibilities for sharing have some limitation. The residential component will need a core number of spaces that are dedicated for residents and, perhaps, even secure. Commercial uses probably cannot depend upon access to residential stalls; ratios might be somewhat reduced but probably not dramatically unless there is very good access to public transportation for employees. (Some portion of parking ratios are meant for employees; that portion might be reduced if alternatives are available.) Like other standards, parking ratios can also be used to induce the mixing of residential and commercial. Normally, the provision of parking is a direct expense to the developer with little possibility of income. If the amount of land dedicated to parking can be reduced, and, therefore, more of it made available for income-generating use, there will be some people interested in mixing residential and commercial. This concept needs to recognize two factors. however. Parking ratios cannot be so low as to generate "spillover" demand that is met on adjacent streets or properties. In addition, financial institutions, regardless of parking codes, will insist upon enough parking to make a project marketable. Blending all of these factors together, along with recent research that suggests that parking ratios are higher, in general, than they really need to be, it should be possible to allow for some reduction in parking for mixing uses together. It it; recommended that, for mixed use districts, parking required for office and retail uses be reduced to 3.5 stalls/1000 square feet. If a project includes residential, the ratio for residential should he I stalUdwelling unit. However, the ratio for developments containing only residential should be 1.5/du, since there is no other use with which to share parking supply. A variation on this would be to have a more complex set of ratios based on the number of bedrooms in each unit, with lower ratios required when uses are mixed, such as the following: 15 Residential Parking (spaces/unit) Dwelling Size Not mixed Mixed with Commercial with Commercial Studio .75 .50 One Bedroom 1.5 1.0 Two Bedroom 2.0 1.25 I 16 4. Design Review Requiring design review is an important consideration when encouraging mixed use. Design review can ensure that new, more intensive development 1iu comfortably within the context of the city in general and the surrounding neighborhoods in particular. In addition, one objective of mixing uses is to attract people to live in close proximity to jobs, shops, and services. If these places are to be truly livable, qualities associated with desirable neighborhoods need to be present and improve over time. A district dominated by generic, flat-roofed commercial buildings surrounded by seas of asphalt and punctuated by large, glaring signs by will not likely be seen as a good place to live. Therefore design review can help direct the character of both new residential and commercial development to be mutually supportive. This will require the use of design guidelines to inform the decisions of private developers as well as public officials. The City of Kent has a set of guidelines that govern multiple family projects and many of these can apply to mixed use development. However, it will be necessary to add other guidelines addressin-g conditions involvins the mixture of uses. Guidelines should also be specifically devised for stand-alone commercial buildings so that the total effect reinforces the desired character. Finally, design review should be an administrative process to make sure that the overall permitting process is expeditious. Both the public sector and the private sector must recognize that design review is a collaborative process, not an adversarial one. This is particularly the case if mixed use districts are to merge and thrive and become decent, healthy places in which to both live and conduct business. I 17 Design Guidelines for Mixed Use Development Design guidelines are currently used by the City in the review of projects within downtown and multiple family districts. Because the mixed use districts are a hybrid of relatively intense commercial uses and relatively dense residential uses, neither set of existing guidelines is entirely sufficient to address the conditions associated with mixed use. However, many of the guidelines used for multiple family development are appropriate. All but three guidelines are applicable. Two guidelines (I.e. and 2.c.) indicate a need for an open space network. In denser, mixed use areas, this is difficult to achieve. Another guideline (3.a.) suggests maintaining neighborhood scale. Because mixed use is contemplated for areas that are now mainly strip commercial, design attention would need to be directed toward helping to establish a new type of neighborhood rather than being compatible with the surroundings. As described in previous sections, mixed use can occur either within the same building (vertical mixed use) or within the same site (horizontal mixed use). A. Guidelines for All Mixed Use Development All mixed use development, regardless of the configuration, should include the following design features: , 1. Some common recreation space. eg. roofs, terraces, indoor rooms, courtyards c '.h I j c� 3 . 2. Lighting fixtures that are shielded, directing light downward. I. 3. Residential portion should incorporate residential details. cu. window trim, trellises, balconies, bay windows 4. The residential component should have an obvious, generous entrance, within features suggesting a "front door." ea. lobby, trellis, decorative gate, archway, courtyard y a' o _ 1 77- 5. Any walls fronting on public streets should contain windows, irrespective of the use at the level. ca. at least 20% of the ground floor facade must be clear Glass (a combination of decorative grillwork, art, and landscaping may be substituted) ° v B. Guidelines for Vertical Mixed Use Development In addition to meeting guidelines in section A. above, vertical mixed use should include the following: 1. Parking lots, if used, should be divided into small increments, separated by landscaping and structures, so that parking does not dominate the site. 'D 2. Ground level commercial space should be articulated. eg. different materials, generous windows with low sill heights, "store" doors, canopies or awnings, planters il `f III! II1 Illlllliil I 3. Residential floors should be expressed in an obvious manner. eg. stepbacks, change in materials/color, overhangs � e pig B B 6� i 4. Commercial signs should be contained within the first floor commercial base and not extend up into the residential floor facades. R a �/ti°iei2° o 9 Y C. Guidelines for horizontal Mixed Use Development In addition to meeting the guidelines in Section A. above, horizontal mixed use should include the following: 1. If the residential component is located away from the main street, a landscaped pedestrian path should be provided between the entrance and the public sidewalk. 1� Q I 2. Although the commercial and residential components may have different architectural expressions, they should exhibit a number of elements that produce the effect of an integrated development. 0 O 000 0 _ 3. Surface parking should be generously landscaped to serve as an amenity. Lighting fixtures should not exceed the height of the first floor. Z I Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1. 1997 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: ANNEXATION POLICY 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Committee has recommended a new Annexation Policy. The Planning Committee held three meetings on this item on December 10, 1996, January 21, 1997 , and March 18 , 1997 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Annexation Policy and Planning Committee minutes of 12/10/96, 1/21/97 , & 3/18/97 , and memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: If Councilmember_ f moves, Councilmember Ji� DLL seconds to approve the Annexation Policy as recommended by the Planning Committee. DISCUSSION• ACTION:- Council Agenda Item No. 4B CITY OF LL�� Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX (206) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM April 1, 1997 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ANNEXATION POLICY The Council Planning Committee approved the attached Annexation Policy at their meeting of March 18th meeting. The Committee discussed this document several times and have approved a policy that will guide the City through the final annexations that will fill out our Potential Annexation Area. JPH/mp:c:annexpol.cc 220 ath VVE_SO. KENT. WASHINGTON QX032-�805 i TELEPHONF 11h iH50_; 00 F\X ANNEXATION POLICY AND ACTION PLAN The second City Council Top Priority Target Issue for 1996 is titled Annexation Policed Action Plan. The goals to help implement this target issue are: * Review Annexation Policy and Strategy - How to Address it * Complete Pacific Highway Analysis * Monitor Meridian Valley Annexation The following report will address these goals and arrive at an array of policy options for Council action. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION 1. The City should help citizens who want to annex to the City. 2. Annexations must pay their own way. 3. Potential costs of annexation should be known well in advance of any annexations. 4. The existing high levels of service shall not be diminished because of annexations. I. BACKGROUND A. Annexation Policy Actions Since 1987, a number of events, concerning annexation policy, have occurred. These events include: 1. March, 1987 The WESTERN CITY BOUNDARY STUDY, prepared by the Planning Department, concluded that Kent should not deannex the area on the west side of the Pacific Highway corridor between Kent Des Moines Road and South 259th Street. 2. April 13, 1987 Planning Department Document titled GREATER KENT STUDY was presented to the City Council. April 1, 1997 Annexation Policy and Action Plan 3. September 4, 1987 Planning Department memo titled REVIEW OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PLANNING AREA/ANNEXATION BOUNDARIES FROM THE GREATER KENT STUDY was presented to the City Council. 4. October 6, 1987 The City Council adopted Resolution 1150 which contained annexation policies and amended the 1972 Sphere of Interest document. These policies were those listed in the Planning Department memo of September 4th. 5. October 6, 1987 The City Council approved two maps pertaining to annexations. Map #1 is a 10 year annexation plan; trap #2 is a 20 year annexation plan. The Council took this action at the same time that they approved Resolution 1150. However, the two maps were not approved as exhibits for Resolution 1150; they stand alone. 6. April 19, 1988 The City Council adopted Resolution 1199 which contained an annexation priority map. This map is Exhibit A of Resolution 1199 and is titled 1989-1990 Priority Annexation Map. 7. September 1, 1992 The City Council ratified the Countywide Planning Policies which clarified the requirement mandated by the Washington State Growth Management Act that each county establish an Urban Growth Area. S. November 3, 1992 The City Council approved Resolution 1334 which adopted an Interim Urban Growth Boundary pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies. 9. May 18, 1993 The City Council approved Resolution 1360 which adopted an Interim Potential Annexation Area (PAA) pursuant to Resolution 1334. 10. April 4, 1995 The City Council modified the PAA boundary southerly to South 204th Street in a line extending westerly from the Green River to Orillia Road. The Council also adjusted the PAA boundary in the vicinity of South 285th Street to coincide with the Meridian Annexation boundaries. 11. April 18, 1995 The City Council approved Ordinance 3222 which adopted Kent's Comprehensive Plan as mandated by the State Growth Management Act. The Plan contains the April 1, 1997 Annexation Policy and Action Plan City's Potential Annexation Area as distinguished from the earlier Interim Potential Annexation Area. 12. 1995 Kent signs interlocal agreements with Federal Way and Auburn defining PAA boundaries between Kent and these two cities. 13. March 5, 1996 The City Council modified the PAA boundary between Renton and Kent by moving the PAA line northerly from South 196th Street to South 192nd Street. The Council's most significant policy actions concerning annexations have been the adoption of the Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) and their incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan and the adoption of Resolution 1150 (1987) and Resolution 1190 (1988). Many of the annexation policies contained in Resolution 1150 have been folded into the Potential Annexation Areas concept. B. Kent's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Kent's Potential Annexation Area (PAA), contains approximately nine square miles. When these nine square miles are annexed the City will contain approximately 36 square miles. The Growth Management Act (GMA) advocates the annexation of PAAs into their adjacent cities. However, State annexation statutes still maintain citizens' rights to greatly control annexations. Consequently some areas lying within Kent's PAA coula conceivably stay out of the City for a long period of time. If all of Kent's PAA was annexed today Kent's population would be approximately 90,000 persons. One important factor to be considered in compiling annexation policies is King County's Comprehensive Plan which has the following statements and goals: 11 1. Potential Annexation Area Plans Potential Annexation Area Plans will become the most important examples of subarea planning. These plans, which will `-clude interlocal agreements between King County and each city, will have the following ::omponents: The city's Potential Annexation Area boundary, which includes the area the city is expected to annex within the next 20 years. 3 April 1, 1997 Annexation Policy and Action Plan The regional issues and services which King County will be responsible for after annexation. The local issues and services which the city will be responsible for upon annexation, and possibly before annexation. Strategies for the transition of responsibility for local issues and services from the County to the city. A funding strategy for local and regional services. The revision of relevant community plans, policies and area zoning to comply with the County and city's comprehensive plans and to provide the basis for land use, development and other decisions by both jurisdictions. I-210 (the County Goal to implement the above statement) Following designation of Potential Annexation Areas, King County shall work with cities to establish agreements on future annexations. The County and cities should jointly develop land use policies and consistent public improvement standards. The Potential Annexation Area Plan shall be an element of the Comprehensive Plan. This process shall include participation by tribes, governmental agencies, special purpose districts, other providers, landowners and residents. The planning process may address, but is not limited to: a. Determining responsibility for upgrading facilities in Potential Annexation Areas where present facilities have been identified as insufficient, and establishing a financial partnership between County, city and other service providers to address payment of costs to build new and improve existing infrastructure; b. Providing reciprocal notification of development proposals in the Potential Annexation Areas and opportunities to propose mitigation for adverse impacts on County, city and other service providers' facilities; C. Giving cities, to the extent possible, the opportunity to be the designated sewer or water provider within the Potential Annexation Area, where this can be done without harm to the integrity of existing systems and without significantly increasing rates; d. Modifying improvement standards for County roads, parks, building design and other urban standards, 4 April 1, 1997 Annexation Policy and Action Plan e. Transferring local parks, recreation and open space sites and facilities; f. Establishing that Potential Annexation Areas are principally for urban uses; g. Making residential development density consistent with regional goals for promoting transit and efficient service delivery; h. Continuing equivalent protection of County landmarks and historic resources listed on the King County Historic Resources Inventory; i. Providing environmental protection for critical areas; and j. Identifying the major service deficiencies within Service Planning Areas and establishing a schedule for resolving them. The Potential Annexation Area agreements between King County and the cities will implement each jurisdiction's comprehensive plans and policies by identifying the responsibilities of each party. Special purpose districts will be partners within the process, helping define how services can be provided most cost effectively. The costs of providing infrastructure and services should be shared to provide the most equitable and efficient services to all residents of King County. Citizens will be equal partners with the County, cities and the special service districts in the Potential Annexation Area process. I-211 King County and the cities shall collaboratively address level of service standards and costs. King County and the cities may share the costs of needed capital improvement programs and other services." Although these statements and goals have not been implemented between Kent and King County at this time, it is inevitable that King County will, in the near future, begin to advocate interlocal agreements between the City and the County for the City to take over a number of services now provided by the County. Before that point it becomes incumbent upon the City to determine if it should be providing urban services in its PAA or should actively move to annex all of its P.A.A. See the Appendix for copies of Resolution 1150, 1199 and a map of the Potential Annexation Areas. II. RECENT ANNEXATION ACTIVITIES The City has been quite active in pursuing annexations in recent years with the two most significant having been the Ramstead/East Hill and Meridian annexations. Other annexation have included Beck, Jones/Hobbs and Everson. 