Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 05/06/1997 C "Ity of Kent Cit Counci I Meeting v Agenda CITY OF Mayor Jim White Council Members Christi Houser, President Jim Bennett Jon Johnson Tim Clark Leona Orr Connie Epperly Judy Woods May 6, 1997 Office of the City Clerk ���aT SUMMARY AGENDA CITY OF KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 6, 1997 Council Chambers 7 : 00 p.m. 9 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. Drinking Driver Task Force Design Contest Awards Presentation $ Introduction of Mayor's Appointees Employee of the Month ,.0:" Legislative Update -E. Proclamation-Corrections Officers -F:" Natural Medicine Clinic Update 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR -.A. " Approval of Minutes -& Approval of Bills e. 1998 CDBG Funding Levels-Approval ..D: Mixed Use Zoning Code Amendment and Map Change -Ordinances 1 r .E: Hillside Manor Preliminary Plat-Set Meeting Date --jt Singh Preliminary Plat-Set Meeting Date City Transit Advisory Board-Reappointments , LID 348-64th Avenue South Street Improvements-Ordinance }; CIP Budget Change d Tar Distributor Purchase-Approval K. Lift Truck Purchase(35'Aerial Bucket Truck)-Authorization to Transfer Funds L. Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant(King County)-Authorize and Establish Budget -M South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement-Authorization -N'. ADA Modifications Funding-Approval and Budget Change a. Police Shooting Range Upgrades-Approval and Budget Change P Wireless Telecommunications Facilities-Regional Land Use Approach-Resolution - East Valley Highway Restoration-Accept as Complete R. S.212th Street HOV Lanes-Accept as Complete -S. Seven Oaks West- Bill of Sale -,. Lake Vilia Townhomes Phase III-Bill of Sale -U. Restroom Partition Project-Accept as Complete ` V-. Council Absence(Houser)-Approval �= 4. OTHER BUSINESS r -A. Van Doren's Landing Building J Rezone $. Nancy's Grove Division II Final Plat - ;' CM-1 Zoning District Regulations-Zoning Code Amendment -D. Meridian Valley Annexation Census Contract-Authorization E. Personal Watercraft(Jet Ski)-Ordinance 5. BIDS -.A. 1997 Asphalt Overlays ,W. 35'Aerial Bucket Truck(Lift Truck) 6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7. REPORTS , EXECUTIVE SESSION: Negotiations for Property Acquisition k_ t 8. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet la available for perusal in the City Clerlfs Office and the Kent Library. An w0anation 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) Drinking Driver Task Force Design Contest Award Presentation B) Introduction of Mayor' s Appointees C) Employee of the Month D) Legislative Update E) Proclamation - Corrections Officers F) Natural Medicine Clinic Update CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . city council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through V be approved. Discussion Action 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of April 15, 1997. 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through April 15 and paid on April 15, 1997, after auditing by the Operations Committee on April 29, 1997 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 4/1/97 182688-182897 $ 920, 989 . 18 4/1/97 182898-183329 1 , 327 , 727. 84 $2 , 248 ,717 . 02 Approval of checks issued for payroll for April 1 through April 15, 1997 and paid on April 18, 1997: Date Check Numbers Amount 4/18/97 Checks 219025-219340 $ 256, 281. 25 4/18/97 Advices 44918-45387 661 , 318 . 02 $ 917 , 599 . 27 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington April 15, 1997 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Clark, Epperly, Houser, Johnson, Orr and Woods, Operations Director/Chief of Staff McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Planning Director Harris, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, Finance Director Miller, and Employee Services Director Viseth. Approximately 30 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Fire Department Certificate Presentation - 1996 COMMUNICATIONS Officer's Development Academy. Mayor White introduced Lieutenant Chris Martin, Lieutenant Paul Wright, Firefighter Kent Knight and Firefighter Rick Cox, and noted that they are recent graduates of the Officer' s Development Academy. Fire Chief Angelo explained the Academy and said that these men volunteered their time to attend. He noted that Lieutenant Eric Pedersen and Lieutenant Mitch Snyder had also attended the Academy, and that five more are now attending. He thanked the Council for their support and, with Mayor White, presented certificates to those present. Legislative Update. Dena Laurent, Governmental Affairs Manager, noted that the Legislature is scheduled to close on April 27, and updated the Council on the status of the Intangibles Tax Exemption, the Criminal Justice Funding Cap, the rollback of B & O taxes, Welfare Reform, the Freight Mobility Program, and water issues. Introduction of Mayor's Appointees. Mayor White announced appointments/reappointments as follows and introduced those who were in attendance: Bicycle Advisory Board: Steve Babbitt Robert Brehm Dave Hoffman Transit Advisory Board: Robert Whalen Dudley Jackson Frank Wiemes Drinking Driver Task Force: Gwen Dupree He expressed his appreciation to these people for their hard work and noted that the shuttle bus program will be enlarged in June and again in September. 1 Kent City Council Minutes April 15, 1997 PUBLIC Kent: A Fabulous Place for Families. The Mayor COMMUNICATIONS announced that the City of Kent has been proclaimed one of 1150 Fabulous Places to Raise Your Family" by author and consultant Melissa Giovagnoli in the second edition of her recently published book. He said that Kent was selected because of good schools, affordable housing, a good economy and the opportunity for employment, and read a proclamation declaring the month of May 1997 as "Kent: A Fabulous Place for Families" in the City of Kent. He presented the proclama- tion to Council President Houser and thanked the Council for their support. Report on Kent Market. Linda Johnson, Director of the Market, explained that the Market was formerly known as the Saturday Market and that they are now open on Sundays as well. She noted that there were approximately 51000 guests on opening day. Johnson announced that they have contracted with a grant writer and are in the process of acquiring funding to purchase the building, and that they hope to move in by next spring. CONSENT HOUSER MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR O be approved, with the exception of Item K which was removed from the agenda. Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of April 1, 1997 . HEALTH &. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) SANITATION McDonald's at 212th and East valley Highway. ACCEPT the bill of sale for McDonald' s at 212th St. & 84th Ave. S. submitted by McDonald' s Corporation for continuous operation and maintenance of 408 feet of sanitary sewer improvements, and release of bonds after the expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located at 8320 S. 212th Street. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M) Nancy's Grove Division I. ACCEPT the bill of sale for Nancy' s Grove Division I submitted by Stafford Construction for continuous operation 2 Kent City Council Minutes April 15, 1997 HEALTH & and maintenance of 1, 864 feet of street improve- SANITATION ments and 2 , 115 feet of storm sewers, and release of bonds after the expiration period, as recom- mended by the Public Works Director. The project is located at 149th Ave. S. E. & S.E. 278th St. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30) Taylor's Glen. ACCEPT the bill of sale for Taylor's Glen submitted by Stafford Construction for continuous operation and maintenance of 1, 345 feet of street improvements and 1, 132 feet of storm sewers, and release of bonds after the expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located at 144th Ave. S.E. & S.E. 278th St. SEWER (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) (REMOVED BY OPERATIONS DIRECTOR MCFALL) Emeraencv Repair - Storm Sewer. McFall explained that this item should be removed from the agenda, as it has been determined that the repair costs were below the threshold and it no longer needs to be declared an emergency. SIDEWALKS (BIDS - ITEM 5A) 1997 Sidewalk Rehabilitation - W. Gove St. & N. State Ave. The bid opening for this project was held on April 9th with three bids received. The low bid was submitted by Gary Merlino Construction in the amount of $525, 711. 25. The Engineer' s estimate was $646, 094 . 22 . However, at this time the Public Works Director requests Council award Schedules I and II only in the amount of $376, 571. This portion of the project includes replacing the sidewalk on the north side of Gowe Street from 4th Avenue to 1st Avenue and on the east side of State Street from Smith to Ward Street. The Public Works Director recommends award of Schedules I and II of the 1997 Sidewalk Rehabilitation - W. Gowe St. & N. State Ave. , to Gary Merlino Construction in the amount of $376, 571. CLARK MOVED that Schedules I and II of the 1997 Sidewalk Rehabilitation - W. Gowe Street & N. State Avenue, be awarded to Gary Merlino Construction in the amount of $376, 571. Houser seconded and the motion carried. 3 Kent City Council Minutes April 15, 1997 STREET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) IMPROVEMENTS LID 348 64th Avenue South Street Improvements (g 226 - S. 216) . This date has been set for the public hearing on LID 348 for the improvement of 64th Avenue South from South 226th Street to South 216th Street. Public Works Director Wickstrom outlined the boundaries of the LID and noted that this would complete 64th Avenue South, which was begun in 1989 . He explained that this project is critical to meeting concurrency requirements in terms of providing additional north-south arterials, and it is included in the environment impact analysis and the 404 permit for the lagoon project. Wickstrom noted that a meeting was held with property owners in February with approximately seven owners in attendance, none of whom objected although some were concerned about cost. He outlined the nine improvements which are in- cluded and noted that the total project cost is $1,967, 374.71. He explained that the city is a property owner and its share is 49% of the total cost, which has already been budgeted. He explained the method and payment of assessments, and said construction is expected to begin in June with the hearing on the final roll being held prior to that. Wickstrom noted that one letter which is assumed to be a protest was received, and that it repre- sents approximately 11% of the assessment. He clarified for Clark that these improvements should relieve traffic on West Valley Highway and that it will impact Meeker Street. Mayor White opened the public hearing. John King, 72 6th Avenue South, Seattle, 98134 , representing K & W Holding, said he is the person Wickstrom referred to regarding the protest. He objected to the formation of the LID and explained that the property is currently one of the few undeveloped properties along the 64th Avenue South corridor. He said that storm water from developed properties has flowed onto their property and since it is the lowest point in the area, the water sits on the property from time to time. He noted that the property is shown on the City of Kent wetland inventory map. He said the 4 Kent City Council Minutes April 15, 1997 STREET property is useless at this time, and therefore IMPROVEMENTS the owner finds it difficult to determine the benefit of a $118, 000 assessment. King said that since the property is on the LID inventory, it cannot be developed and therefore cannot take advantage of the water service, the storm sewer, the road and the sanitary sewer that is being provided to it. He added that they have been advised by the Public Works Department that they cannot have a curb cut from the proposed street adjacent to their property. There were no further comments and HOUSER MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Upon Woods' request, Wickstrom noted that a letter had been sent to Mr. King in response to his inquiries, and that King needs to do a delineation to determine where the wetlands area is and get a wetland easement from the Corps. He said that area would then be deleted from the calculation on the property, and the assessment could be reduced to zero. He explained that the City cannot do the delineation. Wickstrom pointed out that there is no access to this property unless the road is built. He explained for Clark that driveways are not put in on raw land. Upon Bennett' s question, Wickstrom said that they may or may not get a permit from the Corps. CLARK MOVED to direct the City Attorney to pre- pare the necessary ordinance for the formation of LID 348 , the improvement of 64th Avenue South. Woods seconded and the motion carried. PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) SE 274th Hillclimb Grade & Fill. ACCEPT the SE 274th Hillclimb Grade & Fill project as complete and release retainage to City Transfer of Kent upon standard releases from the state, and release of any liens, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract amount was $995, 994 . The final construction cost was $1, 128 , 860. 04 . The cost overage on this project was due to additional erosion control work as a result of heavy rains. This erosion problem needed to be 5 Kent City Council Minutes April 15, 1997 PUBLIC WORKS addressed to avoid State Water Quality issues. Adequate funds exist within the project budget to cover this overage. (BIDS - ITEM 5B) Green River Natural Resources Enhancement_ Area - observation Towers and Pedestrian Bridges. The bid opening for this project was held on April 9 , 1997 , with six bids received. The low bid was submitted by S.L. Larsen Construction of Seattle in the amount of $505, 815. 36. The Engineer's estimate was $477, 149 . 30. The project consists of the construction of three observation towers, a foot bridge, a pedestrian bridge, and gravel surfacing of a trail system throughout the project area. The Public Works Director recommends award of the Green River Natural Resource Enhancement Area Observation Towers & Pedestrian Bridges to S.L. Larsen Construction for the bid amount of $505, 815. 36. CLARK MOVED that the Green River Natural Resources Enhancement Area Observation Towers & Pedestrian Bridges contract be awarded to S.L. Larsen Construction for the bid amount of $505,815. 36. Woods seconded. Clark stated that this is an exciting project and that it will be a great park. The motion then carried. (BIDS - ITEM 5C) 1997 Grade and Fill - S. 277TH/S.E. 274th Way (Auburn Way North to 116th Ave. S.E. ) . The bid opening for this project was held April 9 , 1997, with six bids received. The low bid was sub- mitted by Scarsella Brothers, Inc. of Seattle in the amount of $2 , 120, 042 . 30. The Engineer' s estimate was $2,968 , 426. This project includes the balance of the earthworks for the 277th Corridor project and will complete the work started last year. The Public Works Director recommends award of the 1997 Grade & Fill - S. 277th/SE 274th Way (Auburn Way North to 116th Ave. S. E. ) contract to Scarsella Brothers, Inc. for the bid amount of $2 , 120, 042 . 30. 6 Kent City Council Minutes April 15, 1997 PUBLIC WORKS CLARK MOVED that the 1997 Grade & Fill - S. 277th/S.E. 274th Way (Auburn Way North to 116th Ave. S.E. ) contract be awarded to Scarsella Brothers, Inc. for the bid amount of $2 , 120, 042 . 30. Houser seconded and the motion carried. (BIDS - ITEM 5D) Green River Natural Resources Enhancement Area - Wetland/Upland Planting. The bid opening for this project was held on April 9th with three bids received. The lowest bid submittal was received from Ohno Construction of Seattle, in the amount of $873 , 281. 92 . The Engineer' s estimate was $548, 430. The project consists of establishing 45 acres of wetlands, grasslands, shrublands, and forest within the project area. Due to the difference of $324 , 851. 92 between the low bid received and the Engineer' s estimate, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that all bids be rejected and that this project be modified and rebid at a later date. CLARK MOVED that all bids received on the Green River Natural Resource Enhancement Area Wetland/ Upland Plantings be rejected and that the project be modified and rebid at a later date. Bennett seconded and the motion carried. ANNEXATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B) Meridian Valley Annexation AN-96-1. The City has received a sufficient and valid property owner petition on the proposed Meridian Valley Annexation, and the King County Boundary Review Board approved the annexation proposal on April 4 , 1997 . This annexation contains 891 acres and is located on the eastern edge of the City, generally adjacent to the City' s existing boundaries on its west and south margins, and bounded by soos Creek on the east and the exten- sion of S. E. 235th Street on the north. The annexation is proposed to become effective on July 1, 1997 . Planning Director Harris delineated the bounda- ries of the annexation and noted that there are between 3 , 500 and 4 , 000 residents. Finance Director Miller explained the annexation budget process and noted that the budget for this 7 Kent City Council Minutes April 15, 1997 ANNEXATION annexation was reviewed by the Operations Committee yesterday. She said staff worked hard to ensure that revenues support expenditures and that department needs are balanced. She ex- plained one-time-only expenses and how those costs will be recovered. Mayor White opened the public hearing. Rick Pasko, 24503 142nd Avenue SE, spoke in favor of the annexation, but voiced concern about the improvement of SE 240th Street. He noted that for the past several years there has been signi- ficant flooding at 240th and 132nd, and that according to King County, improvements have been delayed again. He urged the City to look at Little Soos Creek as one of their first projects in eliminating the flooding in that area. Wickstrom said it would be July before work on the culvert across 240th is started, and that the city will have to take care of the flooding across 132nd. He noted that the County rebuilt the culvert crossing at 256th, and that Kent is the lead agency on the box channel paralleling 256th although the County will pay half of that project. Frank Wiemes, 13426 SE 240th, said that he is in favor of the annexation. He stated that culverts which were put in between 240th and the Meridian Valley Golf & Country Club are the cause of the flooding and that the creek should be opened up and have a free flow. Al Havlor, 24621 130th Avenue SE, spoke in support of the annexation and asked what impact Clark Lake Park will have on the community. He noted that there is a heavily wooded drainage area of approximately two acres in size, and asked if it could be incorporated into the park so that it could be maintained. McFall responded that no development plans currently exist for Clark Lake Park, and explained that since that property was purchased with conservation funds it must be utilized for open space. He said that the city' s park development process involves the neighborhoods and that when the City proceeds with development of Clark Lake Park, there would be a series of meetings with the neighborhood. Bill Solomon, 24606 145th Place SE, also spoke in support of the annexation, and expressed concern about 145th Place SE. He explained that the street has not been fully connected, and that 8 Kent City Council Minutes April 15, 1997 ANNEXATION they have appealed the requirement that the street go through with the County. He said there are safety issues and that residents would like to look at alternatives. There were no further comments and HOUSER MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. ORR MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3344 annexing the Meridian Valley Annexation area effective July 1, 1997 . Bennett seconded and the motion carried. REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) Van Doren's Landing Building J Rezone RZ-96-5. SET May 6, 1997 , as the date for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval of a rezone application by MBK Northwest. The property is located at 22815 West Valley Highway. PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITE:M 3N) Nancy's Grove Division II (FBU-96-10) . SET May 6, 1997, as the date for a public meeting to consider a final plat application by ESM, Inc. The preliminary subdivision was approved by King County and the final plat came under Kent's jurisdiction at the time of the Meridian annexa- tion. This plat is 18 acres in size, consists of 30 lots, and is located east of 144th Avenue S.E. and south of S.E. 278th Street. CDBG (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) 1998 CDBG Funding Levels. SET May 6, 1997 , as the date for a public hearing to consider the 1998 Community Development Block Grant Funding Levels. OPERATIONS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) (REMOVED BY OPERATIONS DIRECTOR MCFALL) Kent Reporter Contract. This item was removed from the agenda, as it was not acted upon by the Operations Committee at their last meeting. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) RECREATION Japanese-American Artwork. AUTHORIZATION to contract with artist Stuart Nakamura to create his proposed Japanese-American art piece to be located at the Bereiter House. $50, 000 was budgeted for public artwork in the 1997 City Art 9 Kent City Council Minutes April 15, 1997 PARKS & Plan to honor the rich history and culture of the RECREATION local Japanese-American community. Artist Stuart Nakamura was chosen by a juried panel in March and his finished art piece will be located at the Bereiter House for viewing. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) Kent Lions Club Donation. ACCEPT and amend the Kent Senior Center budget for the $5, 000 donation from the Kent Lions Club to be used for the senior hot meal program. For the third year in a row, the Kent Lions Club Board of Directors is supporting the Kent Senior Center, Mill Creek Cafe, by donating $5 , 000 to the senior hot meal program. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Bicycle Advisory Board. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s reappointments of Mr. Steve Babbitt, Mr. Robert Brehm, and Mr. Dave Hoffman to continue serving as members of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. Their new appointments will continue until 12/31/98 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) City Transit Advisory Board. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s reappointments of Mr. Robert Whalen, Mr. Dudley Jackson, and Mr. Frank Wiemes to con- tinue serving as members of the Kent City Transit Advisory Board. Their new appointments will continue until 4/30/99 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) Drinking Driver Task Force. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s reappointment of Ms. Gwen Dupree to con- tinue serving as a member of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force. Her new appointment will continue until 1/1/2000. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through March 31 and paid on March 31, 1997 ; to be audited by the Operations Committee on April 14 , 1997 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 3/28/97 181957-182314 $ 802 , 498 .47 3/31/97 182315-182687 1, 959 , 147. 48 $21761, 645.95 10 Kent City Council Minutes April 15, 1997 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for payroll for March 16 through March 31 and paid on April 4 , 1997 : Date Check Numbers Amount 4/4/97 Checks 218702-219024 $ 240, 653 . 61 4/4/97 Advices 44441-44917 $ 879 � 234 .81 8842 REPORTS Council President. Houser reminded Council- members of a social hour being held with the Kent School Board at 6: 00 p.m. on April 23 . Public Works Committee. Clark noted that the Committee will meet at 3 : 30 p.m. April. 16 . Planning Committee. Orr noted that the Committee will meet at 4 : 00 p.m. on May 20. Administrative Reports. McFall reminded Council of an executive session of approximately 20 ' minutes regarding labor negotiations. EXECUTIVE The meeting recessed to Executive Session at SESSION 8: 05 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened and adjourned at 8 : 25 p.m. Brenda Jacq e , CMC City Clem 11 Kent City Council Meeting Date Mav 6, 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 1998 CDBG FUNDING LEVELS - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the following items for the 1998 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Levels: (1) Accept the 1998 pass-through funds; (2) Allocate the City's maximum available of 1998 CDBG funds for Public (Human) Services ($71, 342) ; (3) Allocate the city' s maximum available of 1998 CDBG funds for Planning and Administration ($67, 170) ; and (4) Authorize the Mayor to sign the County form indicating the City's desire for acceptance and distribution of 1998 funds. The Planning Committee recommended approval of these action items on April 15, 1997 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Planning Committee minutes of 4/15/97 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3C ITCITY OF i"Jr2 V i Jim White, Mayor uFTS3I6)^�,to - Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM May 6, 1997 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CAROLYN SUNDVALL, HUMAN SERVICES PLANNER SUBJECT: 1998 LOCAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING LEVELS Background Recently the City received from King County its estimate of Community Development Block Grant pass-through funds for 1998. The estimate of S515.970 is approximately S60 293 less than the City received for its 1997 program. The estimate at this time is based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) proposed 1998 budget. The estimated amount may increase or decrease due to changes in the entitlement, program income and recaptured funds. Local CDBG Program Strategies for 1996 - 1999, that form the basis for decisions pertaining to the allocation of CDBG funds in the City of Kent, were adopted by Council in 1995. There are no amendments to the strategies at this time. The Citv Council needs to take three actions: 1. Receipt of Funds The City of Kent needs to inform the County whether it elects to receive and administer the pass-through funds again this year or to compete for funds. The Planning Department recommends that the City accept the pass through funds to: 1) Maximize local discretion in allocating the funds 2) Guarantee a minimum funding level, 3) Eliminate competition with other King County and small cities projects. If the City does not elect to take the pass through funds, Kent is not guaranteed any CDBG hinds, and would have to compete for ail funds. 1204th A�E.SO.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895 TELEPHONE i'06)859-1300/FAX 4 859-3334 1998 CDBG Funding Levels May 6, 1997 Page 2 2. Public (Human) Services Frmdina If the City chooses to accept pass-through funds, it can reserve the maximum of its fair share of public services dollars. If the City does not reserve the right to use this amount of funding for human services, another city can request the use of any unreserved ceilings. In order to retain the maximum flexibility in the use of its CDBG funds, and to continue in its present support for human services, the Planning Department recommends that the City of Kent notify the County that it wishes to reserve the maximum dollars for human services. The estimated 1998 Community Development Block Grant funding amount for human services is $71.342. 3. Planning and Administration Funds As with human services, the City has a maximum of its CDBG funds that can be spent for Planning and Administration. In 1997 the City reserved the maximum amount available. The Planning Department recommends allocating the maximum amount available in 1998 to fund a portion of salaries and other activities associated with the administration of the program. The maximum amount of 1999 CDBG funds estimated to be available for Planning and Administration is $67,170. The remaining funds, approximated at $377,458. would be used for capital projects. The City traditionally funds the Kent Housing Repair Services Program out of this category and also any additional capital project requests that Council approves. On April 15, 1997, the Planning Committee approved these three recommended actions:. Recommended Action 1. Approval to accept the 1998 pass-through funds. 2. Allocate the City's maximum available of 1998 CDBG funds for Public (Human) Services ($71,342). 3. Allocate the City's maximum available of 1998 CDBG funds for Planning and Administration ($67,170). 4. Authorize the Mayor to sign the County form indicating the City's desire for acceptance and distribution of 1998 funds. CS/mp:p:\humanser\council.wpd cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Lin Houston, Human Services Manager CITY OF 1 O\LU? Vc1l\ Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544 James P. Harris,Planning Director CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES April 15, 1997 Planniniz Committee Members Present: Citv Attornev's Office Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich Tim Clark Jon Johnson Other Plannine Staff Jason L. Cooper, JLC Consulting Jim Harris, Planning Director Eric Wells, Polygon NW Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Gary Young, Polvgon NW Carolvn Sundvall, Human Services Planner Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary APPLICATION FOR OPEN SPACE TAXATION - (J. Harris) Planning Director Jim Harris stated this public hearing should be continued to the regularly scheduled May 20th Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Harris explained that due to an unfortunate clerical error the applicant was not given sufficient notice to make arrangements to be at today's meeting. He explained that the applicant agreed to the May 20th meeting date and the Committee concurred with the continuation. 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING LEVELS - (C. Sundvall) Human Services Planner Carolyn Sundvall explained that the City of Kent is a member of the King Countv Consortion that receives the federally funded Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. She explained that the estimated 1998 CDBG funding for the City of Kent is $515,970. This figure is based on the national congressional budget and the number of low and moderate income people residing in the City of Kent. This figure is subject to change. Ms. Sundvall explained that the CDBG funds are distributed in three categories. She explained that the ceiling for Planning and Administration is $67,170 and the ceiling is $71,342 for Public (human) Services. The remaining S377,458 is designated for capital projects. Ms. Sundvall explained that staff is recommending that the Planning Committee recommend that the City Council take the following action. 1. Accept the 1998 pass-through funds. 2. Allocate the City's maximum available of 1998 CDBG funds for Public (Human) Services ($71,342). 1 20 ath AVE SO KENT W ASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE C061859-3300/FAX N S59-3339 City Council Planning Committee Minutes April 15, 1997 ;. Allocate the City's maximum available of 1998 CDBG funds for Planning and Administration ($67,170). 4. Forward this recommendation to the full City Council for consideration at its May 6, 1997 meeting and authorize the Mayor to sign the County form indicating the Citv's desire for distribution of 1998 funds. Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED and Committee member Tim Clark SECONDED a motion to accept staff s recommendation as outlined above. Motion carried. AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - (K. O'Neill) Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the City received a request for a regulatory review to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance from Polygon Northwest. Mr. O'Neill explained that currently the City does not allow PUD developments in single family zones. Mr. O'Neill explained that Polygon is requesting amending the Ordinance to allow PUD's in single family zones when the area being developed is 100 acres or greater, allow attached units. and allow for flexibility in phasing development. He explained that requiring a minimum of a 100 acre site will restrict the application of the amendment. He explained that it is the Committee's responsibility to determine whether the regulatory review presented today merits further consideration. He stated that if this item has merit it would be the Committee's decision to forward this item to the Land Use and Planning Board for a public hearing. Eric Wells, 4030 Lake Washington Boulevard NE 4201, Kirkland, WA 98033. Polygon Northwest representative Eric Wells stated that there are few areas remaining within the City that are 100 acre sites that could be developed. He explained that Polygon's intent is to utilize the change to create a development that is very similar to the Lakes project. Planning Director Jim Harris stated that the Meridian Valley Country Club is a PUD development that is approximately 200 acres in size. He explained that the Country Club is part of the Meridian Valley Annexation and would become a legal non-conforming use without this amendment to the PUD Ordinance. Mr. Harris also explained that there are few single family sites remaining that are 100 acres or greater. Committee member Tim Clark questioned whether allowing these amendments would keep the basic integrity of the single family zone. Mr. Harris explained that staff will inquire into these issues when considering the specific rules and regulations to allow a broader use. City Council Planning Committee Minutes April 15. 1997 Mr. O'Neill explained that the site in question is currently zoned three units per acre and is designated for three units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that in terms of traffic impacts and other impacts the overall build out on this site would be consistent with what is envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wells explained that the site being considered for development has sensitive areas which limit the development of certain areas. He stated that the amendment would allow the site to be better developed as a "master' plan and allow for more open space. Gary Young,4030 Lake Washing on Boulevard NE,#201,Kirkland, WA 98033. Polygon NW President Gary Young expressed his appreciation for having an opportunity to make this recommendation to staff. He stated that he is looking forward to working with staff in proceeding further. Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and Committee member Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to forward this item to the Land Use and Planning Board for their consideration. Motion carried. ADDED ITEMS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. 3 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6 . 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MIXED USE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-96-5 AND MAP CHANGE - ORDINANCES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. `�,96 related to mixed use development. The City Council approved the mixed use zoning amendment on April 1, 1997 . This amendment will permit mixed use development, under certain circumstances, in portions of the General Commercial (GC) , Community Commercial (CC) , and Professional and Office (0) zoning districts. Adoption of Ordinance No. ": ` `i:, amending the zoning map to establish new mixed use zoning designations in portions of the General Commercial (GC-MU) , Community Commercial (CC-MU) , and Office (O-MU) zoning districts. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinances 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: city Council (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. 3D i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the Zoning Code to allow mixed use development in certain commercial zoning districts: to establish a design review process and amendment procedure for the new mixed use districts: and to provide new definitions of"floor-area ratio" and "mixed use development." WHEREAS, on April 18. 1995, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3222, relating to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, which was prepared pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan identified certain areas within the City as being appropriate for mixed use development, meaning areas where commercial and residential uses would be developed together. and that the Land Use Element of the plan contained several goals and policies which support mixed use development, and the establishment of mixed use activity centers; and WHEREAS. the Growth Management Act requires that the City's development regulations be consistent with and implement the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, in order to implement the policies in the plan with regard to mixed use development. Planning Department staff prepared a proposed list of zoning amendments which would amend the zoning map and the permitted uses and development standards for the General Commercial (GC). Community Commercial (CC), and Office (0) zoning districts, and that these proposals were discussed in several workshops with the Land Use and Planning Board. and WHEREAS, the Kent Land Use & Planning Board reviewed the Cite of Kent's Comprehensive Plan Policies and conducted a public hearing on the adoption of mixed use overlay zones in certain commercial districts on October 1-8. 1996: and WHEREAS, the recommendation of the Kent Land Use & Planning Board was presented to the City Council on November 25, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed the Kent Planning Committee to �I consider the recommendations of the Land Use & Planning Board: and WHEREAS,the Kent Planning Committee considered the recommendations of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board at their meetings of February 4, February 18, and March 18, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Committee has recommended adopting Zoning Code amendments to the GC, CC. and O Zoning Districts, thereby establishing mixed use overlay zones in those districts, establishing a design review process and amendment procedure, and adopting new definitions of"floor-area ratio" and "mixed use development": and i WHEREAS, the Kent City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Committee. and voted to adopt the recommended amendments on April 1. 1997: and I i WHEREAS, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that amendments to development regulations be reviewed as to their potential I � environmental impact, and that on October 22, 1996, the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement which was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan. and that this Addendum analyzed the zoning amendments later adopted by the City Council on April 1. 1997: NOW THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: I SECTION 1. A new Section 15.02.147 is added to Chapter 15.02. amending the Kent Zoning Code as follows: Sec. 15.02.147. Floor-Area Ratio. Floor-area ratio is a measure of development intensitv which is determined by dividine cross floor area by lot area. SECTION2. Section 15.02.260 is amended as follows: Sec. 15.02.260. Mixed use development. Mixed use development shall mean two (2) or more permitted uses or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one another on the same site. Provided that the aforementioned requirements are met a mixed use development may include two (2) or more separate buildings. Provided further that at least twenty-five (15%) percent of the cross floor area as defined in Kent City Code 1> 02.170 be a permitted commercial use. The residential component of any mixed use development cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the (permitting and/or occupancy of) the commercial component. v Code is hereb amended SECTIONS. Section 1 5.04.100 of the Kent Crt y as follows: Sec. 15.04.100. Community commercial district, CC. The purpose of the CC district is to provide areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. This district shall only apply to such commercial districts as designated in the city comprehensive plan. It is also the purpose of this district to provide opportunities for mixed use development within the designated mixed use overlay boundary, as designated by the comprehensive plan. A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1. Retail establishments selling primarily new merchandise, including convenience goods and shopping goods such as soft lines (clothing, shoes) and hard lines (hardware, furniture, paint, appliances). 