5 April 1, 1997 Annexation Policy and Action Plan The Ramstead/East Hill annexation (annexed on June 27, 1994) contained 608 acres (.95 square miles) and had a population of 1,834. At the time of annexation the estimated annual cost of service was $441,164 while the revenue was estimated to be $398,170 which left a deficit of $42,994. This annexation was small enough that it did not cause an undue impact on existing City operations or to the City's ability to maintain the same high standard of service in the annexation area as was maintained throughout the City. This annexation was predominately made up of single family residential uses with little or no commercial uses. The Meridian annexation (annexed on January 1, 1996) contained 5.27 square miles and had a population of 14,546. At the time of annexation the estimated annual expenditures were $3,744,894 while the estimated revenue was $3,664,676. The adjusted expenditure was $3,473,924 and the adjusted revenue was $3,037,315. Although this annexation started with a first year deficient due to initial start up costs (capital expenditures for equipment, vehicle and other one-time start up costs amounted to over $650,000 in the 1996 budget), by 1998 a $55,339 surplus will be in effect. This is the financial path annexations often follow; a deficient during the first year followed by subsequent year balanced budgets. Although the Meridian annexation contained a large number of dwellings, it also contained a good sized commercial component. This annexation had a major impact on the City's ability to provide the same high level of services in the annexed area as is maintained in the existing City. However, the revenue from annexed area provided the City with the means to cover the additional personnel needs for Police, Planning, Public Works and other departments. Although only nine months have elapsed since the annexation there has been no apparent diminishing of service levels in the City because of the annexation. What these two annexations tell us concerning the balance between expenditures and revenue is that for annexations not to be a burden to the City they must include a substantial commercial component and not consist of only residential uses. Two implementing goals advocated by the City Council to help implement the top priority issue were: 1. Complete Pacific Highway Analysis 2. Monitor Meridian Valley Annexation Staff has begun the Pacific Highway analysis and should have it complete in a short period of time. The Pacific Highway area, extending northerly from S.E. 272nd Street to S.E. 259th Street (extended) and easterly from Pacific Highway South to the existing City boundary, is a prime area for annexation in the near future. 6 April 1, 1997 Annexation Policy and Action Plan The Meridian Valley annexation is well under way. The Council has approved the 10 per cent petition and the annexation proponents have submitted the 60% petition. The notice of intent is before the Boundary Review Board. The area may be annexed by July 1, 1997. III. PROPOSED ANNEXATION POLICY There is no doubt that the City will at some time annex the remaining nine square miles in the PAA. However, there are tremendous costs associated with annexing these nine square miles that dictate that the City carry out annexations in such a manner that these costs can be absorbed by the City without diminishing the high level of service provided in the existing City. Many of these costs are capital facilities related. In addition to the capital facility needs are the on going general fund operations including personnel to handle the increase in fire, police, planning, public works and others City operations expected to be generated in the newly annexed areas. These costs would add to dollars to the City's general fund, a budget that derives its funds primarily from property and retail sales taxes. The City has the recent experience from the Meridian annexation from which to draw conclusions for future similar annexations. There are approximately 6 square miles of area remaining in the PAA north of S.E. 240th Street northerly to S.E. 192nd Street. This area contains approximately 24,000 persons (the Meridian annexation contained 5.2 square miles and just over 14,000 persons) and is similar to the Meridian annexation with its land use of primarily single family residential. There is a large commercial node at the intersection of 108th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 208th Street, much larger than a similar commercial node at the intersection of Kent Kangley Road and 132nd Avenue S.E. in the Meridian annexation. With the experience gained from the Meridian annexation, it is important to include a commercial component with any annexation that will have a large area residential land use. It is the commercial tax base that will permit the City to provide services on the same high level in the annexed areas as is provided in the existing City while not diminishing the existing City level of service. One final urbanized area remaining in the PAA is the approximately 578 acre area lying on the east side of Pacific Highway South and extending northerly from South 272nd Street to South 259th Street (extended). This area's land use is primarily commercial with some multifamily residential. The Council has accepted the 10% petition and citizens are currently circulating the 60% petition. 7 April 1, 1997 Annexation Policy and Action Plan Most of the remainder of the PAA consist of the large area west of Smith Brother's Dairy north of South 272nd Street and west of West Valley Highway. This is primarily an area of undevelopable land and will likely remain in agricultural and flood storage use. The following annexation policies are proposed to enable the City to consider annexing the remainder of the PAA: 1. The City's goal is to annex the remainder of Kent's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) as willing citizens come forward and within the ability of the City to provide a high level of service. I. The City should assist citizens who have expressed a desire to annex to the City. 3. Impacts to City services from annexations need to be absorbed prior to attempting additional annexations. 4. All areas of the PAA shall have an equal priority for annexing to the City, but only one annexation shall take place at a time. 5. The City shall identify those capital facility impacts associated with an annexation and shall determine their costs and the time line to accomplish them well before the annexation takes place. 6. The City shall identify, to the extent possible, the general fund costs associated with annexations. 7. The Goals and policies contained in Kent's Growth Management Comprehensive Plan shall be followed as they pertain to annexations. 8. Levels of service in the existing City shall not be diminished because of new annexations. 9. Annexations shall, to the extent practical. pay their own way. 10. The City shall require all development within the PAA that desires City utilities to sign no-protest agreements and agreements to development in conformance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan designation and to Kent Public Works standards. 11. The City shall not initiate Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning amendment hearings until the City Council adopts an annexation ordinance. 8 April 1, 1997 Annexation Policy and Action Plan 12. After the City Council adopts an annexation ordinance, the actual date the annexation takes place should coincide with the availability of revenue to be received by the City for the annexed area. 13. The preferred method of annexation is through the property owner petition method. However, the election method may be, from time to time, in the citizens' and City's best interest. jph/mp:c:annexpl.cc 9 • ,�.p�,G] ) R D '1 2,j V a.. .Y•'^Y.1♦ e. T44 uC J Y4 U'.+11y�1 ty �1 2Yt1�,'Cit.-.�'"�Y ''3�' i..�lR`1" f-;,.1i�Sr'k..-.'fi�^�rs �fl.Kai�d'C�i[rpDgp'�"'��T S�•Sc':�. s �.,� 1 !11.J�c,_tt�-M'7i 'd tt a' �i*•Pf�]r'7 Ic.t��t'hs Z�•.d s ..... hn'�g�n n[U'!`�1U wY1�3 77 +v 9♦ f .� 1 ' 7 _ 3 t[ .1"' 1 �� t ;y sle�� y �'� `��5 ?.. 1 -'. 1`-* d c kr �__�yy.�.r.m T �<jrr �'r �Yy�L'��a:-c�!��.vim •c1 ..+ t !. x ��r •+ � ,.. 15iF < �— 25�� +YJ.� `f't.i1".ex n'''-. "Y�,+. SMIAr9,}�.+. w�r•� li.�"C4'"Y-4 i•..:''"1 ."ty .a2�xl 1t A Ij � " rJ , W M1 - v N•+(+✓[ I.mil, ' / t � ��S i �I1- rIR>t�i�r�IC'��.w�W� Jr,r �n",7 .�.>, � L•u.��. �� IfIZ iV•o�w�� f..:,t1�+n ..,b.. .ly ,-..n-.7 •Crc rt ` - ri';"fRS�.+r�;�Y�-,�r�:�1�¢kp,Z�..��iK'pJ�.9j��_ w• + �,►— ^7W'' •''�"�� SFZ!'tllll�'.1!' �4\III I V.� �Q00 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City cf Kent, Washington, adopting Annexation_ Policies and amending the Kent Sphere of Interest adopted April 17, 1972. WHEREAS, on April 17, 1972, the City Council of the City of Kent, by Resolution 718 A, adopted a report entitled "Kent's Sphere of Interest", and adopted amendments to such report on December 4, 1978 and December 19, 1983; and WHEREAS, the growth patterns of the City of Kent since 1972 and the future growth potential of the City require the Sphere of Interest to be reevaluated and revised; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent desires to achieve the effective management of impacts associated with new development, the efficient provision of needed levels of city service, the coordinated preparation of land use, functional and capital improvement plans, and the delineation of appropriate potential annexation areas; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent recocnizes that planning and land use decisions can have extra-jurisdicmiona'- impacts and that governmental cooperation is an effective manner under existinc law to address impacts and opportunities whic spread across jurisdictional boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City Counci'- of the City of Kent reviewed the new annexation policies in workshop meetings on April 14, 1987 and September 4, 1987; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City council adopts the following Annexation Policies amending the present Kent Sphere of Interest: Annexation Policies - General (G) G1 The rights and Privileges of Kent 's citizens shall be protected when considering areas for annexation. G2 The City shall identify potential code violation problems and nonconforming development prior to annexation. G3 The City shall ensure that the property owners and residents are fully informed of the obligations and requirements that may be imposed (bonded indebtedness or cost of services) . G4 The City shall review annexations and future City boundaries with special districts to determine impacts of annexation on their services. G5 The City shall promote a positive image and an accurate portrayal of available services to encourage public support and desire for annexations. This analysis shall include participation from each City department to identify impacts and associated costs of delivery of services to the proposed area. GB The City should work with other cities and King County to identify future annexation areas; to sign interlocal agreements to ensure consistent land use policies and public improvement standards within the agreed—upon . annexation areas. G9 The City shall promote annexations that will solve the problem of disjointed prov:sicn of public service (such as police protection) . Boundaries/Land Use (:,Ul LUl Annexations shall be promoted twat serve to square off the City boundaries, particularly if they are consistent with the Potential Annexation Area map. LU2 Existing residential areas adjacent to the City, with City water and/or sewer sera ce, should have a high priority for annexation. LU3 Annexation boundaries should follow logical physical features while at the same time follow established property lines. LU4 Annexations shall occur only if the area is contiguous to the existing City boundary with the exception of annexations for municipal purposes. LUS Areas proposed for annexation should exceed five acres in size unless a smaller area would serve to straighten a boundary or eliminate an island of unincorporated land. LU6 Special service district boundaries must be considered when determining annexation areas and future City boundaries. LU7 Proposed zoning and sensitive areas cesignations for annexation areas shall be consistent with the applicable subarea land use plan and the City-wide comprehensive plan; PROVIDED, that the City may withhold full implementation of the comprehensive land use plan man designations in its annexation zoning proposals in order to achieve a more orderly ph .:;ical development pattern and to implement its goal of a 20 percent density reduction in multifamily residential areas. LU8 The City shall not initiate zoning hearings for annexed lands until the annexation ordinance has been adopted by Council. Utilities/Streets (U) U1 The City shall continue to require all development in unincorporated King County that desires City utilities to sign no-protest annexation agreements and agreements to develop in accordance with the comprehensive plan desianation and to Kent Public Works standards. U2 New utility service should be a higher priority for unserved areas in the Cite. U3 A report shall be developed that identifies the condition of streets and utilities within a proposed annexation area and determines needed improvements and long-term maintenance costs. U4 The City shall require that all necessary street and utility improvements be made with the assistance- of residents/property owners within the annexation area. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this . day of 1987. Co curred in by the Mayor cf the City of Kent, this 7 �� day of 1987. DAN KELL7EHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JEnZN, CITY CLERK APPR VED ^0 FORM: SA A DRiSCOLL, Y ATTORNEY hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 0 �5-✓ passed Sy the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the I-t' day of �--,-4-- 1987. (SEAL) MARIE 1eNSEN, CITY CLERK 05220-170 4 - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting a priority annexation map. WHEREAS, on April 17, 1972, the City Council of the City of Kent, by Resolution 718 A, adopted a report entitled "Kent's Sphere of Interest", and adopted amend-ents to such report on December 4, 1978 and December 19, 1982 ; and WHEREAS, the growth patterns of the City of Kent since 1972 and the future growth potential of the City require the Sphere of Interest to be reevaluated and revised; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent desires to achieve the effective management of impacts associated with new development, the efficient provision of needed levels of city service, the coordinated preparation of land use, functional and capital improvement plans, and the delineation of appropriate potential annexation areas; and I WHEREAS, the City of Kent recognizes that planning and land use decisions can have extra-jurisdictional impacts and that governmental cooperation is an effective manner under existing law to address impacts and opportunities which spread across jurisdictional boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent adopted new annexation policies per Resolution 150 establishing 10 and 20 year potential annexation areas; and WHEREAS, in Ncvemver of 198a, the City Council Planning Committee reviewed the Priority Annexation Map and recommended approval with some revisions; and WHEREAS , on January 7, 1989, the Council reviewed the Priority Annexation Map at their annual retreat; and WHEREAS, the City Council Planning Committee reviewed and approved the revised 1989-1990 Annexation Action Plan in March of 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, i I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council adopts the 1989-1990 Priority Annexation Map as attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Passed at a regular meet'ing of the Cit Council of the City of Kent, Washington this 0 day of 1989. f Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this 19 day of 1989. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENS�EN, CITY CLERK AP/PRO, D AS. TO FORM: SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. / /Q , passed by the C v Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the i day of 1989. J (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN11 CITY CLERK i 717C-250 P. s - oiaa � � 6 � � r -I 1 �� A• I .�m� � ' �' `T ram; t _ .,C.�✓-`�I. ! t'��. al mo °' •la.. LLJ Lu cc 2 �,- ,� ��•��j'C�.' t c" Lid mall -,I t^��'. \may�� p _ '.� -� / r •1 �� ". tea, / �a"—� �� • T.:.4 I i e 11 tSt� � '+ _,�tl �i. i�amld.•j OL 1 ^t l,,d.1! I Imo.-_.I I\ �-.�TI� I7 Jl� "��.._ i„I� .-_ /��—• IIv�/ / �.,�. ,",1 ;'� 1vr •� _-�i J� f ' —� - 41 � ``''' � I I r I�''�_ •pia- i r _ ~� City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 ANNEXATION POLICY - (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom reviewed the proposed Annexation Policy and Action Plan and discussed the changes that were included in the agenda packet. Chair Leona Orr questioned the language regarding an annexation paying its own way. After discussion, the Committee recommended the following change to item 99 as follows: 9. Annexations shall, to the extent 1ractical, pay their own wav- Committeemember Jon Johnson MOVED and Tim Clark SECONDED a motion to approve the annexation policy dated March 18, 1997 with the modification to 99. Motion carried. 