2. Personal services such as barbershops and beauty shops, launderettes,dry-cleaning establishments,television and radio repair and shoe repair. 3. Restaurants (excluding drive-in restaurants) and taverns. 4. Veterinary clinics when located no closer than one hundred fifty (150) feet to any residential use, providing the animals are housed indoors, with no outside runs, and the building is soundproofed. Soundproofing must be designed by competent acoustical engineers. 5. Branches of financial institutions. 6. Carwashes. 7. Nurseries and greenhouses. 8. Commercial recreational facilities including theaters, bowling alleys, skating rinks and miniature golf. !I 9. Office uses. 10. Group homes class 1-A. 1-13 and I-C. 11. Any other use that is determined by the planning director to be of the same general character as the uses permitted in subsections A.1. through 10. of this section and that is in accordance with the stated purpose of the district. 12. Municipal uses and buildings. except for such uses and buildings subject to section 15.04200. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt. repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be 4 constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences. B. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020: 1. Gasoline service stations. ?. Drive-in restaurants. ;. Churches. 4. Nursery schools and day care centers. C. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows: 1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as incidental storage facilities, loading and unloading areas. ?. For permitted uses. hazardous substance land uses.. including onsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities. which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which .l do not accumulate more than five thousand (5,000) pounds of j hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site. subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not per mitted in this district. D. Conditionally permitted uses. Conditionally permitted uses are as follows: 1. General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030. li d T 4 1 i f '1 .d - 1 ttse shall be p. r.Hitt,.as pit ..1 ttse t-AY �?. Auto repair facilities. 43. Miniwarehouses, provided that the following development standards shall apply for miniwarehouses, superseding those set out in subsection 15.04.100 E. a. Frontage use. The first one hundred fifty (150) feet of lot measured from the property line c r right-of-way-of-way depth, g P P P _ 5 inward from the street frontage, shall be reserved for principally permitted uses for this district, defined by the provisions of subsection 15.04.100 A.I.. or for the office or onsite manager's unit, signage, parking and access. A maximum of twenty-five (25) percent of the frontage may be used for access to the storage unit area, provided that in no case shall the access area exceed seventy-five (75) feet in width. No storage units or structures shall be permitted within this one hundred fifty (150) feet of commercial frontage depth. b. Lot size. Minimum lot size is one (1) acre: maximum lot size is four (4) acres. C. Site coverage. Site coverage shall be in accordance with the underlying zoning district requirements. d. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be as follows: (1) Front yard: Twenty (20) feet. (2) Side yard: Ten (10) feet. (3) Rear yard: Ten (10) feet. e. Height limitation. "The height limitation is one (1) story. f. Outdoor storage. No outdoor storage is permitted. Signs. The sr�_n requirements uirements of chapter 15.06 shall aPPly.. ii h. Of parkin;. (1) The Off-street parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. (2) Off-street parking may be located in required yards. except in areas required to be landscaped. i. Development plan review. Development plan approval is required as provided in section 15.09.010. 6 j. Landscaping. Landscaping requirements are as follows: (1) Front yard: Twenty (20) feet, type III (earth berms). (2) Side yard: Ten(10)feet,type II abutting commercial uses or districts: type I abutting residential uses or districts. (;) Rear yard: Ten (10) feet. type II abuttini commercial uses or districts: type I abutting residential uses or districts. For maintenance purposes, underground irrigation systems shall be provided for all landscaped areas. � k. Onsite manager. A resident manager shall be requi red on the site and shall be responsible for maintaining the �I operation eration of the facility in conformance with the conditions of the approval. The planning department shall establish requirements for parking and loading areas sufficient to accommodate the needs of the resident manager and the customers of the facility. 1. Drive aisles. Drive aisle width and parking requirements are as follows: (1) Fifteen-foot drive aisle and ten-foot parking aisle. (2) Parking for manager's quarters and visitor parking. structure M. Building lengths. The horizontal dimension of , any li facing the perimeter of the site shall be offset at intervals not to exceed one hundred (100) feet. The offset shall be no less than twenty (20) feet in the horizontal dimension, with a minimum depth of five (5) feet. � n. Building materials. If abutting a residential use or zone. residential design elements such as brick veneer. wood siding, pitched roots with shingles, landscaping and fencing shall be used. No uncomplimentary building colors should be used when abutting a residential use or zone. o. Prohibited uses. Use is restricted to dead storage only. The following are specifically prohibited: (1) Auctions (other than tenant lien sales). commercial, wholesale or retail sales, or garage sales. (2) The servicing, repair or fabrication of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, lawn mowers, appliances or other similar equipment. (;) The operation of power tools. .spray painting equipment. table saws, lathes, compressors, welding ment kilns or other similar equipment. e ui equipment. (4) The establishment of a transfer and storage business. (5) Any use that is noxious or offensive because of odor, dust. noise, fumes or vibration. (6) Storage of hazardous or toxic materials and chemicals or explosive substances. P. Fencing. No razor wire is allowed on top of fences. 5. Group homes class II-A. II-B. lI-C and III. j E. Development evelo ment stan dards. l 1. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is ten thousand (10.000) square feet. 2. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is forty (40) percent. 3. Front yard. There shall be a front yard of at least fifteen (15) feet in I� depth. 4. Side yard No side yard is required, except when abutting a more restrictive district, and then the side yard shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in width. 5. Rear yard. There shall be a rear yard of at least twenty (20) feet in depth. 6. Height limitation. The height limitation is three (3) stories or forty (40) feet. However. the planning director shall be authorized to grant one (1) additional story in height, if during development plan review it is found that this additional story would not detract from the continuity of the area. More than one (1) additional story may be granted by the planning commission. 7. Landscaping. The landscaping requirements of chapter 15.07 shall apply. 8. Outdoor storage. Outdoor storage areas are prohibited. F. Mixed use overlay Along with the uses permitted in the previous sections, the following uses and development standards shall apply in the mixed use overlay within the Community Commercial district as depicted on the Kent Zoning.Map. 1. Use: Multi family residential use are allowed only when included within a mixed use development. Developmental standards: a. Floor-area ratio (FAR): .40 for commercial uses. .50 for commercial uses combined with residential uses, provided that commercial floor area may be increased by one square foot for each square foot of residential floor area provided up to a maximum commercial FAR of.5. u 1.0 for residential uses provided that, residential FAR may he increased by 5 if parking is provided below grade to a maximum of 1.5_ 9 b. Site coverage: Ll.l forty 40) percent for commercial uses. u sixty (60) percent for commercial uses with residential uses provided that twentv-five (25) percent of the gross floor area is residential use. c. Heieht• buildin2 heights restricted as follows: twenty-five (25) feet provided that basic heights may be increased up to the maximum height of forty (40) feet according to the following formula: t. t 1 e five 5 foot increases for deveto ments containing residential uses provided that twenty-five (25) percent of gross floor area is in residential use. ii. five I5) foot increases for arking under the building. iii. five (S) foot increases for using a pitched roof form. iv. five (s) foot increase for stepping back from the top floor (minimum of five feet). d. Setbacks: setback requirements are as follows: 1 L� front. zero (0 feet• provided that some setback mayO be required in the front vard to accommodate a sidewalk which shall be at least ten (10) feet in width. � rear and side: zero (0) feet provided that setbacks of at least twentv (20) feet will be required in any rear or side vards that are adjacent to a residential zoning district. I 10 e. Off-street parking: off-street parkin_requirements are as follows: f 1� Retail/office uses: four (4) spaces per thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area: provided that, the first three hundred (300) square feet of retail or office space that is a part of an individual residential unit is exempt. (2) Residential uses as follows: i. studio: .75 per dwelling unit (du) without commercial uses; .50/du with commercial uses, provided that twenty-five (25) percent of overall gross floor area is in commercial uses. ii. one bedroom: 1.5/du without commerci al �I i uses: 1.0/du with commercial uses, provided that twenty-five (25) percent of overall gross floor area is in commercial uses. iii. two bedroom: 2.0/du without commercial uses; 125/du with commercial uses, provided that twentv-five (25) percent of overall «ross floor area is in commercial uses. F--G. Signs. The sign requirements of chapter 15.06 shall apply. Fr.H. Off-street parking. I 1. The off-street parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. 1 2. Off-street parking may be located in required yards, except in areas required to be landscaped. 14-1. Development plan review. Development plan approval is required as provided in section 15.09.010. 11 i. Mixed use overlay design review. Design review for mixed uses is required as provided in Section 15.09.049. SECTIDN4. Section 15.04.140 of the Kent City Code is hereby_ amended to read as follows: Sec. 15.04.140. General commercial district, GC. The purpose and intent of the general commercial district is to recognize the existence of commercial areas developed in strips along certain major thoroughfares: to provide use incentives and development standards which will encourage the redevelopment and upgrading of such areas. to provide for a range of trade. service, entertainment and i recreation land uses which occur adjacent to major traffic arterials and residential uses; and to provide areas for development which are automobile oriented and designed for convenience, safety and the reduction of the visual blight of uncontrolled advertising signs. traffic control devices and utility equipment. It is also the purpose of this district to provide opportunities for mixed use development within the designated mixed use overlav boundary as designated by the comprehensive plan. A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1. Trade. a. Wholesale. Bakery. b. Retail--General merchandise. I (1) Department stores. (2) Dry goods and general merchandise. (3) Electrical supplies. (4) Farm equipment. (5) Hardware. (6) Heating and plumbing equipment. (7) Lumberyards. (8) Mail order houses. 9 Merchandise vending machine operators. I? (]0) Paint, glass and wallpaper. (11) Variety stores. C. Retail--Food. (1) Bakeries. with accessory manufacturing. (2) Candy. nut and confectionery. with accessory manufacturing. (3) Dairy products. (4) Fruits and vegetables. (5) Groceries. I� (6) Meat, fish and poultry. d. Retail--Automotive, marine craft, aircraft and accessories. (1) Aircraft and accessories. (2) Marine craft and accessories. (3) Motor vehicles (new or used cars and recreation vehicles). (4) Tires, batteries and accessories. e. Retail--Apparel and accessories. New or used apparel and accessories. f. Retail--Furniture, home furnishings and equipment. New or use d and finished or unfin ished furniture, home furnishincJgs and equipment. g. Retail--Eating and drinking establishments. (1) Drinking establishments (taverns and cocktail i lounges). (2) Eating establishments (restaurants) without drive-in or drive-through facilities. h. Retail--Other (1) Antiques. (2) Bicycles. l3 (3) Books. (4) Bottled gas. (5) Cameras and photographic supplies. (6) Cigars and cigarettes. (7) Computers and software. (8) Drug and proprietary items. (9) Florists. (10) Fuel and ice dealers. (I1) Fuel oil. (12) Gifts, novelties and souvenirs. Y(13) Ha . 7 rains and feeds. (14) Jewelry. (15) Liquor. (16) Newspapers and magazines. (17) Opt go ods. oods. (18) Pets and pet supplies. 19 Secondhand merchandise. (20) Sporting goods. (21) Stationery. (22) Videocassette sales and rentals. ?. Services. a. Finance, insurance and real estate services. (1) Banking and related services. (2) Commodity brokers. dealers and related services. (3) Housing and investment services. III (4) Insurance brokers. agents and related services. i (5) Insurance carriers. (6) Real estate agents, brokers and related services. (7) Real estate operators. lessors and management 14 services. (8) Real estate subdividing and developing services. (9) Security brokers and dealers and related services. (10) Title abstracting and insurance services. b. Personal services. (1) Beauty and barber services. (2) Diaper services. (3) Funeral and crematory services. (4) Laundering and dry cleaning (self-service). (5) Laundering, dry cleaning and dyeing services. (6) Linen supply and industrial laundry services. (7) Photograph ic services. (8) Pressing, alteration and garment repair. (9) Rug cleaning; and repair services. (10) Shoe repair, shoe shining and hat cleaning services. C. Business services. I (1) Advertising services. (2) Automobile and truck rental. ue O 3 Blueprinting and photocopying services. P (4) Business and management consulting services. (5) Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services; adjustment and collection services. 6 Detective and protective services. P (7) Disinfecting and exterminating services. (8) Employment services. (9) Equipment rental and leasing services. (10) Food lockers without food preparation facili ties. (11) Motion picture distribution and services. (12) News svndicate services. I�I u (13) Other dwelling and business services. (14) Outdoor advertising services. (15) Photofinishing services. (16) Research. development and testing services. (17) Stenographic services and other duplicating and mailiniz services. (18) Trading stamp services. (19) Window cleaning services. d. Repair services. (1) Armature rewinding services. (2) Automobile repair services. Automobile wash services. i (4) Electrical repair services. (5) Fleet vehicle maintenance. (6) Radio and television repair services. (7) Reupholster, and furniture repair services. (8) Small engine repair. (9) Truck repair (10) Watch. clock and jewelry repair services. e. Professional scrvic:cs. (1) Accounting. auditing and bookkeeping services. (2) Educational and scientific research services. (3) Engineering and architectural services. (4) Hospital services. (5) Legal services. (6) Medical and dental laboratory services. (7) Medical and dental services. (8) Medical clinic_ outpatient services. (9) Sanitarium. convalescent and rest home services. 16 (10) Urban planning services. f. Contract construction services. (1) Building construction, general contractor services. (2) Carpentering and wood flooring. (3) Concrete services. (4) Electrical services. (5) Masonry, stonework, tile setting and plastering services. (6) Painting, paperhanging and decorating services. (7) Plumbing, heating and air conditioning services. (8) Roofing and sheetmetal services. (9) Water well drilling services. g. Educational services. (1) Art and music schools. (_) Ba rber and beauty schools. (3) Business and stenographic schools. (4) Correspondence schools. (5) Dancing schools. (6) Driving schools, auto. (7) Driving schools, truck. (8) Vocational or trade schools. � h. Miscellaneous services_ (1) Animal grooming parlors. (2) Business associations and organizations. (;) Civic, social and fraternal associations. (4) Labor unions and similar labor organizations. (5) Veterinary clinics and animal hospital services when located no closer than one hundred fifty (150) feet to any residentialuse, providing roviding the animals are housed �I 17 indoors, with no outside runs, and the building is soundproofed. Soundproofing must be designed by competent acoustical engineers. (6) Welfare and charitable services. 3. Residential. a. Lodgings: (1) Hotel s. (2) Motels. b. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages. III carports, storage sheds and fences. C. Transitional housing facilities. limited to a maximum of 'i twenty (20) residents at any one (1) time and four (4) resident staff. 4. Cultural, entertainment and recreational. a. Cultural activities and nature exhibitions. (1) Art galleries. (2) Historic and monument sites. ; b. Public assembl t. (1) Amphitheaters. (2) Arenas and tield houses. (3) Auditoriums. (4) Drive-in movies. (5) Exhibition halls. (6) Legitimate theaters (live). (7) Motion picture theaters. (8) Stadiums. i 18 C. Amusements and recreation. (1) Amusement parks. (2) Athletic clubs. (3) Bowling. (4) Fairgrounds. (5) Go-cart tracks. (6) Golf driving ranges. (7) Miniature golf. (8) Skating (roller or ice). (9) Tennis. (10) Video arcades. 5. Other uses. a. Other retail trade, service, or entertainment or recreational I� uses that are of the same general character as those listed in this subsection, which are deemed compatible with other permitted uses in this district and which operate in accordance with the stated purpose of this district. b. Municipal uses and buildings, except for such uses and buildings subject to section 15.04.200. B. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020: I. Gasoline service stations. 2. Eating establishments (restaurants) with drive-in or drive-through facilities. ;. Nursery schools and day care centers. 4. Churches. ill I; C. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows: 1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as incidental storage facilities. 19 2. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including onsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not subject to cleanup requirements of chapter IL 02 and which do not accumulate more than ten thousand (10.000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050. except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this district. 3. Accessory dwelling units. D. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: 1. Printing and publishing establishments, and accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to such use. 2. Miniwarehouses and self-service storage. 3. General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030. except for transitional housing with a maximum of twenty (20) residents and four (4) staff. 4. Kennels. 5. For permitted uses, accessory hazardous substance land uses which are not subject to cleanup requirements of chapter 11.02 and which pounds of hazardous thousand (10.000) accumulate more than ten p substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site or which handle more than twenty thousand (20,000) pounds of hazardous substances and wastes on the site in any thirty- day period of time, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050. except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this district. 6. Group homes class I-A, 1-B. I-C, II-A. II-13, II-C and III. 7. Recreational vehicle parks. II 1 )0 E. Development standards. 1. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is ten thousand (10.000) square feet. 2. �17aximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is forty (40) percent. 3. Front yard. There shall be a front vard of at least twentv (20) feet in depth. 4. Side yard. No side yard is required, except when a side yard abuts a residential district. and then a twenty-foot side yard shall be required. 5. Rear yard. No rear yard is required. except when a rear yard abuts a residential district, and then a twenty-foot rear yard shall be required. 6. Height limitation. The height limitation is two (2) stories or thirty- five (35) feet. However, the planning director shall be authorized to grant one (1) additional story in height if during development plan review it is found that this additional story would not detract from the continuity of the area. More than one (1) additional story may be granted by planning lanning commission. 7. Landscaping. The landscaping requirements of chapter 15.07 shall apply. S. Outdoor storage. Outdoor storage areas shall be fenced for security and public safety by a sight-obscuring fence unless it is determined � - I through the development plan review that a sight-obscuring fence is not necessary. F. Mixed use overlay. Along with the uses permitted in the previous sections, 111 — the following uses and development standards shall apply in the mixed use overlav within the (eneral commercial district as depicted on the Kent Zoning Map. 21 1. Use- Multi family residential uses are permitted. �. Development standards: a. Floor-area ratio (FAR): LL 40 for commercial uses. .50 for commercial uses combined with residential uses•provided that commercial floor area may be increased by one square foot for each square foot of residential floor area provided up to a maximum commercial FAR of.5. u 1 0 for residential uses provided that. residential FAR may be increased by 5 if parking is provided below grade up to a maximum of 1.5. b. Site coverage fortv �401 percent for comme rcial uses. seventy-five (75) percent for commercial uses with residential uses provided that twenty-five (25) percent of gross floor area is residential use. c. Height Building heights restricted as follows: twenty five (25) feet provided that basic heights may be increased a to the maximum height of fifty_ (50) feet according to the following formula: i. five foot increases for developments containing residential uses provided that twenty-five (251 percent of gross floor area is in residential use. ii. five foot increases for parking under the building. five foot increases for using a pitched roof I Corn . iv. five foot increase for stomping back from the top floor (minimum of five feet). d. Setbacks Setback requirements are as follows: Front' zero (0) feet• provided that some setback may be required in the front vard to accommodate a sidewalk which shall be at least ten (10) feet in width. u Rear and side: zero (0) feet' provided that setbacks of at least twenty.(20) feet will be required in any rear or side vards that are adjacent to a residential zoning district. e. Off street 4?arkin� Off-street parking requirements are as follows: Retail/Office uses• 3.5 space per thousand (1,000) I squire feet of floor area provided that the first three hundred (300) square feet of retail or office space that is mart of an individual residential unit is exempt. (2) Residential uses as follows: i. studio 75 per dwelling unit (du) without commercial uses .50/du with commercial uses provided that twenty-five (25) percent IIII of overall «ross floor area is in commercial uses. ii. one bedroom: 1.5/du without commercial uses 1 0/du with commercial uses, provided that twenty-five(15) percent of overall gross floor area is in commercial uses. iii. two bedroom: 2.0/du without commercial uses 125/du with commercial uses, provided that twenty-five Q5) percent of overall (2ross floor area is in commercial uses. F—G. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply. frH. Off-street parking. 1. The off-street parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. 2. Offstreet parking may be located in required yards, except in areas required to be landscaped. q p 144. Development plan review. Development plan approval is required as provided in section 15.09.010. J. Mixed use overlay design review. Design review for mixed uses is required illl as provided in Section 15.09.049. I� SECTION 5. Section 15.04.150 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15.04.150. Professional and office district, O. It is the purpose of the O district to provide for areas appropriate for professional and administrative offices. It is intended that such districts shall buffer residential districts land the development standards are such that office uses should be compatible with residential districts. It is also the purpose of this district to provide opportunities for mixed use development within the designated mixed use overlay as designated by the comprehensive plan. A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1. Medical and dental offices and medical and dental laboratory services. 2. Administrative and professional offices such as lawyers. engineers. real estate and accountants. financial offices such as banks and savings and loan institutions, insurance offices, auditing. 24 ibookkeeping, architectural and urban planning services, business and management consulting services and advertising services. ;. Veterinary clinics when located no closer than one hundred fifty ( 150) feet to anv residential use, providing the animals are housed indoors, with no outside runs, and the building is soundproofed. Soundproofing must be designed by competent acoustical engineers. 4. Schools and studios for art, crafts, photography, music or dance: educational and scientific research: and research and development services. j. Blueprinting and photocopying services. g 6. Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services, and adjustment and collecting services. 7. Detective and protective serv ices. 8. Stenographic services and other duplicating and mailing services. 9. News syndicate services. 10. Employment services. 11. Group homes class I-A, I-B and I-C. 12. Any other use that is determined by the planning director to be of the same general character as the uses permitted in subsections A.1. through 11. of this section. 13. Municipal uses and buildings. except for such uses and buildings 21 subject t to section l.S.04._)0. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt. repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences. B. Accessory uses. Permitted aceessory uses are as follows: 1. Incidental sales and services. such as restaurants, pharmacies and retail sales, to serve occupants and patrons of permitted uses, when �5 conducted within the same building, provided there is no exterior display or advertising. 2. For permitted uses. hazardous substance land uses. including onsite I hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities. which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which do not accumulate more than five thousand (5,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or anv combination thereof at any III one (1) time on the site. subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage faci lities, which are not permitted in this district. 3. Accessory dwelling units. C. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: I , residential ttse shallTLC.CL UJ U 1..V11LL111V 11Lt1 Uv.. II li �71. Mortuaries. 3--2. Beauty and barber services. 4-3. Tanning salons. 5-4. Nail manicuring services. 6-5. General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030. 6. Retail sales as follows: a. Retail sales are permitted as part of a planned development ment is where at least lefty ( ��) percent of the total development for office use. b. Drive-in restaurants. service stations. drive-in cleaning establishments and other similar retail establishments are not permitted. S-7. Group homes class II-A. lI-B. lI-C and III. 26 D. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020: 1. Churches. 2. Nursery schools and day care centers. E. Development standards. 1. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is ten thousand (10,000) square feet. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is thirty (30) _. g percent. 3. Front yard. Minimum front yard setback is twenty-five (25) feet. 4. Side yard. No side yard is required, except abutting a residential district. and then the side yard shall be twenty (20) feet minimum. 5. Rear vard. No rear yard is required. except abutting a residential district, and then the rear yard shall be twenty (20) feet. 6. Height limitation. The height limitation is three (3) stories or fortv (40)feet. 7. Landscaping. The landscaping requirements of chapter 15.07 shall apply. F. Mixed use overlay. Alonu with the uses permitted in the previous sections the followin uses and development standards shall apply in the mixed use overlay within the Office district as depicted on the Kent Zoning Maw l. Use: Multi-family residential uses are allowed only when included within a mired use development. 2. Developmental standards: a. Floor-area ratio (FAR): �] .40 for commercial uses. I L .50 for commercial uses combined with residential uses provided that commercial floor area may be increas ed by one square foot for each square foot of � q 27 residential floor area provided up to a maximum commercial FAR of.5 d (3) 1.0 for residential uses, provided that, residential FAR may be increased by .5 if parking is provided below grade up to a maximum of 1.5. b. Site coverage: LD forty (40) percent for commercial uses. sixty (60) percent for commercial uses with residential uses provided that twentv-five (25) percent of the gross floor area is residential use. C. Height: building heights restricted as follows: f 1� twenty-five (25) feet provided that basic heights may be increased up to the maximum height of forty (40) feet according to the following formula: i. five i 5) foot increases for developments containing residential uses, provided that twenty-five (25) percent of gross floor area is in residential use. ii. five (5) foot increases for parking under the building. iii. five (5) foot increases for using a pitched roof form. iv. five (5) foot increase for stepping back from the top floor (minimum of five feet). d. Setbacks: setback requirements are as follows: front: zero (0) feet: provided that some setback may be required in the front vard to accommodate a sidewalk which shall be at least ten (10) feet in II I width. 28 rear and side: zero (0) feet:provided that setbacks of at least twentv (20) feet will be required in any rear or side yards that are adjacent to a residential zoning district. e. Off-street parking: off-street parking requirements are as follows: Retail/office uses: four (4) spaces per thousand (1.000) square feet of floor area: provided that, the first three hundred (300) square feet of retail or office space that is mart of an individual residential unit is exempt. Residential uses as follows: i. studio' 75 12er dwelling unit (du) without commercial uses: .50/du with commercial uses provided that twenty-five (25) percent of overall yoss floor area is in commercial uses. ii. one bedroom: 1.5/du without commercial uses I 0/du with commercial uses, provided that twenty-five (25) percent of overall gross j floor area is in commercial uses. iii. two bedroom: 2.0/du without commercial I uses: 1.25/du with commercial uses provided that twenty-five (25) percent of overall .=ross floor area is in commercial uses. +--G. Signs. The sign requirements of chapter 15.06 shall apply. G-H. Off-street parking. 1. The off-street parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. 29 2. Off-street parking may be located in required yards, except in areas required to be landscaped. 14I. Development plan review. Development plan approval is required as provided in section 15.09.010. J. ,Wi ved use overlay clesi n review. Design review for mixed uses is required as provided in Section 15.09.049. SECTION 6. A new Section 15.09.049 is added to Chapter 15.09, amending the Kent Zoning Code as follows: Sec 15.09.049. Mixed use design review. A. Purpose and scope. 1. Mixed use design review is an administrative process p the umose of which is to implement and (-Yive effect to the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan through the adoption of design criteria for mixed use development relative to site layout. landscape architecture and exterior structure design. Design review shall apply to mixed use or multi-family residential developments located within the mixed use overlay as shown on the zoning map. It is the intent of the city that this process will serve to aid applicants in understanding the principal expectations of the city concerning mixed use design and encourage a diversitv of imaginative solutions to development through the planning department review and application of certain criteria. These criteria and been formulated to improve the design siting and construction of mixed use development so as to be compatible both visuallv and otherwise with the to ogra hi o space. urban or suburban � pc p en P char acteristics of the land w acent properties.or ad� erties. whil e still � P P maintainintallowable densities to be applied in a manner consistent i 0 with established land use olicies the comprehensive plan, this titles and community development goals of the city. 2. The adoption of design criteria is an element to the_city's regulation of land use which is statutorilv authorized Application of the mixed use design process to the design criteria adopted in this section is established as an administrative function delegated to the planning department pursuant to RCW Title 35A therefore, in implementing the mixed use design review process the planning director may adopt such rules and procedures as are necessary to provide for expeditious review of proposed projects. Further rules magi be promulgated for additional administrative review. 3. All mixed use or multi family development of three (31 or more units will be subject to the provisions of this section unless the mixed use units are in a mixed use building where the housing units are not located on the ground floor. The mixed use design review process is distinct from the administrative design review process set forth in section 15.09.045, and applications for mixed use development may or may not be subject to the provisions of both sections An applicant may request at time of application that review under both be completed simultaneously. 4. The mixed use overlay design review process is distinct from the multi family design review process set forth in Section 15.09.047. However, applications for mired use development or multi-family development within the mixed use overlay shall be subiect to the provisions of Section 15 09 047 In addition the provisions of this section shall prevail where a conflict may arise between the two (2) sections. ocess The mixed use design review process is B. �nlicatian and review pr administrative and is conducted as part of the permit review process. The �� 31 applicant must make application for the design review process on forms provided by the planning department Upon receipt of an application for design review the planning director shall circulate the application to the public works director building official and the city administrator for review. Prior to makin(.4a final decision the plaiming director shall review anv comments submitted for consideration. In the administration of this process the planning director may develop supplementary handbooks for the public which shall pictorially illustrate and provide additional (guidance on the inteEpretation of the criteria set forth in subsection C. of this section. as well as a detailed explanation of the design review process. C. Design review criteria The planning department shall use the following criteria in the evaluation and/or conditioning of applications under the mixed use design review process: l. The following criteria should apply to all mixed use development: a. Some common recreation space - roofs terraces, indoor rooms. courtyards. b. Li(ghting features that are shielded. directing light downwards. c. The residential portion of the building should incorporate residential details such as window trim_trellises. balconies and bav windows. d. The residential component should have an obvious. (generous entrance within features suer esting a"front door". for example a lobby, trellis gate archway. or courtyard. 2 The following criteria shall apply to mixed use development: a. 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. b. 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. c. Surface parking should be generously landscaped to serve as an amenity lighting fixtures should not exceed the height f' of the first floor. ;. The following criteria shall apply to mixed use buildings. a. Parking, lots if used should be divided into small increments separated by landscaping and structures, so that parking does not dominate the site. b. Ground level commercial space should be articulated by use r of different materials generous windows with low sill heights "store" doors canopies and planters. c. Residential floors should be expressed in an obvious I' manner with stepbacks change in materials or color, and i overhangs. d. Commercial signs should be contained within the first floor commercial base and not extend up into the residential floor facades. i, D. meals The decision of the planning director to condition or reject any application under the mixed use design review process is final unless an peal is made to the hearing examiner within ten (10) days of either the f the di rector's conditional approval under this section of any ,I issuance o PP i application or the director's written decision rejecting anv application under this section Appeals to the hearing examiner shall be as set forth in chapter ') 3? The decision of the hearing examiner shall be Final unless an appeal is made to the city council within ten.(]0) days after the hearing examiner's 33 decision The a1212eal shall be in writing to the city council and filed with the clerk. SECTION 7. A new Section I5.09.050(E) is added to Chapter 15.09. amending the Kent Zoning Code as follows: Sec. 15.09.050. Amendments. This title may be amended by the city council by changing the boundaries of zoning districts (rezones which change the official zoning map) or by changing any other provisions thereof(text amendments which add, delete or otherwise modify the text of this title) whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require such amendment, by following the procedures of this section. A. Initiation. An amendment may be initiated as follows: 1. Amendments to the text of this title and official zoning map amendments may be initiated by resolution of intention by the city I'II heard by the Tanning commission council. Text amendments are planning an city council; zoning map amendments are heard by the hearing examiner. In the case of area-wide zoning or rezoning, both text amendments and zoning map amendments may be heard by the planning commission and city council. 2. Amendments to the text of this title may be initiated by resolut ion of intention by the planning commission. 3. Official zoning map amendments (rezones), including the application of the "C" suffix. may be initiated by application of one (1) or more owners, or their agents of the property affected by the proposed amendment, which shall be made on a form prescribed by 1,II the planning department and tiled with the planning department. The application shall be submitted at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next regularly scheduled public hearing date, and shall be heard by the hearing examiner within one hundred (100) days of the j ,4 date of the application; provided, however, that this period may be extended in anv case for which an environmental impact statement is required. B. Public hearin�u The hearing examiner shall hold at least one (1) public hearing on any proposed amendment, and shall give notice thereof in at least one(1) publication in the local newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. 1. Notice shall be given to all property owners within at least two hundred(200) feet and, when determined by the planning director a greater distance from the exterior boundaries of the property which is the subject of the application. Such notice is to be sent ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. The failure of any property owner to receive the notice of bearing will not invalidate the proceedings. 2. Public notices shall be posted in one (1) conspicuous place on or adjacent to the property which is the subject of the application at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Public notice shall be accomplished through use of a four (4) foot by four II P j (4) foot plywood face generic notice board, to be issued by the city planning department, and a follows: The applicant shall apply to the city for issuance of the notice board, and shall deposit with the i city planning department the amount of sixty dollars ($60.00). The applicant shall be responsible for placement of the notice boards in one (1) conspicuous place on or adjacent to the property which is the subject of the application at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the public hearing Planning department staff shall post laminated notice sheets and vinyl information packets on the board no later than ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Upon return of the notice board in good condition to the planning department by the 35 applicant. forty-five dollars (S45.00) of the initial notice board deposit shall be refunded to the applicant. C. Standards and criteria for granting a request for rezone. The following standards and criteria shall be used by the hearing examiner and city council to evaluate a request for rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the city council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. ;. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation - verse e vicinity of the property with significant ad system in the p p impacts which cannot be mitigated. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health. safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city. D. Rezoning to MI-C. The hearing examiner and the city council shall use the standards and criteria provided in subsection C. of this section to evaluate a request for rezone to Ml-C. In addition. the hearing examiner and city council shall evaluate a request for MI-C on the basis of the following standards and criteria. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the city council determines the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. 1. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or contiguous to major arterial intersections identified on the comprehensive plan map as ns for commercial type being appropriate locations , pe land uses. ?. Rezoning to MI-C shall riot he speculative in nature. but shall be based on generalized development plans and uses. 36 E. Rezone to mixed use overlay. The hearing examiner and the city council shall use the standards and criteria provided in subsection C. of this section to evaluate a request for expanding the boundaries of the mixed use overlay boundary which is located in the GC CC and O zoning districts. to addition the hearing examiner and city council shall evaluate a request for expanding the mixed use overlay on the basis of the following standards and criteria Such an amendment shall only be granted if the city council determines the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. 1. The proposed rezone is conti uous to an existing mixed use overlay area or is at least one (1) acre in size. 2 The proposed area is located within close proximity to existing residential uses and existing commercial uses which would support residential use. Ili 3. The proposed area is located in close proximity to transit stops. parks and community facilities. F--F. Recommendation of hearinx examiner. Following the public hearing provided for in this section. the hearing examiner shall make a report of i findings and recommendations with respect to the proposed amendment and shall forward such to the cite council, which shall have the final authority to act on the amendment. f—G. City council action. 1. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the hearing examiner's recommendation, the city council shall. at a regular public meeting, consider the recommendation. ?. If the application for an amendment is denied by the city council. the application shall not be eligible for resubmittal for one (1) year from date of the denial. unless specifically stated to be without I1 II prejudice. A new application affecting the same property may be i � 17 submitted if, in the opinion of the hearing examiner, circumstances affecting the application have changed substantially. SECTION 8. - 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 9. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after publication from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. II JIM WHITE. MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: I ROGER A. LUBOVICH. CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 1997. APPROVED: day of 1997. PUBLISHED: day of 1997. 38 I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent. Washinuton. and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P-1LA W\ORDINANCUAI XEDUSE.ORD I III III III I i„III I I II ^9 I � ORDINANCE NO. �I AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent. Washington, amending the Kent Zoning Map to change the zoning designations of particular property within the General Commercial (GC). Community Commercial (CC), and the Office (0) zoning districts to implement mixed use overlay areas within those districts. and i establishing a General Commercial - Mixed Use overlay district (GC-MU), an Office - Mixed Use overlay district (O-MU) and a Community Commercial - ;Mixed Use overlav district(CC-MU). WHEREAS, the City has considered mixed use zoning in the General Commercial(GC), Community Commercial (CC). and the Office (0) zoning districts to implement the goals and policies of the City of Kent comprehensive plan: and and the comprehensive plan identified WHEREAS, the land use plan map p certain areas within the City as being appropriate for mixed use development, meaning areas where commercial and residential uses would be developed together, and that the land i use element of the plan contains several goals and policies which support mixed use development, and the establishment of mixed use activity centers: and WHEREAS. the Growth Management Act requires that the City's development regulations be consistent with and implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. and WHEREAS, p in order to implement the policies in the plan with regard to mixed use development, the Kent land use and planning board conducted public hearings on the adoption of mixed use overlay zones in certain districts and made a recommendation for the adoption of the same to the Kent City Council on November 25. 1996: and WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Committee has recommended adopting zoning code amendments to the GC, CC, and O zoning districts.thereby establishing mixed use overlay zones in those districts. NOW THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Kent Zoning Map is hereby amended to establish a new zoning map designation for property located along N. Central Avenue and along Washington Avenue from General Commercial (GC) to General Commercial-Mixed Use (GC-MU) and as depicted in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this i 1 reference. SECTION Z. The City of Kent Zoning Map is hereby amended to establish a new zoning map designation for property located along West Meeker and along 104th Avenue from Community Commercial (CC)to Community Commercial - Mixed Use (CC- MU) and as depicted in the attached Exhibit A and Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTIONS. The City of Kent Zoning Map is hereby amended to establish a new zoning map designation for property located along 104th Avenue and along Kent- Kangley Road from Office (0) to Office Mixed Use (O-MU) and is depicted in the attached Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4. - Severabilitv. 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 5. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from the time of its final passage and publication as provided by law. I 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 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 Cit_v of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BR _NDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK IP'L MORDINANC7MAP ORD i k ! MIXES USE , 1 _ _ f - - ----- 28- Z- CL - - -- - , GC - I � � _ k •ram 1 OD I I I BOULGRON HY=_ r� Lr i —}• �---',- 1,.-.-tea �-r � r-'K- i -� A�, - `N 0.4 24 '{ l I MIXED USE OVERIrAY AREA EXHIB'T.86. err MIXED USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOUNDARY ,I I MIXED USE --- 57-� � �; .F�1 (S 246 ;ST) GC �. cn ee- Icl: t Y I MIXED USE OVERLAY AREA I V-1IBIT�MIXED USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOUNDARY EA RESTRICTED MIXED USE 010S ii to f� n 17 'f .SSE 238- Tl; CC- -2Lk6 FL �tV M, rl IL �j SE L- LLi —A U A A Ka oi,I SSE t6 T d LU-] '-a3�- --SE MIXED USE OVERLAY AREA MIXED USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOUNDARY EXHIBIT.L Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6, 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: HILLSIDE MANOR PRELIMINARY PLAT #SU-96-26 - SET MEETING DATE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set May 20, 1997 , as the date for a public meeting to consider a final plat application by Leonard Stanley and Robert Bennett for the Hillside Manor Preliminary Plat. This plat is 4 . 3 acres in size, consists of 23 lots, and is located at 24411 98th Avenue S. in Kent. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (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 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SINGH PRELIMINARY PLAT #SU-96-28 - SET MEETING DATE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set May 20, 1997, as the date for a public meeting to consider a final plat application by Shupe Holmberg for the Singh Preliminary Plat. This plat is . 96 acres in size, consists of two lots, and is located on the south side of SE 244th Street, approximately 600 feet east of 104th Avenue SE in Kent. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (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. 3F Kent City Council Meeting Date Mav 6. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CITY TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD - REAPPOINTMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappoint- ments of Ms. Linda Johnson and Mr. Jay Bakst to continue serving as members of the Kent City Transit Advisory Board. Their new appointments will continue until 4/30/99 . 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. 3G MEMORANDUM TO: CHRISTI HOUSER. CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 1 I FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR - V DATE: APRIL 30. 1997 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS TO KENT CITY TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD I have reappointed Ms. Linda Johnson and Mr. Jay Bakst to continue serving as members of the Kent City Transit Advisory Board. Their new appointments will continue until 4/30/99. I submit this for your confirmation. JW:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6, 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LID 348 - 64TH AVENUE SOUTH STREET IMPROVEMENTS - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. establishing LID 348 for the improvement of 64th Avenue South from S. 226th St. to S. 216th Street, as recommended by the City Council. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, Public Works Director memorandum and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council 4/15/97 (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. 3H DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS April 10, 1997 TO: Mavor & City Council FROM: Don Wickstrorn( i RE: LID 348 - 64th Avenue South Street Improvement (S. 226th Street to S. 216th Street) April 15, 1997 has been set for the formation hearing for the above referenced project. BACKGROUND The transportation element of the 1980 Valley Studies program identified 64th Avenue South as a future collector arterial route essential for development of this portion of the valley floor. In 1989 LID 330 was formed to construct and improve 64th Avenue. However that portion between South 226th Street and South 216th Street was deleted and deferred until the Vallev Detention and Enhanced Wetland Project (Lagoon Conversion Project) adjacent thereto occurred. With the advent of the Growth Management Act this missing link of 64th Avenue has taken on new importance with respect to meeting the City's transportation concurrence requirement. The completion of this missing link is identified in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and is included in the City's financially balanced 6 Year Transportation Capital Improvement Program. With the Vallev Detention and Enhanced Wetland Project nearly complete, completion of this missing link of 64th Avenue can now occur. As such, on February 25, 1997 the Public Works Dept. held an informal meeting with the affected property owners. The meeting was attended by three of the seven owners other than the Citv. Nobody voiced objection to implementing the LID to complete the street. One owner voiced support and is looking fonvard to the street being completed. Another knew the project would happen somedav but was surprised at the amount of the assessment. The third owner is concerned since his property in undeveloped and appears to contain wetlands so he is uncertain regarding his benefit, especially if his development proposal is rejected. The Resolution of Intent was approved by City Council on March 18, 1991 which set the hearing date for April 15, 199T PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed project is the construction of 64th Avenue South from approximately S. 226th Street to S. 216th Street. The project includes the following improvements: 1 . Five lane roadwav 58' curb to curb, two lanes each direction with turn lanes. 2. Curb and gutter. 3. Cement concrete sidewalks on both sides. 4. Storm Drainage system 5. Street lighting 6. Street trees and grass planting strips 7. Sanitary sewer; water main extensions; stubs as required S. Channelization and signing 9. Improvements at the intersection of 64th Ave S &- Meeker St. PROJECT FUNDING The project is proposed to be funded (100%) by the Local Improvement District (Number 348). The current cost estimate is as follows: Street S 1,806,464.65 Water main 146,208.80 Sanitary Sewer 14,701 .26 LID TOTAL 51,967,374.7I Because the Citv of Kent is a property owner within the LID, its share of the assessments is 5961 ,053.08 or 49% of the total project cost. Monies for same have been budgeted in the respective Water and Drainage Capital Improvement Programs. METHOD OF ASSESSMENTS The costs under each category of assessment are distributed to each property benefiting as follows: 1. Street - The assessments are based on square footage within the assessment boundarv. The assessment rate decreases with 100 foot zones back from the public right-of-way with a maximum of seven zones. The front zone rate is seven times the rear zone; the second zone from the front is sic times the rear zone and so on. Property further than 700 feet from the edge of the right-of- `vav is not used in the assessment calculation 2. Sanitary Sewer - The project consists of installing stubs only. Therefore the cost of the stub or stubs is assessed directly to the property or properties being serviced. No stub means no assessment. Only Assessment No. 7 is receiving a stub. 3. Water Main - There are two components for water assessments. These components are 12" mainline and stub. Some of the properties along the proposed project portion of 64th Avenue have already installed the 12" mainline and paid their share thereof. Therefore the water main construction is separated out as a separate assessment category and assessed only to those who haven't vet installed their share of the 12" water mainline on 64th Ave. See the enclosed water assessment map for the extent of this work and properties involved. All fronting properties are assessed. The assessments are based on square footage within the assessment boundary with a 300 foot maximum depth zone. The second component is for stubs from the mainline to the property line. As with the sewer, the stub is assessed directly to the property being serviced. Again, onlv Assessment No. 7 is receiving a stub. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT Upon Council passing the Ordinance confirming the Final Assessment Roll, there is a 30- dav period in which any portion or all of the assessment can be paid without interest charges. After the 30-day period, the balance is paid over a fifteen-year period wherein each year's payment is one-fifteenth of the principal plus interest on the unpaid balance. The interest will be what the market dictates. SUPPORT FOR LID 348 To defeat an LID proposal, there must be protest from property owners representing 60 percent or more of the proposed LID assessments. By law, the assessment on Citv property cannot be included in figuring the protest percentage. As such the total project cost for calculating protest percentage is S 1 ,006,321 .63 for which the 60% protest amount would be 5603,792.98. As indicated previouslv at the informal public meeting there appeared to be property owner support for the project. Further of the $1 ,006,321.63, 3 1.56% thereof is obligated to participate in this street improvement LID via executed no-protest covenants. The final decision however of whether or not to form the LID up to City Council. Properties that have executed no protest covenants are assessment numbers 2,3 and 9. EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION The construction of the project will require minor property acquisition in some locations to provide the right-of-way. Each property involved will be appraised followed by negotiation between the City and owner. Final settlement can be a direct payment to the owner or can be a credit toward their assessment thereby reducing the amount of their vearly payments. ENVIRONMENTAL The SEPA process for the Green River Natural Resource Enhancement project included the proposed construction. PROJECT SCHEDULE TARGET DATE Property Owner Meeting February 25, 1997 Resolution (Approved by City Council) March 19, 1997 Public Hearing (During Council Meeting) April 15, 1997 Project Design Phase Has been initiated Property Acquisition May 1997 Advertise for bids May 1997 Approve formation Ordinance (City Council) May 6, 1997 Begin Construction June 1997 A I4S.9? S. 216TH ST. L.I.D. BOUNDARY Jww y � � EXISTING 12" W.M. • AREA USED TO i II CALCULATE ASSESSMENT . ( 1 I 4 ASSESSMENT NUMBER <� w Q 6 IT I PROPOSED 12N W. r N ( 7 I f :1 i U I H C S. 226TH ST. I EXISTING 12" W.M. u� w co Q L1 = <c F— <L m 7= F— �r u� 348 64TH AVE S. IMPROVEMENTS WATER ASSESSMENT S. 228TH ST. r CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ordering the construction of 64th Avenue South from approximately 200 feet north of South 226th Street to South 216th Street, includina miscellaneous intersection improvements at the intersection of 64th Avenue South and West Meeker Street and a water main line extension to complete water main loop on 64th Avenue South and water and sewer stub extensions to unserviced property, all in accordance with Resolution No. 1488 of the City Council; establishing Local Improvement District No . 348 and ordering the carrying out of the proposed improvement ; providing that payment for the improvement be made in part by special assessments upon the property in the District, payable by the mode of "payment by bonds" ; and providing for the issuance and sale of local improvement district warrants redeemable in cash or other short-term financing and local improvement district bonds , and for interfund loans . WHEREAS, by Resolution No . 1488 adopted March 18 , 1997, the City Council declared its intention to order construction of 64th Avenue South from approximately 200 feet north of South 226th Street to South 216th Street , including miscellaneous intersection improvements at the intersection of 64th Avenue South and West Meeker Street and a water main line extension to complete water main loop on 64th Avenue South and water and sewer stub extensions to unserviced property, and fixed April 15 , 1997, at 7 : 00 p .m. , local time, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing all matters relating to the proposed improvement and all comments thereon and objections thereto and for determining the method of payment for the improvement ; and WHEREAS, the City' s Director of Public Works caused an estimate to be made of the cost and expense of the proposed improvement and certified that estimate to the City Council , together with all papers and information in his possession touching 0286343.01 the proposed improvement, a description of the boundaries of the proposed local improvement district and a statement of what portion of the cost and expense of the improvement should be borne by the property within the proposed district; and WHEREAS, that estimate is accompanied by a diagram of the proposed improvement showing thereon the lots, tracts, parcels of land, and other property which will be specially benefited by the proposed improvement and the estimated cost and expense thereof to be borne by each lot, tract and parcel of land or other property; and WHEREAS, due notice of the above hearing was given in the manner provided by law, and the hearing was held by the City Council on the date and at the time above mentioned, and all objections to the proposed improvement were duly considered and overruled by the City Council, and all persons appearing at such hearing and wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it to be in the best interests of the City that the improvement as hereinafter described be carried out and that a local improvement district be created in connection therewith; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN as follows : Section 1 . The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington (the "City" ) , orders the construction of 64th Avenue South from approximately 200 feet north of South 226th Street to South 216th Street, including miscellaneous intersection improvements at the intersection of 64th Avenue South and West Meeker Street and a water main line extension to complete water main loop on 64th 0286343.01 -2- Avenue South and water and sewer stub extensions to unserviced property, as more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. All of the foregoing shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor prepared by the Director of Public Works of the City, and may be modified by the City Council as long as such modification does not affect the purpose of the improvements . Section 2 . There is created and established a local improvement district to be called Local Improvement District No. 348 of the City of Kent , Washington (the "District" ) , the boundaries or territorial extent of the District being more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3 . The total estimated cost and expense of the improvement is declared to be $1, 967, 374 . 71 , and the entire costs and expense of the improvements shall be borne by and assessed against the property specially benefited by such improvement included in the District which embraces as nearly as practicable all property specially benefited by such improvement . Section 4 . In accordance w-th the provisions of RCW 35 .44 . 047, the City may use any method or combination of methods to compute assessments which may be deemed to fairly reflect the special benefits to the properties being assessed. Section S . Local improvement district warrants may be issued in payment of the cost and expense of the improvement herein ordered to be assessed, such warrants to be paid out of the Local Improvement Fund, District No . 348 , hereinafter created and referred to as the Local Improvement Fund, and, until the bonds 0286343.01 -3- referred to in this section are issued and delivered to the purchaser thereof, to bear interest from the date thereof at a rate to be established hereafter by the Finance Division Director of the City, as issuing officer, and to be redeemed in cash and/or by local improvement district bonds herein authorized to be issued, such interest-bearing warrants to be hereafter referred to as "revenue warrants . " In the alternative, the City hereafter may provide by ordinance for the issuance of other short-term obligations pursuant to chapter 39 . 50 RCw. The City is authorized to issue local improvement district bonds for the District which shall bear interest at a rate and be payable on or before a date to be hereafter fixed by ordinance . The bonds shall be issued in exchange for and/or in redemption of any and all revenue warrants issued hereunder or other short-term obligations hereafter authorized, including the interfund loans authorized by Section 6 , and not redeemed in cash within twenty days after the expiration of the thirty-day period for the cash payment without interest of assessments on the assessment roll for the District . The bonds shall be redeemed by the collection of special assessments to be levied and assessed against the property within the District, payable in annual installments, with interest at a rate to be hereafter fixed by ordinance under the mode of "payment by bonds, " as defined by law and the ordinances of the City. The exact form, amount, date, interest rate and denominations of such bonds hereafter shall be fixed by ordinance of the City Council . Such bonds shall be sold in such manner as the City Council hereafter shall determine . 0286343.01 -4- Section 6 . For the purpose of paying all or a part of the costs of carrying out the improvements within the District pending the receipt of the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the bonds or short-term obligations referred to in Section 5 , interfund loans from the General Fund, Water Fund and/or Sewer Fund to the Local Improvement Fund in the maximum aggregate amount of not to exceed $1, 967 , 374 . 71 are authorized and approved, those loans to be repaid on or before the issuance of such bonds or obligations from the proceeds thereof . Each of the interfund loans shall bear interest at a variable rate, adjusted the 15th and last day of each month, equal to the interest rate of the State of Washington Local Government Investment Pool on the 15th and last day of each month. The initial interest rate on the date of each interfund loan shall be determined as of the last preceding interest payment adjustment date . Section 7 . In all cases where the work necessary to be done in connection with the making of such improvement is carried out pursuant to contract upon competitive bids (and the City shall have and reserves the right to reject any and all bids) , the call for bids shall include a statement that payment for such work will be made in cash warrants drawn upon the Local Improvement Fund. Section 8 . The Local Improvement Fund for the District is created and established in the office of the Finance Division Director of the City. The proceeds from the sale of revenue warrants or other short-term obligations drawn against the fund which may be issued and sold by the C--ty and the collections of special assessments, interest and penalties thereon shall be deposited in the Local Improvement Fund. Cash warrants to the 0286343.01 -5- contractor or contractors in payment for the work to be done by them in connection with the improvement and cash warrants in payment for all other items of expense in connection with the improvement shall be issued against the Local Improvement Fund. Section 9 . Within 15 days of the passage of this ordinance there shall be filed with the Finance Division Director of the City the title of the improvement and District number, a copy of the diagram or print showing the boundaries of the District and the preliminary assessment roll or abstract of such roll showing thereon the lots, tracts and parcels of land that will be specially benefited thereby and the estimated cost and expense of such improvement to be borne by each lot, tract or parcel of land. The Finance Division Director immediately shall post the proposed assessment roll upon her index of local improvement assessments against the properties affected by the local improvement . Section 10 . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage and five (5) days following its publication as required by law. By JIM WHITE, Mayor ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Special Counsel and Bond Counsel for the City Passed the day of May, 1997 . Approved the day of May, 1997 . Published the day of May, 1997 . 0296343.01 -6- EXHIBIT A LID 348 64TH AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (S 226TH ST TO S 216TH ST) STREET I1YIPROVEMENTS The proposed project is the construction of 64th Avenue South from approximately 200 feet north of South 226th Street to South 216th Street. The project includes the following improvements: 1. A 58 foot roadway(face of curb to face of curb)which will be a five lane road with no on- street parking. 2. Cement concrete curb and gutter on both sides. 3. Cement concrete sidewalks on both sides. 4. Storm drainage system. 5. Street lighting system. 6. Signing and channelization. 7. Hydroseeding of unpaved areas. 8. Street trees and grass planting strips. Also included are miscellaneous intersection improvements at the intersection of 64th Avenue South and West Meeker Street. UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Water main line extension to complete water main loop on 64th Avenue South. Water and sewer stubs to unserviced property. EXHIBIT B LID 348 Boundary Description The southeast quarter of Section 11, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M., EXCEPT the south 100.00 feet of the north 710.00 feet of the East half of the northeast quarter of said southeast quarter AND EXCEPT the south 101.50 feet of the north 81 1.5 feet of the east 303.84 feet of said east half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter AND ALSO EXCEPT the west 600.00 feet of the east 650.00 feet of the north 264.00 feet of the south 528.00 feet of the north three-quarters of the east half of said southeast quarter AND ALSO EXCEPT Beginning 30.00 feet west and 1980.00 feet south of the northeast comer of said southeast quarter, thence west 630.00 feet; thence north 264.00 feet; thence east a distance of 630.00 feet; thence south 264.00 feet to beginning AND ALSO EXCEPT the east 523.00 feet measured parallel with and from the west line of West Valley Highwav of the north 159.00 feet measured parallel with and from the north line of the south half of the southeast quarter of said southeast quarter AND ALSO EXCEPT Beginning at a point on the east line of the west half of the east half of the southeast quarter in Section 11, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, which point lies 2116.70 feet north of the south line of the said southeast quarter being the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; thence North 89°57'50" West a distance of 620.00 feet to a point on the east right-of-way line of 64th Avenue South; thence South along said right-of-way line a distance of 100.00 feet; thence South 89'57'50" East to a point which lies 170.00 feet west of the east line of said west half; thence southeasterly to a point on the east line thereof which point lies 170.00 feet south of the True Point of Beginning; thence North along the east line thereof 170.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning AND ALSO EXCEPT that portion of property in the southeast quarter of Section 11, Township 22 North, Range 4 East platted as Northwest Business Park Phase I in Volume 128 of plats pages 58 thru 61 AND ALSO EXCEPT any portions of the above described property lying within any public rights-of-ways. I 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 0286343.01 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6 , 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CIP BUDGET CHANGE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of a budget change reallocating $536, 400 from Capital Reserve Fund balance and $100, 000 from grant matching funds to CIP accounts as outlined for Park projects. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Parks Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3I MEMORANDUM To: Jon Johnson Leona Orr Jim Bennett From: John Hodgsory. Parks and Recreation Dept. Direc,or I Subject: 5 upplemental�4 Projects Date: April 9. 1997 This request is to redirect capital improvement :ands for urgent park needs. and to request a budget change of S�36.400 from Capital Reserve Fund Baiance and S100.000 from grant matching funds to complete these projects. Russell Road Compies needs to have a new drainage system. vOver the past two years the situation has gotten to where we have had to delay the start of the season which impacts our ability to conduct a fall season thus having a revenue impact. Two of the projects. Linda Heights and Garrison Creek Parks were our top priorities on the King County Bond Issue whica was not approved by the voters. vet are in urgent need of renovation. The planning for the BNE track will identify a site. and develon a plan which ultimately provide us with a positive activity for youth and teens. The remaining projects were alternates on the 1997 CIP list. We ask your concurrence to provide funds to conduct these improvements in 1997. Russell Road Park Drainage S272,000 ArchitectiEngineeringlConsulting S 50,000 (transfer from park master plans) Phase I Renovation (two nelds) S2_0.000* (CiP alternate Project) *Fort Dent recent renovation ran S1. 0,000 per tieij Linda Heights Park Renovation S313,000 Phase I Renovation S 00,000 (basketball court. play equipment. grading) Public Works-Operations S13,000 Garrison Creek Park Renovation S700.000 Phase I Renovation S446.400 (tennis courts, parking, play equipment. structural modifications to wall) Fee-in-lieu monies 512.600 Public Works-Operations S70.000 Phase iI Renovation - future S171.000 (handball courts Bereiter Historical Home Renovation S 40,000 Interior Code Modifications S 0.000 iCIP .alternate Project - transfer Tom City Manager Discretionary 'undsi BoeinH Grant S4.000" *IeVe estimate the totai need at 5-10,000, and r'zave aPni ied,-br ozztside L.Mds. it,'iinded. ,ve cozzid ,7ansrer the S;0.000 into other Proiects- Salt .fir Hills Park Development 5200,000 Phase I construction 5100.000 (Transfer from Grant Matching -unds) IAC State Grant Monies S i00.000* *�e are submitting an upriication L� 1 Jor rnatei�iz2�11 ror Phase I construction. BVLY Track 515.000 .A.rchitecvEnaneerinJConsulting 51-5.000 Youth Teen 'oudgetl The fbilowing two pages of exhibits outline the budget line Gems 10 carry out these requests. Exhibit A is the February S month and Capitai Improvement Fund. This exhibit shows a baiance of S96 .096 in unreserved capital that couid 'oe used toward these projects. There are also grant matching funds available. Exhibit B outlines now the above mentioned improvements would be dispersed with the CIP rund. cc: Mayor Jim White Councilmember Woods Councilmember Epperiy Councilmember Clank Councilmember Houser Brent McF'ail, Director of Operations Maven Miller, Director of Finance CITY OF KENT CL:RRENT BUDGET ANALYSIS AND FORECAST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND February'K 1N7 1997 Ad]USMWIu 1997 Budge Fay I.nfa" Est Actual REVENUES Sales Tax 3-9u7 494 336.123 a. Sales-,a Lost 375.0001 175.0001 Swu Tax-MC Salo Tux-One-me Jniy Real Elate_CclSe-ac oIX).0W 534019 ..L1019 Kcal EStale=rwse T.:.r State ntetost -5 000 _5 000 Saturday Market Revenuc i5 b'- 55.62. Sate of Land Miscellaneous Revenue TOTAL REVENUES -.3=6.;!I 570.!-1 EXPEND ITLRES,TRANSFERS) DCat SCMC. )38.074 '_938.O7u Saturaav Market Bide Deot s5.725 5,7-5 Firc Suuon-5 Deal s -a,Lu Pro¢c-4 CCoordinator '3=52 - _ nansicr:o Cencral Fund 1'`0o�ow 1'ib0.000 PUBL:C SAFETY PROIECS Reserve tar r,.re'Jemctes .0(7.000 1200.000) -00.000 Ere-Power Genenmrs Fire-❑eubmlasor Reolacement Com:cuons-Storage Comce% -m-3mmmg Apparatus Cylinder Reolacemenu .5.000 &000 cirsecuons--ransoon Van 'Y.OW _3.000 Foam Trarler Reclaccment .35.000) 35.000 Repucement Radio Euwoment 1_5.000) _5.000 Purcaase Fire Suuon-5 _ Live Bum Slmul=(S '7i'�) u� PARKS DEPART,"STi PROTECTS .Aanexauon Surntp Eawpment Fencing Park Maslen Plans f72'000) =000 Tradt!Pmnng Improvements 100.000) '00'000 Coloring we City Gmcnnouse Park lmornvements i 100.000) 100.000 Signagc 150.000) 90.000 Mornll Property Park Aca Skamootnl Parx Grant.Mawaing 50.000 50.000 Playground SWCty I Eutndgc Play Equip 15.000 "5.000 Arcnitect/Emgmemag i Consulung l TT' S0.000 b0.000 Rusted Raw Ommaige System 1200.000) -D0.000 anew Hismncal Home Removauon (50.000) '0.000 GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL PROJECS .Camoura Systems jnnWaIHHL9W9te ReviWerneal Gen Goys F2ctuucs RemlMm 100.000 1100.0001 .00.000 Kent Commons Remus 00.000 .60,000) Emergency Plauorm Realacemedt Furmturo 00.000 60.000 Dosvntow Market Aaalnu Shomaute Muter Program Update Tewommtimleauomt Fcatibillty Cable TV.PC.k Tanearex Equip Telecomai Egmpmemt UDe=Kent Zamng Code 73.000 75.000 Seesa Ccnra Rool Reaucera-M (150.000) 150.000 - Remodel Poll¢A^m•mu^^aa OCfic= I50.000) 50.000 Other Prolems 383.0001 '.83A00 - TOTALE PENDrrURFS fTRANSFERSI 3.930.152 i528.000) 4458.152 INCREASE(DECREASE)IN FUND BALANCE 4 M 559 347-147 -58.-D6 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE '62.425 793.965 '..556.390 ENDING FUND BALANCE ReserveM For Lotus Exmendltures 536.717 313=83 ".0,W0 d for Grant.Nat fining i 50.000 -50.000 Reserve Rexrve for 1991 Autbratuion Debt Serrce _5.000 '25.000 a50.000 Accrued R<smed =smea _57.257 597929 165,096 TOTAL ENDING,FU4D BALANCE ..:78.984 -.36.t 12- �396 Denmea oange rum laumonm. O _ V v - m - l �D y 71 J - - 7z i O �I i i i ro O O O O N N CJ A 1 I y w � u c _M c I ! I ycI � O 9 0 O O I O C UI � O d III G I O I I l I Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6 , 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: TAR DISTRIBUTOR PURCHASE - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to purchase a Tar Distributor and establish a budget in the amount of $30, 000 from the unrestricted street fund. The purchase of the Tar Distributor is more cost effective than renting and also there is a cost savings associated with prolonging the pavement life of City streets. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone concurrence from Judy Woods) (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 APRIL 16, 1997 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom �V U RE: Tar Distributor Purchase For the last several budget cycles including the annexation budgets, we have requested the purchase of a Tar Distributor. As explained in Eddy's attached memo, over the long haul it is more cost effective then renting. More importantly and much more significant is the cost saving associated with prolonging the pavement life of our streets. Administration and Finance have advised us that there is uncommitted street funds left over from the Meridian Annexation that could be used for this purchase. Said street funds are those related to the County Road Tax that upon annexation, are turned over to the City and for which the City must use them for street maintenance purposes. Administration supports our request and we believe this purchase now is even more important, due to the miles and miles of streets we are adding to our inventory. As such, we recommend that the purchase of a Tar Distributor be authorized and a fund therefore in the amount of 530,000 be established from uncommitted County Road Tax monies the Citv received. ACTION: Authorize the purchase of a Tar Distributor and establish a budget in the amount of 530,000 therefore from uncommitted Countv Road Tax monies received by the Citv. REVISED MEMO 4/11/97 Public Works Operations Memorandum Phone: 859-3395 Fax: 859-3664 April 10, 1997 TO: Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works FROM: Eddy Chu, Public Works Operations Manage. SUBJECT: Tar Distributor Purchase In the last few vears Street Department has been renting a Tar Distributor to perform street repair work. Due to the budget restraint, we can only rent for 2-3 weeks each year whereas we have enough work and manpower to keep the work going continuously for 2 months or longer each year plus any other time as fill in work. The program definitely is beneficial in extending the life of the pavement and is considered a good maintenance practices. The purchase cost.is S30,000. Assuming a 15 year life and J% inflation factor, the internal rental rates will be $490 per month (See Table below) including future replacement and maintenance of the equipment. Currently, the outside rental rates is $2,800 per month. Purchase Costs 530,000 Future Replacement Costs(3%, 15 Yrs) $46.740 Salvage Value S 5,000 rental Rate/Mo. (Reserve Portion) S 232 Rental Rate/Mo. (Mamt/Repair Portion) S 167 Rental Rate/Mo. (Shop OH Portion) S 92 Total Rental Rate/Mo. S 490 Total Rental Rate/Yr. needs to be budgeted S 5.880 According to our assessment, there are two advantages of owning our own equipment. The first one being to have the flexibility of using the machine whenever workload and weather allows whereas rental unit might have to sit idle due to unforeseen adverse weather conditions and secondly, the cost savings will be S27,720 per year(based on all vear rental)on the rental rates alone. In a simple and equitable cost comparison and without considering the reserve portion of the rental rates, the pay back period for the machine will take approximately 1.5 years based on the same all year around rental and usage. We are committed to use this equipment to it's optimum and we believe this aggressive approach will prolong the life of existing pavement which in rum will prevent premature pavement failure and thereby costly replacement thereof. Therefore, we recommend the purchase of this piece of equipment and assign to the Street Department and the annual rental and materials budget will needs to be adjusted to reflect the increase. Should you have any question or need of further clarification, please let me know. C:\users\tarpot.doc 4/11197,1:03 PM • r- r .r m IW t hl c„ 1 r x i PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE April 16, 1997 PRESENT: Tim Clark Don Wickstrom Connie Epperly Gary Gill Tom Brubaker ABSENT: Judy Woods Tar Distributor Purchase "`YYY Wickstrom said this is a machine used for crack sealing the roads. Right now the rental cost is about $2800 per month. The purchase of this machine would pay for itself over 1-1/2 years time. Wickstrom noted that with all the additional roads we are taking over with the annexations, it is wise and cost effective to purchase it at $30,000, There is left over money from the road tax the County levied in the Meridian Annexation which has been turned over to us. We have tried to budget for this item several times and Administration advises us now to take this left over money and purchase the Tar Distributor. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the purchase of a Tar Distributor and establish a budget in the amount of $30,000 from uncommitted County Road Tax monies received by the City. Lift Truck Purchase Wickstrom said this is a bucket truck that Engineering, Parks Maintenance and the Street Dept. uses. Our traffic people use it for signal maintenance. Our old truck is a 1981 version and it failed when being used by one of our maintenance workers. Even though we have had it fixed and re-certified, there are still some safey concerns. Wickstrom stated that approval has already been given to replace the lift truck but the problem is we anticipated more revenue from the existing truck to build up the reserve but this did not materialize - we are about $34,000 short. Wickstrom requested authorization to transfer that money from the Equipment Rental Reserve fund where adequate funds exist. He said we will simply "absorb" our rental rate in the budget. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the transfer of the additional S34,000 from the Equipment Rental Reserve fund to the Lift Truck Purchaser fund. 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LIFT TRUCK PURCHASE (35, AERIAL BUCKET TRUCK) - AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER FUNDS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to transfer $34 , 000 from the Equipment Rental Reserve fund to the Lift Truck Purchase fund. This lift truck is shared by Engineering for signal maintenance, Parks Maintenance and the Street Department. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone concurrence from Judy Woods) (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 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 16, 1997 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Lift Truck Purchase Enclosed is my memo to Brent on the purchase of the Lift Truck. Said memo is pretty much self explanatory with respect to the need and benefit thereof. The bottom line is that without said truck we will have no signal preventative maintenance program and further, our ability to respond to emergency call-outs thereon will be limited. While the additional money to purchase said equipment exists within the Equipment Reserve Fund to spend same accordingly requires a budget change. As such it is the Public Works Department's recommendation that Council authorize the transfer of the additional S34,000 from the Equipment Rentai Reserve Fund to the fund for the purchase of the lift truck. ACTION: Authorize the transfer of the additional S34,000 from the Equipment Rental Reserve fund to the Lift Trucl< Purchase fund. Office of +tie klavcr 1 ,997 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS RECENEC March 31 , 1997 TO: Brent McFall FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Lift Truck Purchase Attached is Eddy's memo on the purchase of subject lift truck. I don't think there is an issue per the need as without it we will neither have the ability to perform preventive maintenance on our traffic signals (approximately 70) or respond to failures thereof. To hire the County to perform same would cost $110 per hour and as indicated in Eddy's memo it's S30.00 per hour to rent a truck on the outside. To do so is just not cost effective. Further, in any case little money (S5,589 for counts and $2,100 for rental) exists for either in our present Engineering Operation budget. We were anticipating the S22,000 of the earlier Meridian Valley Annexation budget. At this point we want to proceed with the acquisition of the lift truck and take the additional funds therefore out of Equipment Rental Reserve. With regard to Engineering's share of the rental rate, we're proposing to just overrun that particular budget item with the hope that there will be offsets elsewhere in our budget. The bottom line is we need to respond to traffic signal outages so monies will be spent whether budgeted or not. While I could defer preventive maintenance, money saved is lost quickly by one injury or property damage claim therefrom. Further, I have the staff to do the work and just need safe equipment to assist them. Let me know if you concur. MR, -??' 97iTHUl 15 : 5 2 CITY OF KE`iT PW OPERATION'S TEL 206 859 3664 P. ^9: Public Works Operations Memorandum Phone: 859-3395 Fax: 859-3664 March 27, 1997 TO: Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works FROM: Eddy Chu, Public Works Operations Manager SUBJECT: Budget Shortfall for the Proposed Lift Truck Purchase As indicated in the approved 1997 budget, we have included the replacement of the existing 1981 lift truck. (refer to page 189, line item l422 of the City Budget document). In that dbcumerrt, we indicated that the purchase costs minus any salvage value will be approximately S 15,000 over the reserve amount available. We proposed at the time the shortfall be made up with the general Equipment Rental reserve fund and to be recovered by future rental rates. Last week, we received bid for the new truck and realized the shortfall projected is lugher than expected earlier and we hereby outline below the shortfall amount in details and request approval to either increase the 1997 capital purchase budget or to borrow the general Equipment Rental reserve fund to complete the purchase. The following is the accounting of the sbortfall from the originally estimate of S 15,000 to the current estimated amount of$34,000. Original estimate Current estimate New Truck Costs $353000 $63,000 Salvage Value $ 5,000 $ 7,000 Reserve fund (as of 411/97) KLM 22 000' Shortfall Amount: $15,000 $34,000 'Due to the lack of usage (25%) In addition, we were under the impression that Engineering had originally budgeted $20,000 for the rental of the lift truck and the budgeted amount has since been deleted. We are greatly concern that unless additional budget is added back, we will not be able to continue to provide the essential service to the City such as traffic signal maintenance, and tree trimming, etc. The existing lift truck is beyond its useful life and is no longer viable to provide the needed services. We have also now obtained commitment from the three department users to share 100%of the usage of the new truck (vs 25%plus outside rental) and thereby financially supported the truck in it's entirety including replacement fund and yet in the meantime stll able to maintain the rental rates to significantly lower(25%) than the commercial rates (S7 5/hr vs $30/hr.). We believe this is the right move For the City to purchase the new truck so long as the budget is increased to cover the shortfall as depicted above. Should the budget can not be increased to the full amount of the shortfall, a portion of the shortfall may be borrowed form the general Equipment Rental reserve fund which I believe should be kept to it's i uumum, if at all possible. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE April 16, 1997 PRESENT: Tim Clark Don Wicicstrom Connie Epperly Gary Gill Tom Brubaker ABSENT: Judv Woods Tar Distributor Purchase Wickstrom said this is a machine used for crack sealing the roads. Right now the rental cost is about $2800 per month. The purchase of this machine would pay for itself over 1-1/2 vears time. Wicicstrom noted that with all the additional roads we are taking over with the annexations, it is wise and cost effective to purchase it at 530,000. There is left over money from the road tax the County levied in the Meridian Annexation which has been turned over to us. We have tried to budget for this item several times and Administration advises us now to take this left over money and purchase the Tar Distributor. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the purchase of a Tar Distributor and establish a budget in the amount of $30,000 from uncommitted County Road Tax monies received by the Citv. Lift Truck Purchase Wicicstrom said this is a bucket truck that Engineering, Parks Maintenance and the Street Dept. uses. Our traffic people use it for signal maintenance. Our old truck is a 1981 version and it failed when being used by one of our maintenance workers. Even though we have had it fixed and re-certified, there are still some safev concerns. Wicicstrom stated that approval has already been given to replace the lift truck but the problem is we anticipated more revenue from the existing truck to build up the reserve but this did not materialize - we are about $34,000 short. Wicicstrom requested authorization to transfer that monev from the Equipment Rental Reserve fund where adequate funds exist. He said we will simply "absorb" our rental rate in the budget. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the transfer of the additional 534,000 from the Equipment Rental Reserve fund to the Lift Truck Purchaser fund. 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6 , 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING GRANT (KING COUNTY) - AUTHORIZE AND ESTABLISH BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the King County Waste Reduction & Recycling Grant Agreement and to direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for $33 , 187 . The City' s match for this program is the Conservation Specialist' s time in implementing this program. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director Memorandum and Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone concurrence from Judy Woods) (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 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 16, 1997 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom A RE: IGng Countv Grant Agreement Waste Reduction &Recycling Program IGng County and the Citv of Kent adopted the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which includes recycling and waste reduction goals. The County's Solid Waste Division has established a grant program which provides funding for these goals. We have received a Grant Agreement to promote waste reduction, participation in commercial programs for recyclable materials, and the purchase of recycled products for Citv businesses, as part of the King County Waste Reduction/Recycling Grant Program. The total budgeted funding under this Agreement is $33,187.00 ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Grant Agreement and direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for $33,187.00. CONTRACT 4D25348D INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Between KING COUNTY and the CITY OF KENT This Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) is executed between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and the City of Kent, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "County" and "City" respectively. This Agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each party as designated below: King County Motion No. 9847 City PREAMBLE King County and the City of Kent adopted the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which includes recycling and waste reduction goals. In order to help meet these goals, the King County Solid Waste Division has established a multi-phased waste reduction and recycling grant program for the suburban cities. This program provides funding to further the development and/or enhancement of local waste reduction and recycling projects. Grant funding is currently provided through three phases of this waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) program. Phase I grant monies are available to those suburban cities which did not participate in the previous King County Solid Waste Division grants-to-cities program, upon which the current program is based. Cities applying for Phase I grant funds must meet specific eligibility requirements. Phase II grant monies are available to all King County suburban cities that operate under the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Phase III grant monies are available to any suburban cities participating in Phase II of the grant program, for the continuation of programs/projects previously funded under the grant program. Since the City of Kent met the requirements to participate in the previous King County Solid Waste Division grants-to-cities program, the City is ineligible to participate in Phase I of the current waste reduction and recycling grant program. The City of Kent will be participating in Phase II, and potentially Phase III. The City will spend its grant funds to fulfill the terms and conditions set forth in the scope of work which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The County expects that any information and/or experience gained through the grant program by the City will be generously shared with the County and the other suburban cities. i I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to define the terms and conditions for funding to be provided to the City of Kent from the County for waste reduction and recycling programs and/or services as outlined in the scope of work and budget attached as Exhibit A. H. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES The responsibilities of the parties to this Agreement shall be as follows: A. The Ci 1. Funds provided to the City by the County pursuant to this Agreement shall be used to provide waste reduction and recycling programs and/or services as outlined in Exhibit A. The total amount of funds available from this grant shall not exceed $33,187. 2. The City will submit quarterly reports to the County in a format specified by the County. These reports will include: a) a description of each activity accomplished in the previous quarter as pertains to the scope of work; and b) reimbursement requests with copies of invoices and statements for each expenditure for which reimbursement is requested. These reports shall be submitted to the County fifteen days after the end of each calendar quarter: (1) first quarter reports are due by April 15; (2) second quarter reports are due by July 15; (3) third quarter reports are due by October 15; and (4) fourth quarter reports are due by January 15. 3. The City will submit a final report to the County which summarizes the work completed under the grant program and evaluates the effectiveness of the projects for which grant funds were utilized, according to the evaluation methods specified in the scope of work. The final report is due within three months of completion of the project(s) outlined in the scope of work, but no later than March 31, 1999. 4. The City shall comply with the Minority and Women's Business utilization provisions of King County Code Chapter 4.18, and amendments thereto, attached to the City's copy of the Agreement as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference to the other two copies of this Agreement. 5. During the performance of this Agreement, neither the City nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Agreement shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, nationality, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, age, or presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap in the employment or application for employment or in the administration or delivery of or access to services or any other benefits under this Agreement as defined by King County Code, Chapter 12.16. 2 6. During the performance of this Agreement, neither the City nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Agreement shall engage in unfair employment practices as defined by King County Code, Chapter 12.18. 7. The City shall use recycled paper for the production of all printed and photocopied documents related to the fulfillment of this Agreement. The City shall use both sides of paper sheets for copying and printing and shall use recycled/recyclable products wherever practical. S. The City shall maintain accounts of the direct and indirect costs of the programs covered by this Agreement for a period of at least six years. These accounts shall be subject to inspection, review or audit by the County and/or by federal or state officials as so authorized by law. 9. The City agrees to credit King County on all printed materials provided by the County which the City is duplicating for distribution. Either King County's name and logo must appear on King County materials (including fact sheets, case studies, etc.), or, at a minimum, the City will credit King County for artwork or text provided by the County as follows: "artwork provided courtesy of King County Solid Waste Division" and/or "text provided courtesy of King County Solid Waste Division." 10. The City agrees to submit to the County copies of all written materials which it produces and/or duplicates for local waste reduction and recycling projects which have been funded through the waste reduction and recycling grant program. Upon request, the City agrees to provide the County with a reproducible copy of any such written materials and authorizes the County to duplicate and distribute any written materials so produced, provided that the County credits the City for the piece. 11. This project shall be administered by Robyn Bartelt, Conservation Specialist, at City of Kent, 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032, or designee. B. The Countv: 1. The County shall administer funding for the waste reduction and recycling grant program. Funding is designated by city, based on the phases of the grant program in which each city will be participating, and is distributed on a per capita basis. The City of Kent's budgeted grant funds are $33,187, which is the City's current share of Phase II grant funds. 2. Within forty-five (45) days of receiving a request for reimbursement from the City, the County shall either notify the City of any exceptions to the request which have been identified or shall process the request for payment. If any exceptions to the request are made, this shall be done by written notification to the City providing the reason for such exception. The County will not authorize payment for activities and/or expenditures which are not included in the scope of work and budget attached as Exhibit A, unless the scope has been amended according to Section V of this Agreement. King County retains the right to withhold all or partial payment if the City's report and reimbursement request are incomplete (i.e., do not include proper documentation of expenditures and/or adequate description of each activity described in the scope of work for 3 which reimbursement is being requested), and/or are not consistent with the scope of work and budget attached as Exhibit A. 3. The County agrees to credit the City on all printed materials provided by the City to the County which the County duplicates for distribution. Either the City's name and logo will appear on such materials (including fact sheets, case studies, etc.), or, at a minimum, the County will credit the City for artwork or text provided by the City as follows: "artwork provided courtesy of the City of Kent" and/or "text provided courtesy of the City of Kent." 4. The County retains the right to share the written material(s) produced by the City which have been funded through this program with other King County cities for them to duplicate and distribute. In so doing, the County will encourage other cities to credit the City on any pieces which were produced by the City. 5. The waste reduction and recycling grant program shall be administered by Lyne Davis, Project Manager, or designee, specified by the King County Solid Waste Division. III. DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall become effective on March 1, 1997 and shall terminate on December 31, 1998. IV. TERMINATION A. This Agreement may be terminated by King County, in whole or in part, for convenience without cause prior to the termination date specified in Section III, upon thirty (30) days advance written notice. B. This Agreement may be terminated by either party, in whole or in part, for cause prior to the termination date specified in Section III, upon thirty (30) days advance written notice. Reasons for termination for cause may include but not be limited to: nonperformance, misuse of funds, and/or failure to provide grant related reports/invoices as specified in Section II.A.2. and Section II.A.3. C. If the Agreement is terminated as provided in this section: (1) the County will be liable only for payment in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for services rendered prior to the effective date of termination; and (2) the City shall be released from any obligation to provide further services pursuant to this Agreement. D. Nothing herein shall limit, waive, or extinguish any right or remedy provided by this Agreement or law that either party may have in the event that the obligations, terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are breached by the other party. 4 V. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of both parties. Funds may be moved between tasks in the scope of work, attached as Exhibit A, only upon written or verbal request by the City and written or verbal approval by King County. Such requests will only be approved if the proposed change(s) is (are) consistent with and/or achieves the goals stated in the scope and falls within the activities described in the scope. VI. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION The City shall protect, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, costs, and/or issues whatsoever occurring from actions by the City and/or its subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall defend at its own expense any and all claims, demands, suits, penalties, losses, damages, or costs of any kind whatsoever (hereinafter "claims") brought against the County arising out of or incident to the City's execution of, performance of or failure to perform this Agreement. Claims shall include but not be limited to assertions that the use or transfer of any software, book, document, report, film, tape, or sound reproduction or material of any kind, delivered hereunder, constitutes an infringement of any copyright, patent, trademark, trade name, and/or otherwise results in unfair trade practice. VII. INSURANCE A. The City, at its own cost, shall procure by the date of execution of this Agreement and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with performance of work pursuant to this Agreement by the City, its agents, representatives, employees, and/or subcontractors. The minimum limits of this insurance shall be $1,000,000 general liability insurance combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. Any deductible or self-insured retentions shall be the sole responsibility of the City. Such insurance shall cover the County, its officers, officials, employees, and agents as additional insureds against liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the City pursuant to this Agreement. A valid Certificate of Insurance is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C, unless Section VII.B. applies. B. If the Agency is a Municipal Corporation or an agency of the State of Washington and is self-insured for any of the above insurance requirements, a written acknowledgement of self-insurance is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C. VIII. ENTIRE CONTRACT/WAIVER OF DEFAULT This Agreement is the complete expression of the agreement of the County and City hereto, and any oral or written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default Waiver of breach of any provision of this 5 Agreement shall not be deemed to be waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless stated to be such through written approval by the County, which shall be attached to the original Agreement. IX. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE The County and City recognize that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement- X. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is, for any reason, found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of.the remaining portions. XL NOTICE IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by each party on the date set forth below: CG King County Accepted for King County Executive BY (Title) Director of Natural Resources Date Date Pursuant to Pursuant to Motion No. 8857 Approved as to form: Approved as to form: City Attorney King County Prosecuting Attorney Date Date 6 EXHIBIT A Contract # D25348D Scope of Work and Budget for the King County Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Program for the Suburban Cities A. PROGRAM INFORMATION 1. City: City of Kent 2. Program Manager: Robyn Bartelt Conservation Specialist City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 TEL: 859-6573 FAX: 859-3559 3. Consultant: Pacific Energy Institute 101 Yesler Way, Suite 606 Seattle, WA 98104 TEL - 628-0460 FAX - 628-0953 4. Program Budget: 533, l87 (Phase II funds) B. SCOPE OF WORK Task: Business Recycling Program Protect Description: The City of Kent will work through it's consultant, Pacific Energy Institute (PEI), to promote waste reduction, participation in commercial collection programs for recvclable materials, and the purchase of recycled products through the following program efforts with City businesses: • Distribute brochures on recycling service providers to businesses through direct mailings and door-to-door delivery. These brochures have already been produced by the Citv • Produce and distribute guides to buying recycled products in Kent and distribute them through direct mailings and door-to-door delivery The City will utilize information previously developed by King County and/or other sources whenever possible I • Distribute recycling bags that were previously purchased by the City with funds from the King County 1992-1995 grant program and Washington State Department of Ecology's grant programs. • Purchase and distribute a variety of different recycling containers/bins • Conduct on-site waste consultations with commercial business owners and managers, produce individual consultation reports, and provide follow-up assistance Deliverables: • Approximately 3,000 guides to buying recycled products distributed to businesses • Approximately 500 distributed recycling containers/bins • 500 - 1,000 distributed recycling bags • A minimum of 200 on-site consultations and follow-up services Schedule: • Print 3,000 guides to buying recycled products by October • Distribute recycling bags/containers/bins on an ongoing basis • Conduct on-site consultations and follow-up assistance on an ongoing basis • Submit final grant report by March 31, 1999 Project Goals and Objectives: • Promote cost-effective handling of the business waste stream; • Increase participation in recycling programs in the commercial sector from '_5-30°/o to 45-50%, and • Promote the purchase of recycled products to the business sector Program Evaluation: The City will monitor the program by reporting the following. • the number of brochures printed/distributed, • the types and number(s) of recycling containers purchased/distributed, • the number of recycling bags distributed, • the names of businesses assisted and services provided, • the number of businesses assisted, and • the increase in City businesses participating in waste reduction, recvclin_, and recycled product procurement activities for the duration of the grant program C. PROGRAM BUDGET: $33,187 Please see attached. �` O '� _ v O - y Q'. C '^ O m OIpIdO e CD C y O UO n Cy { O C9 C UO CD y r-. 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 va!69 I cog 1 6A 7 f9 w y � W ' ... �. N �✓� A ' N N, N t O�. wivi CA N 00 �DC1 0o AJ�01 7 00 v, . v+ � J� J O lA 1 00 0 �� � O N r.. "• C ---1 O 0 0 to N '0 Z O 6H o9 6A 6A 69 EA 70 y 3 c M Oo I fA O O O to 1 O p 0 C O O GA GO,) 1 69 69 69 1 EA EA 6A 69�6A 0 I y C A J CA W to '� tni �l' J O v+, 0 N CT J '. pipits ., V1 N (� King County Waste Reduction & Recycling Grant Wickstrom said we have received a grant from IGng County in the amount of 533,187 to assist us with commercial businesses recycling more materials which will reduce our demand on the landfill. Our match is our Conservation Specialist's time in implementing the program. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for $33,187. South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement Wickstrom noted that we have executed an Agreement a year ago and this is an amendment to that Agreement. Each year the Agreement calls for an annual review and this vear we had several changes; one issue is, it reimburses Water District #1 1 1 ; Covington Water and Auburn. They originally developed an agreement relating to their transfer of water and this has been a guide in developing one for all the Regional Water Association members to use. Wickstrom said this is a reimbursement for a portion of their cost involved in that development. The rest of it sets the guideline - if we were to negotiate with Auburn this is the guideline we would follow in establishing an Interlocal Agreement with them. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the revised South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement. Added item: Bike Trails (Tim Clark) Regarding S. 228th Street being cut thru, Tim Clark noted that he is working with the Parks Dept in eventually creating a bike trail linkage up to the City of Sea-Tac. Thev have a system which ties into Des Moines - if we can find a way to safely wind up the hill and create a safe bike crossing it would link into the Interurban Trail. Wickstrom stated that bike trails are already part of the existing S. 228th project. Wickstrom will explore this further. Meeting adjourned: 3:50 p.m. 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SOUTH KING COUNTY REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZATION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement. This agreement lays the framework for all the Regional Water Association members to use when developing water supply agreements between members. The City Attorney's office has reviewed this Agreement and has no significant changes. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum, Public Works Committee minutes, and RWA Joint Operating Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone concurrence from Judy Woods) (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 seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3M DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 16, 1997 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don WickstrorAu RE: South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement Some time back, the City executed the above referenced agreement in conjunction with the members of the Regional Water Association. The original agreement called for annual review with respect to any modifications. With the last annual review modifications were made which can generally be categorized as clarification of the original intent of the document. A copy of the revised agreement is attached. This agreement basically lays the framework for how the parties will deal with each other upon developing a joint new water supply. Further, it sets a mechanism for partial reimbursement of the cost the original participants (Water District #1 11, Covington Water District &Auburn) had in the development of the agreement. The Public Works Department recommends that the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement. The City Attorney's office has reviewed same and have no significant changes thereto. ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the revised Joint Operating Agreement. Fax Trarsmittai Memo 7672 ` ""' io Colman K w Dist cmfg* _oaMn Fix♦ 6 'N+ v. rii a 'aarylme 59 -3v5 Ceamem, Orgmui RD*, _awum IC"wOK,uE SOUTH KLNG COUNTY REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT Revised October 1996 WHEREAS, an adequate and safe water supply for South King County Regional Water Association(SKCRWA)and its members is vital to both existing citizens and in implementing the long-term comprehatsive plans of SKCRWA members;and WHEREAS, the State and SKCRWA prepared a Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP)for South King County,and WHEREAS, projects that provide for the coordinated and cooperative use and operation of supply, transmission. storage, treatment, and pumping facilities to minimize cost, provide For improved water quality, protect the environment, provide for emergency needs, and maximize the best use of the resource is in the best interest of the citizens of the region; WI EREAS, the current and near-term water needs of the Iocai governments and SKCRWA require steps to establish a cooperative subregional water supply system;and WHEREAS, the SKCRWA is committed to cooperate toward regional solutions for long range water supply needs. NOW THEREFORE, the SKCRWA signatory members of this Joint Operating Agreement(TOA),agree as follows_ 1. GE yE L A The Signatory Members acknowledge the requirement to incorporate land use piamung as defined by the Growth Management Act with water supply planning, and B The Signatory Members recognize the benefits of developing a subregional water supply system that will allow the optimum use of surface and groundwater to better manage and protect the area's water resources; and C. The Signatory Members will hold an Annual Meeting about September 30th to review the status of this IOA and any Amendments as well as other problems of mutual concern. The specific date, time, and location of the meeting will be set by mutual agreement. oaahe Z. 19% ,�. 2. INTENT A. The general intent is to create a method for the Signatory Members to cooperatively use certain existing facilities and construct new facilities needed to develop a subregicnal water system The Signatory Members may mutually agree by Interlocal Agreement to produce additional water and distribute it within the Subregional Service Area, with or without change to their retail service area. B. The JOA provides a framework for joint development of specific projects that may include two or more Participants. Each facility project and/or intertie shall be developed under a separate Interlocal Agreement (IA) consistent with this JOA subject to approval by appropriate affected city council and/or water district boards. The specific intent of this JOA is to make provisions for a standardized form to create or expand cooperative agreements to meet the public water supoiy needs for both emergency and long-term use, and to establish a basis for agreement between Participants for financing, ownership, construction, and operation of mutually beneficial projects required to achieve cooperative objectives. These projects may include common facilities with other Agencies outside the SKCRWA planning area. It is further the specific intent of this JOA to preserve Signatory Members' existing water rights and protect the established or planned interest and needs of each Signatory Member with respect to sources of water. Suggested content for an Interlocal Agreement is shown in Exhibit A- C. It is the desire of the Signatory Members that this JOA be incorporated into she South King County CWSP at the next update. D. The term "Participant" as used in this JOA shall mean all ttte signatories of an IA consistent with and-Amplemented subsequent to this JOA- E. The term "Signatory Members" as used in this JOA shall mean ail the members of the SKCRWA who have signed this JOA 3. SUBRE IONAL SERVICE AREA AND FACU=S A_ "Subregional Service Area " shall mean the Signatory Members' Designated Water Service?seas identified in the CWSP or as approved by amendments to the CWSP or the ParticipantSKCRWA members' Comprehensive Water Plans. Oanba� taw •2- r, . cam- __� ✓_ �c , - -.. .. .