5 City Council Planning Committee Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 4 he should be available but was hesitant to confirm the date. Orr stated that the meeting would be set tentatively for February 4th and later confirm the date. Clark and Johnson concurred. ANNEXATION POLICY (J. Harris) Planning Director Jim Harris identified the area designated as the City's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and explained that-the total area is approximately 36 square miles. He identified three current annexations in progress within the P.A.A. The Meridian Valley and the Green River annexations have completed their 10%petitions and are awaiting the 60% petition. The Del Mar annexation has not yet completed the 10%petition however, Mr. Harris believes that the Del Mar will be the first annexation completed. He explained that after these three annexations are complete there will be about six square miles left in the PAA. Mr. Hams explained that the annexations would continue to be initiated by citizens. The City will facilitate to put citizens in contact with each other regarding potential annexations. Harris believes the rest of the PAA will be annexed within the next ten years with only six square miles left to annex. He stated that the Kent Ridge HS and the Panther Lake area is already looking into annexing into the City. Mr. Harris suggested leaving off any reference to dates. He explained that if the City was unable to afford the annexation then it should not be accepted into the City. Mr. Hams stated that there is only one commercial component left. The best way to help support the increase in residential expenses from an annexation is to include commercial property in the annexation. Mr. Harris explained that the three annexations in progress at this time is about all the staff can handle at one time. He explained that we do not have to limit the annexations to one at a time instead allow for a policy that could put one on hold until other annexations are well in hand. Harris explained that all areas should have an equal priority to annex into the City. Mr. Harris stated that revenues need to balance out in an annexation. The Council's policy is that high service that we provide should not be diminished because we bring in new areas and that the new areas should receive the same level of high service as the existing City has. Harris stated that this worked very well for the Meridian Annexation area. The City should look closely as to whether we can afford to pay for the new police and fire services that would be needed in the new annexed area. Mr. Hams explained that the policy could state that the preferred method of annexation is through the property owner petition method; however, the election method my be used from time to time when it is in the City's and the citizen's pest interest. He mentioned the islands on west hill could possibly be an area to annex through an election. City Council Planning Committee Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 5 Committee member Tim Clark commented that their was a concern on the part of some Council members that in the presentation to Meridian Valley the Mayor was somewhat expansive about the role the City could play on solving a number of their problems and it made it appear that we are in a hurry for them to come in. The assertiveness of the stated policy seemed to imply that the City is rushing out to add in significant numbers. Clark stated that it is not his position to lean on citizens to annex. It is inappropriate to give the impression that we are trying to add on as much as we could. Mr. Harris commented that Meridian Valley was so eager to annex in the beginning. Clark commented that he observed some people in that area generating a false impression about what the potential was and what the City could do about it. Harris explained that one of the annexation policies is for City to do a fiscal impact analysis and present the findings to the Council. The fiscal analysis could be used to determine whether or not it is feasible to annex an area into the City. He explained that citizens in the Meridian Annexation expected a lot from the City and the City came through. Mr. Harris stated that he will bring back a revised document for the February meeting. Chair Orr questioned whether Fred was able to find out the accuracy of the cost analysis for the Meridian Annexation. Harris stated that the original numbers were inaccurate and that he will have the revised numbers with the new document. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:52 p.m. U:1,D0C'•PC0M\MINUTES\PC01-21.MIN City Council Planning Committee Minutes December 10, 1996 Page 2 Satterstrom stated that State law requires cities to have either a purchase of development rights program (PDR) or a transfer of development rights program (TDR) if the City designates land for long term agricultural use. The City has formally requested the County to reinstate the PDR program so properties in the Kent valley will be eligible. The County responded that some money has been set aside for purchase of property in the lower Green River valley. Purchase of property within the City limits would not be eligible; however, the County has agreed to work with the City to establish a TDR program. Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and member Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to research a PDR or TDR programs. Committee member Jon Johnson discussed his concern regarding lands in Kent's potential annexation area that will never be farmed and he would like to have a policy established to address these issues as well. Clark AMENDED and Johnson SECONDED the amendment to include consideration of a policy that would establish compatible uses for lands designated for agricultural use which owners would like development alternatives. Motion carried. Johnson MOVED and Clark SECONDED a motion to recommend the Council adopt the City's position statement on the preservation of agricultural lands. Motion carried. ANNEXATION POLICY (F. Satterstrom) Chair Orr explained that this item is on the agenda as an information item only. Planning Mananger Fred Satterstrom outlined the area designated as the City's potential annexation area (PAA) and located three current annexations in progress within the PA.A. Satterstrom explained that there is approximately nine square miles of unincorporated King County left in the PAA. Mr. Satterstrom explained that Planning Director James Harris worked to develop the existing annexation policy and the proposed amendments being presented to the Committee today. Satterstrom indicated that Mr. Harris has tried to lay out a systematic way in which to annex the remaining unincorporated areas. The proposed policy would promote larger area annexations that could pay for themselves so there is minimum or no impact on the level of service for existing residents and avoiding the smaller area by area annexations. The policy supports an annexation with a diversity of land use in each annexation area. Committee member Tim Clark voiced his concern limiting annexations by the criteria listed in the proposed annexation policy. Clark stated that if there exists minimum or no impact on the level of service although an area does not meet all of the criteria the City should annex that area regardless of the size of the area. Clark indicated that he understands the guiding priciple; yet he is concerned with the justification the City will give citizens as to why one annexation is accepted and another is not. City Council Planning Committee Minutes December 10, 1996 Page 3 Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker explained that the purpose behind establishing this policy is to establish criteria or guidelines for accepting or denying certain annexations. Clark stated that in general he agrees with this philosophy; however, the policy should allow for certain exceptions. Brubaker suggested that language could be written in to allow for certain exceptions. Satterstrom agreed that certain exceptions could exist where the City would benefit from the annexation. Satterstrom suggested that staff could consider different wording or possibly accept each petition on a case by case basis at the time of the 10% petition. Clark was concerned with citizen reaction regarding the City receiving a 10% petition and the application being denied because it doesn't meet the requirements. However, Clark indicated that he understands the City's inability to piece mill everything. Chair Orr discussed her concern with an inconsistency of time frames; one indicating 20 years and the other 2007 (which is only 10 years). She was also concerned with the verbiage of the City conducting a"vigorous" annexation policy while the state statutes maintain the citizen's rights to greatly control annexations. Orr questioned whether identifying citizens living in the PAA area to heip.facilitate annexations meant that the City was going to go out and recruit citizens in order to get annexations to happen. She stated that she doesn't think this is something that the City should be doing. Clark concurred with Orr's concerns. He stated that the majority of complaints he heard regarding the Meridian Annexation was that once the citizens signed a no protest covenant they lost their rights He stated that that comment was repeated constantly. Clark commented that this policy paints the City in an image that we are agressively seeking annexations. Orr agreed that if we follow the proposed policy we would be agressively seeking annexations and that concerned her. Clark agreed. Brubaker explained that he is on the City's annexation committee and that one of the reasons surrounding an adjustment to the City's approach on annexations is pressure from the County. Tae County is taking a very active stance on requiring cities to extend municipie services within potential annexation areas even before an annexation has occurred. The County is stating that if the City doesn't provide the service to these areas then the County will not provide service to these areas either. Orr questioned whether the County would be able to follow through with that. Brubaker stated that it was his opinion that their position is not as strong as they think it is: however. they are the County and they are very powerful. City Council Planning Committee Minutes December 10, 1996 Page 4 Brubaker explained that if the City is required through regulation or law to provide service to our PAA, the Administration believes that the citizen's motivation to annex is gone. What benefit to citizens receive in supporting an annexation if they are already receiving municipal services? Therefore, the City is proposing a more agressive annexation policy. Orr suggested including verbiage to indicate that if the County requires the City to provide services then the City will vigorously pursue annexation. She stated that if the County requires us to provide services it would be in the City's best interest to pursue annexation. If Kent is required to provide services to the PAA areas, then we need to receive the revenue from these areas. Chair Leona Orr stated that according to the information presented past annexations are not paying their own way rather the City is losing money. Orr questioned whether the numbers were accurate or if they may have been transposed. She questioned whether the budget figures presented included the debt incurred from the purchase of the Fire station and Parks within the Meridian Annexation area. Mr. Satterstrom stated that he would look into that more thoroughly and let the Committee know. MORATORIUM ON COMMUN[CaTION TOWERS (T. Brubaker) City Attorney Tom Brubaker passed out a draft Resolution and explained that the City of Kent is facing a telecommunications revolution. Similar to what has happened over the past ten years with personal computers. The development of fiber optic cables and wireless communication devices and wide open competition is going to explode on the scene. Cable providers will be providing telephone service and telephone providers will be providing cable service. All the providers will be providing data transmitters to allow communication between computers. Power companies may get into play. There is wide open competition. Much of the City's authority has been trimmed significantly by a law passed earlier this year by the Federal Government. Mr. Brubaker explained that one of the major issues is the siting of wireless telecommunication facilities. The concern is with the imminent antennas that will begin to appear throughout the region. This is a new issue. In order to move forward in the telecommunication era companies are going to need to erect antennas on buildings and hilltops as well as stand alone towers. There exists a public safety and health concern as well as an aesthetic concern. Mr. Brubaker stated that the purpose of the Moratorium is to allow the City some time to consider the impacts and to consider the different options available. Committee member Tim Clark questioned the exclusion of short wave radios. Mr. Brubaker stated that it should be clarified in the Resolution to exclude them. fir. Clark also questioned homeowners purchasing direct satellite. Mr. Brubaker explained that it would not be a part of this moratorium 17� Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1, 1997 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: CONTRACT FOR ZONING CODE UPDATE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The 1997 Kent Capital Improvement Plan set aside $75, 000 for consultant services to update and modernize the City' s Zoning Code. The Planning Department has interviewed several consulting firms and seeks authorization for the Mayor to sign a contract with McConnell/Burke consultants. 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed contract between City of Kent and McConnell/Burke consultants 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember � . '. moves, Councilmember ti. ., seconds that the Mayor be authorized to sign a contract with McConnell/ Burke consultants to complete the Zoning Code Revision project with terms and in a form substantially similar to the proposed contract. DISCUSSION• ACTION: i Il Council Agenda Item No. 4C CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND McConnell/Burke, Inc THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), and McConnell/Burke Inc organized under the laws of the State of Washington , located and doing business at 10604 NE 38th Place Kirkland Washington 98033 (hereinafter the "Consultant"). Recitals 1 . The City desires that the Consultant perform services necessary to provide consultation and advice to the City on the preparation of plans, specifications, and cost estimates for the City of Kent Zoning Code Revision Pro[ect 2. The Consultant agrees to perform the services more specifically described in the Scope of Work, dated March 26, 19 97, including any addenda thereto as of the effective date of this agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A which is incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 1 of 15 DRAFT revjune 12, 1995 I. Description of Work Consultant shall perform all work as described in Exhibit A. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time such services are performed. II. Payment A. The City shall pay the Consultant, based on time and materials _n amount not to exceed $75.000 for the services described in Section I herein. This is the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement fs,. Tasks 1- 7 and potential additional contingency services in Exhibit A, and s all not be exceeded without the prior written authorization of ie City in t *orm of a negotiated and executed supplemental agreement. `3ROVIDED DWEVER, the City reserves the right to direct the Consultant's compensates ervices under the time frame set forth in Section IV herein before reaching the maximum amount. The Consultant's billing rates shall be as delineated in Exhibit A. B. The Consultant shall submit monthly payment invoices to the City after such services have been performed, and a final bill upon completion of all the services described in this Agreement. The City shall pay the full amount of an invoice within forty-five (45) days of receipt. If the City objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so notify the Consultant of t, ame within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt and shall pay tl- )ortion of the invoice not in dispute, and the parties shall immediately mr: every effort to settle the disputed portion. CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 2 of 15 DRAFT rev:June 12, 1995 C. In the event the Scope of Work is modified or changed so that more or less work or time is required by the Consultant, and such modification is reached by mutual agreement of the parties to this contract, the payment for services and maximum contract amount shall be adjusted accordingly upon agreement of the parties. III. Relationship of Parties The parties intend that an independent contractor-employer relationship will be created by this Agreement. As Consultant is customarily engaged in an independently established trade which encompasses the specific service provided to the City, no agent, employee, representative or sub-contractor of Consultant shall be or shall be deemed to be the employee, agent, representative or sub-contractor of the City. In the performance of the work, Consultant is an independent contractor with the ability to control and direct the performance and details of the work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub-contractors of the Consultant. Consultant will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Consultant's agents, employees, representatives and sub-contractors during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent contractors to perform the same or similar work. IV. Duration of Work The City and Consultant agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Exhibit A immediately upon execution of this Agreement. The parties agree that the work described CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 3 of 15 DRAFT rev:june 12, 1995 in Exhibit A is to be completed within 365 calendar days of the execution of this Agreement; provided however, that additional time shall be granted by the City for excusable delays or extra work, as described in Section VI.