� ...... Gbh �.:_ O©�� -.r_- B. "Subregional Facilities" shall mean. (a) that portion of the Participants' sources, interties, transmission, and storage systems required to supply water to the service area of the Participants or new facilities as defined by a separate IA pursuant to this JOA_ (b) those designated capacities within a Participant system as specifically defined in an appropriate IA. C. " "Facility Ownership". Ownership of the physical facilities that exist on the date of this JOA shall remain with the individual Signatory Members. Unless otherwise agreed to within a specific IA, ownership and operational responsibilities of new facilities shall be based generally on location in designated service areas, with capacity rights defined by appropriate IA 4. WATER SUPPLY - CAPACITY RIGHTS A. Capacity Rights - Participants may purchase capacity by IA. Any changes in these capacity rights shall be recognized by an IA, approved by the appropriate affected city councils and/or water district boards B. Additional JOA Participants - Other agencies may purchase capacity rights in subregional facilities subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.C. If other agencies become Signatory Members of the SKCRWA and become Participants in future projects undertaken under this JOA and future IAs, past casts associated with development of this JOA will be assessed to the new agency as specified in Exhibit B. C. Wholesaling Water - a) A Signatory -Mcm6er may wholesale water through lease or otherwise, delivered throrre t—subregion! facilities to areas outside of the Signatory Member's SP-xnce Area, so long as the other Signatory Members' capacity rights are not negatively impacted. Signatory Members of the SKCRWA agree that, where teasibie and mutually beneficial, they will coordinate planning and development of water resources. b) Signatory Members ft=her agree that prior to entering into any agreement to deliver long term water supply or construct joint facilities with a non-Signatory Member agency, they will first make a good faith effort to offer such supplies and/or capacities to Signatory Members (provide the night of first refusal), Such offers shall be made on a cost of service basis as established by separate IA. Signatory Members shall have 60 days to respond. Oagbei 3, 1996 .3- c) Signatory Members agree that when entering int any agreement to deliver long term water supply or construct joint facil' ies with a non-Signatory Member agency in accordance with this JOA, the will include and collect for remittance to the SKCRWA a fee for reimb rsement of the costs for development of the JOA as specified in .dart B. d) Regular meetings of the SKCRWA shall be the forum for making Signatory Members aware of discussions regarding water sales and joint projects, however all offers of participation or requests for participation shall be in writing with copies to other Signatory Members. D. Conservation All Participants will develop and implement a conservation plan that is consistent with State guidelines. Additional or supplemental conservation requirements beyond basic programs may be included in a specific Interincal Agreement, E. Curtailment In general, curtailment for delivery of "firm water" shall be on a uniform percentage basis for both wholesale and retail customers and curtailment for delivery of "Interruptible water" shall be on a "last in first out" basis as determined by the date of formal agreement. Specinc curtailment requirements and provisions shall be included in Interlocal Agreements implemented under this JOA_ F. Quality - An objective of the Signatory Members is to maintain the quality of the water in the subregicnal facilities at or above the quality required by the State drinking water standards. i ne purchasing Participant will be responsible for ensuring water quality blending analyses and other water quality issues are resolved to their own satisfaction_ The Signatory Members may meet periodically to ensure that water quality and operational issues are addressed, and that needed information is exchanged in a timely fashion. The written results of these meetings will be circulated in,a timely manner to all members and participants and reviewed at the annual meeting. G. Additional Facilities - Projected needs Nil be identined by the Participants based on the Participant's designated service areas_ As five or more years may be needed to bring major new source capacity capabilities on line, five-year and ten-year forecasts are required, and must be updated whenever a Participant becomes aware of any significant change in their forecast demand. These will be discussed jointly as they arise, and reviewed at the annual meeting. H. Financing - Each Project IA will include pertinent details of financing for that project. Financial participation in existing and additional facilities will be based on each Participant's projected need for each facility, as designated capacity rights. oaaber S L9% 4 I. Cost of Service Charge - The Signatory Members and Participants will establish wholesale water sales charges for both emergency and long-term supply that include: (1) capital cost, (2) fixed operating cost, and (3) a variable operating cost based on quantity of water delivered based on actual costs of providing the service. Fixed and variable operating and maintenance costs payments will be made monthly per meter and use rates. Projected annual rate adjustments and documentation shall be provided at the annual meeting. Any rate increase will be effective beginning January 1, of the following year. (1) The Rates and Charges for the capital, operation, and maintenance of the system shall be based on the following: (a) Capital Cost - Those construction related costs incurred for Capacity Rights. Capital Costs for facilities contracted solely for a specific project (described in an IA) are allocated based on designated capacity to be purchased- Capital costs shall include the debt service for each Participant_ Such debt service shall be defined as the actual debt service on debt issued for the Participant's proportionate share of capacity rights, or it no debt is issued for the Participant's costs by the financing Participant, the amortized value at the interest rate of the most recent revenue bond issued by the financing Participant over 20 years. However; should all capital costs be paid in full by any Participant purchasing capacity rights prior to the time of the financing Participant incurring the costs, no interest charges shall be assigned to the Participant purchasing capacity rights. Capital Costs associated with a supplying Participant's construction of their internal water system Gaciiities may be included in the fixed and variable operating costs as appropriate, using cost of service principles, in the same manner as those costs are included in the Supplying Participant's customer rate base- (b) Fixed Operating Cost - The cost of labor, supervision, supplies, utilities, services, taxes, insurance, and all other costs required to operate and maintain the system other than those items included under Variable Operating Cost. The operating cost will include an allocation for renewai and replacement- (c) Variable Operating Cost - Those costs directly proportionate to the volume of water produced, including chemicals, electric power, and other costs required to meet customer and system needs not included in (a) and (b) above October$ 1996 .j_ (2) Accountinfl Subregional facilities accounting shall be documented in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices acceptable to the Paricipants 5. ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS A- Each Signatory Member shall designate in writing their representative responsible for coordination and implementation of the JOA and the subsequent LAL, The designated individuals will be the primary contact for all project approvals and communication and shall prepare and publish a schedule and plan to facilitate the planning, design and day-by-day operation of facilities associated with the subsequentIAs. B Signatory Members may propose Amendments to this JOA at any time. Signatory Members shall vote on proposed Amendments at the Annual Meeting. A quorum of Signatory Members present shall approve any Amendments to this JOA prior to their submittal to Signatory Members ciry councils and/or water district boards for approval. A Special Meeting of the Signatory Members may be called for the purpose of amending this JOA by two thirds of the Signatory Members. C. A Signatory Member may withdraw from this JOA by providing 1Z0 days notice to other Signatory Members. Notice shall be provided to each Signatory Member in venting and shall include the reason for withdrawal- D. This JOA shall remain in full force unless terminated by mutual agreement. Termination or withdrawal shall not affect any Interiocal Agreements negotiated under this JOA. oaahv8, t9% -6- South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement Exhibit B Computation of Charges Initial Computation based on 8 shares. $ 16,652 Cost to develop JOA(from Covington and WD 111). 8 $ 2,081 Initial "charge"for a share. Cost to the three participants of IA2. Covington and Auburn,three share $ 6,244 WD 111,two shares= $ 4,163 Final Computation based on 12 shares. $ 16,652 12 $ 1,388 Ultimate use charge Algona and Black Diamond, one share= $ 1,388 WD 111,two shares= $ 2,775 Auburn, Kent, Covington WD, Lakehven UD, Or Soos Creek W&SD,three shares= $ 4,163 Reimbersement for Development and initial use (to Covington, WD 111,and Auburn) $ 16,652 Cost for development. Covington WD 111 Auburn $ 8,326 $ 8,326 $ - development cost $ 6,244 $ 4,163 $ 6,244 use charge IA2 $ 2,081 $ 4,163 -$-(6,244) $ 2,081 $ 4,163 $ - recovery charge IA2 (Auburn) $ 6,244 $ 4,163 $ 6,244 $ 4,163 $ 2,775 $ 4,163 ultimate use charge $ 2,081 $ 1,388 $ 2,081 remaining reimb. $ 463 $ 463 $ 463 recovery charge IA3 (Algona) $ 1,619 $ 925 $ 1,619 remaining reimb. JOA Exhibd 8 Fees trJW7 King County Waste Reduction & Recycling Grant Wickstrom said we have received a grant from IGng County in the amount of 533,1 S7 to assist us with commercial businesses recycling more materials which will reduce our demand on the landfill. Our match is our Conservation Specialist's time in implementing the program. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for 533,1 S7. (� South IGng County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement Wicicstrom noted that we have executed an Agreement a year ago and this is an amendment to that Agreement. Each year the Agreement calls for an annual review and this year we had several changes; one issue is, it. reimburses Water District #1 1 1 ; Covington Water and Auburn. They originally developed an agreement relating to their transfer of water and this has been a guide in developing one for all the Regional Water Association members to use. Wickstrom said this is a reimbursement for a portion of their cost involved in that development. The rest of it sets the guideline - if we were to negotiate with Auburn this is the guideline we would follow in establishing an InterIocal Agreement with them. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the revised South IGng County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement. Added item: Bike Trails (Tim Clark) Regarding S. 223th Street being cut thru, Tim Clark noted that he is working with the Parks Dept in eventually creating a bike trail linkage up to the City of Sea-Tac. They have a system which ties into Des :Moines - if we can find a wav to safely wind up the hill and create a safe bike crossing it would link into the Interurban Trail. Wicicstrom stated that bike trails are already part of the existing S. 223th project. Wickstrorn will explore this further. Meeting adjourned: 3:30 p.m. Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6, 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ADA MODIFICATIONS FUNDING - APPROVAL AND BUDGET CHANGE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to allocate $10, 000 of the Workers Compensation Trust Fund to ADA Modification Project Fund M-26, to continue dealing with ADA Modification issues as they arise as a claim prevention action. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $10 , 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Workers Compensation Trust Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3N --HATWIN, KEN / KENT70/PR - HPDesk print . ------- -- -- -- ---- --- ---------------- -- - Message . Dated: 04/24/97 at 1333 . Subject : ADA Modifications- Capital Project #M-26 Sender: Ken CHATWIN / KENT70/PR Contents : 2 . Part 1 . _ROM: Ken CHATWIN / KENT70/PR TO : Kelli O' DONNELL / KENT70/OD CC: Charlie LINDSEY / KENT70/PK Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Sue VISETH / KENT70/PR Part 2 . Memorandum Date April 24 , 1997 To : Operations Committee Ken Chatwin Subject : Extension of ADA Modifications Funding M-26 in the amount of $10 , 000 . 00 In 1992 and 1993 I completed a physical barriers survey of City Buildings , Parks, and other Facilities , at the time we identified some $125 , 000 . 00 of items to be corrected in 1994 , 1995 and beyond based on accessibility priorities under the ADA regulations at that time . The Council funded this amount through a special Capitol Projects known as ADA Modifications No . M-26 of which the City has now about exausted all those funds, yet items and issues continue to arise as we grow and expand our operations . Building Facilities has become the source of new corrections and/or consultant reviews as new issues arise . Mr . Lindsey has asked my assistance as the ADA Coordinator in establishing an extension of the funding to deal with current issues . May Miller did confirm to me on April 23 , 1997 that she supported the need in the amount of $10 , 000 . 00 . May did agree that we should treat this as a "claim prevention" withdrawal from the Workers Compensation Trust Fund account which she referred to a $751, 000 fund balance that substantially exceeds our reserve fund requirements per the attached exhibit . recommend the transfer of funds be approved as outlined. inks , Ken Chatwin City of Kent Workers Compensation February 28,1997 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1997 1997 Description Actual Actual Actual Actual(Prel) Budget YTD-Feb Est Actual REVENUE Contributions 271,861 407,912 455.407 505,630 510,875 58,663 510,875 Interest Income 49,294 50,160 57,787 50,485 53,000 6,356 53,000 Prior Year Recovery 16.695 5,000 2,439 158 Total Revenue 337,850 463,072 515,633 556,273 563,875 65,019 563,875 EXPENSE Salaries and benefits 4,634 13.176 Judgements 8,Damages 280,112 98,960 157,041 277,866 307,661 4,885 307,661 IBNR Adjustment 141,342 81,242 Liability insurance 60,720 52,000 43,676 46,762 50,000 42,184 42,184 Intergovernmental services 41,381 35,207 37,258 51,756 54,053 16,598 54,053 Administrative costs 43,043 31,223 22,810 31,870 36,409 8,913 36,409 Debt and financial services 4,966 8,240 8,240 Personnel costs 25,000 25,849 26,341 59,218 22,841 3,807 22,841 Other 79 20,480 432 26,555 1,847 4,405 4,405 Safety program 23,167 41,255 48,024 47,699 2,832 47,699 Total Expense 591,677 286,886 410.055 551,651 541,926 83.624 523,492 Net income (253,827) 176,186 105,578 4,622 21,949 (18,605) 40,383 Retained Earnings 111 737,532 483,705 659,891 765,469 771,538 770.091 770,091 Retained Earnings 12131 483,705 659.891 765,469 770,091 793,487 751,486 810,474 Variance from preliminary budget (1,447) 'Per Actuarial Study-Reserve requirement at 80%confidence level was$572,000 at 12131191. CLAIMS RETAINED EARNINGS m ---------------------- °�i L-- mrL ------------------- - m ,m ,m ' Oyl'T iL{'T11. iL1.T iMLT JCL 9MLT GTWO iMll ilUT 26-JAw--97 RPWKB702 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: POLICE SHOOTING RANGE UPGRADES - APPROVAL AND BUDGET CHANGE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to allocate $50, 000 of the Workers Compensation Trust Funds to the police shooting range upgrade project fund for noise reduction employer mandated claim prevention. Police Training requirements and choice of weapons have changed necessitating upgrades which include wall panels and additional noise absorption to handle use of rifle shots now required in training positions down the range. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, architects recommendations, and trust fund balance information 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Up to $50, 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Workers Compensation Trust Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 30 CHATWIN, KEN / KENT70/PR - HPDesk print . --------------------------------------- D sage . Dated: 04/24/97 at 1532 . Subject : Police Shooting Range, Three Upgrade issues Sender: Ken CHATWIN / KENT70/PR Contents : 2 . Part 1 . FROM: Ken CHATWIN / KENT70/PR TO: Kelli O'DONNELL / KENT70/OD CC: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Michael SIGSBEE / KENT70/PK Sue VISETH / KENT70/PR Part 2 . MEMORANDUM Date April 24 , 1997 To: Operations Committee From: Ken Chatwin Subject : Attached Project Manual Architect : Broederick Architects Title : Police Firing Range Acoustical Improvements Police training requirements have changed, our criminal society is changing, our tactical police weapons have changed, all have brought about a need to upgrade our police shooting range again. Please refer to the attached project manuel from the architect . The first part of this upgrade-'has to do with simply removing existing fiber- glass panels from ceiling baffels that occasionally receive bullet impacts _hat emit fiberglass filements and "dust" when hit . These panels are being replaced with Sonnex I, an absorption material made for shooting ranges that 2 1/2 years agp funding dictated the cheaper fiberglass and also the type of _raining has changed. The second phase is to deal with the change in weapons from shotguns to rifles, requiring more ceiling panels and extension of panels along the walls, all to go along with the new bullet trap installed this spring. Basic police training requirements have changed for weapons, requiring more "stage props" and use of natural cover objects in their training. This has moved weapons firing down further into the range area as opposed to firing qualification rounds from a fixed position. This activity in-itself requires much more sound absorbtion materials furthur down the range plus full range wall panels to trap angle snots the traing positions require . e third phase is to deal with the long pending architects recommendation to protect the control room, class rooms, rest room, and weapons cleaning area from the additional noise generated by the change in weapons and the training requirements . This consist of constructing a vestibule entrance in the range, which is really a second door and additional walls bonded to the ceiling to 'seal the firing range itself" away from the other range work and service areas in the form of a sound barrier. These costs have been discussed with May Miller and at a estimated $36 , 000 le with Brent McFall . These costs can and should be handled as "claim prevention-- expenditures" under the Workers Compensation Trust Fund also. This completion will also permit use of our range by other police agencies, should we desire as all the safety, hearing protection, and noise absorbtion requirements would be met . Total cost of the 3 phases which really has to be considered as one project is as follows : 1 . Replace fiberglass sound material $18 , 000 . 00 2 . Additional sound and panel units $21, 000 . 00 3 . Vestibule entrance $11, 000 . 00 Total Project Costs = $50 , 000 . 00 I recommend the funds come from the Workers Compensation Trust Fund, fund blance and claim exhibit as of 2-28-97 is attached. Thanks, Ken Chatwin, Risk Manager is l j l F F KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRING RANGE FACILITY ACOUSTICAL EMPROVEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRING RANGE FACILITY DIVISION 1-GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 01010 SUMMARY OF WORK 01200 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 01700 PROJECT CLOSEOUT DIVISION 2-SITE WORK 02070 SELECTIVE DEMOLITION DMSION 5-STEEL 05120 STRUCTURAL STEEL DMSION 6-WOOD 06100 ROUGH FRAMING DIVISION 7-TFTFRMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION 07900 JOINT SEALERS DTVLMION 8-DOORS AND WINDOWS 08112 STANDARD STEEL FRAMES 08211 WOOD DOORS 08700 FINISH HARDWARE DIVISION 9-FINISHES 09500 ACOUSTICAL TREATMENT 09900 PAINTING DMSION 15-MECHANICAL 15500 HEATING AND VENTILATION DIVISION 16-ELECTRICAL 16010 BASIC ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS CITY OF KENT PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT Table of Contents - 1 CITY OF KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRING RANGE FACILITY ACOUSTICAL MPROVEMENTS 1. Title of Drawings and Specifications; City of Kent Police Department Firing Range Facility/Acoustical Improvements 24523 116th Avenue S.E. Kent,Washington 2. Owner and Architect Defined; Owner: City of Kent 220 4th Avenue S. Kent, Washington 98032 206.520.4221 Contact: Mike Sigsbee Range Contact: City Kent Police Department Firing Range Facility 24523 116th Avenue S.E. Kent, Washington 98031 206.859.3425 Contact: Officer Bill Robnett,Rangemaster Architect: Broderick Architects 55 S.Atlantic Street, Suite 301 Seattle,Washington 98134 206.682.7525 Contact•. Kevin Broderick 3. Contractors Defined; The General Contractor shall be selected by the Owner by means of a competitive bid submitted by a company included on a selected List of Bidders. 4. The Project: General Description: A. Specified demolition including removal of following items; 1. Remove of existing fiberglass insulation from the underside of the suspended ceiling and (7) shot deflectors. 2. Relocation of an existing light fixture and air supply diffuser to accommodate the new vestibule into the Firing Range. B. Provide sound absorbing material to suspended ceiling and top and bottom of(7) shot deflectors. C. Provide new sound absorbing material applied directly to existing concrete ceiling. D. Provide new sound absorbing material applied directly to the existing concrete walls above 7- 5";between the shot deflectors. E. Provide 3/4 T&G plywood sheathing along side wails of the Firing Range to a height of 7-5". F. Construct a vestibule entrance into the Firing Range. G. Design-Build Mechanical System, including; 1) Relocation of existing air supply diffuser. 5. Order of Procedure: The Contractor shall coordinate all planned activities at the City of Kent Police Department Firing Range Facility with the Rangemaster prior to commencing work. The order of procedure shall be subject to approval of the Rangemaster. City of Kent Police Department Firing Range Facility - 1 SECTION 01010 - SUMMARY OF THE WORK 1. PROJECT SCOPE Construct in a single complete contract the CITY OF KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRING RANGE FACILITY / ACOUSTICAL IMPROVEMENTS, in accordance with the project manual prepared by Broderick Architects. 2. COORDINATOR It shall be the General Contractor's responsibility to coordinate the work of all trades (including mechanical and electrical)taking part in the execution of this contract. ;. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRACTORS All instructions will be given by the Architect. Except for scheduling requirements,no other instructions shall be recognized. Instructions from the Architect will be made to the Contractor or his authorized agents (e.g.,Job Superintendent) for distribution to subcontractors and/or tradespeople on the job. Subcontractors and Material men shall not contact the Owner or Architect to discuss the Project. 4. PERMITS AND FEES The owner will pay the plan check fee and the building permit fee to the City of Kent The Contractor shall include in his bid all additional cost of permits and fees as required (mechanical, electrical, etc.). 5. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DEFINED The earliest date on which,in the opinion of the Architect, the Owner may fully occupy and use the Project for the purpose for which it is intended,without undue inconvenience to either Contractor or Owner. 6. CONCEALED CONDITIONS - ADDITIONAL COST Should concealed conditions be encountered, the Contractor shall immediately notify the Architect of such conditions before they are disturbed. The Architect will promptly investigate,upon finding material deviating from the conditions indicated or inferred in the plans and project manual, he will prepare Change Order documents. Non-compliance with this requirement will result in no reimbursement to the Contractor for doing the Work except in an emergency endangering life or property. The notice for any work requiring additive cost shall be given within five(5) days of the event giving rise to the additional cost. 7. CLEAN UP AND PROTECTION The Contractor, as the Work process, shall keep the premises free from accumulation of waste material and rubbish and, at the completion of the Work shall remove from building and surrounding area all rubbish and any remaining equipment including, scaffolding,tools and surplus materials. Apply protective covering on installed Work where it is required to ensure freedom from damage or deterioration at time of Substantial Completion. Clean and perform maintenance on installed Work as frequently as necessary through the remainder of the construction period. Work connecting to any adjacent property shall be kept unencumbered and available to the Owner's daily operations. END OF SECTION 01010 01010-1 SECTION 01200 - ADNIINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 1. CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT Contractor shall familiarize himself thoroughly with the City of Kent Public Works Agreement requirements, as well as technical sections. 2. PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE A meeting will be scheduled by the Owner and the Architect prior to the start of construction for the purpose of discussing and clarifying contract administration procedures for the execution of the Work. The meeting will be conducted by the Owner's Representative with the Architect, Consultants, General Contractor, and subcontractors for the Mechanical and Electrical work in attendance. 3. MATERIAL AND INFORMATION REQUIRED The Contractor shall follow the procedure and furnish information to the Owner and the Architect in the following manner. A. Prior to the Start of Construction 1) Policies of all types of specified insurance and notification of insurance company indicating extent of coverage. 2) Employee work list and clearance information as requested by the Owner. B. Submittals Prior to Application for First Payment Before applying for the first monthly partial payment, Contractor shall submit the following: 1) Progress Schedule showing proposed dates of commencement and completion of each subdivision of the work; subdivisions of the work shall conform to those of the Cost breakdown. 2) Schedule of Values showing the quantities and values for the various parts of the work. 3) Material Lists showing the quantities and values for the various parts of the work. 4) List of Subcontractors proposed for the principal parts of the Work The above submittals listed as 2, 3, and 4 shall be submitted using the table of Contents of these specifications as a minimum. Additional subcontractors shall be listed on a separate sheet. C. Submittal of Monthly Applications for Payment 1) Preliminary Application: The Contractor shall check each monthly payments request with the Owner and the Architect prior to submittal by means of a single "rough" copy. When the rough copy is approved by the Owner and the Architect, the Contractor shall make formal submittal of application for payment. 2) Job Progress Schedule: Each monthly request for payment shall be accompanied by copies of Job Progress Schedule 3) Certification of Payment to Subcontractors: Each monthly request for payments, including request for final payment, shall bear the Contractor's certification that all subcontractors and material suppliers have been paid in amounts equal to the percentage of completion stated in previous request(less retainage) for payment and allowed to the Contractor on account of work of subcontractors. END OF SECTION 01200 01200-1 SECTION 01700 -PROJECT CLOSEOUT 1. GENERAL All requirements of this section shall be met for Substantial Completion of the Project. 2. FINAL CLEANING Concrete floor shall be swept and damped mopped. All rubbish shall be removed from the site. 3. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION The contractor shall notify the Architect in writing when the Project will be ready for Substantial Completion inspection. Before the inspection,the Contractor shall present the Architect a"punch list" of uncompleted items. Should the Architect determine that the Project is not ready for Substantial Completion the Contractor shall arrange for future inspections. 4. FINAL COMPLETION Upon completion of all Work the Contractor shall notify the Architect in writing of the time of the Final Inspection. END OF SECTION 01700 01700-1 SECTION 02070 - SELECTIVE DEMOLITION 1.1 General: A. This Section requires the selective removal and subsequent off-site disposal of the following: i. Remove of existing fiberglass insulation from the underside of the suspended ceiling and from the top and underside of the (7) shot deflectors. Remove all protruding nails and staples. 2. To assure permanent attachment of new acoustical panels remove existing surface applied mineral tiles from the underside of the suspended ceiling. [Note: Behind the firing line, the suspended ceiling is constructed of(1) layer 3/4" plywood sheathing. In front of the firing line the suspended ceiling is constructed of(2) layers of 10-gauge steel plates between(3) layers of 1/2" plywood sheathing.] Remove all protruding nails and staples. 3. Relocate the existing light fixture into the new vestibule. and air supply diffuser to accommodate the new vestibule into the Firing Range. 4. Remove the existing air supply diffuser to accommodate the new vestibule. 5. Remove the portion of the acoustical ceiling the and grid required for the construction of a new wall (with door) that extends up to the underside of the existing concrete roof structure. 6. Remove the existing door closer and deadbolt lock on the steel door into the firing range see Section 08700. B. Materials to be Salvaged and Reused: 1. Salvage and reuse the acoustical ceiling tile and grid associated with the demolition required for the new vestibule. 2. If compatible with the existing HVAC system, salvage and reuse a portion of the existing fiberglass insulation for placement over the new vestibule and extending 4'-0" minimum in the two possible directions. C. Related work specified elsewhere: 1. Remodeling construction work and patching are included within the respective sections of specifications,including removal of materials for reuse and incorporation into remodeling or new construction. D. Schedule: Submit schedule indicating proposed sequence of operations for selective demolition work to Owner's Representative for review prior to start of work. 1. Provide detailed sequence of demolition and removal work. 2. Examine existing conditions prior to demolition. Notify Architect immediately if any variations from the Contract Documents are encountered. E. Occupancy: The Firing Range will be vacated and use discontinued prior to start of work. All other areas of the building will remain in use. F. Condition of Structures: Owner assumes no responsibility for actual condition of items or elements to be demolished. G. Salvaged Materials: Items of salvageable value to Contractor may be removed from structure as work progresses. Salvaged items must be transported from site as they are removed. SELECTIVE DEMOLITION 02070 - 1 SECTION 05120 - STRUCTURAL STEEL 1.1 General A. Provide steel channels and steel angles, include necessary erection accessories, fittings and fasteners required for a complete installation. B. Codes and Standards: AISC "Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges". AISC "Specifications for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings" including "Commentary"; AWS "Structural Welding Code - Steel"; comply with applicable provisions except as otherwise indicated. C. Related Sections Sections: I. Rough Carpentry specified in Section 06100. 1.2 Products: A. Steel Plates, Shapes, Bars: ASTM A 36. B. Fasteners: High-strength bolts and nuts, ASTM A 325 or A 490; unfinished bolts and nuts, ASTM A 307, Grade A. C. Accessories and Fasteners: I. Bracing, fiuring and bridging: Formed sheet steel, thickness determined for conditions encountered,manufacturer's standard shapes, same finish as framing members. 2. Self-drilling and self-tapping screws: Noncorrosive, ASTM C 954. J. Anchorage devices: Powder actuated, drilled expansion bolts with adhesive anchors and anchor bolts, as shown; lengths as required for particular condition of installation for permanent and secure anchorage. 4. Welding: Comply with AWS D1.3 and recommendations of framing manufacturer. D. Shop Painting: Paint structural steel work, except members or portions of members embedded in concrete or mortar, and contact areas to be welded or riveted. Clean steel free of loose mill scale, rust, oil, and grease. Apply prime paint to provide a minimum dry film thickness of 2.0 mils. 1.3 Execution: A. Erection: Comply with AISC Code and Specifications and maintain work in safe and stable condition during erection. 1. Set base angles on cleaned bearing surfaces. Solidly pack open spaces with bedding mortar, consisting of I part Portland cement to 3 parts sand and only enough water for packing and hydration, or use commercial nonshrink grout material at Erector's option. END OF SECTION 05120 STRUCTURAL STEEL 05120 - 1 SECTION 06100 - ROUGH CARPENTRY 1.1 General: A. Summary: This Section includes the general supervision and coordination of the entire construction project including plywood sheathing and miscellaneous elements accessory to the wood framing system in the Firing Range and all phases of the construction of the Vestibule including Drywall. The Contractor shall be responsible for all grades, levels and dimensions. The framing shall be carefully laid out square, plumb, and level and be properly braced during construction. B. Related Sections: 1. Structural Steel specified in Section 05120. 2. Standard Steel Frames specified in 08112 1.2 Products: A. Dimension Lumber. Provide lumber in accordance with the grades and species indicated. 1. 2x and 4x Studs-Doug Fir/Larch Standard&Better 2. Wood in contact with concrete shall be Pressure Treated Doug Fir. B. Plywood Sheathing. Provide lumber in accordance with the grades and species indicated. 1. Wall sheathing: APA C-D EXT, 3/4 inch T&G. C. Fasteners: Of size and type indicated that comply with the following requirements. 1. Studs to 10 gauge metal panels: 1/4" x 2 3/4" Header Tek or Reamer Tek, self tapping screws. 2. Wood Screws: ANSI B 18.6.1. 3. Nails: FS FF-N-105 4. Lag Bolts: Steel bolts complying with ASTM A 307, Grade A; with ASTM A 563 hex nuts, flat washers. D. Gypsum Board: Provide gypsum board of types indicated in maximum lengths available to minimise end joints: 1. Exposed Gypsum Board: ASTM C 36, thickness 5/8" . a. Type: Type X,typical. b. Edges: Tapered- E. Gypsum Board Joint Treatment Materials: ASTM C 475 and ASTM C 840, and as follows: 1. Joint Tape: Paper reinforcing tape,unless otherwise indicated. a. Use open-weave glass fiber tape where recommended by gypsum board mfr with use of setting-type joint compound_ 2. Setting-Type Joint Compound: Factory-prepackaged,job-mixed chemical-hardening powder products formulated for uses indicated. 3. Drying-Type Joint Compounds: Factory-prepackaged, vinyl-based products complying with the following requirements: a. Ready-Mix Formulation: Factory-premixed- ROUGH CARPENTRY 06100 - 1 SECTION 07900 - JOINT SEALANTS 1.1 General: A. Work Included: Provide all materials, labor, equipment and miscellaneous items necessary to seal and caulk all interior joints where indicated on the Drawings and elsewhere as required to provide a positive barrier against passage of air and sound 1.2 Products: A. Compatibility. Provide joint sealants,joint fillers, and other related materials that are compatible with one another and with joint substrates under service and application conditions, as demonstrated by testing and field experience. B. Acceptable Manufacturer's 1. One-Part Acid-Curing Silicone Sealant: a. Bostik Construction Products Division. Product"Chem Calk 1200". b. Dow Coming Corporation. Product"Doe Corning 999A". C. Pecora Corporation. Product "863". d. Tremco, Incorporated. Product"Proglaze". 2. Acoustical Sealants for Concealed Joints: a. Pecora Corporation. Product'BA-98". b. Tremco,Incorporated. Product"Tremco Acoustical Sealant". C. Sealants: 1. Silicone Sealant: FS TT-S-01543, Class A, low modulus type; color as selected- D. Sealant Backings, General: Nonstaining; compatible with joint substrates, sealants, primers, and other joint fillers; approved for applications indicated by sealant manufacturer based on field experience and laboratory testing. 1. Plastic Foam Joint Fillers: Preformed, compressible, resilient, nonwaxing,nonextruding strips of plastic foam of material indicated below, and of size, shape, and density to control sealant depth and producing optimum sealant performance. 2. Elastomeric Tubing Joint Fillers: Neoprene,butyl, EPDM, or silicone tubing complying with ASTM D 1056, nonabsorbent to water and gas, and capable of remaining resilient at temperatures down to -26 deg F (3)2 deg Q. 1.3 Execution: A. General: Comply with joint sealant manufacturer's instructions. B. Sealant Installation Standard: Comply with ASTM C 1193. C. Acoustical Sealant Application Standard: Comply with ASTM C 919 for use of joint sealants in acoustical applications. END OF SECTION 07900 JOINT SEALANTS 07900 - 1 SECTION 08112 - STANDARD STEEL FRAMES 1.1 General: A. Work Included: Provide Steel Frames as indicated on the Construction Documents and as specified herein. Provide all miscellaneous items required for a complete installation. B. Related Sections Sections: 1. Wood Doors specified in Section 08211. 2. Finish Hardware specified in Section 08700. 3. Field Painting specified in Section 09900 C. Standards: In addition to other specified requirements, comply with Steel Door Institute "Recommended Specifications for Standard Steel Doors and Frames" ANSUSDI-100. D. Coordination: Coordinate the work with frame opening construction, door and hardware installation. 12 Products: A. Manufacturer: One of the following: 1. Ceco Corp. 2. Curries Company. 3 Deansteel Manufacturing Co. 4 Steelcraft Manufacturing Co. 5. Substitutions: Under provisions of Section 01300. B. Frames: Comply with ANSIISDI-100, of the types and styles indicated, for materials quality, metal gages, and construction details. 1. Exterior Frames: 16-gage thick material,base metal thickness galvanized steel. C. Accessories: 1. Frame Filler: Solid fill all hollow metal door frames with a light weight aggregate gypsum plaster. 2. Silencers: Resilient Rubber, fitted into drilled hole. D. Fabrication: 1. Fabricate frames as welded unit; weld exposed joints continuously, grind, dress, and make smooth, flush and invisible. Knock down field assembled not permitted. 2. Fabricate frames with hardware reinforcement plates welded in place. Provide mortar guard boxes in grouted frames. 3. Prepare frame for silencers. Provide three single silencers for single doors. E. Prepare steel doors and frames to receive concealed finish hardware, including cutouts, reinforcing, drilling and tapping, complying with ANSI A 115 "Specifications for Door and Frame Preparation for Hardware." STANDARD STEEL FRAMES 08112 - 1 SECTION 08211 -WOOD DOORS 1.1 General: A. Work Included: Provide Flush Panel Doors as indicated on the Construction Documents, matching the existing doors, and as specified herein. Provide all miscellaneous items required for a complete installation. B. Related Sections Sections: i. Standard Steel Frames specified in Section 08112. 2. Finish Hardware specified in Section 08700. 3. Field Painting specified in Section 09900 C. Coordination: Coordinate the work with frame opening construction, door and hardware installation. 1.2 Products: A. Manufacturers: Subject to compliance with requirements, provide wood doors by one of the following, or approved equal: 1. Algoma Hardwoods, Inc. 2. Weyerhauser Company. B. General Wood Door Product Requirements: Provide doors with same exposed surface material on both faces of each door. C. Interior Flush Panel Solid Core Door.for Transparent Finish: As follows: 1. Faces: Natural birch,plain sliced. 2. AWI Grade: Custom. 3. Construction: PC-5 or PC-7 (Particleboard core, 5- or 7-ply). 4. Construction: SLC-5 or SLC-7 (Glued block core, 5- or 7-ply). D. Fabricate flush wood door to produce door complying with following requirements: 1. In sizes indicated for job-site fitting. 2. Factory-prefit and premachine doors to fit frame opening sizes indicated and complying with AWI prefitting tolerances. 3. Openings: Cut and trim openings through doors to comply with applicable requirements of referenced standards for kind(s) of doors indicated and required. F. Provide a tempered glazed relite panel as indicated on the drawings. G. Shop seal faces and edges of doors for field-applied transparent finish and other required pretreatments and first coat of finish as specified in Division-9 section 'Tainting". 1.3 Installation: WOOD DOORS 08211 - 1 SECTION 08700 - FINISH HARDWARE 1.1 General Hardware Requirements: A. Summary: Provide Finish Hardware for the new Vestibule Door and the existing Vestibule door as specified herein and as necessary to complete the project. Miscellaneous items not mentioned,but necessary to complete the work shall be furnished matching quality and finish of specified items. B. Related Work-- I. Section 08112 - Standard Steel Frames 2. Section 08211- Wood Doors C. All hardware furnished in this Section shall comply with the requirements of all applicable codes. All items specified in this Section shall be furnished by a factory authorized distributor maintaining parts, stocks, and services for standard specified items. D. Submit final hardware schedule organized by "hardware sets", to indicate specifically the product to be furnished for each item required on each door. 1. Furnish templates to fabricator of door and frame, as required for preparation to receive hardware. 