(D) below. V. Place of Work The Consultant shall perform the work authorized under this Agreement at its offices in Kirkland, Washington. Meetings with the City staff as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall take place at the City's offices at 400 West Gowe, Kent, Washington, or at locations mutually agreed upon by the parties. VI. Termination A. Termination of Agreement If the City receives reimbursement by any federal, state, or other source for work described in Section I herein, and that funding is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way, or the project is cancelled or substantially reduced after the execution date of this Agreement and prior to the completion of the work, the City may summarily terminate this Agreement. Termination shall be effective ten calendar days after Consultant's receipt of the written notice by certified mail. B. Termination for Failure to Provide Services Bargained For. The Consultant agrees that it was hired by the City based on the Consultant's representation that employees identified in the Scope of Work, attached CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 4 of 15 DRAFT rev:June 12, 1995 hereto as Exhibit A, will be available to perform the services described in Section I for the duration of this Agreement. If any of the employees identified in the Scope of Work are unavailable to perform the services bargained for, for any reason, the City of Kent reserves the right to terminate this contract or renegotiate the amount of consideration. The consultant must immediately notify the City, in writing, if any employee identified in the Scope of Work is unavailable to perform the services described in Section I of this Agreement. Nothing in the foregoing language will alter the Consultant's independent contractor status. C. Termination for Failure to Prosecute Work or to Complete Work Satisfactorily If the Consultant refuses or fails to prosecute the work with such diligence as will ensure its completion within the time frames specified herein, or as modified or extended as provided in this Agreement, or to complete such work in a manner consistent with the standard of care in Consultant's profession, then the City may, by written notice to the Consultant, give notice of its intention to terminate the Consultant's right to proceed with the work. On such notice, the Consultant shall have ten (10) calendar days to cure, to the satisfaction of the City or its representative, or the City shall send the Consultant a written termination letter which shall be effective upon the Consultant's receipt of the written notice by certified mail. Upon termination, the City may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion, by contract or otherwise, and Consultant shall be liable to the City for any additional costs incurred by it in the completion of the Scope of Work referenced as Exhibit A and as modified or amended prior to termination. "Additional Costs" shall mean all reasonable costs incurred by the City beyond the maximum contract price specified in II(A), above. CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 5 of 15 DRAFT rev:June 12, 1995 D. Excusable Delays The right of Consultant to proceed shall not be terminated nor shall Consultant be charged with liquidated damages for any delays in the completion of the work due to: 1) any acts of the federal government in controlling, restricting, or requisitioning materials, equipment, tools, or labor by reason of war, national defense, or other national emergency; 2) any acts of the City, its consultants, or other public agencies causing such delay; and 3) causes not reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the execution of the Agreement that are beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God, fires, floods, strikes, or weather of unusual severity; and (4) negotiated and executed supplemental agreements between the City and Consultant for Consultant to perform extra work defined as tasks not included in the Scope of Work referenced as Exhibit A. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the Consultant must promptly notify the City within ten (10) calendar days in writing of the cause of the delay. If, on the basis of the facts and the terms of this Agreement, the delay is properly excusable, the City shall, in writing, extend the time for completing the work for a period of time commensurate with the period of excusable delay. E. Rights Upon Termination In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all services performed by the Consultant to the effective date of termination, as described on a final invoice submitted to the City. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project which may be used by the City without restriction. CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 6 of 15 DRAFT revjune 12, 1995 Any such use not related to the project which Consultant was contracted to perform shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. VII. Discrimination In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any sub- contract hereunder, the Consultant, its sub-contractors, or any person acting on behalf of such Consultant or sub-contractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. VI I I. Indemnification Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Consultant's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 7 of 15 DRAFT rev:lune 12, 1995 Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. IX. Insurance The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants or sub-contractors. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Automobile Liabih insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 8 of 15 DRAFT revJune 12, 1995 damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and employer's liability; and 3. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per occurrence. Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies. The Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The Consultant's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City and the City shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. X. Exchange of Information The City warrants the accuracy of any information supplied by it to Consultant for the purpose of completion of the work under this Agreement. The parties agree that the Consultant will notify the City of any inaccuracies in the information provided by the City CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 9 of 15 DRAFT rev:lune 12, 1995 as may be discovered in the process of performing the work, and that the City is entitled to rely upon any information supplied by the Consultant which results as a product of this Agreement. XI. Ownership and Use of Records and Documents Original documents, drawings, designs and reports developed under this Agreement shall belong to and become the property of the City. All written information submitted by the City to the Consultant in connection with the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement will be safeguarded by the Consultant to at least the same extent as the Consultant safeguards like information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available or is already in Consultant's possession or known to it, or is rightfully obtained by the Consultant from third parties, Consultant shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. All data, documents and files created by Consultant under this Agreement may be stored at Consultant's office in Kirkland , Washington. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon its request at all reasonable times for the purpose of editing, modifying and updating as necessary until such time as the City is capable of storing such information in the City's offices. Duplicate copies of this information shall be provided to the City upon its request, and at reasonable cost. Any use or reuse of the documents, data and files created by Consultant for the City on this project by anyone other than Consultant on any other project shall be without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 10 of 15 DRAFT rev:)une 12, 1995 XI I. Recyclable Materials Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever practicable. A price preference may be available for any designated recycled product. XIII. City's Right of Inspection Even though Consultant is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct the performance and details of the work authorized under this Agreement, the work must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City's general right of inspection to secure the satisfactory completion thereof. The Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable to Consultant's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of such operations. XIV. Consultant to Maintain Records to Support Independent Contractor Status On the effective date of this Agreement (or shortly thereafter), Consultant shall: A. File a schedule of expenses with the Internal Revenue Service for the type of business Consultant conducts; B. Establish an account with the Washington State Department of Revenue and other necessary state agencies for the payment of all state taxes normally paid by employers, register to receive a unified business identifier number from the State of Washington; and CONSULTANT CONTRACUGENERAL FORM—Page 11 of 15 DRAFT revJune 12, 1995 C. Maintain a separate set of books and records that reflect all items of income and expenses of Consultant's business, all as described in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 51.08.195, as required to show that the services performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall not give rise to an employer-employee relationship between the parties which is subject to RCW Title 51, Industrial Insurance. XV. Work Performed at Consultant's Risk Consultant shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance of the work hereunder and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. XVI. Non-Waiver of Breach The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. XVII. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law Should any dispute, misunderstanding, or conflict arise as to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, the matter shall first be referred to the City, and the City shall CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 12 of 15 DRAFT rev:June 12, 1995 determine the term or provision's true intent or meaning. The City shall also decide all questions which may arise between the parties relative to the actual services provided or to the sufficiency of the performance hereunder. If any dispute arises between the City and Consultant under any of the provisions of this Agreement which cannot be resolved by the City's determination in a reasonable time, or if Consultant does not agree with the City's decision on the disputed matter, jurisdiction of any resulting litigation shall be filed in King County Superior Court, King County, Washington. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to compensation for all legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification under Section VIII of this agreement. XVIII. Written Notice All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective upon the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. CONSULTANT CONTRACTIGENERAL FORM—Page 13 of 15 DRAFT rev:lune 12, 1995 XIX. Assignment Any assignment of this Agreement by the Consultant without the written consent of the City shall be void. If the City shall give its consent to any assignment, the terms of this agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without the City's consent. XX. Modification No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Consultant. XXI. Entire Agreement The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this Agreement. The entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereunder is contained in this Agreement and any Exhibits attached hereto. All of the above documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement and form the Agreement document as fully as if the same were set forth herein. Should any language in any of the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. [Signatures on following page.] CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 14 of 15 DRAFT rev:June 12, 1995 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have executed this Agreement. CONSULTANT THE CITY OF KENT by by its its DATE: DATE: Notices to be Sent to: Notices to be sent to: CONSULTANT Mr. James P. Harris. Mr. Ron McConnell Director of Planning McConnell/Burke Inc The City of Kent 10604 NE Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Suite 227 Kent, Washington 98032 Kirkland WA 98033 (206) 859-3390 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Kent City Attorney Kent City Clerk CONSULTK.gen CONSULTANT CONTRACT/GENERAL FORM—Page 15 of 15 DRAFT rev:June 12, 1995 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES ZONING CODE REVISION PROJECT MARCH 26, 1997 INTRODUCTION This scope of services describes the tasks to be performed by McConnell/Burke, Inc. for the City of Kent Zoning Code Revision Project. The consultants will work cooperatively with City staff to produce recommendations for revising the City's Zoning Code. These proposed revisions will be reviewed by the City's Land Use and Planning Board, the City Council, and the public. The following section outlines the specific tasks to be performed by the consultant. The estimated budget for each task and billing rates are spelled out following the task descriptions. PRINCIPAL SERVICES 1. Project Organization This task involves the consultant and City staff jointly determining the final scope of services, and the consultants beginning their review of applicable City documents. This task also involves the consultant meeting with members of City staff to discuss the project. 1.1 Work with Planning Department staff to prepare a final scope of services. 1.2 Receive and review copies of the zoning code, comprehensive plan, the Shoreline Master Program, and other applicable development regulations. Work with City staff to obtain a copy of the zoning code on computer disk. 1.3 Meet with City staff from the Planning Department and other departments to discuss the scope of the project. 2. Analyze the format of the zoning code This task involves the consultant reviewing the existing code and preparing alternatives on ways to modify the organization and layout of the code. 2.1 Review the zoning code and other development code: . and evaluate whether and how the zoning code could be merged with those codes. 2? Prepare and evaluate alternatives on ways the zoning code could be reformatted. These alternatives would include ways the zoning code could be re-formatted by itself, or merged with other parts of the City's development regulations. 2.3 Work with Cir; itaff to prepare a recommended approach and format to guide the preparation of revisions to the zoning code. Page 1 3. Compliance with State Law This task involves a comprehensive review of the zoning code to ensure that it is in procedural and substantive compliance with state law. Particular attention should be paid to ensuring that the code is in compliance with the procedural requirements of ESHB 1724, as well as any changes to state law emerging from the 1997 session of the State Legislature. 3.1 Review the zoning code for compliance with state law. 3.2 Prepare a report outlining specific recommendations on amendments and additions to the code, including definitions, to ensure compliance with state law. 3.3 Prepare an addendum to the report which outlines specific changes which should be made to the code to comply with any changes to state law which emerge as a result of laws adopted during the 1997 session of the State Legislature. 4. Zoning District Purpose Language and Use Interpretations The intent of this task to review and improve the purpose language of each zoning district, and to examine ways to improve the process and clarify definitions as necessary in order to make permitted use determinations. 4.1 Prepare alternatives and recommendations on how to improve the format and content of how to describe the purpose of each zoning district, in order to implement the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan and make better use interpretations. 4.2 Prepare recommendations on ways to clearly make determinations with regard to permitted uses which are not specifically listed in each zoning district. 5. Development Standards The purpose of this task is to review the development standards throughout the zoning code, and make recommendations regarding clarification of standards and definitions, avoiding duplication and contradictions, and offering alternative means to accomplish the same goals. 5.1 Prepare recommendations on how the development regulations within the zoning code as a whole could be changed, or in some cases deleted, to provide more overall clarity. 5.2 Prepare recommendations on how specific development regulations could be amended. 5.3 Make recommendations, and prepare graphics, on ways in which development regulations could be better clarified by using drawings, photographs, etc. Page 2 recommended for the zoning code into a clear document for review by the public, Land Use and Planning Board, and City Council. This task may be done in phases if City staff determines that items should be reviewed by the Land Use and Planning Board in smaller increments. 6.1 Work with City staff to prepare a report or reports outlining the recommended changes to the zoning code for public review. This product would integrate the graphics produced as part of Task 5. 7. Public Review This task involves review of recommended zoning code changes by the Land Use and Planning Board and the City Council. It also involves meetings coordinated by City staff with citizens, members of the development community, and other groups as designated by City staff. 7.1 Be available for public presentations, workshops, and meetings on the zoning code update. CONTINGENCY SERVICES Contingency services are those services which shall be undertaken by mutual consent by the City and the consultant. The purpose of this section is to provide flexibility in the work program to satisfy unforeseen needs during the course of the project. Examples of such services include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Retaining a land use attorney to assist with Task 3. 2. More extensive analysis of format changes should the City opt to pursue a format for the zoning code which is significantly different than the present format. 3. Additional costs associated with production of graphics or documents. For any proposed contingency services, the consultant will provide to the City a cost estimate and task description. Work on any contingency tasks will not be initiated by the consultant until receipt of written authorization by the City. Page 3 BUDGET Task Estimated Hours Task Total 1. Project Organization 40 $3,120 2. Format 80 $6,240 3. State Law Compliance 100 $7,800 4. Zoning District Regulations 100 $7,800 5. Development Standards 120 $9,360 6. Report 200 $15,600 7. Public Review 120 $9,360 Subtotal: 760 $59,280 Contingency Services 125 $10,000 Other Expenses: Travel/Mileage $800 Secretarial Staff 40 $1,600 Misc. (faxes, mailings) $900 Printing/Copies $2,400 Subtotal: $5,720 Total: $75,000 Assumptions: 1. The budget for principal services and expenses shall not exceed $65,000. 2. If contingency services are undertaken, the total contract amount shall not exceed $75,000. 3. Consultant staff will attend: a. Six meetings with the Land Use and Planning Board b. Two meetings with the City Council c. An average of two meetings per month with City staff 4. City of Kent staff shall prepare applicable SEPA documents and will be responsible for coordinating review of amendments with DOTED. 5. The budget assumes an average hourly cost of professional services at approximately $78.00 per hour. Billing rates are as follows: Principal: $100 per hour Senior Planner: $80 per hour Planner: S65 per hour Page 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 1. 1997 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: SENIOR CENTER RE-ROOF PROJECT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Two bids were received for Option 2 of the bid request as follows: Meyer Brothers Roofing Inc. $219 , 737 Snyder Roofing $216, 000 Both bids were over the estimate and staff recommends that they be rejected. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memos from Charles Lindsey, Facilities Manager 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember � ` ' � �k moves, Councilmember L seconds that all bids on the Senior Center Re-roof Project be rejected. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5A Memorandum To: John Hodgson, Director of Parks & Recreation CC: Brent McFall, Director of Operations From: Charlie Lindsey Date: March 27, 1997 Subject: Senior Center Roof Bids We recently went to bid to replace the flat roof at the Senior Center and received two bids as follows: Meyer Brothers Roofing Inc. Option I (Performance System) -0- Option 2( Siplast System) $219,737 Snyder Roofing Option 1(Performance System) $220,000 Option 2(Siplast System) $216,000 Based on the Engineers estimate we created a budget of $111,000 for this project. I am currently awaiting an explanation from the Engineer as to why they were so far off in their estimate. I recommend that we request the City Council to reject all bids and that we continue to investigate and determine how we proceed. Memorandum To: Mayene Miller, Finance Director CC: Brent McFall, Director of Operations John Hodgson, Director of Park & Recreation From: Charlie Lindsey, Facilities Manager Date: March 27, 1997 Subject: Senior Center Reroof Project Last summer a roofing consultant suggested that we did not need to reroof Kent Commons but should do some repairs there and focus our efforts on reroofing the Senior Center because it's roof has failed. The Senior Center is a ten year old building and it is difficult to understand why it would need to be reroofed after such a short time. The consultant believes that since it was a bid situation the contractor got a good deal on a product that had not been fully field tested. Many of this type of roof has failed and the manufacturer is no longer in business so there is no warranty on the materials. This roof has been leaking for 5-7 years. Since I have had responsibility for the building we have had a roofing company out for repairs at least 12 different times and I feel confident that when it starts to rain again I will be calling them to do more repairs. The consultant feels that the solution to our problem is a total tear-off and replacement of the roof. Additionally, he determined that the siding around the cupola was rotted in several areas and should be replaced and that some of the concrete tiles had cracked and broken creating additional leaks. We will be using a better quality of material and can expect a life of 15 to 20 years if the roof is maintained regularly. There will be a 10 year warranty on materials with a 2 year warranty on workmanship. The consultant will also be providing inspection services to ensure that the materials are as specified and are applied per the specifications. I asked the consultant to estimate the cost of this undertaking and he has come back with the following estimate Roof replacement $111,000 (11,100' @ $10/sq ft) Inspection 7,000 Specification Preparation 5,000 Contingency 16.621 $139,621 Washington Sales Tax 11,449 Total $150,000 1 am requesting a budget of $150,000 be established to complete this project in 1997. 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 EXECUTIVE SESSION - Property Ac,uisition CITY OF KENT SPECIAL PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 1997 Council Present: Chair Judy Woods; Connie Epperly, Jon Johnson Staff Present: John Hodgson; Lori Hogan, Pete Petersen, May Milller, w Roger Lubovich, Recorder Teri Petrole-Stump Others Present: Candy Howard, Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP); Linda Johnson, KDP; Dee Moschel, KDP; Rod Saalfield, KDP; Walter Hazen, KDP; Charles Turner, KDP, Dan Ellenwood; George Billings-, Jim Stone, S.S.M.D. Chair Judy Woods commenced the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Saturday Market: Linda Johnson outlined the new agreement between the City of Kent and the Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP). Suggested changes to the contract include: The market starts in April (not May as the agreement noted). The City will set up the banner, porta potties, electricity, water, and handle parking lot cleaning and maintenance. The date of pay for the Market is changed to October 31 each year. The City of Kent has first right of refusal, if KDP can't manage the Market. Connie Epperly moved to accept the contract between the City of Kent and the Kent Downtown Partnership and the proposed changes. Jon Johnson seconded. Motion carried 3-0. This item will be on Consent Calendar on the March 4, City Council meeting. Riverbend Golf Complex Management Study: John Hodgson explained that the process of reviewing the management of the Riverbend Golf Complex began in June 1996. Staff researched and presented a report presenting three options to Parks Committee in October 1996; can the City manage it?, should it be recontracted, and can it be a combined effort between the City and an outside contract? At that time, the Parks Committee requested a Task Force be appointed to further research the operational needs and these options for the golf complex. The Task Force reported at the December 3, meeting that, based on their findings, their recommendation is to have the City take over the operation of the golf complex. The Parks Committee then directed staff to see if that was feasible, and asked them to develop a recommendation and report back at a Special Parks Committee meeting in February 1997. Parks Committee Meeting February 18, 1997 Page Two John then reported that staff approached the research and development of their recommendation from two perspectives: subjectively--is the city capable? and objectively—can the city afford to do it? addressed what the direction of the City successfully managing the golf is when they be: City Council Issues, Management Issues and Financial Issues. John Hodgson reviewed how the Task Force came up with their recommendation and operation would them for all of their work. g commended May Miller distributed a Statement of Operating Expenses for the 12 months ending December 31, 1996, compared to 12 months ending December 31, 1995, 1994 1 and 1992. She directed attention to the decrease from 1995 vs 1996. referred to the letter from Dick Kin 993, regulations modify the proposed rg(attac s first issuthat tat on 12/ newly an She also y published IRS regulations apply to the City's Golf Course because the City has financed various d that these aspects of the Golf Course with the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds. She explained that the City promised the owners of the LTGO Bonds it will take whatever steps are necessary to preserve the tax-except status, and take no steps that would jeopardize s. The or harm the tax-exempt status of these bond . ty must ensure that any contract for the private operation of the Golf Course follow the regulations for management contracts to ensure the interest remains tax-exempt No compensation may be based, in whole or in part, on a share of net pro operation of the Golf Course. The final regulations essential) provide p fits from the between the length of the contract and the amount of the service Provider's de-off compensation that can be variable: the longer the contract the smaller the amount of compensation that can be variable. As stated in the letter (attached;, there are six types of management contracts permitted under the final regulations that are available to the City. John Hodgson then gave his recommendation: That the City continue to maintain the golf course. Create an RFP to determine the management of the golf course. Contract an outside consultant to assist in the RFP preparation and evaluation process. Jon Johnson stressed the importance of the City submitting a proposal for the RFP. Jim Stone of S.S.M.D. felt the numbers were consistent for administrative costs since 1991. He said the down-trend in revenue in 1996 was due to the flooding in December 1996, and January and February of 1997. He added that S S.M.D has a Class 'A" Parks Committee Meeting February 18, 1997 Page Three staff; they have a lot of experience and knowledge and they would like to share it. He felt the Task Force did not represent the significant number of Asians and African Americans who use the golf complex. Jon Johnson provided the motion that: The City of Kent continue to manage the maintenance of the Riverbend Golf Complex. The City of Kent conduct a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to determine the golf operations management beginning in 1998. If the RFP process be conducted, the City contract with an outside consultant to develop the RFP and assist in the evaluation process. Connie Epperly seconded. Motion carried 3-0. This will be an item under Other Business at the City Council meeting on March 4, 1997. Jon Johnson also moved that City of Kent staff be allowed to decide its ability to manage the Riverbend Golf Complex and to submit a proposal within the RFP process. Connie Epperly seconded. Motion carried 3-0. Meeting adjourned 6:18 p.m. 71 —4 - U) U) U) 03 M m 7i cn ,G) 0 C O O D c0 �? mCma) x p '-" D � v = mN a3n °D O ZOw D CD (D Z 3 No 7 _ 0- 3 O m aCD 3 N?' o- (D m o SA T•C m o 0 2. w 'A 0 � M Z n a n o ° x _ ma m m' o 0 O an d p (D O (n 7 0 7 n 7 .. 7 -n Z V CL a m O m m a 7 � 33v o °) nmm pcu rn xm D ac° m „� 7 y D) G D m .o a — <D m Dom, (D m 3 Om m m n 0 X o 7 N Q) O (O 3 N 7 CD W N n Z ID i 7 O y W a U3 m m m m 3 v mi O N O. 7 7 U) U) ch n 3(D co m 7 m 0 C)) m ti k .Zm] —i O th r N p N m m c 0; o. < j 0 3 7 y j 01 w m m CD o d cam, ° o n D ce 3 7 3 a- (D A C Z O N (D a 00 v O M v O �+ CD m V ((DD m m d n",p 3. O N y _ G — --I3 n m ^ 3 , 0 O O D 7 ^. n 0 3 d m 0 O T r m o 3 m xm 3' cnrN+ 1 D) N CD Ul O to N N N nm y 7 .. C ' N m 0 3 a J cc w n c m 3 _T m N 7 C 3 O W W a 0 60 co N 0) w p 3 () ? C m N m y : `m G � '--. CI O -co m Cn J N _' m73 s. 1 v =� N c N N cn W O N C) tD 7 7 co 7 n m 7 0 (n co O N I N co O) (D W (n O^ m N m m La m 2 fl O CD CD (O 'I D m 7 (a a o maa U3 o o m N D) (D 3 N m N N 0 0 7 O O co co O - N N -� A m DI d U) , m p, J J N N Q) w p O n zz' O D) t_R O. y ('D O) O A (D cn O) O Cn O W 7 N ` < m N m a N O (D -co a A Cn A CnA a C0 7 T y m y a CD O N J W A O) w A (n N `G = O ^ .. 7 O I lD Cn O) co co O) O) N W U) 3 v 3 3 0 j c 3 0 Q� m 7 -^'i O O w IN Q N a 3 N m F 0 CD n co w cn CD A J V CO Cn (D (O O) Q A N ? D O O p (D N y ,► ) O CD A cn W m CI-A m N G 3 m A (n N A V O) A w m m O 3 (D CL 6 O N J Cn 00 A (b W N tD a Q' (A 7. O A m CD N O' N w N N (D N m w C Cp A W CT) A CD 0 Ln 0 0 CO CDO) (n (n O A O Cn V W m cn_ _ co COD O) A ON CD WN (D cn (m) 7 (p O) N O) O O) O) W CD O W L" C A m a _ J � � N W O O O N y A 0 ccmm N o cwi) A m W p 3 CL O A A_ (D O) O A V (D co A 7 471 CDN co Go O co O N co ,� (p d N 0 Z W V A O) A N n ;y m W O) N A CO co A (M T G �M rn (,NJ AW N A -4 N N N Cn (nW (p T m cn mnmW c� o c) o) o N O) N J AWO O) WQ) ;amnG O m Cn CO O N N (b (M V co O) m D T V) CD A O A CO W O Cn co co D <n Z w (n (� (p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �+ m � o, r_ J RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION 1 . That the City of Kent continue to manage the maintenance of the Riverbend Golf Complex. 2. That the City of Kent conduct a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to determine the golf operations management beginning in 1998. 3. If the RFP process be conducted, the city contract with an outside consultant to develop the RFP and assist in the evaluation process. gotfrecm.wpm CITY OF KENT RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX MANAGEMENT REPORT PHASE 2 FEBRUARY 1997 CITY OF KENT RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX MANAGEMENT REPORT PHASE 2 Mayor Jim White City Council: Christi Houser, President Jon Johnson (Parks Committee) Judy Woods (Parks Committee, Chairperson) Tim Clark Jim Bennett Connie Epperiy (Parks Committee) Leona Orr Staff John M. Hodgson, Director of Parks and Recreation Pete Peterson. Superintendent of Golf Mayene Miller, Director of Finance John Hillman, Assistant Director of Finance TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 . Golf Advisory Board/Golf Management Task Force Members 2. Timeline 3. Study Background 4. Task Force Report 5. Staff Report 6. Conclusion z RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX GOLF ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS Harold Perantie Rosemary Mastro Dan Farmer Chairperson Par 3 Jerri Prozek Paul Lucien Stephen Dowell Ladies Club Rick Nelson Katherine Anderson Rick Rasco Men's Club Ladies Club (Alt.) (Alternate) Joe Slye John Hodgson Jim Bennett Men's Club (Alt.) Director of Parks City Council- Ex Officio Pete Peterson Brett Wilkenson Jim Stone Riverbend Golf Course S.S.M.D. S.S.M.D. RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE MEMBERS Dan Ellenwood George Billings Harold Perante Men's Club Community Advisory Board Rosemary Mastro Chuck Turner Dan Farmer Par 3 Community Advisory Jerri Proszek John Hodgson Pete Peterson Ladies Club Director of Parks Super. of Golf Brent McFall Mayene Miller Jon Johnson Director of Operations Director of Finance City Council Jim Stone S.S.M.D. J The ;Management Review timeline is as follows: PARTICIPANTS DATE TASK Staff June-Aug. '96 - Review various management options Staff - Review trends in municipal golf management Staff - Develop fiscal condition of Riverbend that includes. debt service, maintenance, capital need, reserve Staff/Golf Advisory - Develop short term/long term capital needs Board/Men's & Women's Club Sept. '96 - Report to Parks Committee Staff/Committee Sept. Oct. '96 - Develop management options based on fiscal Staff/Task Force condition and short/long term capital needs, using management options studied in the above noted task Staff/Task Force Nov. 96 - Report to Parks Committee Committee/Council - Determine management method Staff/Advisory Nov.-Dec. '96 - If contracting some portion of golf operation, goardlMen's & conduct an evaluation of current contractor Women's Club/ Golfers Jan. '97 - Parks Committee reviews and decides whether Committee/Council or not to continue to work with current contractor or conduct a new RFP process (assume again a portion of operation is being contracted;. Feb. Mar. '97 If continuing with current contract, re-negotiate Staff new contract Feb.-Mar. '97 - If conducting a new RFP process, develop Staff'Task Force RFP criteria Staff April '97 -Advertise RFP Staff/Task Force June '97 - Evaluate RFP Staff/Committee/ July '97 - Decide new golf contract, recommend to Council Parks Committee and City Council August '97 - Negotiate final contract Staff 4 BACKGROUND In June 1996, staff was directed by the Parks Committee of the Kent City Council to begin work on a management study of the Riverbend Golf Complex. The current Golf management contract with S.S.M.D. ends in December 1997. Staff was asked to develop the various options available to the city in addressing the future operation of the Riverbend Golf Complex. In addressing the request of the Parks Committee, staff developed two objectives by which this study would be conducted. In addition, staff provided a timeline by which this study will be done. These were presented and approved by the Park Committee at its June 1996 meeting. The management review objectives are as follows: To provide City Council the information needed to make a threshold decision on whether to continue some method of contracting the management of the Riverbend Golf Complex, or return to city management. If a decision is made to contract the management, then design a management agreement to allow the city to recover its needed funds (i.e. debt service, maintenance and operation, capital and reserve), and allow a management contractor to be successful in the operation, and receive a reasonable return on their investment. In September, staff provided a report to the Parks Committee after the review of number of golf related issues. These include: Municipal golf management comparison around the state of Washington Financial issues of the Riverbend Golf Complex Capital improvement needs identified by the Golf Advisory Board The staff in their report outlined four options of management. These included: 1. Contract golf operations 2. City manage golf operations 3. Private/non-profit golf operations 4. Franchise portions of the golf operations Staff recommended that a task force be appointed to review three of these options and report back to City Council. This was approved by Parks Committee and a task force was formed to review the options and provide a recommendation. 5 TASK FORCE REPORT The Riverbend Golf Complex Management Task Force met on a number of occasions. At the first three meetings city staff were asked to research a number of golf related issues. Staff provided information back to the task force which was discussed and subsequent information was asked for and provided. The information that was addressed included but was not limited to: • Contract terms/IRS provisions • Payment of bonds " Leasing portions of the operation * Contractor subletting portions of the operation • Comparable rounds of golf, rates of administrative fees • Comparable staffing of other municipal facilities • Contractor rules relating to capital improvement projects " Subsidy of the golf course by the city general fund " Proposed staffing levels The task force then met without city staff or S.S.M.D., Inc. staff. The city and S.S.M.D., Inc. staff were invited individually to meet with the task force. Following these meetings, the task force developed their report. The report and recommendation was presented to the Parks Committee on December 3. The report of the task force is on the following page. The Parks Committee, after discussing the task force report, directed staff to develop a management recommendation based on this report. 6 TO THE PARK_ COMM I TTEE . T HE R i VEF:bEND GOLF COURSE T ASt: FORCE . AF T EF: A THOROUGH-S F'RESENTE F:E-OMMENDS ir1AT THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FAA - . - CITY OF Y:ENT OPERATE THE FIVE RDEND GCL= COMPLEX UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE DIRE'...TOR OF THE �AF:i':S AND r.E nEA ION DE=ARTMENT . T {IS SHOULD HEGIN AT THE END OF THE F'REScNT CONTRACTOR ' S TERM . OUR REGOMMENDATICN =_ BA SED ON THE FOL_OW:NG -ONE:LIERA,T:ONE . _ - -C IC ESSFUL 'ASk: FOr Pt =VES THA- - - THE ccc?T:ON OF THE uCLT COMFI_EX� :S TH.E CAPAB iL. CF 0 THAT .JOH iT "S THE OF"N:ON OF THE AEr" FORCE MANAGED . HE PRESENT'_" I M NS_" =_I THAT C AF'AP:L HOLIGSON HAS LE 0 ^� WITH AN L= rncr�T ES TnC ='AR}:S ANLI RECR AF. MANAGE: I = CF=i7:ENT , MGTiVATELI AND CAPABLE STAFF . WE TE= - J_ THAT B ^T r1EAS.JRE OF rU JRE RE_=ULT- rAST P'=RFORMANCE c E_ AND JCHN HAS A -RCVEN RECORD . ___LS THA T iM='E-:ATIVc THAT BOTH T'HE THE TAS} FORCE :TY FOP SL'CCE AND `HE =+UTHGF.:TY TO CARRY RE=FCNS:B:L �=-c- 7- OUT T'ryAT R=SPONEiB:L:TY BE ASS:GNEL'. TC ONE N , i TS ECIUALLY :MFCF:TANT TO DEFINE WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE SUCCESE AND THEN PROV?LIE ACCOUNTAS .'_.TY . OF'ERA . :ON OF THE GOLF CCMPL=X BY THE _ITY Or K:=NT WOULD LEND H= MOST - --- 'JE MANAGEMENT AND -- _T: {- yC-_ N - NANC= AN: E^:SONN_=JNT ._ _ _ - "MC:J- --AN ALSO C30- _'NA _ -UFEF:V _ ION = LIE AP. - - ` E c T'H F'A r.i-. '"- -=OF-„ AT THE GCL= CCUF_�_ � - THE:R _F• CI Y LIE=' nT EtiT_ . MOF:E JIF:ECT IN . CR DEC:S:ONS MAWKH:iNLG THE C:TY C r BE MUCH OF='A-:ON ANTI MORE F_- :SLE iN "I^ ^- - .- - -•VE_ OF DUAL: , �E^� =>=.c . THE END M --_NTA:NiNG T' A T` HE OF SHE HAS HAL'. A F'RCDUCT I S A GOLFSF: WHO r ==SET _ THAN THE WOULD HAVE GOLF EXPERIENCE A5 6CGD OF: HAD ANYWHEFnE RESPECTIVELY . TASIK FORCE ME'1SEF:S . . . . . GEORGE BILLINGS , DAN ELLENWOOD , DAN YVONNE MANG:N: . ROS MARY MAc--R' U = .JERR: PRCSLEi CHUG TUF:NEF. STAFF REPORT In addressing the direction of the Parks Committee as to determining a method of the city successfully managing the golf operation staff developed a number of criteria. These included but were not limited to: City Council Issues: Discussing with individual council member their issues and concerns in regards to the golf operations and in particular the city managing the golf operations. Management Issues: Determining how the city would manage the facility. Explore the city's ability to attract a discount merchandise golf company as well as food service company. Determine staffing levels as well as hours of operation. Financial Issues: Reviewing the financial trends of the facility. Determine new administrative costs and seek an explanation of these costs. The following pages outline the information relating to, and the evaluation of, the areas noted above. Some of the responses are objective in that they can be substantiated with specific data such as budget information. Other issues are responded to in a subjective manner taking into account council and staff expectations, information from interviews or research and responses in relation to the task force recommendation. 8 1. Administrative Costs: the issue is how much and what do the administrative costs cover? Enterprise funds are primarily self supporting. Administrative charges for financial, personnel, and legal fees are allowable and have been levied against all Enterprise funds. The amounts have been derived by estimating time and materials spent on these funds. The increase in 1990 represents the first full year that the 18 hole course was open. The decrease in finance charges in 1994 was based on projected fewer voucher payments and less time spent on year-end inventory counts. In 1994, Employee Service costs decreased due to fewer employees. The increase in finance charges in 1995 represent additional actual time spent on administering the golf contract. Year I Finance Law Employee Services 89 10,000 4.400 3,400 90 42,088 12,310 9,717 91 52,600 14.232 9,035 92 54,563 13,244 I 12.829 93 54,393 12,2a4 12,829 94 40,000 13,694 6,000 _ 95 80,760 13,954 6,114 96 80,760 14,373 6,297 97 80,760 14,804 5,052 2. Financial Issues: these issues are, what did the 1992 $506,000 transfer from the CIP to the golf course pay for, and was it reimbursed? What does the $140,000 debt service pay for? a) In 1992, Council authorized a one-time permanent transfer from the CIP Fund of $506,954. This was to clear all previous loans and resolve project overruns that were not included in bond sales. Project overrun costs from previous years continued to cause the Golf Complex a cash deficit and this cleared interfund loans issued from 1987 9 thru 1991, ranging from $700,000 to $1 ,200,000. These funds have not been reimbursed by golf operations. The following expenditures detail project costs not anticipated at the beginning of the project: Construction Proiect: $269,249 Additional cost of property (Dugan property) Puget Power utility relocation (over budget) 38,04E Telephone system installation and telephones 33,814 Bond sale charges 23,384 Kent sign project 20,422 Signal crossing unbudgeted 15,951 Property condemnation, appraisals. surveys 11 ,194 City permits: water charge in lieu of assessments 10,460 $425,058 Other Debt Costs: Capitalized interest 67,709 Interim interest costs (working capital) 14,187 S 81 896 Total $506,954 b) In 1981, the city purchased the 9 hole golf course, driving range, and mini putt faciii y. The General Fund paid the debt service in 1981 , but hoped that as revenues increased, the Golf Complex would be able to assume a portion of the debt. In 1982, the General Fund paid all of the debt service. By 1983, the Golf Course paid their $80,000 profit and in 1984 and 1985 they had profits of approximately $52,000 each year. By 1986 and 1987, they had increased their profit payment to $91,000 and in 1988 to $140,000. In 1988, when Golf Revenue Bonds were sold, the revenue expectations projected that the Golf Cc iex profits would be sufficient to pay at the $140,000 per year level unti. 31, and provide revenue to pay the debt service on the 1988 revenue bonds. By past practice, the amount of contribution was set by the amount of profit. It was always felt that the Generai/Capital Funds derived some "Green Space" benefit from the Golf Complex, although a specific amount was never set. 10 3. Knowledge of Staff: This issue is that the areas of expertise needed are golf course management, merchandising, restaurant, and finance. It would be the expectation that any organization that operate the facility have staff knowledgeable in all these areas. City staff is confident that the proper experience staff be recruited and hired in these areas. An analogy would be the hiring of certified lifeguards for Lake Meridian. Just as this case, staff would only hire individuals that demonstrate expertise and where possible certified knowledge in anyone of the above mentioned areas. 4. Cost of Employees/Salaries/Unionization: This issue relates to the concern for the potential for unionization that could potentially drive salaries higher. City staff has developed a salary structure after reviewing salaries with the golf industry. This was done working with the PGA and various golf courses. With positions that are similar to current city salaries we have figured in these salaries. In the majority of the positions we have assigned salaries moderately higher than the industry average to attract and keep those employees. Of the eleven FTE, three would be exempt positions, two would already be in existing unions. The remainder are unique positions to any other in the city. A salary summary appears further in this document. 5. Multiple Contractors: The issue is with franchanising. There is the potential of more contractors then the one we have now. One of the management options is to have the city manage the golf operation and contract food and beverage as well as the merchandising area. More than likely this would involve two separate contracts. In comparison these are smaller contracts and with a director of golf with experience in these two areas the contracts would be manageable. 6. Customer Service: This issue is creating a certainty of providing good customer service in every aspect of the operation. The success of an operation is weighted greatly on the quality of your customer service. The City of Kent and the Parks and Recreation department recognize and strive to expect and provide excellent customer service in all its operation. The same can be expected at the golf course in keeping with the Kent Cares attitude. Quality customer service will encourage people to return to the facility. 7. Contracting Maintenance: The issue is to contracting the maintenance as well as golf operations. The City of Kent takes a great deal of pride in its physical assets and provides resources to maintain them as a quality facility. There becomes a risk to that assured quality without having direct control of the outcome. Currently 75% of the maintenance equipment is stored offsite at the city shops. Allowing an outside contractor access to these facilities in many cases at hours when other city staff is not on site, could pose concerns. (In the summer the golf crew starts at 4:00 a.m.). There are few instances in the state where cities contract maintenance. 8. Contracting Merchandise and Food and Beverage: The city can avoid carrying inventory and rely on expertise by contracting these areas. It is the city's hope to be able to contract these areas for these very reasons. In addition the city would want to use the strength of name familiarity, discount pricing and advertising to attract golfers through franchising. The city also hopes to attract capital investment. City staff met with two discount golf suppliers. Because of the proximity of their existing stores they did not want to be involved as they felt it would have a negative impact on their existing stores. Furthermore. contractors would look to the city to make the majority of capital investment in an enlarged pro shop or banquet hall. 9. Com grin Maintenance Cost with other Facilities: There has been discussion on the idea that city cost seem to be higher than other municipal golf courses. When looking at the budgets this may seem so. However, the size of the facility and the amenities at Riverbend are far greater than other municipal facilities. Riverbend has an 18 hole, par 3, driving range and mini putt. No other city has all of these combined. In addition, the greens, fairway, and rough are greater in square feet and acreage. Finally, in 1996 Riverbend began an airification and sanding program that is now part of the yearly routine maintenance program that will improve the conditions during the winter months. It is difficult to compare "apples to apples" when evaluating maintenance costs of Riverbend and other municipal golf courses. Kent high standard of maintenance also creates a quality course that people want to return to. 10.. How are Capital Costs Paid? At issues is determining if all capital costs should be born through the golf course budget. Most other Kent facility repairs are paid through the city Capital Improvement Program budget. These may include carpets, roofs, remodeling, etc. As in city of Kent facility, can or should some of these similar repairs at Riverbend be paid through the CIP fund. By doing this, capital funds could be made available to conduct improvements that enhance the facilities or create revenue generating opportunities. 11. Utilization of the Facility: There are many more people than golfers who enjoy the golf course. The miniature golf course creates a family oriented recreation experience. The Green River Trail provides walking, running, bicycling, and nature watching opportunities. Are there ways to allow other use opportunities? The construction of a banquet hall not only allows for improved tournament meal functions but can provide other large group functions. The only issue with this is to develop a schedule to accommodate the parking needs of the golf course and banquet hall users, 12. Develop Hours of Operation: the issue is to develop three seasonal hours of operation to build a staffing level on. Hours of Operation: (Staff reporting is earlier by 30 minutes) Non season: January, February, November, December (120 days) Mid season: March, April, May 1-15, September, October (137 days) Peak season: May 16-31, June, July, August (108 days) Non-season: 18 6:30 a.m. - 6:00 P.M. 3 6.30 a.m. - 6:00 P.M. DR 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 P.M. FB 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Mid-season: 18 5:30 a.m. - 8:30 p.m. 3 5:30 a.m. - 8:00 P.M. DR 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. FB 6:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Peak season: 18 4:30 a.m.. - 10:00 p.m. 3 4:30 a.m. - 9:30 P.M. DR 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. FB 5:30 a.m. - 9:00 P.M. 13..: Cost of Salaries and Benefits: the issue was to outline staff levels and compare these to when the city managed the facility in 1992. Proposed salaries and benefits: Salaries Benefits Total 18 Hole Course $141,899 $33,900 $175,799 Par 3 Course 50,348 11,700 62,048 Driving Range/Pro Shop 71,959 16,000 87,959 Support Staff 137,660 31,300 168,960 Food & Beverage 98,615 20.750 119,365 Total $500,481 $113,650 $614,131 The cost of salaries and benefits for 1992 was 5505.725. This does not take into account the expanded food service capability that now exists. There is also additional office financial staffing proposed. The food and beverage portion and 13 driving range pro shop could still be subcontracted, however, not as originally desired. Staffs recommendation would be to contract out the food and beverage portion of the operation thus eliminating this cost. If this were done, the proposed cost would be less than staff costs in 1992-, the proposed staff cost would be $494,766 without the food and beverage portion. 14. Compare 1992 and 1996 Revenues: the issue is to evaluate revenues from these two years and determine if and how the industry has changed in the past few years. For the 12 months ended 12/31/96 (preliminary) compared to 12 months ended 12131/92. The green fee decrease can be somewhat attributed to poor weather however, rounds of golf have continued to decline. Discount costs have also hurt green fees. There are now three new driving ranges in the area which have had the greatest impact on the golf course. The golf industry certainly has changed. REVENUE 12 month 12 month Increase ended ended (Decrease) 12/31/96 12131/92 (preliminary) Green Fees-18 Hole I 977,823 I 1 .104,351 (126,528) Course Green Fees-9 hole 258,042 258,478 I (436) Course Driving Range Fees 231,007 465,090 (234,083) Mini Putt Fees 79.469 62,785 16,684 Golf lessons 86,956 ( 104,014 (17,058) Sale of Merchandise 307,786 319,149 (11,363) Sale of Food 279,321 258,760 20,561 Cart and Club Rentals 147,268 122,695 24,573 Miscellaneous 1,749 5,828 (4,079) 14 CONCLUSION The Riverbend Golf Complex Management Task Force recommended the management of the Golf Complex operations be returned to the city. Their decision was based on the following four considerations taken directly from their report. 1 . The Task Force believes that the key to a successful operation of the Golf Complex is the capability of the manager. It is the opinion of the Task Force that John Hodgson has demonstrated that capability. He presently manages the Parks and Recreation Department with an efficient, motivated and capable staff. We believe that the past performance is the best measure of future results and John has a proven record. 2. The Task Force feels that it is imperative that both the responsibility for success and the authority to carry out that responsibility be assigned to one person. It is equally important to define what will constitute success and then provide accountability. 3. Operation of the Golf Complex by the City of Kent would lend itself to the most effective management and accountability, both in finance and personnel supervision. The Parks Department can aiso coordinate their efforts at the golf course complex with the other city departments. 4. The city can be much more direct in major decision making and more flexible in day-to-day operations, while maintaining a high level of quality service. The end product is a golfer who feels that he or she has had a golf experience as good, or better, than they would have had anywhere else. In reviewing the four above mentioned considerations, the most critical piece can be found in the second part of point two it states "it is equally important to define what will constitute success and then provide accountability." The success of all of the four points and ultimately the success of the Riverbend Golf Complex depends on this element being clearly defined. Over the past few months, a tremendous amount of work has been carried out by staff and citizen volunteers. These volunteers and council members have expressed their issues and concerns and staff has followed up on these with both objective and subjective information. Again, in reviewing the considerations from the Riverbend Golf Task Force staff is very confident in its ability to recruit professional golf staff to manage the Riverbend , F Golf Complex successfully. The parks and recreation department can provide the leadership; it can provide that one person or team to have the responsibility and accountability; it can be effective working in tandem with other city departments; it can be more direct and flexible in decision making. The parks and recreation department can meet the expectations outlined by the task force. The bottom line, however, is that staff may not meet all expectations until the "success of the Riverbend Golf Complex" is clearly defined. It is obvious that with the additional driving ranges and golf courses that the golf industry has changed in this area. This is evident simply by reviewing the revenues from 1997 to 1996. The information enclosed provides a basis by which the "success" of the golf facility can be defined both objectively and subjectively by staff or a private contractor. Council members have suggested that policy issues need to be defined. Some of those policy issues identified by Council members include, but are not limited to: 1 . How will the bonds for the golf course be paid for?--Through the golf course, CIP, or a combination of both. 2. How will the replacement of carpets, fixtures, and painting, etc., be paid for?--Through the CIP facilities budget like most other city facilities or the golf course revenues. 3. How will new cnstruction be paid for if deemed appropriate, i.e. banquet hall?--Through the CIP or golf revenues. 4. Does the city even want to let the city manage the golf course? If so, by letting the current contract expire or allowing the city staff to participate in a new RFP process. There are other issues that more than likely need to be addressed prior to city council establishing final directior " the management of the golf course. Staff is prepared to discuss these issues with the Parks Committee and City Council. ' 6 1 CITY OF KENT PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 4, 1997 Council Present: Chair Judy Woods, Connie Epperly, Jon Johnson Staff Present: John Hodgson, Lori Flemm, Roger Lubovich Recorder: Lesli Opsahl Others Present: Janet Best, Golf Advisory Board, 9826 South 231 st, Kent, 98031 Judy Woods called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. John confirmed receipt of the fax sent to City Council members on February 28, regarding the city not submitting on the RFP for Riverbend Golf Operation. 1. Surplus of Beeson/Cavendar House: Parks Committee authorized surplusing the Beeson/Cavendar House and be placed on Consent Calendar at the March 18, City Council meeting. Jon Johnson made the motion, Connie Epperly seconded. Motion carried 3-0. 2. Kent Civic & Performing Arts Center Update: John Hodgson reported that the city and civic leaders have been working on the Performing Arts Center concept for nine years. Pat Curran, a member of the Civic & Performing Arts Center, stated there is a need to establish a Performing Arts Center (PAC) in downtown Kent. She added that it would also be a catalyst for revitalization. a preliminary corporate board has been established to achieve a 501(C)-3 position and oversee capital campaign. Don Campbell, Chair; Norma Cuigini; John Hodgson; Pat Curran; Carolyn Wiley; and Dee Moeschel have raised $30,000 in private and public funds for the campaign. Pat thanked all the donors and board members and extended special thanks to Boeing Loaned Executive Edmund Williams for his expertise and input. Plan exhibits were displayed and the prospectus and consultant's report were distributed. A case study has been done Beginning next week, consultants will interview local community members for contributions, support, and recruitment to the Board. Chair of the Kent Civic & Performing Arts Center Don Campbell announced that Campbell and Company have been hired as consultants. He continued saying, goals need to be looked at, look at strongest points, look at volume requirements, look at strategies. Find out Parks Committee Meeting March 4, 1997 Page Two potential financial support, create a time table, budget, public support, private support, etc. Then on to the campaign--enlist major benefactors, look at all facets of community support and have an ongoing annual campaign. Parks Committee members shared their excitement about the project. Judy Woods asked for regular updates from Pat and Don. She suggested televising the updates on Cable TV, Channel 28, so the community can be educated and to get their response. John Hodgson added that for two or three years this project was staff driven, now it is community driven. We will know what the private sector wants in six weeks. Judy Woods asked and Don confirmed that they will report on the community's response by the May Parks Committee meeting. Judy reflected back on the city's vision of the 272nd Corridor; after many years it happened. She has the same vision for the Performing Arts Center, she sees it happening too--thanks to Pat and Don. 3. Kent Downtown Plan Park Impact: Lori Flemm presented the three alternative plans of the draft Strategic Plan which are: Borden fields can be replaced by a park and ride lot. Housing and mixed office-housing. The loss of Borden Playfields cannot not be mitigated solely by improvements to Commons Playfield. The downtown parks, Kaibara Park, Burlington Green, and the International Park, being leased from the Burlington Northern Railroad, are very important to our citizens and the community wants to keep them. The Parks Department wants to maximize evening use of downtown area with softball games, activities at Kent Commons, and the proposed Performing Arts Center. The Park and Ride can be utilized as shared parking. We need to have good bike access to the transit station. Pedestrian access is important from the Senior Center and Resource Center to the station also. There were no public comments or other items. The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. KENT CIVIC AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PROJECT PROSPECTUS Introduction The Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center Project is the result of a ten-year effort by public and private groups in the greater Kent area to establish a community center for the performing arts. The concept was born out of a need to expand cultural opportunities for artists and audiences in Kent and the greater South King County community, where most arts performances are still held in school auditoriums. This arrangement limits both the growth and availability of local artists and the quality and diversity of touring presentations. Proponents of the project believe that the creation of a dedicated indoor facility is the single most important factor in eliminating these limitations. The groundwork for this project was laid over a five-and-a-half year period by a Performing Arts Center Task Force and an in-depth cultural facilities study completed in 1991. These findings led to the formal appointment of a Blue Ribbon Committee by Mayor Jim White in 1994. Comprised of 27 community and business leaders, the committee was charged with analyzing the potential for, and feasibility of, a performing arts center in the City of Kent. As a part of its study, the Blue Ribbon Committee contracted with The Bumgardner Architects to provide an architectural facility plan and with The Collins Group to provide a business plan. The Vision for the Project The architectural and business plans were completed in the spring of 1995. Out of those plans came a vision for a facility broader in scope than the original concept. In addition to housing a 500-600 seat main theater, a 100-125 seat multi-form "black-box" facility, support spaces and lobby, the program grew to include a meeting center for up to 425 people, a parking garage, retail space and space for a restaurant. The expanded program was conceived to provide much-needed meeting and conference space for South King County's fast-growing business community and to act as a powerful catalyst in helping revitalize Kent's downtown core. Current analysis indicates that a quality performing arts center as described above would cost about $17 million. The addition of top-of-the-line meeting, parking and retail space to complement the facility would raise the estimated project cost to $30 million. However, similar projects in the greater Puget Sound area suggest the cost can be reduced significantly with creative planning and flexibility. Civic Impact The Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center Project is expected to have an impact on many aspects of the area's cultural, civic and economic life. A center for the performing arts will help inspire, enlighten and educate the citizenry of the community. In doing so, it will make a major contribution to the quality of life in Kent and South King County. Besides providing a much-needed home for existing local arts groups, the facility will encourage others to form ensembles, increasing opportunities to both watch and participate in performances. By creating convenient, affordable opportunities to experience regional and national touring groups, the center will establish a community focal point where people gather to celebrate the human spirit. The arts educational programming made possible by the facility will actively engage people of all ages in the artistic process. The center will also have profound economic impact, creating "spill-over" benefits for businesses in the downtown core. Arts activities alone are estimated to generate annually S250,000 in additional income from event attendees. Tax revenues generated from ticket sales and increased commerce are projected to total $60,000 annually. The added income generated from usage and rental of the facility's meeting spaces will only heighten these economic and community beneI ts. Realizing the Vision In the spring of 1996, a preliminary board was established to: 1) secure 501C(3) non- profit status; and 2) oversee the planning of a capital campaign to fund construction of the Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center and build an endowment to help subsidize annual operations and long-term maintenance of the facility. As one of several funding strategies, the board is examining opportunities for public/private partnerships to help finance the construction and long-term operation of select areas of the facility. The building project, as now envisioned, has two major components: 1) Performing Arts Center Main Theater (500-600 seats) "Black Box" Facility (100-125 seats) Support Spaces Lobby 2) Civic Center Meeting Center (Capacity of 425 people) Parking Garage Retail Space Restaurant Space Conclusion Along with securing the funds necessary to build the facility, the board of the Kent Civic and Performing Arts Center must consider the availability of community support for on- going operations. This is in addition to an endowment fund to augment contributions and eamed income from ticket sales and facility rentals. The Collins Group Study indicates and annual need of$200,0004250,000 in contributed income. The recommended goal for an endowment fund is $5 million. Your reactions to a Civic and Performing Arts Center in Kent, as well as the capital, endowment and contributed income campaigns, are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your participation as we plan for the future of the project. .r Legend: Alternative 1 The public uses would be interspersed in the downtown. The PUbItC Performing Arts Center links main core of public uses, located along Gowe St, with the RJC. The public market 1 would locate at the intersection of Smith St. and Railroad Ave. Traffic along major streets would fuel auto oriented retail Retail Focused along Central Ave. and Smith, possibly dominating the ■EMME■ Commercial pedestrian shopping district in the historic downtown. i Office focused commercial would locate between the RJC anal Office Focused the historic core along Smith St. Medical offices continue to Commercial ' locate east of Central Ave. - Mixed use development would surround and support Mixed Use the historic core -M1R I I� Residential is expected to focus to the south of Smith St. Residential east of Central Ave. Single family uses would continue north of James Street. Pedestrian Link Some pedestrian improvements would be made to Smith St., and Street First Ave., and along the BNSF railroad to facilitate Improvements pedestrian access between the train station and parking. ParkslOpen The Commons Park would be improved to mitigate the loss of � Space the Borden ptayfields. East/west through traffic would be routed equally along Willis, Smith & James Sts. in order to provide uniform access. North/south traffic would use Central Ave., where curb cuts j I would be reduced to preserve capacity. State Ave. would also Key Circulation be improved to handle Increased development in this area. Routes Willis, Smith & James would be grade separated at the SNSF railroad and their intersections with Central Ave. improved. Smith St would be under S.R.167 and an HOV cn/off ramp would be provided. The train station would stradle Smith St to be equidistant Transit Station between the historic downtown core and the Borden site. The Borden ptayfields would be converted to a park-and ride lot Business park uses would replace single family houses along Business Park Naden Ave., south of Meeker Street A hotel/conference facility is not envisioned under this i �� ` ! Hotel alternative. 'C 7-1 HOV ramps Three gra e-separated crossings toi- to freeway -facilitate equal access throughout f downtown Central Ave: streetscape -2n improvements ii Gateways located at outer [_-_-[ . limits of downtown �7=j��Z- Gradual reduction in =J Cj TIT t�c U LLL curb cuts along Central ice- o preserve capacity. Improve -;, Parkini Common 4'E�' qr� zz -1 Auto oriented retail: M -�f—7 N4 , �z - i MIL rows along kt I Central'I Park M -C7 " '/ -S7 'I -/r�lu . I IN "'I' L .,,.Auto retail' ■ S expands- Park N Ride 7.-q I on Smith LZ School R.J.c. Borden c edical offices- operation and services I Park continues in 1=continue� N Ride the near term.- I to grow.; 4al Senior —i mith St. Canter n io 4 Di Housing--.1 areas redevelop tate Avenue to Busines 1 Z- .Virinproved to Park c handle increased .;commerciai, retail and ' `�;1s office development —00, • an Performing 1101 IL 4tgLV'=M naoaa W � Arts Centers. Alternative 1 C. . !`� ~Mixed usel -- s:•/ i- � Residential ahove, 4Improve Mixed usel! Commons Park, Office above Gateways n i esidential use.] Borden w ( c responds toy R J.C. ■. r remains in �_ rail serviced ' it j Park % `, bbb. ,the near term � i ,,t1- ! N ('f0 years) ' p o° __7 _�� aC ' d Ys Rlde �,.it 1 i .r--1 '� - --�01 6_ O';�� aP C' uu 4•,� r _ Senior ■■ { Center r LJ t It Cen r N* rwr� r•ser es .o }s Business -A— Park Civic ■ ..Jnlz . provides ,_mc_ I { _ amp ■ �i �_� Pedestriars location m �1 ; �'� ;�: connectiortl for light - z ` � .:—to retail are industrial 'L� 11 iy.rl•�t� 1 6usinesse Retail Co � - concentrated a existing location Performing, Commercial "�1 a," aap Arts Center, Walking Street ' - �' .j �Clase Gowe St��'.��r•�,a-a• .tea~ � •�. a � — �--- Alternative 2 Massive redevelopment oriented around central park linking RJC and retail core. Mixed usel -- ---- s::' % - - r ` �� ,e- ,- r• - Office or Residential U -- over Retail i ILid over depressed road _..,„,,'_—��t � _ Mixed use/I I; T Office I Retail }L James & Willis toi carry bulk of ;i` — -- -! arkingl crosstown traffic j f ' -- 11' LHOV f on/off ra , p- - Retail reorients to - `" ` 1"� face Rail Station! - 7 - � r _ CC I' IMP 97. "4 _ I 1. ■ _ iIT c' � !' 7i 4 j _ School ._vl i ` R.J.C.-`I-/�J' Park It 'Ji v, oe ;_a Senior , - �b Center Marrket Mixed use with `- �' _,,L ■■■ <�^s'z�, Residential over twit -_ _' 'i campus 1, HoteUMixed use - - -� _ _ raffc on Gowe Street- �Performing 1 C�. , - L �,;I is redirected to Smit - Arts Canter* !=_�, ■ c to promote a unified _ neighborhood at the, t base of East Hilrl Residential neighborhoods s +i a -eaten_D y `- are internal) focused onto r -'� w ' r �. �:IIQa 1LZa I G iL O green, pedestrian streets and g fa_•»icit�!.,o '_.i ��' •6 � c. 6' `neighborhood pocket park.— Alternative 3 BRENDA .IACOBER Please put in Council agenda CITY OF packet) Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544 James P. Harris,Planning Director CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES February 18, 1997 Planning Committee Members Present: Citv Attornev's Office Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Jon Johnson Other Mark Hinshaw Planning_Staff Daniel Moberlv Jim Harris, Planning Director John Turner Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Jason Cooper Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Florence Lien Margaret Porter, Administrative Assistant III Robert Goodwin Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary Fred High # ZCA-96-5 MIXED USE ZONING - (K. O'Neill) Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that this item was continued from the February 4, 1997 special meeting. Mr. O'Neill and Consultant Mark Hinshaw presented the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation for Mixed Use Zoning at that time. Committee member Tim Clark questioned whether there was any known resistance to adopting mixed use zoning. Mr. O'Neill explained that the property owners in the areas designated as mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan were notified of the Land Use and Planning Board public hearing. He explained that there was no negative testimony given at the Land Use and Planning Board public hearings and no opposition has been expressed to his knowledge. Committee member Clark questioned whether this item had been screened through Public Safety. Planning Director Jim Harris revealed that items from the Land Use and Planning Board are not normally brought to Public Safety. Clark questioned whether mixed use zoning would bring additional stress to law enforcement. Mr. Harris explained that he didn't see how it could add any additional stress to law enforcement as it is just another use. The notion of locating residential and commercial uses clustered is not a new idea. Mr. O'Neill explained that the areas in the overlay were selected because they are in close proximity of other residential uses. He stated that additional problems are not anticipated. 1 2204th AVE.SO- iKENT WASHINGTON 99032-i895'TELEPHONE '_06,859-3300!FAXk359-3334 City Council Planning Committee Minutes February 18, 1997 Mr. O'Neill explained that the zoning code does not clarify what mixed use means in terms of the amount of space in relation to one use versus the other. This concept is particularly applicable for East hill because the only way to develop multifamily is within a mixed use development. Mr. O'Neill explained that one way to define a mixed use development is to designate a certain percentage to each type of development. He suggested the use of 25% commercial and 75% residential. He explained that other jurisdictions have defined mixed use buildings as having twenty percent (20%) of the total floor area ratio in the commercial development. This would establish a clear definition of mixed use development. Mr. O'Neill explained that the current zoning code allows mixed use development in the Community Commercial and Office zoning districts by a conditional use permit. He explained that staff is recommending eliminating the allowance of mixed use developments through the conditional use process. Mr. O'Neill discussed the need to work with the City Attorney's office to establish a procedure for future amendments of the overlay area. He explained that it may be necessary to change the overlay area over time. The overlay area could be amended in a manner similar to the rezone process and would require holding a public hearing. Chair Leona Orr questioned the reasoning behind establishing the twenty-five percent(25%). She asked if there was any historical information to justify that twenty-five percent(25%) is a good mix. She stated that 25% seemed low. Consultant Mark Hinshaw illustrated some examples of the 25% for mixed uses. Mr. Hinshaw explained that a small amount of commercial development related to the neighborhood is workable. He explained that the number chosen has to be workable and desirable. Committee member Tim Clark questioned the idea of eliminating some of the parking requirements. Mr. O'Neill explained that the enclosed interior parking would not be eliminated however, it would be excluded in the calculation for floor area ratio to determine the 25'o mix. Committee member Clark questioned if there is something that can be done to ensure compatible integration with the neighborhood. Mr. O'Neill explained that the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board includes an administrative design review process. O'Neill explained that the design review process is the closest thing that staff has in the current regulatory framework to ensure that new development projects are done in a thoughtful way and to try to integrate the development with the surrounding area. O'Neill stated that one of the reasons the Planning Board recommended the overlay areas rather than a blanket change is that the areas designated are already established as commercial entities. He City Council Planning Committee Minutes February 18, 1997 explained that part of the criteria that the Board developed for the overlay areas were close proximity to existing public facilities and residential areas. Planning Director Jim Harris explained that Clark's concerns go a step further than what is being established. Harris stated that it is an important step and staff hasn't looked at these angles. Chair Leona Orr explained that the Board received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Fred Lien regarding a piece of property on East hill. The property owners would like to be considered as part of the mixed use overlay area. Mr. O'Neill indicated where the property was located and explained that this parcel is adjacent to the existing boundaries of one of the overlay areas. He stated that staff has no objection to including this parcel in the overlay area. Committee member Jon Johnson explained that he was concerned with the percentage and questioned whether multifamily was limited enough. Johnson was concerned with a developers ability to build only a small commercial element (25%) and then being able to establish a large multifamily development (75%). Mr. O'Neill explained that the restriction is based on the overall floor area. He explained that if someone built a 3,000 square foot commercial development they could only build 9,000 square foot of residential (which would be less than ten units). O'Neill explained that it is important that the City establish a threshold that has a reasonable amount of commercial but one that is not too restrictive. Clark clarified that the enclosed interior parking would be excluded from the twenty-five percent calculation. Mr. O'Neill explained that the City of Kent is unusual in that parking is part of the building calculation. He stated that the floor area calculation for 25i75 would not include the parking areas just the usable areas of the building. Chair Leona Orr asked for staff to put all the information together for the Committee and bring this item back to the March 18, 1997 meeting for action. Planning Director Jim Harris confirmed that staff could bring this item back for action. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES - (J. Harris) Chair Leona Orr explained that Building Official Bob Hutchinson was unable to attend today's meeting and therefore the Committee would not be discussing the collection of school impact fees. Chair Orr asked the Committee if they would feel comfortable making a recommendation to renew the School Impact Fee Ordinance for additional year. She explained that this ordinance will expire shortly. She stated that the Chamber of Commerce Task Force recommendations are being considered through separate Committees but meanwhile there is a need to make a recommendation to the full Council as to whether to extend the fees for another year. 3 City Council Planning Committee Minutes February 18, 1997 Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to continue the school impact fees for another year. Clark stated that it is best to continue the school impact fees at this time. He explained that the bulk of the Task Force's recommendations were aimed at the State Legislature and their actions; therefore, the City has no control over those actions. He recommends to go forward at this time with the renewal of the school impact fees. City Attorney Roger Lubovich explained that the school impact fees will expire at the end of March and therefore the Council would need to have something in place before then. He questioned when the school districts would be ready to present the Capital Facilities Plan for the adoption of the new fee schedule. Mr. Lubovich explained that there is a tight time frame to work with because of the thirty day effective date. Planning Director Jim Harris questioned why we would have to review the Capital Facilities Elements at this time. Mr. Lubovich explained that there are two ordinances in place; one establishing the school impact fees and the other establishing the fee schedule. He explained that the two could be adopted separately. Committee member Tim Clark questioned whether the extension of the school impact fees could be adopted tonight. City Attorney stated that he could have an ordinance ready for adoption at tonight's City Council meeting. Clark explained that he did not want to create a lapse in the collection of school impact fees. Mr. Harris explained that if the ordinance is extended the fees would remain as they are today. Mr. Lubovich concurred and stated that he isn't sure if the fee schedule has an expiration. He explained that the City is supposed to review the Capital Facilities Plan annually and the fees are adopted by a separate ordinance. Chair Leona Orr asked Kent School District representative Fred High to clarify the process. Fred High explained that the County process is on a different time schedule. He stated that the fees being proposed with the County's process are actually going down. Orr questioned if the City is able to extend the ability to collect the fees and then adopt the new fee schedule in a timely fashion. Mr. High stated that this would be appropriate. Mr. Lubovich explained that he would prefer that the extension be done tonight. Committee member Tim Clark MOVED to amend the motion to add that this should be brought to tonight's City Council Meeting. Johnson SECONDED the motion. The motion carried as amended. 4 City Council Planning Committee Minutes February 18, 1997 Chair Orr asked for Fred High to return to the Committee with the amended fee schedule. Orr asked City Attorney Roger Lubovich to coordinate with Mr. High to ensure we get it done in a timely manner. Mr. Lubovich stated that the school district implements their new Capital Facilities Plan in April or May. He stated that the Capital Facilities plan can be reviewed in about two months when the new plan is ready. He explained that the new fee schedule could be adopted at that time. REGULATORY REVIEW REQUEST - (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the City received a request to amend the CM-1 district regulations of the zoning code. He stated that the request was made by Mr. Glen T. Sparrow to expand the permitted uses in the CM-1 zone to allow a wider variety of warehousing and distribution uses. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the action requested from the Committee today is to whether the Committee believes that this item has merit to move forward to the Land Use and Planning Board for their review. Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED and Tim Clark SECONDED a motion to recommend that the Land Use and Planning Board review the request to expand the permitted commercial manufacturing uses in the CM-1 zoning district. Motion carried. 1997 PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION WORK PROGRAM - (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the work program outlines the current planning and the long range planning programs that are anticipated for 1997 along with a rough timeline. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the hours required for each of the projects were left off the preliminary draft, but explained that there are too mane projects and not enough hours. He explained that the tasks under current planning are simply what the planning department does on a dailv basis. He stated that the Council has set aside funds to develop a permit automation system. Mr. Satterstrom briefly explained the projects slated for the 1997 year. Committee member Clark questioned whether Planning Services would be getting a new GIS system this year. Satterstrom explained that they should be getting the new system some time this vear. Citv Council Planning Committee Minutes February 18, 1997 Chair Orr suggested that the Committee consider meeting twice per month at certain times when the Committee has a heavy agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m. U:\DOC`.PCOM\MINUTES'�PCO2-18.MIN PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE March 19, 1997 PRESENT: Tim Clark Don Wicicstrom Leona Orr Tom Brubaker Christi Houser Ed White 38th Avenue/Reith Road Crosswalk Jeff Kolgard a resident near West Femvick Parlc noted that the street in question is not 38th Avenue, it is 42nd Avenue. Mr. Kolgard referred to the stop sign on 42nd - a driver failed to see Mr. Kolgard's son in the crosswalk and nearly hit him. Wickstrom said we have budget approval in '97 to install a full traffic control signal this year at 42nd Ave &-- Reith Rd. Waterline Easement - Soos Creel-, Well Condemnation Authorization Wickstrom explained that we are rerouting where we outlet the water from our Soos Creek Well and are taking it to our Kent Springs Transmission Main versus our Clark Springs Transmission Main because this will give us an added capacity. When we put it into our Kent Springs Transmission Main it reduces the amount of water we can take from Clark Springs. We have to work around at the sources to get anv added capacity and by changing it into our Kent Springs Main, it gives us the full 1 Million Gallons per day of additional capacity. Wickstrom said we have been in negotiations with Ms. Karen Rehkop for sometime on trying to acquire an easement and negotiations have not gone well. He said that at this point we are asking for condemnation authority however, we will continue to negotiate. Clarlc asked if the easement has any impact visually upon Ms. Rehkop's property. Wickstrom explained that this is all underground. In response to Clark, Wickstrom noted that immediately across from this property is our Seven Oaks well facility in an open area, however it has a quality problem so we can't release it into our existing distribution system. We have to either treat it or mix it with other water and the only feasible thing is to mix it. Right now it is going into our Clark Springs supply which is in Kent Kanglev and then goes into the reservoir near Valley Comm. This is the first place it comes out as drinking water. Kent Springs and Clark Springs are the two sources that come from the east. Wicicstrom stated that the issue here is public health. We need the water to meet our 1 water demands and if we can make it additive versus supplemental than that's a great positive because water rights are no longer being issued. Wickstrom said that this is something we can do within our existing rights and doesn't require any outstanding permits which would be difficult to obtain. Committee unanimouslv recommended that Council authorize condemnation proceedings on the Rehkop property. Emergency Side Sewer Repair - Tames &- Railroad Wickstrom stated that when we installed the watermain in James St to increase our downtown water supply in conjunction with the Justice Center, we cut off the side sewer at Kent Cold Storage. Even though this project was complete two years ago, it is not unusual to have a side sewer function as a septic system due to the sandy soil or until it becomes totally blocked which is what happened in this case. Wickstrom noted that this facility deals with food and when they presented the problem to us we were not sure if it was something we did, however it was in the alignment of the new waterline. Wickstrom noted that we felt it would be a $10,000 - S 15,000 repair item and it turned out to be much more expensive. However, we are working with the contractor on this. He said we are reviewing the bill but because of the dollar amount we need to have Council's concurrence that there was an emergency and we took appropriate steps to resolve it. Committee unanimously recommended adoption of a Resolution related to the emergency side sewer repair at James &- Railroad Avenues. Meeting adjourned: 4:00 p.m.