2. Hardware schedules are intended for coordination of the work. Review and acceptance by the Architect or Owner does not relieve the Contractor of his exclusive responsibility to fulfil the requirements as shown, specified and required by code. 3. Acceptance of the hardware schedule does not relieve supplier of responsibility for errors or omissions E. Acceptable Manufacturers/Products: Every attempt should be made to match the existing manufacturers for various types of products. Products of equivalent quality, design and function by other listed manufacturers may be used, subject to approval of Architect. 1.2 Manufacturers and Product List: A. Substitutions are subject to the Architect's written approval. Only requests submitted by a distributor firm will be considered. B. Finishes for all hardware items shall match the existing facilities: Brushed Chrome 26D FINISH HARDWARE 08700 - 1 SECTION 09500 - ACOUSTICAL PANELS 1.1 General: A. This Section includes acoustical panels with a Hypalon coating as indicated on the construction documents and as specified herein. Provide all miscellaneous items required for a complete installation. B. Provide panels at the following locations: a. At the underside of the existing suspended ceiling at the Ready Room. b. At the underside of the existing suspended ceiling at the Firing Range. C. At the underside and top of the seven (7) shot deflectors. d. At the concrete ceiling between the shot deflectors. These panels shall be located in the following bays as designated moving from Firing Line to the Target Line: Bay 0-4'-0" deep x approximately 26-0" wide(the entire width of the range). Bay 1 -4'-0" deep x approximately 26-0" wide (the entire width of the range). Bay 2-4%0" deep x approximately 26'-0" wide (the entire width of the range). Bay 3 - 6-0" deep x approximately 26'-0" wide (the entire width of the range). Bay 4- 6-0" deep x approximately 26-0" wide(the entire width of the range). Bay 5 - T-0" deep x approximately 26'-0" wide (the entire width of the range). Bay 6- 8'-0" deep x approximately 26'-0" wide(the entire width of the range). e. At the steel wall panels between the shot deflectors. These panels shall square cut (not tapered to fit between the sloping panels) installed above the new plywood sheathing at T- 5" above the finish floor to to the underside of the concrete ceiling at approximately 1 F-3" above the finish floor. f. At both side walls of the vestibule provide a 4'-0" x 6'-0"panel. g. Provide the Owner with 3 un-opened boxes (24 panels), color: grey, and adequate amount of high-strength adhesive as recommended by the manufacturer for installation on to plastic. C. Characteristics: ASTM E 84, Class 1: 20 flame spread, 185 smoke density. 1.2 Products: A. Acoustical Panels: 1. The Drawings and Specifications are based on catalog data, specifications and products of Rlbruck Industrial Acoustic Products, "SONEXone Panels" and designate the type and quality of work intended under this section. 2. Panels: Open cell Wiltec, sculptured surface with Hypalon Coating: a. Color at walls and ceilings (typical): White b. Color of panels (24) to be left with Owner. Grey C. Size: 24 inches by 48 inches by 2 inches. A. Acoustical Panels Adhesive: 1. Provide high-strength adhesive as recommended by the manufacturer for each type of installation(wood, concrete, steel, drywall, etc.). ACOUSTICAL PANELS 09500 - 1 SECTION 09900 - PAINTING 1.1 General: A. Work Included This Section includes surface preparation and the application of paint materials to exposed interior items and surfaces effected during this contract. Provide all miscellaneous items required for a complete installation. 1. Surface preparation,prime and finish coats specified are in addition to shop-priming and surface treatments. B. Paint all exposed surfaces and damaged or patched surfaces, extending finish and texture to nearest perpendicular surface. 1.2 Products: A. Manufacturers: 1. Manufacturers: Subject to compliance requirements provide products from one of the following, or approved equal (inquire with Maintenance Staff for existing supplier): a. Parker Paint Co. b. Pratt& Lambert C. Fuller-OBrian d. Pittsburgh Paints e. Preserative Paint Co. B. Primer Provide undercoat paint produced by the same manufacturer as the finish coat. C. Thinner: Use only thinners recommended by the paint manufacturer, and use only to recommended limits. D. Color Schedules: Match existing paint colors and stain color. 1.3 Installation: A. Examine substrates and conditions under which painting will be performed for compliance with requirements. Do not begin application until unsatisfactory conditions have been corrected- 1. Verify that existing conditions and finishes are compatible with primers and paint specified in the Paint Schedule. B. Preparation: Remove hardware and hardware accessories,plates, machined surfaces, lighting fixtures, and items in place that are not to be painted, or provide protection prior to surface preparation and painting. Remove items if necessary for complete painting of the items and adjacent surfaces. Following completion of painting, reinstall items removed using workmen skilled in the trades involved. 1. Clean surfaces before applying paint or surface treatments. Schedule cleaning and painting so dust and other contaminants will not fall on wet,newly painted surfaces. C. Application: Apply paint in accordance with manufacturer's directions. Use applicators and techniques best suited for substrate and type of material being applied. Do not paint over dirt, PAINTING 09900 - 1 SECTION 15500 - BEATING AND VENTILATION (BIDDER DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS) 1.1 General A. Work Included: Work includes but is not limited to the following items: 1. Relocation of the existing air supply register. 2. Reconfiguring the existing ductwork above the Vestibule and Corridor to provide ventilation and heating. B. Existing Conditions: 1. All locations for mechanical work shall be checked and coordinated win the field. 2. Carefully check conditions to see that the equipment under consideration for installation will fit the space provided and that all connections may be made thereto without impairment of area and height requirements and of Code required clearances. 3. The Contractor will prepare and submit a complete set of installation Drawings clearly defining the Heating and Ventilation System as described by or referred to in this Specification. The Drawings will also indicate brand, model capacity, connection type and size, electrical requirements, accessories, locations and physical sizes of all equipment. 4. Investigate existing conditions for any potential conflicts associated with the placement of re-used existing fiberglass batts at the new Vestibule ceiling for sound attenuation. C. Submittals: 1. Shop Drawings: a. The Contractor shall check Shop Drawings for space requirements and conformance with the Specifications and shall mark his corrections and approval on all Shop Drawings prior to submittal to the Architect. 1.2 Products A. Duct Construction: 1. Ductwork: Construct from galvanized sheet metal to conform to Chapter 10, Uniform Mechanical Code, Volume II, latest Edition, or latest Edition ASHRAE Guide Table. 2. Flexible Ducts: Galvanized spring steel wire helix covered with continuous liner and attached to liner with spray coating, 1 inch thickness of fiberglass insulation, plastic vapor barrier jacket sealed at both ends. 0.25 K factor at 75F mean temperature, rated for continuous service at 1.5 inch S.P. All joints made with 1/2 inch wide positive locking steel straps. UL approved per UL 181. Maximum length of five feet. Manufacturer. Genflex, Thermaflex, Cleavaflex,Flexmaster, or approved. 3. Provide fire dampers as required when penetrating the one hour ceiling. 1.3 Execution A. Installation: HEATING AND VENTILATION 15500-1 SECTION 16010 BASIC ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS 1.1 General: A. Work Included: Scope of electrical work includes the following: 1. Relocate the existing light fixture into the new Vestibule. 2. Switch the fixture with the existing Corridor light fixtures. 3. Removal of any abandoned wiring, equipment and exposed conduit. 4. Verify all existing conditions, access limitations and service requirements prior to submitting bid. B. General Requirements: 1. All general, supplementary and special conditions of the contract specifications apply to this work. All material and workmanship shall be in accordance with the most recent Rules and Regulations of the National Fire Protection Association,the State of Washington Electric Code and local ordinances. C. Codes,Regulations and Ordinances: All work and materials shall conform to the applicable local, state and national codes, standards and/or ordinances. D. Permits and Inspections: Contractor shall obtain and pay for all required permits, fees and inspections required by any public authority having jurisdiction. E. Compatibility and Coordination: 1. The electrical equipment shall be compatible with, acknowledge and accommodate, the requirements of other trades. Contractor shall resolve without additional cost to the Owner those details necessary to assure that the electrical systems properly and completely function and conform to all requirements of all governing Codes and Regulatory Agencies. 1.2 Products: A. Materials: 1. Provide electrical materials of the type and quality to match existing building standard, new, listed by the Underwriters'Laboratories, bearing their label wherever standards have been established and label service is regularly famished by them 1.3 Execution: A. Verification of Conditions: 1. Bidder is expected to visit site of proposed construction. Verify and inspect the existing site to determine the conditions that affect this work 2. Include all costs in the bid price for the work and/or material required to comply with the Contract Documents, based on the actual existing conditions and the information indicated on the Contract Documents. B. Clarification BASIC ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS 16010-1 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, is entered into between the City of Kent, a Washington Municipal Corporation ("City"), anc ("Contractor"), whose mailing address is The parties agree as follows: 1. CONTRACTOR SERVICES. The Contractor shall perform the following services for the City: 2. TIME OF COMPLETION. Contractor shall complete the work within _ calendar days from the date of Issuance of the City's Notice to Proceed. 3. COMPENSATION. The City shall pay the Contractor the total amount of S plus any applicable Washington State Sales Tax, for the work and services contemplated in this agreement. The City shall pay the Contractor fifty percent (50%) of the Contract amount upon completion and acceptance of the work by the City, and the remainder upon fulfillment of the conditions listed below and throughout this agreement. A. No Performance Bond. Pursuant to RCW 39.08.010, the Contractor, in lieu of providing the City a performance bond, has elected to have the owner retain the final fifty percent (50%) of the Contract amount for a period of sixty(60) days after the date of final acceptance, or until receipt of all necessan releases from the State Department of Revenue and the State Department of Labor& Industries and until settlement of any liens filed under Chapter 60.28 RCW, whichever is later. B. Defective or Unauthorized Work. The City reserves its right to withhold payment from Contractor for any defective or unauthorized work. Defective or unauthorized work includes,without limitation: work and materials that do not conform to the requirements of this agreement; and extra work and materials furnished without the City's written aporoval. If Contractor is unable, for any reason, to satisfactorily complete any portion of the work, the City may complete the work by contract or otherwise, and Contractor shall be liable to the City for any additional costs incurred by the City. "Additional costs" shall mean all reasonable costs, including legal costs and attorney fees, incurred by the City beyond the maximum Contract price specified above. The C ty further reserves its right to deduct the cost to complete the Contract work, including anv Additionai Costs, from any and all amounts due or to become due the Contractor. C. Final Payment Waiver of Claims. THE MAKING OF FINAL PAYMENT (EXCLUDING WITHHELD RETAINAGE) SHALL CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF CLAIMS, EXCEPT THOSE PREVIOUSLY AND PROPERLY MADE AND IDENTIFIED BY CONTRACTOR AS UNSETTLED AT THE TIME REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT IS MADE. 4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend that an Independent Contractor-Emolover Reiationshio will be created by this agreement, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this agreement. 5. TERMINATION. The City may terminate this agreemenr for good cause. "Good cause" shall include, without work. The City shall have access to any of the Contractor's records needed for evaluating the protest. 3. The City will evaluate all protests, provided the procedures in this section are followed. If the City determines that a protest is valid, the City will adjust payment for work or time by an equitable adjustment. No adjustment will be made for an invalid protest. B. Contractor's Duty to Complete Protested Work. In spite of any protest, the Contractor shall proceed promptly with the work as the City has ordered. C. Contractor's Acceptance of Chan.-es. The Contractor accepts alI-requirements of a change order by: 0) endorsing it, (2) writing a separate acceptance, or (3) not protesting in the way this section provides. A change order that is accepted by Contractor as provided in this section shall constitute full payment and final settlement of all claims for contract time and for direct, indirect and consequential costs, including costs of delays related to any work, either covered or affected by the change. D. Failure to Protest Constitutes Waiver. By not protesting as this section provides, the Contractor also waives any additional entitlement and accepts from the City any written or oral order (including directions, instructions, interpretations, and determination). E. Failure to Follow Procedures Constitutes Waiver. By failing to follow the procedures of this section, the Contractor completely waives any claims for protested work and accepts from the City any written or oral order(including directions, instructions, interpretations, and determination). 8. CLAIMS. The Contractor shall give written notice to the City of all claims other than change orders within fourteen (14)calendar days of the occurrence of the events giving rise to the claims. Any claim for damages, additional payment for any reason, or extension of time, whether under this agreement or otherwise, shall be conclusively deemed to have been waived by the Contractor unless a timely written claim is made in strict accordance with the applicable provisions of this agreement; or, if (and only if) no such provision is applicable, unless that claim is set forth in detail in writing and received by the City within seven (7) calendar days from the date Contractor knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to the claim. At a minimum, a Contractor's written claim must include the information set forth regarding protests in Section 7.A.2.a.-e. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE, WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CLAIM WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED SHALL BE AN ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF ANY CLAIMS ARISINC IN ANY WAY FROM THE FACTS OR EVENTS SURROUNDING THAT CLAIM OR CAUSED BY THAT DELAY. Contractor must , in any event, file any claim or bring any suit arising from or connected with this agreement within 120 calendar days from the date the contract work is compiete. 9. WARRANTY. The Contractor shall correct all defects in workmanship and materials within one year from the date of the City's acceptance of the Contract work. When defects are corrected, the warranty for that portion of the work shall extend for one year from the date such correction Is completed and accepted by the City. The Contractor shall begin to correct any defects within seven (7) calendar days of its receipt or notice from the City of the defect_ if the Contracor does not accomplish the corrections within a reasonable time, the Citv may complete the corrections and the Contracor shall pay all costs incurred by the City in order to accomplish the correction. 10. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor shall defend. ,ndemnify and hold the City, its officer, officiais, emplovees, 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. CONTRACT—Pale 3 of 6 1'16%° force and effect E. Covernimz Law. This agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If any dispute arises between the City and Contractor under any of the provision of this agreement, resolution of that dispute shall be available only through the jurisdiction, venue and rules of the King County Superior Court, King County, Washington. F. Attornev's Fees. To the extent not inconsistent with RCW 39.04.240, in any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this agreement, each party shall be responsible for payment of its own legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit; however, nothing in this subsection shall limit the City's right to indemnification under Section 10 of this agreement. G. Written Notice. All communications regarding this agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of this agreement, unless otherwise notified. Any written notice shall become effective upon delivery, but in any event three (3) calendar days after 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. H. Assignment. Any assignment of this agreement by the Contractor without the written consent of the City shall be void. 1. 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 Contractor. J. Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of this agreement are held to b unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this agreement and the remainder shall remain in full force and effect. K. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this agreement, together with any attached Exhibits, supersede all prior verbal statements by any representative of the City, and those statements shall not be construed as forming a part of or altering in any manner this agreement. This agreement and any attached Exhibits contain the entire agreement between the parties. Should any language in any Exhibit to this agreement conflict with any language contained in this agreement, the terms of this agreement shall prevail. City of Kent Workers Compensation February 28,1997 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1997 1997 Description Actual Actual Actual Actual(Prel) Budget YTD-Feb Est Actual REVENUE Contributions 271,861 407,912 455,407 505,630 510,875 58,663 510,875 Interest Income 49,294 50,160 57,787 50,485 53,000 6,356 53,000 Prior Year Recovery 16,695 5,000 2,439 158 Total Revenue 337,850 463.072 515.633 556,273 563,875 65,019 563,875 EXPENSE Salaries and benefits 4,634 13,176 Judgements&Damages 280,112 98,960 157,041 277,866 307,661 4,885 307,661 IBNR Adjustment 141,342 81,242 Liability insurance 50,720 52.000 43,676 46,762 50,000 42.184 42,18a Intergovernmental services 41,381 35,207 37,258 51,756 54,053 16,598 54,053 Administrative costs 43,043 31,223 22,810 31,870 36,409 8,913 36,409 Debt and financial services 4,966 8,240 8,240 Personnel costs 25,000 25,849 26.341 59,218 22,841 3,807 22,841 Other 79 20,480 432 26,555 1,847 4,405 4,405 Safety program 23,167 41,255 48,024 47,699 2,832 47,699 Total Expense 591,677 286,886 410,055 551,651 541,926 83,624 523,492 Net Income (253,827) 176,186 105,578 4,622 21,949 (18,605) 40,383 Retained Earnings 111 737,532 483,705 659,891 765,469 771,538 770,091 770,091 Retained Earnings 12131 483,705 659,891 765,469 770,091 793,487 751,486 810,474 Variance from preliminary budget (1,447) 'Per Actuarial Study-Reserve requirement at 80%confidence level was S572,000 at 12t31/91. CLAIMS RETAINED EARNINGS � L---------------------I ®� _- i---------------------� m� --- ® ------ -I ®� ---- - ------� m�-- m ------ m m V m fm Im iGC i , vMCt GI�W iM9 ili]T 0 iL/.Ci iVlt YCT L'T ilWO ilYN 1»T 264Aw--97 RPWK8702 Kent City Council Meeting Date Mav 6 . 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES - REGIONAL LAND USE APPROACH - RESOLUTION 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. I/t 'p" regarding wireless telecommunications facilities. This resolution encourages continued efforts under way among various South County cities to coordinate land use and plan- ning efforts pertaining to the location and siting of wireless telecommunication facilities in order to improve interjuris- dictional communication on these issues and to further the goal of achieving a consistent, area-wide land use and planning approach. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations 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. 3P RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, establishing a policy that recognizes the need for regional involvment on wireless telecommunications issues and authorizing staff to meet with other South County jurisdictions to develop a regional coordinated effort to address the development and construction of wireless telecommunications facilities. WHEREAS, recent changes in wireless communications technology have created a new competitive private business market aimed at providing various forms of wireless telephone, data and other services to the citizens of Kent and the greater South County region, and WHEREAS, businesses that want to deploy this new technology and the market forces that the technology is affecting have been and continue to result in the submission of an unprecedented number of land use and development applications to establish wireless telecommunications facilities within the City's corporate limits; and WHEREAS, many of these facilities involve the construction of towers ranging from sixty to one hundred fifty feet in height: and WHEREAS, the exact location of these tower facilities is determined in part by the number and location of other telecommunications facilities in the area that are linked to the system each antenna is established to serve: and WHEREAS. in order to provide absolute coverage, without any blackout areas, some of these tower and other telecommunications facilities may need to be erected in residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, in order to preserve the existing character of neighborhood residential communities, the City must take all legally permissible and appropriate steps to reduce the impacts caused by these wireless telecommunication facilities on those residential neighborhoods, by means such as use of existing facilities, co-location on towers, reduced tower heights or height limitations. etc.; and WHEREAS, because of their height and location, these towers and other telecommunications facilities, without appropriate land use and development controls, can impact the character, nature, and aesthetics of local neighborhoods and communities: and WHEREAS, because of the unprecedented number of development permit applications that the City has received, it is appropriate that the City review, analyze, and determine the appropriate land use and development regulations for the siting of these wireless telecommunications facilities; and WHEREAS, it is additionally appropriate that City staff coordinate its efforts with the efforts being taken by other communities in the South County region so that these cities. working together, can develop a coordinated, regional effort for the siting, development, and construction of these wireless telecommunications facilities so as to provide a predictable framework for the cities, their residents. and the various telecommunications providers. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON. DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The foregoing recitals and findings are incorporated into the body of this resolution as if fully stated herein. SECTION 2: New technology developments in the wireless telecommunications industry present new challenges to the City of Kent. It is appropriate that the City review and understand the impact of this technology on our community and our citizens. SECTION 3: Without appropriate land use and development controls, the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. specifically including towers,poses a serious impact to the public health, safety and welfare, particularly within residential areas. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider all legally permissible means and methods available that would achieve the goal of reducing impacts on residential neighborhoods. such as using existing facilities. co-locating facilities, and establishing height limitations. SECTION 4: Because the telecommunications business providers constructing these facilities site their communication facilities on a regional rather than individual city basis, it is appropriate that the City of Kent coordinate its efforts with other South County cities to develop an effective regional approach that provides consistent and thorough regulation of these facilities throughout the South County region. This coordinated effort is intended to provide consistency and predictability both for municipalities and for the telecommunications industry in order to encourage and expedite deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities and services. SECTION S: City staff are hereby directed to assist with the development of a regional South County planning group including, without limitation. the cities of Kent, z Tukwila, Auburn, Federal Way, Renton, SeaTac and Des Moines. The purpose of this regional planning group shall be to keep fully informed of the various wireless telecommunications developments that occur in each city. Finally, the Mayor is hereby directed to designate appropriate staff, as deemed advisable, to coordinate and develop this plan. 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 herebv certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent. Washington, the day of 1997. (SEAL) CITY CLERK P 11AW\RESOLUTPCITY.RES 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY RESTORATION - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the East Valley Highway Pavement Restoration project as complete and release retainage to Lakeside Industries upon standard releases from the state, and release of any liens. The original contract amount was $769, 897 .50. The final construction cost was $800,963 . 51. 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. 3Q (SW 4 3RD ST) S 180TH ST !�STIST 182N0 ...... TH PL V, OE OFJ S 188TH ST 5 188TH ST go T S 190TH ST 5 190TH ST S 192NO ST ST -------- S 19qTH ST 5 196TH 5T 191 ST :E- 07 99 k 5 200TH ST 3 f } S 5T PROJECT H LOCATION 204T 1 5 ST 20 FL 205 TH PL. 2 206 ST TH ST 20 �08THJ Si 5 TH 51 Al 5 21 '1 I ---- 212TH ST I------- --- iF +1 East Valley Highway Pavement Restoration -4 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: S. 212TH STREET HOV LANES - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the S. 212th Street HOV Lanes (WVH - SR167) project as complete and release retainage to Gary Merlino Construction upon standard releases from the state, and release of any liens. The original contract amount was $3 , 011,766. 32 . The final construction cost was $2 , 981, 544 .70. 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. 3R ,ti= + A __ _...... f . PAcau Ll' 5 ' T _T S T 1-4 kL 2ND AVE N 1 ( W. VALLEY HWY -,�jt�_:-.,-.�•.•,�_ - sR- to � � �< S _. CfI r - BAR -- ' -�• � ...�;-� �' � _ ---, _ _- ....... T VALLEY HWY E�S Ic BHTH AVE S 4 �'• 1�iEE t y ' i SLMIIT r�/ ,r,. .... f• ( ....lyres y- \, ri - i -� _ S S.212th Street HOV LANES Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SEVEN OAKS WEST - BILL OF SALE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, acceptance of the bill of sale for Seven Oaks West submitted by Seven Oaks West Associates for continuous operation and maintenance of 244 feet of water mains, 245 feet of sanitary sewers, 336 feet of street improvements, 250 feet of storm sewers, and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at S.E. 256th St. , west of 118th Place S.E. 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. 3S rHal. � SEI lac '1 S- -� �• v� m SE 236 > SE 237 ST a w E 237 ST e m� <n o SE 38 5T �sE 237 ' > - - s N W i Tf-- 1 a -2' - SE N 239 5T _ poly 5° 29F PL _ __ rn - 73 rn * rIt �f Res: err lff1"- � vvn mI 241 ST W CITT w� LIMITS aevf N' '� w `� _ '-> , 242 ST ras- f,n/ ¢ 5 242 CT LtEnEwraar c 5E 242 7 Q - -- - 1� i p al 0>_51 �1 i i Tyl�` s 243 S `i / SE 244 51 SE 244 51 > LE 244 CT Sc o 245 P'_ o f P HJ1 "a,ucr CL4 LAXf 24E T - E 24E PL ■ PgRK �, « U` 0" warm+ N c 1- 5[ JYf SIC 'r' S 24' E 297 F_ Paflf ( FIC.` m SE 248 ST Ni - SE 248 IST-�---- PROJECT J n SE 249- �w �� I �"^ E/fNrwran: \sE 250 c SE 251 STr 251 FL N 6E 25 ' gN > PRII. : 5�� � F o 5_ 252 FL SE 25251 > rn J b SE ,, A T I 0 N ¢ 9E 253 _ 5c 25 25t C' wl JI FRENCH e.f. rR.,, o m sE z54 m� �5E •; I �+� -EK FIELC RENT -� >I I s Sr 7S��w > N NfN101 As 5E 254 PE I 7S`` CI Nlc- sfnoo: �SEp25UI> r� v' SE 256 ST -I - - _ _ ss m m s\ 65 E m d SE 2 PL w IARr I n/a( SE 256 51 7z, S 5 r S 256 ST ¢ '116 r E 25 tie rs. O t^ _ P ='�� } `^ my ^�n a 5T N 1{ W 1 SE 260 S7 w `-,s zs6 leo y3=- xse r`-� SE 259 P a r I� Sr 60 P n .. L - P W t'- - '¢ SE 261 Sl :4 ri v Iv ra. _ van• -_� VRi - SE PR1� S . 0 261 — bXC i 76� Cl _ 262 PL ai 26� E m 1 w 1 3 1.o �n an s s 262 I2 5E 62 PLC 1 sfoue/a > r - '' J m z6 si st J SE 264 ST JR. ISC J 122 AY �'i I N w r�- SE 264P,E ,n 'r 3E zeu kFNp SE 264 Sl 5 265 s`i \, PL rn 1 / = SE 265 FL SE 262 r t o w 5EJ 26F 65T SE 267 ST _ - - W„ rooa4 s`3Lartr IL Ile vl '� ---�� 268 5 a' o� 6 �- s7 SE 269 57 roRros Sr ' t - ¢ sE 3rs ! SE 269 ST u P 270 st ''/p SE 270 51 2 1O w St a IZ PRIY. r SEA 271 ST SE 222 ST o 272 ST SE 272 PL N ynrwtweao 2 5E T W �T- � RRRnsE 273 rl '�o:z51 c> 3E 27Y ]1 _ " A:xK.�v�. SE 2,) \ > _ yy;�� 1 Y SE 274 - ST ¢ m 7 6t NNSE z7r 37 2;, ., .0 i+y rR1r. ^ 6i dux,; . �,e T 274 _ -- - SE 276 ST e, az7V 9E z7 }} SE 27 ct ST RERE We, SE 2 6 � r SE 276 PL y° SE 277 FL ecfnfwunr y r n _ SE 279 ST E`n PR 1 r, NMf ruff CITY IqR/ —I —_------ - LIMITS SEA SEVEN OAKS WEST Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LAKE VILLA TOWNHOMES PHASE III - BILL OF SALE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, acceptance of the bill of sale for Lake Villa Townhomes Phase III submitted by Benjamin Homes, Inc. for continuous operation and maintenance of 703 feet of water main improvements and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at 104th Ave. S.E. & S.E. 250th Place. 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. 3T 5E 8 5T J SE ry 239 ST rnt II "' c � -2,- 5 5E 2388JFLa _ — ?&57 aF((Cf NI !1 5T a PROJECT I !2 ta57 nu t LIMITS 242 CT [(Eafa/aR/ i SE 242 PL I i 24 -5T In w oQ SE 244 ST SE LOCATION -- low 6E 244 EiSE 245 PL I 5E r cam` cE 24E T E 246 PLeua tL AAK LAKE u �` S 247 - F 247 PL * s/a!/a1�m PRRK N�`� OeEL 7PI �i,., POF� ! P/ir l - SE 248 ST > SE 248 1ST I r FL v nPFr/• w� �l soar,. w� - 111, !a _ S 4 _1r �i2 s F 251 PL N� ."'� Pnlr_ o w v 1 5! 251 5 ks 252 P SC z4 rq 11. _ `E 253 PL > IT \ o� SE 252 PL SE 252 5' Q I T FRENCH i.[. PRO: m w 5° 2`3 S_ N E. W v IELC RCn CD �n In� m ¢' I - � ` Sc 25'- N _ NERlplan >I - SE 26V �"\ N dU �, > n.�Ln _I q/5a 5egage e, SE 254 PL I 5r o y �s v 2 0 SSS n J �n v m SE 258 ST -I - �'" -��sE zs�IY5'. m 1 m\ScP 25u n, - i sE\� � _ W I , C Q 3R 3 S, 258 �s S 6 SE 5E z9 I� 6E 260 ST ( st W ,•• 9 �� d E 25 5� W C � 268 C x Pl x6} 9 P4 s(ren s SE 6C PL zs - W 5E 26! 262 PL t _ _ 6X, sc� c' Pntu. �� d d P 5E 2E 261 PL a V an I^ 6 - - 261 P SE s£oue/F > `s,oz , s. SE 262 vE ` c 131 ,c d�QjvF��jlp��5,. � ! 264 ST f;Th" a �'£ evf.i Nam^' /2' S 266 \, w SE 264 P,L '� 3E zee N7, SE 264 6T sf 1N. 6 6v f PL mL ,T d m M2 l _•� 1='� PE 265 s6 z6c.Et R N N / � S SE 267 ST r W SE 2 6�57 L 266? - > W � 7UtlgR .SJLNR( i rE � Q Q - . t SE 26e W e7 „fie I SF 26E ST SE 269 ST -- s �1 _ ^� 266� tv SE �1 ' SE 269 ST f1�� sP z70 st PRIY '/, _ '-"s� �a� W PRl v" J0 . d SE 270 5T Im �' � e��1F - 2 I? IE 5 271 ST _ _ ti = _ 5E 27' i SE 2Y2 ST \ o r "' 's xs'` m� vwi .i PR I V. yNP SE 272 PL SEN 272 S7 c � w W aWn W N SPq/aGMagC 6E 1 Ran, z - > > ]E 2>V T ¢ N a ,7 SE 273 PL W t p• I 5E 7 - ST Q Q Q1 �\ V Cl\4 5r-N -6F 2]y 31 ?Jy y SE P� FRI V. W W 1 37 1+ 274 ST \1'`J SE 276 5T= SE 27 t *. SE 27 C N> a� ` c([nea^anT 6F 2 6 N SE r�r,7 6 PL 6T`,s SE F.ecerom ranr `� 4' r. SE 271 PL !rye ti >:'. `tia , ,i \ 5l ._ SE 279 S7 - 277 PL a SE 277 PL PRIV. PIWE We SE ne e ' LIMITS ran, „\ _I . SE 276 PL IC SE 28C SE 281 ST PRIV. SE 282 ST LAKE VILLA TOWNHOMES PHASE III - I Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6. 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RESTROOM PARTITION PROJECT - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Restroom Partition Project at Lake Meridian, Russell Road and Van Doren' s Landing Parks as complete, and release final retainage to the contractor, Foster Bray Company. Foster Bray was hired to supply and install restroom partitions. The projects have been completed and accepted by staff. All state releases have been received. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 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 seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3U Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6, 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL ABSENCE - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of an excused absence from the May 20, 1997 Council meeting by Council President Houser who will be unable to attend. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council President Houser (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. 3V MEMORANDUM TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ;FROM: CHRISTI HOUSER. CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT t DATE: APRIL 30.. 1997 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE I would like to request an excused absence from the May 20, 1997 City Council meeting. 1 will be unable to attend. Thank you for your consideration. CH:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date Mav 6. 1997 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: VAN DOREN'S LANDING BUILDING J REZONE #RZ-96-5 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Hearing Examiner has recommended approval of an application to rezone approximately 0. 4 acres of property from M1, Industrial Park, to M1-C, Industrial Park - C Suffix. The property is located at 22815 West Valley Highway in Kent. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report and Findings and recommendations 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmemberr, moves, Councilmember seconds to accept/reject/modify the Findings of the Hearing Examiner, to adopt/reject/modify the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval of the Van Doren' s Landing Bldg. J Rezone and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION: r ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4A CITY OF 0\"Uj i Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER (206) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunter Hearing Examiner FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION FILE NO: VAN DOREN'S LANDING BUILDING J 4RZ-96-5 APPLICANT: Dan Ivanoff, Vice President. MBK Northwest REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately 0.4 acres from Ml, Industrial Park, to MI-C, Industrial Park - C Suffix. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 22815 West Valley Highway. APPLICATION FILED: December 5, 1996. DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: January 3, 1997 MEETING DATE: March 5, 1997 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: March 19, 1997 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department Charlene Anderson, Planning Department Kristen Langley, Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Dan Ivanoff, applicant WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Washington State Department of Transportation EXHIBITS: Hearing Examiner file containing: 1 A Application from applicant for rezone 113. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance 1C. Planning Department staff report 1 12041h AVE.SO_ /KENT.W ASHINGTON 980}_-s89s'TELEPH TELEPHONE '_Ob859- 700 i pA�g Bsq-7W ASHINGTON 080}_-�89s' TELEPHONF? '_Onri59_;4Uo/PAr#H5q-7�:1 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 1D. Departmental comments 1 E. Affidavits of Notice of Public Hearing INTRODUCTION After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application. FINDINGS 1. An application for a rezone was filed on December 5, 1996. The property proposed for a rezone is located at 22815 West Valley Highway, at the southwest corner of the intersection of S. 228th Street and West Valley Highway. The subject property is part of a development known as "Van Doren's Landing." Exhibit 1A, Application. 2. The subject property is approximately .4 acres. The applicant proposes a rezone from "1\/I-1" (Industrial Park District) to "M-IC" (Industrial Park - C Suffix) Exhibit IA. The proposed rezone would allow the development of the site as a fast food restaurant; which could be of benefit to the 3,000 or so employees who work within Van Doren's Landing. Exhibit IA, Application, Testimony of Mr. Dan Ivanoff 3. Properties to the north and east of the subject property are zoned M-1. Property to the west and south was rezoned to M-1C by City Council action in October of 1996. Land use in the area includes a variety of business uses including corporate offices, manufacturing and warehouse. A veterinarian clinic presently occupies the site. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Testimony of Charlene Anderson. 4. The City Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as Industrial. Several policies of the Comprehensive Plan offer support for the proposed rezone. The key policy is LU-16.4 which states the goal "to expand retail opportunities to provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area, implement the recommendations of the West Valley Study regarding potential areas for expanded retail opportunities within the M-1 Industrial Park District." The subject property was included within the West Valley Study as a "logical location for permitting a wider range of retail uses to respond to the personal and service needs of the 30,000 plus employees who are drawn to the City each day." Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2-3, Testimony of' Charlene Anderson. 5. A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for this proposal on January 3, 1997. Conditions intended to address traffic impacts,pedestrian access, wetlands, Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Van Doren's Landing Building J 9RZ-96-5 water quality and water quantity were attached to the MANS. The MANS was not appealed. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) did comment during the environmental review phase of this application. WSDOT did provide comments on the proposed rezone by recommending that access to West Valley Highway should not be allowed. Exhibit JB; Exhibit 1, Letter from WSDOT to Mr. Harris. 6. The property has access to both West Valley Highway and South 228th Street. West Valley Highway is classified as a principle arterial with a public right-of-way of 100 feet and paving of 84 feet. West Valley Highway has been identified by the Washington State Department of Transportation as a Class 3 highway so that a minimum spacing requirement of 330 feet between access connections is required pursuant to Washington Administrative Code Chapter 468.52.040. South 228th Street is classified as a minor arterial with a right-of-way of 80 feet and actual paving of 60 feet. The average daily traffic count is about 33,030 vehicle trips per day for West Valley Highway and 9,000 vehicle trips per day for South 228th Street. City staff recommends that access to the site be only from South 228th; the applicant requests approval for access to West Valley Highway. The City Traffic Engineer testified that there would be an "overriding benefit" to allowing access to West Valley Highway as that would help prevent traffic snarls at West Valley Highway and South 228th Street.' Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Testimony of Ms. Anderson, Ms. Langley and Mr. Ivanoff. 7. Since the existing M-1 zoning was applied to the subject property, the Van Doren's Landing development has occurred. This development brings over 3,000 employees to the immediate area. These employees presently have no on-site retail food services. The proposed rezone is intended to allow the construction and operation of a Jack-in-the-Box restaurant to serve these employees. Staff Report, page 7; Testimony of Ils. Anderson. 'Testimony was presented during the public hearing on the whether the proposed rezone would be in compliance with the provisions of WAC 468-52-040 (3)(b)(ii)(A) & (B). Although this testimony is of interest generally to site development, compliance with those sections of the Washington Administrative Code is not directly relevant to a review of the rezone request. The applicant may require a "nonconformance" permit from WSDOT, but that issue is not decided at this time and, in any event, should not be decided by the Hearing Examiner. The testimony was presented in response to the staff recommendation to restrict access to South 228th only. Other testimony convinced the Examiner that there would be no adverse traffic impacts if access to the West Valley Highway was also allowed. Thus, the Hearing Examiner does not adopt the recommendation for that reason and because he believes it is inappropriate to approve rezones with conditions. 3 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 8. A public hearing was held on this application on March 5, 1997. Notice of the public hearing was posted on the site, published in the newspaper and mailed to persons living near the site. Exhibit ID, Affidavits of Notice. The public hearing was attended by a representative of the City and the applicant. The City presented a recommendation to approve the rezone request with one condition related to access. Exhibit 1, Staff Report: Testimony of Vs. Anderson. The applicant presented testimony in support of the rezone request; but requested access to West Valley Highway. Testimony of Mr. Ivanoff. No one testified or submitted any evidence against the rezone request nor did anyone raise any concerns or questions about the rezone request at the public hearing. All testimony and evidence presented prior to and during the public hearing supported approval of the rezone request. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction and Authority The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold a public hearing on this quasi-judicial rezone, and to issue a written recommendation for final action to the Council, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.170 and Chapters 2.32 and-15.09 of the Kent City Code. Section 15.09.050(A)(3) of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the standards and criteria the Examiner must use to evaluate a request for a rezone. A request for a rezone shall only be granted if: a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity; C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated; d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone; C. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. In addition to the above criteria, Section 15.09.050 (D) of the Kent Zoning Code requires the Hearing Examiner to evaluate a request for M-1 C zoning by reviewing the request for consistency with the following criteria: 4 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 1. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or contiguous to major arterial intersections identified on the comprehensive land map as being appropriate locations for commercial type land uses. 2. Rezoning to M-1C shall not be speculative in nature, but shall be based on generalized development plans and uses. Based on the Findings specified above, the Examiner makes the following conclusions: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan CONCLUSION 1: The proposed rezone is consistent with the both the City Comprehensive Plan Map and Policies. 1.1 The designation of Industrial on the comprehensive plan map coupled with the policies of the West Valley Industrial Study indicate the proposed rezone is consistent with the vision of the future adopted by the City Council. Finding of Fact No.4 1.2 The Examiner must also consider the policies of the comprehensive plans as well as the map designations. The Comprehensive Plan includes written policies to encourage retail development near industrial areas in certain locations. Finding of Fact No.4 . The proposed rezone is consistent with these policies. Compatibility with Development in the Vicinity CONCLUSION 2: The potential development associated with the rezone proposal would be compatible with the existing development in the vicinity of the proposed rezone. The proposed rezone is in an area that has been developed with corporate offices, warehouses and light manufacturing. The proposed rezone would be consistent with this surrounding development by providing a retail outlet for some of the over 3,000 employees that come to locations near the subject property. The type of development authorized under the proposed zone is just as compatible with the existing development than is the type of development authorized under the current zone. Finding of Fact No.2. 3 & '. Burden on Transportation System CONCLUSION 3: The proposed rezone would not unduly burden the transportation system 3.1 The traffic impacts associated with the potential development of the proposed rezone were reviewed by the City as part of the environmental review of the rezone proposal. The evidence of 5 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 the City Traffic Engineer shows that the traffic impacts associated with the proposal can be mitigated such that there would be no adverse affects on West Valley Highway if access to that highway was allowed. If access was not allowed, there would be traffic problems at the intersection of South 228th Street and West Valley Highway. Findings of Fact No. 6. Change of Circumstances CONCLUSION 4: Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the existing zone to warrant the proposed rezone. The development of the Van Doren's Landing brings over 3,000 employees to the area each working day. This change warrants the rezone to allow the development of retail uses on the subject property including the proposed Jack-in-the-Box restaurant. Finding of Fact No. 7. Health, Safety and Welfare of the Citizens of Kent CONCLUSION 5: The proposed rezone would not adversely affect the general welfare of the citizens of Kent in the area surrounding the proposed rezone. No one presented any evidence of any nature against this rezone proposal. The Hearing Examiner must conclude that the proposed rezone would not have any adverse affect on anyone in the area surrounding the rezone. Finding of Fact No. 8. MI-C Review Criteria 1. The proposed rezone is in close proximity the intersection of South 228th Street and West Valley Highway, an intersection identified on the comprehensive land map as being an appropriate location for commercial type land uses Finding of Fact No. 4. 2. The proposed rezone to MAC shall is not speculative in nature, but is based on a development plan to construct and operate a Jack-in-the-Box restaurant. Finding of Fact No. 2. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the Examiner recommends the City Council APPROVE this request for a rezone without conditions. It is the Examiner's opinion that the rezone request, as proposed, meets the criteria for approval established by the Council. 6 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 Dated this 19th day of March, 1997 THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION. ORDINANCE 3320 (excerpt): The action of the city council, approving, modifying, or rejecting a recommendation or decision of the hearing examiner, shall be final and conclusive, unless within twenty-one(21) calendar days of the city council action, an appeal is filed with the Superior Court. 7 CITY OF �J, 5 - Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF March 5, 1997 at 2:00 PM FILE NO: VAN DOREN'S LANDING BUILDING J 4RZ-96-5 APPLICANT: Dan Ivanoff, Vice President MBK Northwest REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately 0.4 acres from M1, Industrial Park District, to M1-C, Industrial Park - C suffix STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Charlene Anderson, Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions 1. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 0.4 acres from the current zoning of M-1, Industrial Park District,to M1-C, Industrial Park District, Commercial Suffix. B. Location The subject property is located at 22815 West Valley Highway, at the southwest corner of the intersection of S. 228th Street and West Valley Highway. C. Size of Property The subject property contains approximately 0.4 acres. w 1 220 4th AVE.SO.. /KENT,W ASHINGTON 9803'--5895/TELEPHONE R0618 59-3 3 00 1 FAX#859-3334 Staff Report Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 D. Zoninia Properties north and east of the subject property are zoned M-1. The property to the west and south was rezoned to MI-C via City of Kent Ordinance No. 3313 which was passed by the City Council on October 1, 1996. The subject property would have been included in that same rezone application had the proponents owned the property at that time. E. Land Use Land use in the area consists of corporate offices, manufacturing, and warehouse/distribution. A veterinarian clinic currently occupies the subject site. F. History The subject property was annexed to the City of Kent as part of a 2,990-acre annexation on February 28, 1959 via Ordinance No. 1O13. In 1986, the area was included in the West Valley Industrial Study which identified three major intersections in Kent's industrial area as "...logical locations for permitting a wider range of retail uses..." These uses would "...respond to the personal and service needs of 30,000 plus employees who are drawn to the City each day...". Allowing more flexibility for retail uses in the M-1 district was considered anew by the City Council Planning Committee on April 4, 1995, and that committee voted unanimously to add Policy LU-16.4 to the Land Use Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. Through an inadvertent omission, the policy was not adopted by the City Council until June 18, 1996 via Ordinance No. 3302. II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Environmental Assessment A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (#ENV-96-85) was issued for the proposal on January 3, 1997. Conditions addressed impacts to traffic, pedestrian access, wetlands, water quality and water quantity. The MDNS is part of the record. ft 2 Staff Report Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 B. Significant Physical Features 1. Topogranhy and Vegetation The site generally is flat and contains wetlands. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The site has access to both West Valley Highway and South 228th Street. West Valley Highway is classified a Principal Arterial and has a public right- of-way width of 100 feet, while the actual width of paving is 84 feet. The street is improved with asphalt paving, curb and gutter, stormwater drainage, sidewalks, and street lighting. South 228th Street is classified a Minor Arterial and has a public right-of-way width of 80 feet,while the actual width of paving is 60 feet. The street is improved with asphalt paving, curb and gutter, stormwater drainage, sidewalks,and street lighting. The average daily traffic counts on West Valley Highway and South 228th Street are approximately 33,300 and 9,000 vehicle trips per day respectively. The Washington State Department of Transportation recommends that access only be taken off South 228th Street, per Access Management Law of 1991, WAC 468-52-040 (3) (b) (ii) (A) and (B). West Valley Highway is a Class 3 highway with a minimum spacing requirement of 330 feet from another public or private access connection. Additional mitigation of traffic impacts was considered under the environmental review of this project. 2. Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems An existing 12-inch water main line and an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer are available to serve the property. Staff Report Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 3. Stormwater System Mitigation of impacts to the storm drainage system was considered under the environmental review of this project. 4. LID'S The subject property is covered by LID 327 for West Valley Highway Improvements. 5. PARKS This proposal does not affect the parks system. III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: Fire (Fire Chief and Fire Marshal) Law Chief of Staff City Clerk Parks and Recreation Planning (Building Official) Police Public Works Washington State Department of Transportation In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing. Comments from these departments and agencies have been incorporated into the staff report where applicable. 4 Staff Report Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW A. Comprehensive Plan In 1995, the Kent City Council adopted the Kent Comprehensive Plan, which represented a complete revision to the City's 1977 comprehensive plan. The 1995 plan was prepared under the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act. The Kent Comprehensive Plan, through its goals and policies, presents a clear expression of the City's vision of growth for citizens, the development community, and other public agencies. The plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, Land Use and Planning Board, Hearing Examiner, and City departments to guide decisions on amendments to the City's zoning code and other development regulations, which must be consistent with the plan, and also to guide decisions regarding the funding and location of capital improvements projects. The Land Use Element of the plan contains a Land Use Plan Map, which designates the type and intensity of land uses throughout the city, as well as in the entire potential annexation area. The GMA Kent Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Industrial. The proposal supports Policy LU-16.4, "To expand retail opportunities to provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area, implement the recommendations of the West Valley Industrial Study regarding potential areas for expanded retail opportunities for properties within the M1 Industrial Park district." V. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A REQUEST FOR REZONE According to Kent City Code Section 15.09.050.C, "The following standards and criteria shall be used by the hearing examiner and city council to evaluate a request for rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the city council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria." 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Planning Department Comment See IV.A., above. The Planning Department concurs that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 5 Staff Report Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. Planning Department Comment The applicant states, "...the corporate users located within Van Doren's Landing are composed of over 3,000 employees working between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. These employees enjoy no on-site retail services within Van Doren's Landing and, instead, must leave the business park for support retail services such as deli's and food service operations, travel agencies, dry cleaning, day care, etc. The proposed property rezone serves to provide the means for support retail services to be located within Van Doren's Landing and allow the business park to be self-supportive for most all of the tenant and owner/user needs." (underlining by applicant). Allowing flexibility in retail uses at the proposed location would offer additional services to the thousands of employees who work in the industrial area of the City, would continue the existing MI-C zoning to the street intersection, and thus would be compatible with development in the vicinity of the site. 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. Planning Department Comment Mitigation of impacts to the traffic system were considered during environmental review of the proposal. An additional mitigating condition is included as part of the staff recommendation for this proposal. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. Planning_Department Comment As stated on page 80 of the West Valley Industrial Study, "...The nature of Kent's industrial base is changing as it matures...Today's development pattern is more mixed. Service-type industries and office uses represent a larger and larger share of development proposals. A demand for retail and personal service uses has also resulted from the tremendous influx of 6 Staff Report Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 employees into the City's industrial area...". Therefore, staff would agree that conditions have changed since the area was zoned ML 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city. Planning Department Comment The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city. It will offer additional retail and personal services to the employees in the industrial areas of the city. According to Kent City Code Section 15.09.050.1), "The hearing examiner and the city council shall use the standards and criteria provided in subsection C. of this section to evaluate a request for rezone to MI-C. In addition, the hearing examiner and city council shall evaluate a request for MI-C on the basis of the following standards and criteria. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the city council determines the request is consistent with these standards and criteria." 1. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or contiguous to major arterial intersections identified on the comprehensive plan map as being appropriate locations for commercial type land uses. Planning Department Comment The intersection of West Valley Highway and South 228th Street has been identified by the comprehensive plan as an appropriate location for commercial type land uses. 2. Rezoning to MI-C shall not be speculative in nature, but shall be based on generalized development plans and uses. Planning Department Comment The developer is proposing a Jack in the Box restaurant at the site. 7 Staff Report Van Doren's Landing Building J #RZ-96-5 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the code criteria for granting approval of a rezone,the staff recommends APPROVAL of Van Doren's Landing Building J Rezone#RZ- 96-5, with the following condition: 1. Access may be taken only off South 228th Street. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 24, 1997 U:\CHRIS\RZ965.RPT 8 City of Kent- Planning Department I - I — w i J i �l \ � I I I 1 i II f I --------------------- --- --- -- - -- --- ----- -- -- -- APPLICATION NAME: Van Doren's Landing Building J NUMBER: #RZ-96-5 DATE: March 5, 1997 R" 'QUEST: Rezone LEGEND Application site �N Zoning/Topography Zoning boundary City limits City of Kent - Planning Department -------------- -- ---- i \ SCALE: 1' . 40' j SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN NO. 3 i /�aa• L _ -� a1 j I i JACK W THE 60K , YK 7Ce4e J \ I • I I I \ I I I I + . n + + + \ f =I APPLICATION NAME: Van Doren's Landing Building J NUMBER: #RZ-96-5 DATE: March 5, 1997 '"EQUEST: Rezone LEGEND A Application site N Site Plan City of Kent- Planning Department r$ 2 S 226 ST Ow N PL I r ' t to S I G i z cc I LO i � a � ii S 234 ST I N W I W Y G m I J S 236 ST T ST APPLICATION NAME: Van Doren's Landing Building J NUMBER: #RZ-96-5 DATE: March 5, 1997 PEQUEST: Rezone LEGEND A Application site N Vicinity Map i--+- Railroad tracks ,.,rvvv.rr City limits Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6, 1997 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: NANCY'S GROVE DIVISION II FINAL PLAT #FSU-96-10 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to consider the Nancy' s Grove Division II Final Plat. The plat is located east of 144th Avenue SE and south of SE 278th Street in Kent. The preliminary plat was approved by King County and upon annexation to the City, the final plat came under Kent's jurisdiction. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo; map; Office of the Zoning and Subdivision report from King County, Washington, Department of Development and Environmental Services File No. L93P0004; and King County Ordinance No. 11462 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 seconds to approve the staff's recommendation of approval for the Nancy's Grove Division II Final Plat according to King County Ordinance NO. 11462 and File No. L93P0004 and to authorize the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4B CITY OF )O�,Lt!2 :S Jim White, Mavor Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM May 6. 1997 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS. PLANNING DIRECTOR RE: NANCY'S GROVE, DIVISION IL PHASE 1, FINAL PLAT (#FSU-96-10) On August 29. 1995,the King County Council approved the Nancy's Grove Preliminary Subdivision (Land Use and Services File No. LP93P0004), a 79-lot single-family residential plat. The plat is located east of 144th Avenue SE and south of SE 278th Street in Kent. The plat is part of the Meridian Annexation. Now that the plat is located in Kent, it requires final plat approval by the Kent City Council. Consequently, an application for final plat approval of Phase I for 30-lots was filed by ESM, Inc. on October 14. 1996. Pursuant to Section 12.04.100 of the Kent Subdivision Code, a meeting of Citv staff was held on May 8, 1996 to review the Nancy's Grove final plat. At this meeting it was the decision of City staff that the proposed final plat was consistent with the requirements of the Kent City Code (Subdivision Code) Section 12.04.400 (A)(1) and (2) relative to overall density of the subdivision and the provision of adequate subdivision improvements. Staff recommends the City Council approve Nancy's Grove Division II, Phase I final plat #FSU-96-10 according to the conditions referenced in the Land Use and Services Division File No. LP93P0004 and King County Ordinance No. 1146 . BH/fsu9610.mem Enclosures cc: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager 220 41h AVE.SO.. %KENT.WAS HINGTON 9803'-5895%TELEPHONE i1-06)859-3300/FAX#859J334 JJ\1PL.,1 1-rr J PUBUC STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT tTH LINE Of 1/4 OF SECT ION 141HE SE I/4 THE NE N 89'21'30" W 1295.28' 424.15' _ 71.13' b p - 0733.21 S.E. 278th STREET N 89'21'30" W 162.54' )3.9' ry R 468.50' n -/ n n L 6178' (UNOPENED) N 89'21'30' w 362.39' 68.00' 6&D0' 63.00' 67,00' 90.00, ' p- OB'043� q � o R 43B.56 ,o - i L - 61,61' STREET ' 17.7' NO w DIRECT VEHICUIM ACCESS ONTO S.E- 27816 w w n `? 9 n 8 n0 7 - w Q w w iQ m N N �7 „ N TRACT A b �b o _ n mo P a n N� m �^ CITY OF KENT o rvo n o o b _ 0 t� H m p I n z i z p= 17'33'25" i m 1 0 ^ z L = 23.29 R 32 ' ,y z b p - 1 9 50' ---_ -- ----- ----- 61 97• 6.4 ' 68,00' 68.00 40.07' p •s pl f, 0 p c 308.50 N B9'2170 W IB2.47 �\ 0� N 8904'27" W 69.36, L = 59 59' S.E. 278th PLACE � % _B.I6' 65.00' - 4__ s SS4J. \p` 7Bg1 2B 70.00' 39.31' BG O' \ op n -- --- --- - sue. IR _ 4358 5 m n R = 287.50' w aU,Jr >.1 �w - 57.22' w 0 1��70. gIN 89U4'21" L W o _ n 1-YO-------- m I 12 13 14 I 21 21' ^ q ^ P o T--- 16300- 7 rvm r C o 00 m g Ib I I Z� o 0 0 z z lu I 10' P.S.D.E �� C z z I n I n 4 100 { 3 44.14 26.Co 1 73,00' , 1 t H 11608'36' E 20' N 89'04'20" W 1 2304 65.20 N 8 96 o76" E 99.00' I I I N 89'04'21" W N 86'08'36" E 96.07 n " I LjTJ Ol'12 E 101.5V z '�.0 I I 10100' B 6B 38' i 21 w 15 10 20 o n I n m L :a. 22 A 3 n O -� N 1 e9'o4 zo w i f�4 f 4 1 z a�� 99.00' I W I --N 89'04_21_W bq a R, •1 0 Q ID' P.S.D.E. `�J°. 3,qQ (R)i 30B �n iV I� I ml 19 � ' 2 n I 1 e _Tl ` W 1 y'} h a - 62'02'55' p L - 53.06'I R-49. I N 89*04*20' W I r I N 89'04021" W N 84'13'29' w (R) 99.00' I g I 103.00' = 23 ,PO t1 0 14 82$3' �� I. zl of R.'a�'o`•s�s,o of ,,B'os'sz 17 ig I Ni 1 e 6• ?O,? cb.,. Q i 0 I 1 n I 21' 21' p- 90'00'00" ao a m p 90'00'00" I ?a7Lb. �R = 500''OS 18 0 0 1' q - 25.00' � R 25.00' I l R - 25.00' 41'2 9 ' t� L - 50.80' L - 39.27' / I \ - 39.27' Q --__ \------- --- 00' Ti 815' --74.00 75,00' 12' V °7 9. o 0 L - 32.37' N 89'04'20" W 230.25' N 59'04'20" W rv \\ - 3oD_oD• L - 15 _ - - S E 280th STREET - 724.00 S s. ry o. p - 12'3l'ST 69.57' 70,00' 44.68' 7&00' --__ 40 - yh OQ I ` L - 71Z06 O 90'00'00"\ 5' p- 90Y10'00" R - 39 200' I m I R - 25-00' 7, I L - 39.27' o 24 e b �/, 1 o y p p n m n m 28 n m NORTH END n 1 30 2 h 25 m 28 01 Im 27 g m 00 m f0' P.S.D.E. to n zl �1 G z 29 IiO ni m Z) �� Lam-10' PS.UE. 1 I ------- 5 II 4j I - --_--_ -- ------- 91.00' 88.00' 70.43' 1 1 69.5]' 70.00' 69.00' 2100'27.00' I03.00' J4 Introduced by Ke Pullen 1 August 25, '1994 proposed No. 94- 2 Ord94.96 3 ✓ 4 } 5 3 6 aRDINANCE xo. 7 8 9 AN ORDINANCE concurring withh the recommendation of 10 11 the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner to approve, 12 subject to conditions (modified) , the prelimina-'Y plat of NA 13 NCY'3 GRDVS DIvISION .2. designated Land 14 Use Services Division File No. L93P0004 15 t 16 17 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 18.19 This ordinance does hereby adopt and incorporate herein as 20 its findings and conclusions the findings and conclusions 21 contained in the report of the zoning and subdivision examiner 22 dated August 10, 1094, which was filed with the clerk of the . 23 council on August 25, 1994, to approve, subject to conditions 7 24 (modified) the preliminary plat of Nancy's Grove Division 2, 25 designated land use services division file no. L93P00040 and 26 the council does hereby adopt as its action the ' 27 recommendations) contained in said report. 28 INTRODUCED AND READ for the first-time this �3 day of 29 pfQ this ay of , PASSED b a vote of D 3o PAS y 31 ' 19 . 32 KING COUNTY COUNCIL 33 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 34 35 ' 36 37 P 38 �chair ir 39 40 41 42 ATTEST: 43 as RECEIVED 46 Clerk of the council 47 - -48 Nov 0 f 1996 CrrY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTME i, August 10, 1994 ESM DISIRIRLMON OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER Rr6—oa_ _ KING COUNTY WASHINGTON aen+—Fa- - 700 Central Building tin — 810 Third Avenue g u; -CHC -�� Seattle, Washington 981 4 I CCI l_ CIRCUInTF. 0111FR7 nLE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL. SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services File No. L93P0004 Proposed Plat of NANCY'S GROVE DIVISION 2 Located generally between 144th Avenue Southeast and 148th Avenue Southeast (if extended) and generally between Southeast 278th Street and Southeast 280th Avenue (if extended) SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Division's Preliminary: Approve, subject to conditions Division's Final: Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Examiner: Approve, subject to conditions (modified) PRELIMINARY REPORT: The Land Use Services Division's Preliminary Report on Item No. L93P0004 was received by the Examiner on May 12, 1994. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Land Use Services Division's Report and examining available information on file with the application, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing on Item No. L93P0004 was opened by the Examiner at 9:18 a.m. , July 26, 1994, in Hearing Room No. 2, Department of Development and Environmental Services, 3600 - 136th Place S.E. , Suite A, Bellevue, Washington, and closed at 10:25 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. Stafford Construction, Inc. , (the Applicant) proposes to subdivide an 18.34 acre parcel into 79 single family residential building lots. Using the lot averaging provisions contained in KCC 21.08.080, the Applicant proposes lot sizes which range from approximately 44,000 to 16,000 square feet. The property is located in the Soos Creek Community Planning area on 144th Avenue Southeast, south from Lake Meridian and northwest from SR 18. The property is classified SR 7,200- P. The "P suffix" designation requires administrative site plan approval prior to final development. The Soos Creek Nancy's Grove, Division 2 - L93P0003 Page - 2 Community Plan establishes several criteria or conditions to be satisfied by that site plan approval, including: clearing and grading limits, seasonal clearing and grading restrictions, significant tree retention, street tree planting, street design consistent with 1987 King County Road Standards and provision for pedestrian circulation. 2. General Information: STR: 35-22-5 Location: Located generally between 144th Avenue Southeast and 148th Avenue Southeast (if extended) and generally between Southeast 278th Street and Southeast 280th Avenue (if extended) Zoning: SR 7200-P Acreage: 18.34 Number of Lots: 79 (Revised) Typical Lot Size: Ranges from 4,400 to 16,700 square feet Proposed Use: Detached single-family residences Sewage Disposal: Soos Creek Sewer District Water Supply: King County Water District #111 Fire District: #37 - Kent School District: #415 - Kent Date of Application: September 9, 1993 3. No environmental impact statement is required. On June 28, 1994, the King County Environmental Division issued a mitigated threshold determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) for this proposed development. The MDNS requires a condition intended to protect a red-tailed hawk nesting site pursuant to King County Comprehensive Plan Policy (and substantive SEPA policy) E-303. That condition is incorporated as recommended Condition No. 20 in the preliminary report to the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner dated July 26, 1994, prepared by the Land Use Services Division (the "Division") . No party of agency appealed that threshold determination. The appeal period expired July 13, 1994. 4. The Division recommends granting preliminary approval to the proposed plat, subject to 21 conditions of final plat approval. Twenty of those conditions are set forth in Division's July 26, 1994, report to the Examiner (Exhibit No. 2) . Two additional conditions are contained in Exhibit No. 12. The Division's final recommendation is the same as that shown on pages 8 through 14 of the Division's preliminary report (Exhibit No. 2) except for the following modifications and additions: A. Street tree spacing; recommended Condition No. 19.A. The Division's initial report recommends requiring a street tree to be planted "every 30 feet along both sides of residential access streets within the development." At the Applicant's request, the Division now agrees that street tree planting may average 30 feet along both sides of residential access streets. B. Clearing and grading restrictions; recommended Condition No. 19.J. Recommended Condition No. 19.J lists ten exceptions to the October through March grading and clearing prohibition. As written in the Division's preliminary report (Exhibit No. 2) , however, it was not clear that these were exemptions. The Division's revised final recommendation makes it clear that those ten circumstances warrant exemption from the ,*,asonal clearing and grading prohibition. Nancy's Grove, Division 2 - L93P0003 Page - 3 C. SigInificant treeretention; recommended Condition No. 19.K. With Exhibit No. 12, the Division recommends an additional condition which would require the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with the Soos Creek Community Plan "P-Suffix" site plan review requirements regarding significant tree retention. The demonstration of compliance is recommended to be required at the time of engineering plan approval. D. WSDOT ro- ata traffic im act contribution recommended Condition No. 21. With Exhibit No. 12, the Division recommends an additional condition which would require the Applicant to contribute a per lot pro-rata share toward the cost of a traffic signal at the Kent-Kangley Highway/144th Avenue Southeast intersection. In the alternative, the Applicant could delay final plat approval until the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has awarded a contract for signalization of that intersection. KCC 21.49.070.B requires the pro rata amount to be paid by the Applicant to be determined at the time of preliminary plat approval. However, that information has not been received from WSDOT. The Applicant waives its right to that information. E. Seasonal protective buffer for red-tailed hawk nest,• recommended Condition No. 20. This condition is intended to replicate the July 28, 1994, MDNS, but contains a typographical error. In the next to the last line, recommended Condition No. 20 as shown on page 20 of the Division's preliminary report (Exhibit No. 2) erroneously refers to the red-tailed hawk nest seasonal protective buffer as a 1125-foot buffer." In fact, the MDNS requires, and recommended Condition No. 20 properly should require, a 11250 foot buffer." 5. The Applicant accepts the Division's recommendation as described in Finding No. 4, above, except that the Applicant opposes the recommendation to require wetland Tract A ownership and maintenance to be assigned to a homeowners' association as recommended by the Division. See recommended Condition No. 18. The Applicant does not want to establish a homeowners' association/corporation. Instead, the Applicant would prefer to transfer wetland ownership to King County or to transfer wetland Tract A ownership to the joint undivided ownership of all subdivision property owners (or, at least, all subdivision property owners which abut wetland Tract A) . The following findings are relevant: A. KCC 21.54.110.A establishes sensitive area tract ownership standards. It states (in part) : Any required sensitive area tract shall either be held in an undivided interest by each owner of a building lot within the development, and this ownership interest shall pass with the ownership of the lot or shall be held by an incorporated homeowner's association or other legal entity which assures the ownership and protection of the tract. B. Wetland Tract A comprises approximately 1.46 acres and abuts proposed lot Nos. 56, 57, 59 through 61, 65 through 69, access Tract B, proposed King County stormwater control facility Tract E, and (proposed) - nor access street 145th Place Southeast. Nancy's Grove, Division 2 - L93P0003 Page - 4 C. The Applicant argues that a homeowners' association probably will become inactive or disincorporate in the longterm, thereby leaving the wetland sensitive areas tract without any ownership/maintenance entity. The Applicant argues that the likelihood of that longterm outcome is increased by the fact that the recommended homeowners' association would have such a limited purpose. D. The Division expresses concern that, without a vested neighborhood ownership interest, maintenance of the wetland tract will be ignored. The result would be a longterm accumulation of debris, litter, yard waste, and other household throw-aways. E. The Applicant states that the Class 2 wetland located within Tract A is manmade, created by the Applicant several years ago in response to a drainage problem created by a neighboring property owner. Considering this history, the Applicant suggests that wetland Tract A should be considered an ancillary or auxiliary drainage control feature associated with stormwater control facility Tract E which abuts the west boundary of proposed Tract A. KCC 21.54, which establishes (among other things) wetland identification standards, makes no exception from its regulatory requirements for manmade wetlands. The history of the wetland is less important than whether the wetland meets the hydric soils, vegetative community and hydrology wetland criteria established by the Federal Wetland Delineation Manual. F. Although the Applicant would prefer King County Surface Water Management Division ownership and maintenance of proposed wetland Tract A, the Applicant has not contacted the Surface Water Management Division regarding that idea. 6. No party or agency opposes or expresses concern regarding the proposed development. 7. In addition to the amended final recommendation described in Finding No. 4, above, the Division makes the following additional amendments to its April 26, 1994, preliminary report to the Examiner: A. Page 7 paragraph 2.A. The reference to clearing and grading should identify recommended Condition No. 19.I not recommended Condition No. 19.J. B. Page 7 recommended condition No. 2.B. The reference to the seasonal clearing and grading restriction should identify recommended Condition Nos. 8.0 and 19.J, not recommended Condition Nos. 8.0 and 20. C. Page 7. recommended Condition No. 2.D. The street tree planting standard is contained in recommended Condition No. 19, not recommended Condition No. 20. D. Page 4 Section G. Neighborhood Characteristics. The second paragraph of Section G, Neighborhood Characteristics, indicates that one existing home on proposed Lot No. 79 will be retained. In addition, however, the Applicant now also proposes to retain an existing residence located within proposed Lot No. 53. B. Except as noted above, the facts and analysis contained in the Land Use Services Division Preliminary Report dated July 26, 1994 (published May 12, 1994) are correct and are incorporated here by reference. A copy of the Land Use Services Division report will be attached to those copies of Nancy's Grove, Division 2 - L93P0003 Page - 5 the examiner's report which are submitted to the King County Council. CONCLUSIONS• 1. The Applicant is correct regarding the potential for the homeowners' association to atrophy, disband or disincorporate in the long term. For this reason, undivided joint ownership should be considered superior to homeowners' association ownership. Nonetheless, King County routinely and ordinarily prefers homeowners' association ownership. The association, if it is viable, provides a better vehicle to assure actual maintenance of the sensitive areas tract. It is highly unlikely that the Surface Water Management Division would accept ownership of Tract A. Tract E appears sufficient to satisfy the relevant stormwater control facility requirements. Because the Applicant has not asked the Surface Water Management Division about whether it would like to own Tract A, the hearing record is unclear whether the Surface Water Management Division would consider such a request to be reasonable. It does appear, however, that this ownership option is conceptually consistent with the KCC 21.54.110.A provision for ownership by an "other legal entity". Regardless of ownership, the maintenance responsibility must be clear and clearly placed. Considering this necessity, together with the options considered above, recommended Condition No. 18 should be modified as indicated in the Examiner's recommendation which follows below. 2. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the proposed subdivision will comply with the goals and objectives of the King County Comprehensive Plan, the Soos Creek Community Plan, Subdivision and Zcning Codes, and other official land use controls and policies of King County. 3. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, this proposed subdivision will make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, for drainage ways, streets, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supply, sanitary wastes, parks and recreations, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and safe walking conditions for students who only walk to school; and it will serve the public use and interest. 4. The conditions for final plat approval recommended below are in the public interest and are reasonable requirements to mitigate the impacts of this development upon the environment. 5. The dedications of land or easements within and adjacent to the proposed plat, as recommended by the conditions for final plat approval or as shown on the proposed preliminary plat submitted by the applicant, are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the development of this proposed plat. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT preliminary approval to the proposed plat of Nancy's Grove Division 2, Department of Development and Environmental Services File No. L93P0004, as described by Exhibit No. 7 (preliminary plat drawing received by King County Land Use Services Division June 8, 1994) , subject to the 20 recommended conditions of final plat approval set forth on pages 8 through 14 of the Land Use Services Division's preliminary report to the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner dated July 26, 1994 (Exhibit No. 2) , EXCEPT for the following modifications and additions: Nancy's Grove, Division 2 - L93P0003 Page - 6 A. RECOMMENDED CONDITION NO. 18. : Tract A ownership may be established in of the following ways: 1. Homeowners' association; 2. King County Surface Management Division (only if that agency accepts ownership) ; 3. Any other legal entity in which is a workable organization acceptable to DDES; or, 4. Joint undivided ownership shared among all lot owners within Nancy's Grove Division No. 2. If ownership of Tract A is accepted by King County Surface Water Management Division, then that agency shall also be clearly charged with responsibility for maintaining Tract A. If any of the other ownership methods are implemented, then a homeowners' association shall be established in a manner satisfactory to DDES in order to assure continued maintenance of the tract. See also Condition No. 19.k. B. RECOMMENDED CONDITION NO. 19.J. : j . Clearing and grading shall not be permitted between October and March. All bare ground must be fully covered or revegetated between these dates. The following activities are exempt from seasonal clearing and grading prohibition (Soos Creek Community Plan) : a) Emergencies that threaten the public health, safety, and welfare b) Routine maintenance of public agency facilities c) Routing maintenance of existing utility structures as provided in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, KCC 21.54.030(D) d) Clearing or grading where there is loot infiltration of the surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed constructed- related drainage facilities e) Clearing or grading where all state water quality standards are met, including turbidity. SWM shall develop and administrative process before such exemptions are allowed f) Landscaping of single-family residences g) Class II and III forest practices h) Quarrying or mining within sties with approved permits i) Clearing or grading for utility hookups on approved residential and commercial building permits j) Completion of any final clearing/grading work for construction activities which meet all applicable permit conditions and best management practices for a period of time (not to eyceed two weeks) in the month of November if dry weather conditions are present. C. RECOMMENDED CONDITION NO. 20: The following have been established by SEPA as necessary requirements of this development as mitigation. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with these items prior to final approval. The location of the tree containing the red-tailed hawk nest on-site shall be surveyed and shown on the engineering plans for the plat. If the Applicant proposes any clearing, grading, or construction on the site between April 1st and July 31st (nesting season) , DDES staff must confirm, prior to the Applicant's beginning those activities, that the red- Nancy's Grove, Division 2 - L93P0003 Page - 7 tailed hawk nest found on-site is not an active nest. If the nest is found to be active during these months, the Applicant may proceed with clearing, grading, and construction on-site except that the Applicant must maintain 250-foot undisturbed buffer around the nest between April 1st and July 31st. If no activity is observed at the nest during nesting season, subdivision activities may proceed without the 250-foot buffer. (King County Comprehensive Plan Policy E-303) D. RECOMMENDED CONDITION NO. 19.k: Prior to engineering plan approval, the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the P-suffix site plan approval condition regarding significant tree retention contained in the Soos Creek Community Plan at pages 152 through 155. E. RECOMMENDED CONDITION NO. 21: To mitigate this subdivision's direct impact on the Kent-Kangley Highway/144th Avenue Southeast intersection, the Applicant shall implement one of the following options: a. Pay a pro rata share per lot toward the cost of a traffic signal at the Kent-Kangley/144th Avenue Southeast intersection. The amount of the pro rata mitigation payment shall be determined by the Washington State Department of Transportation. b. Or, in the alternative, delay final plat approval until the Washington State Department of Transportation has awarded a contract for signalization of the Kent-Kangley/144th Avenue Southeast intersection. ORDERED his loth day of July, 1 94. R. S. Tit Deputy Zoning a ubdivision Examiner TRANSMITTED this loth day of July, 1994, to the following parties of record: Kathy Derrick Larry Reichert Loran Petersen Lisa Read Lozier Homes Gwen Escher Brien Stafford TRANSMITTED this loth day of July, 1994, to the following: Kim Claussen, LUSD Peter Dye, LUSD Lisa Lee, LUSD Steven C. Townsend, LUSD Larry West, LUSD Jon Hansen, LUSD Rich Hudson, Environmental Division Paulette Norman, Public Works - Roads New Construction Services King Conservation District Nancy's Grove, Division 2 - L93P0003 Page - 8 Vaughan Norris, King County Council Peter Reitenbach, Community Planning Trudy Satterlee, LUSD NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL ACTION REQUIRED In order to appeal the recommendation of the Examiner, written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council with a fee of $125.00 (check payable to King County office of Finance) on or before August 24 19,9 . If a notice of appeal is filed, the original and 6 copies of a written appeal statement specifying the basis for tre appeal and argument in support of the appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council on or before Aucrust 31 1994. Appeal statements may refer only to facts contained in the hearing record; new facts may not be presented on appeal. Filing requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the Council, Room 403, King County Courthouse, prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within the applicable time period. The Examiner does not have authority to extend the time period unless the Office of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the filing requirement. If a written notice of appeal and filing fee are not filed within 14 days calendar days of the date of this report, or if a written appeal statement and argument are not filed within 21 calendar days of the date of this report, the Clerk of the Council shall place a proposed ordinance which implements the Examiner's recommended action on the agenda of the next available Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council may adopt the Examiner's recommendation, may defer action, may refer the matter to a Council committee, or may remand to the Examiner for further hearing or further consideration. Action of the Council Final. The action of the Council approving or adopting a recommendation of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty (30) days from the date of the action an aggrieved party or person applies for a writ of certiorari from the Superior Court in and for the County of King, State of Washington, for the purpose of review of the action taken. MINUTES OF THE DULY 26, 1994, PUBLIC HEARING ON LUSD FILE NO. L93P0004 - NANCY'S GROVE DIVISION 2. R. S. Titus was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating at the hearing were Kim Clauss n, Peter Dye, Loran Gross.Petersen, Liza Read and Ruth Gros . ����ori . W(Y The following exhibits were offered and entered into the hearing record: Exhibit No. 1 Department of Development and Environmental Services File No. L93P0004 Exhibit No. 2 Department of Development and Environmental Services Preliminary report, dated July 26, 1994 Exhibit No. 3 Application dated September 9, 1993 Exhibit No. 4 Environmental Checklist dated September 9, 1993 Exhibit No. 5 Mitigated Declaration of Non-significant dated June 28, 1994 Nancy's Grove, Division 2 - L93P0003 Page - 9 Exhibit No._' 6 Affidavit of Posting indicating June 24, 1994, as date of posting and July 1, 1994, as date the affidavit was received by the Department of Development and Environmental Services Exhibit No. 7 Revised plat dated June 8, 1994 Exhibit No. 8 Land use map 661E and 662W Exhibit No. 9 Assessors maps NE/SE 34-22-5; NW/SW 35-22-5 Exhibit No. 10 SWM variance - File No. L94VO013 Exhibit No. 11 P-suffix - pages 152-153 Soos Creek Community Plan Exhibit No. 12 Proposed Conditions 19.k and 21 RST:daz:wea plats\193p\193p0004.rpt P ' Kent City Council Meeting j' Date Mav 6. 1997 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: ' CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS #ZCA-97-2 - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to consider the Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation to amend Section 15. 04 . 120 (A) of the Zoning Code by adding the following principally permitted uses to the Commercial Manufacturing-1 zoning district: warehousing and distribu- tion facilities and the storage of goods and products; provided, however, that trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses shall not be permitted. The Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter on March 24 , 1997 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, staff report, Land Use and Planning Board minutes of 3/24/97 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board (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 to approve Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-97-2 as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4C wvn� CITY OF L"S D LS Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX (206) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM May 6, 1997 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPOSED REGULATORY REVIEW - CM-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS (4ZCA-97-2) Attached herewith is the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board on the proposed revisions to the CM-1 (Commercial-Manufacturing)zone. This action has resulted from a regulatory review application filed by Mr. Glen Sparrow in June 1996. The City Council Planning Committee reviewed the application in February 1997 and sent it to the Land Use and Planning Board for their review and public hearing. The Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter on March 24. 1997. The Planning Board is recommending that the CM-I zone be amended to add the following language to principally permitted uses in Section 15.04.120(A) of the Kent Zoning Code: "Warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods and products; provided, however, that trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses shall not be allowed." FNS/mp:a:sparrow.zca Attachments cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director 220 41h AVE.SO_. /KENI.WASHINGTON 98032-5R95 i TELEPHONE: ,'_06)459-3100/FAX 9 959-3334 CITY OF Z222 Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544 James P.Harris,Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing March 24, 1997 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell at 7:00 p.m. on March 24, 1997, in Chambers West of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Dowell, Chair Brad Bell, Vice Chair Tom Brother-ton Ron Harmon David Malik Sharon Woodford LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD'MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Daman PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED and Board member Ron Harmon SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the February 24, 1997 meeting. Chair Steve Dowell pointed out that the meeting of February 24 was called to order by Vice Chair Brad Bell and he noted that his absence at the meeting was excused. The motion carried with the above mentioned changes. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None. COMMUNICATIONS None. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Director Jim Harris informed the Planning Board members of a core area workshop that would be held on Thursday, March 27, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. at Kent Junior High School. 4ZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS 220 4th AVE SO /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE2061859-3300/FAX N 859-3334 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 2 #ZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS - (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the Planning Department received a request for a regulatory review from Mr. Glen Sparrow. Mr. Sparrow has requested to expand the permitted uses in the CM-1 zone to include warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods and products. Mr. Satterstrom explained that CM-1 zoning is only located in one area within the City of Kent. The total area zoned CM-1 is approximately 128 acres,which is less than one percent(1%) of the City's total land mass. The area is located along 88th Avenue S. from approximately S. 218th Street to S. 232nd Street. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the purpose for the CM-1 zone is to combine certain characteristics of both heavy commercial and manufacturing uses. He stated that there is merit for the request by Mr. Sparrow and explained that this change will blurr the distiction between the M-1 and M-2 zones and the CM-1 zone. He explained that the CM-1 zone currently allows for manufacturing uses that are similiar to warehousing or distribution. He stated that there is not a dramatic difference between the Manufacturing zones and the Commercial Manufacturing zones besides the allowance of heavy commercial uses in the M-1 or M- 2 zone. He stated that from the Planning staff s perspective the only concern is where the CM-1 zone abuts a residential zone. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the zoning code currently addresses that issue in Section 15.08.210 relating to a transitional area regulations where an industrial area abuts a residential zone. He explained that staffs recommending the addition of the following language to Section 15.04.120(A): Principally permitted uses in the CM-1 zone - Warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage ofgoods and products;provided, however, that trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses shall not be permitted. Vice Chair Brad Bell questioned whether the applicant had requested that trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses should not be permitted. Mr. Satterrstrom explained that the applicant had not requested the restriction of truck terminals and rail/truck transfers. He stated that staff wanted to restrict those uses outright. Board member Ron Harmon commented that 218th street is a cul-de-sac. He stated that the traffic on 218th Steet is impacted by the businesses in that area. He remarked that there are two trucking companies and a distribution warehouse located there now. He explained that there was a pedestrian 9ZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 3 fatality on that street within the last ten years and he is concerned the additional use of trucks and other transfer vehicles will add pressure to that street. Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing. John Paul Turner, 3 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 100, Bellevue (98005). Mr. John Paul Turner is an attorney with Rogers& Deutch and is representing the applicant,Mr. Glen Sparrow,who could not be present this evening. Mr. Turner explained that the history of this building was initially approved for permitting for distribution warehousing. That particular tenant has left and the building is open for tenancy and a couple of parties interested in the building have been reluctant until this particular issue was clarified with the City. He stated that both major neighboring property owners have sent letters stated their approval of this and those letters were included as a part of record. Mr. Turner stated that Mr. Sparrow is under the belief that a mitigating factor to his proposal is the LID 345 that widened the streets and considered that mitigating factor. He stated that he agrees with the additional of veriage limiting trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses. Board member Ron Harmon questioned if he represented clients looking at this facility waiting for this zoning change to execute a lease. He also quesitoned how many excess trips is the road going to have at the present time. Mr. Hannon questioned what the City meant by rail/truck transfer. Planning Director James Harris explained the definition of rail/truck transfer. He stated that it has to be done on one location with the trucks on one side and the rail on the other. Mr. Harmon commented that his concern is the impact of increasing the amount of trips per day on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Harris explained that the City worked hard to get that street widened and a lot of citizens paid. He explained that there aren't a lot of uses that can be put in this location because of the limited access. Mr. Turner explained that he represents Mr. Glen Sparrow the owner of the building; not any prospective tenants. Chair Steve Dowell questioned the definition of trucking terminals. Mr. Hams explained that there are some fine lines establishing trucking terminals. Chair Dowell questioned whether the applicant understood that there are some fine lines in defining trucking terminals. Mr. Turner explained that it was never the applicants intent to utilize trucking terminals that was the staff s clarification. Mr. Harmon stated that there are already two trucking companies in business in that cul-de-sac. Mr. Harris stated that he does not believe that the recommendation will have a ft #ZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 4 negative effect on the neighborhood but will rather open up some greater opportunities for those in the CM zone. Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED and Hannon SECONDED a motion to recommend to the City Council adopt the staff recommendation to amend Section 15.04.120(A) and add the the following principally permitted uses: Warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods and products; provided, however, that trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses shall not be permitted. Respectfully Submitted, jes P. Harris ording Secretary C:\USERS\DOC%LANDUSE\MINUTES\PCMIN05.29 #ZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS CITY OF 1_00? HIT 1 s Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director March 18, 1997 TO: STEVE DOWELL, CHAIR AND LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: PROPOSED REGULATORY REVIEW/CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS (#ZCA-97-2) Background: A regulatory review request was submitted by Mr. Glen Sparrow(originally on June 18, 1996 and again on November 4, 1996). This request proposes to modify the principally permitted uses of the CM-1 (Commercial Manufacturing) district by adding warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods and products as permitted uses. Mr. Sparrow owns land in the CM-1 zone located at 8801 South 218th Street in Kent. This regulatory review request was reviewed by the City Council's Planning Committee on February 18, 1997 where it was referred to the Land Use and Planning Board for its consideration. At the Board's March 10, 1997 workshop,this request was reviewed and placed on the Land Use and Planning Board's agenda for public hearing on March 24. 1997. Analvsis: The purpose of the CM-1 district is to "provide locations for those types of developments which combine some characteristics of both retail establishments and industrial operations, heavy commercial uses and wholesale uses." As such, a diversity of use is allowed in CM-l(as well as CM-2). CM-1 zoning exists in only one contiguous area in Kent, along 88th Avenue S. from approximately S. 218th Street to S. 232nd Street. In total, there are approximately 128 acres zoned CM-1, less than 1% of the City's area. This CM-1 zoned area is bordered by a variety of different zoning: M-2 (Manufacturing) zoning on the north, GC (General Commercial) zoning on the west. and several residential districts on the south and east, including SR-6 (Single Family) and MRG and MRM (Multifamily) zoning. The allowance of general warehousing in the CM-1 zone would seem to be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district. This type of use; if not overwhelmingly characterized by heavy '_20 ath AVE.SO_ !KENT.WASHINGTON 99032-5895 i TELEPHONE '061859-3300/FAX x 859-3334 CM-1 Zoning District Regulations 4ZCA-97-2 March 18, 1997 Page 2 trucking, could be compatible - or as compatible - as other uses presently permitted in the zone. However,heavy trucking activity would conflict with the commercial and residential uses and zones which abut the CM-1 district in places. Therefore, staff would recommend against the amendment permitting trucking terminals or and/or rail/truck transfer uses in the CM-1 district. (It should be noted here that the Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.08.210, contains transition area regulations which attempt to diminish the adverse impacts of M and CM zoning on residential uses through various constraints on building size, location, and landscaping requirements. These regulations, however, do not include constraints on uses.) Staff Recommendation: Based on the above,the Planning Department staff recommends that the proposed regulatory review request be approved, and that the following language be added to the principally permitted uses of the CM-1 zone, Section 15.04.120(A): Warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods and products;provided, however, that trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses shall not be permitted. FNS/tb:SPARROW.ZCA cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director RECEIVED CITY OF KENT NOV 0 41996 REGULATORY REVIEW CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT I� II The Kent City Council has determined that ongoing ravlew of the city's regulatory process 15 in the j; public's best interest. The Council wants the public to be able to Participate Ii pate in this rev law. The � outline on this page Is intended to give the public an opportunity to write down those things that they do not like shout an ordinance or regulation. The Council will then review the public's comments and, when appropriate, make changes to ordinances and regulations. I I 0 What ordinance or regulation do you want the Council to review? ZoH/n(G O.oD/NAMC�. SECTIOiJ /5,o�, )2p. CoaiMeXuAG MAP(UFAC URIA)G-1 DIS7QICTf CM 1 S4$S�CTION A. PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED USES. 0 What is it that bothers you about this ordinance/regulation? SEE ITEM 1 ok ArraCr(ep SHEET, 0 What changes do you suggest to this ordinance/regulation? 5EE ITEM Z aN /1rr.4CtiED Sfteer, 0 What significance to the Community will occur with your proposed change? SEE IToM 3 ou 1qr-r,1CffED Sh4EET, 0 What effect, if any, .-:ill your proposed change have on related ordinances, regulations, plans and policies? TNe �RoPaSEp GHRNGE St{vc.Lp WAVE /t/o EFFECT. 0 Have you reviewed your concern with a City staff member? YES. 0 Do you have any general comments you wish to make (can be about the or- dinance/regulation you want changed or about anything else to do-with ordinances/regulations or the permit process)? 1 NAME G4Fd T- 1':5'PARRO4✓ ADDRESS 2�20-��`—/��E. �,�_ Ml-c'CER IS41,"O (r(/A '�8040 RHONE NO. CZas) V 32 -0843 10/85 RECEIVED NOV 0 4 1996 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGULA' ORY REVIEW (Continued) H'EM1. Subsection A of the current ordinance has no provisions for warehousing and distribution facilities such as those described in paragraph 9 (page 1204) of*the M- 3 zoning district. The lack of such a provision now has a substantial negative impact on the property at 8801 South 218th Street. The existing facility at this location was originally designed and constructed specifically for warehousing and distribution purposes. The owner at that time then operated a warehousing and distribution business there for several years until they were subsequently merged into a larger company and moved to a another location. Strict application of the existing CM - 1 zoning now does not permit use of the existing premises for it's intended purpose. This restiction combined with the very high assessment being levied against the property under LID #345 poses a substantial hardship. ITEM 2. We hereby request that the following described proposed paragraph be incorporated as an additional subparagraph under "Subsection A- Principally permitted uses." of the CM - 1 zoning district : 12. Warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods and products, except for those goods and products specifically described as permitted to be stored as conditional uses." ITEM 3. The proposed change will have little or no significant impact on the community. Much heavier property use already exists immediately north across South 218th Street at the Trammell Crow warehouse facility. The requested use would be compatible with the existing uses in the district. The substantial street improvement project now under construction on South 218th Street (LID #345) will surely mitigate whatever traffic impact that might occur as a result of the requested change. The existing CM- 1 zoning district has a provision allowing "Heavy commercial uses,- See subparagraph 1 under Subsection A. Uses described therein would certainly generate traffic density and use conditions comparable to the requested change. Thus, there would be no significant impact on the community as a result of the requested change. 6/18/96 RODGERS & DEUTSCH, ATTORNEYS AT LAW THREE LAKE BELLEVUE DRIVE S.MICHAEL RODGERS.P.S. SUITE 100 DARYL A.DEUTSCH BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 96005 JOHN PAUL TURNER (206)455.1110 Fax: (206)455.1626 February 19, 1997 RECEIVED FEB 211997 Mr. Fred Satterstrom Planning Manager PLANNING DEPARTMENT City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 Re: Glen Sparrow Regulatory Review Request Dear Mr. Satterstrom: On behalf of Mr. Sparrow, thank you for your cooperation in assisting our office through the planning committee meeting yesterday. It is our understanding that Mr. Sparrow's regulatory review request will now be proceeding through the approval process. At your earliest convenience, please give me a call to discuss what additional information you will need from Mr. Sparrow prior to the next step in the process. Thank you. Very truly yours, RODGERS & DEUTSCH Jo Pau urner JPT/st cc: Mr. Glen Sparrow RECEIVED October 31, 1996 ji U Y 0 a 1996 Mr. Brad Hazeltine, PLANNING OF City of Kent Planning Department, City of Kent 220 - 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 - 5895 Dear Mr. Hazeltine; Pursuant to your telephone message this afternoon I made the enclosed copy of my letter of July 1, 1996 requesting a change in the permitted uses in the CM- 1 Zoning District. There is also enclosed a copy of my expanded responses to paragraphs 2,3, and 4 of your City of Kent "REGULATORY REVIEW" form and a copy of the filled out form. I returned too late this afternoon to return your call so I trust that the enclosed items will satisfy your needs. I will be leaving home at 05:30 tomorrow morning (Friday) for a quick trip to eastern Washington. Will call you Monday morning to see that you received this letter and to answer any questions which you may have. The need for the requested addition to the ordinance is of ever increasing importance to us since it has been necessary to turn away two more prospective tenants for the 8801 S. 218th Street building. If there is any additional information we can provide or any way we can assist in your review of our application please let us know what we can do. Your assistance in this matter is sincerely appreciated. Ve ly yours,, G en T. Sparr 2220 - 82nd Avenue, S.E. Mercer Island, Washington 98040 (206) 232 - 0843 DBERG CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. GENERAL CONTRACTORS 3420 13TH AVE. S-W SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 9413A TELEPHONE 623-1909 July 8 ,1996 Mr . Glen T . Sparrow 2220 82 nd Avenue S.E. Mercer Island, Wa. Dear Glen, I have received your letter , dated June 201996 , relative to your plan to submit a request to the City of Kent Planning Dept. for a "Regulatory Review" of the permitted uses under the current CM-1 zon-i6g� - You are asking the department to consider a change in the existing ordinance , that will permit warehousing are distiipermitted usefacilities principally p within the CM-1 zoning . . I understand that if the City a Plange ning become approves of such a change , located permanant and will apply to all properties in this CM-1 Zoning District . I own all of Tract #8 and the north half of Tract #7 in this CM-1 Zoning District . I have no objections to such a change being made in the per- mitted uses under the CM-1 zoning. Very truly yours , Lundberg Construction Co . Don Lundberg July 13, 1966 Mr. James P. Harris, Planning Director RECEIVED City of Kent 220 - 4th avenue South N 0 V 0 1995 Kent, WA 98032 - 5895 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ref: Regulatory Review, CM - 1 Zoning District Dear Mr. Harris; Enclosed herewith please find copies of two letters received from owners of other land near our property (8 721 and 8801 South 218th Street) in the CM - 1 Zoning District. During our discussions with them concerning the request for a "Regulatory Review" and an addition to the CM- 1 Zoning District which we have previously submitted to you, they both indicated that they approve the terms of our requested addition to the ordinance. Very truly yo s% G. T. Sparno 2220 - 82nd Avenue, S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 232 - 0843 RECE-IVED NOV 0 4 1996 CITY of KENT June 20, 1996 PLANNING-DEPARTMENT Glen Sparrow 2220 82nd Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Dear Glen, I have read your proposal to revise the CM-1 zoning and I agree with your request. The proposed chance will have little or no significant impact on my property on 88th Place South my property is at 21823-29 88th Place South, Kent, Washington. Sincerely, arl R. Anderson July 1,1996 r RECEIVED Mr. James P. Harris, Planning Director City of Kent Noy 0 41996 220 - 4th Avenue South CITY OF KENT Kent, WA 98032 - 5895 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. Harris; Enclosed herewith please find our application for a change in the permitted uses in the CM- 1 zoning district. Pursuant to several discussions with Mr. Hazeltine regarding uses available for our building at 8801 - South 218th Street we find that an addition to the permitted uses in the CM -1 zoning district would be required in order to utilize the building for which it was originally designed and constructed. We trust that the information provided with the application will aid in the required review. If there is anything that we can do to provide additional information or assist in any way in the review process please let us know. We will be forwarding to you in a few days copies of letters from other owners of property in the CM - 1 zoning district concurring in our application. Ve ly y s, G. T. Sp o Avenu 2220 - 82n e S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 232 - 0843 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 many projects and not enough hours. He explained that the tasks under current planning are simply what the planning department does on a daily 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 year. Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6. 1997 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: MERIDIAN VALLEY ANNEXATION CENSUS CONTRACT - AUTHORIZATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On April 15, 1997, the City Council passed the ordinance for the Meridian Valley annexation that is to be effective July 1, 1997 . The State Office of Financial Management requires that a census be conducted. Staff requests authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with con- sultant Robert Scribner of Cutting Edge Enterprises, whose company will be conducting the Meridian Valley Census. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo and contract 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 r seconds to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with Cutting Edge Enterprises in a form substantially similar to the attached, proposed agreement for census services. DISCUSSION- ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4D CITY OF i Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX (206) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM May 6, 1997 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MARGARET PORTER, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III SUBJECT: MERIDIAN VALLEY ANNEXATION CENSUS -AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT The Meridian Valley area will be annexed to Kent on July 1, 1997. The State Office of Financial Management(OFM)requires that a census be conducted within 30 days before or after the effective date. I have negotiated a contract with Robert Scribner, professional consultant of Cutting Edge Enterprises, to conduct a population census in the Meridian Valley annexation area for the amount of$36,063.02. He will begin the census on June I (or begin May 31 if approved by OFM). In order to keep costs down, I have agreed to supply photo copies of the required forms and miscellaneous supplies (see exhibit A). Also, a temporary secretary will be hired to answer two telephones lines during the census to take census information. This was the method used successfully during the Meridian annexation to help with call backs. I am requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign an agreement with Cutting Edge Enterprises in a form substantially similar to the attached, proposed agreement for census services. MJP/mp:c:merval.cen Attachment cc: Brent McFall, Director of Operations James P. Harris, Planning Director 220 dth AVE.SO_. /KENT,WASHIN'GTON 98031_-589S_TELEPHONE (206)859-33001 FAX#859-3334 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into on the date fully executed below, between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation, (hereinafter "City"), and CUTTING EDGE ENTERPRISES, a professional consultant, (hereinafter "Contractor"), located at 33025 Pacific Place, Black Diamond, Washington 98010. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City desires to retain services for the census project regarding the Meridian Valley Annexation; and WHEREAS, Contractor agrees to perform professional consultant services under the terms and conditions set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is agreed by and between the City and Contractor: SECTION ONE DESCRIPTION OF WORK Contractor will perform services on behalf of the City and conduct a population census in the Meridian Valley Annexation area. Contractor shall perform the work in accordance with all applicable state, federal and City laws, consistent with accepted practices for other similar services, and substantially in every respect to the direction and approval of the Planning Director, within the time specified herein, and in accordance with any instructions and information contained in this Agreement. Contractor shall perform the following duties in conjunction with their services as outlined in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION TWO TERM The term of this Agreement shall be for a period beginning on the date of execution hereof until July 18, 1997, unless sooner terminated as provided for herein. SECTION THREE TIME DEVOTED TO WORK In the performance of the services described herein. the Contractor shall have control over the number of hours devoted to the work as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the spirit and purpose of this Agreement. The Contractor agrees to begin work upon execution of this Agreement by both parties and shall carry the work forward according to the direction given as provided herein and Contractor agrees to perform the work as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. The Contractor agrees that work will be performed off-site with the exception of required meetings which will be scheduled by the Planning Director. SECTION FOUR PAYMENT The City agrees to pay the Contractor for all work performed by Contractor, on completion of the same, the approved amount of$36,063.02 for the completion of services as outlined in Exhibit A. Expenses shall not include travel expenses of any kind in connection with the performance of Contractor duties herein. SECTION FIVE INVOICING PROCEDURE Invoices for work performed shall be presented to the City by the Contractor no later than the 5th and the 20th of each month. The City shall make payment to the Contractor on the 15th and the last day of each month following receipt of invoices. A $10,000.00 payment will be made on June 15, 1997, for the actual cost of services after an invoice is submitted to the Planning Department. SECTION SIX TERMINATION The parties agree that either party may terminate this Agreement upon written notification to the other party. Cause herein shall include. but not be limited to, Contractor's failure or inability to perform the services herein due to new employment or health reasons or the City's 2 failure to pay. In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all services performed by the Contractor to the effective date of termination, and the City may thereafter take possession of all records and data pertaining to this project within Contractor's possession. SECTION SEVEN STATUS OF CONTRACTOR This Agreement calls for the performance of the services of the Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. The Contractor and/or its subcontractor(s) shall secure at his own expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, Worker's Compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Contractor and its officers, agents and employees and the costs of all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Contractor will be solely responsible for its acts and the acts of Contractor's agents, employees, servants, and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. SECTION EIGHT DISCRIMINATION In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any subcontract hereunder, the Contractor, its subcontractors or any person acting on behalf of such Contractor or subcontractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex or national origin discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. SECTION NINE WORKER'S COMPENSATION Contractor agrees to maintain, at Contractor's expense, Worker's Compensation at the limits required by the State of Washington, to fully protect both Contractor and the City from any and all claims for injury or death arising from the performance of this Agreement. 3 SECTION TEN INDEMNIFICATION Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from all damages, costs or expenses in law or equity that may at any time arise or be set up because of damages to property or personal injury (including death) received by reason of or in the course of performing work which may be occasioned by any willful or negligent act or omissions of the Contractor, any of Contractor's employees, or any of its subcontractors. SECTION ELEVEN INSURANCE Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement comprehensive general liability and automobile insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by Contractor. Contractor shall maintain limits on such insurance in the amount of$1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence/accident for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage, or such other amounts as may be acceptable to the City. Contractor agrees to provide the City with certificates evidencing the required coverage before Contractor begins work on the projects described in this Agreement. SECTION TWELVE OWNERSHIP 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 Contractor in connection with the services performed by the Contractor under this Agreement will be safeguarded by the Contractor to at least the same extent as the Contractor safeguards like information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available, is already in Contractor's possession or known to it, or is rightfully obtained by the Contractor from third parties. Contractor shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. 4 SECTION THIRTEEN ENTIRE AGREEMENT The written provisions and terms of this Agreement 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 whatsoever, this Agreement or the Agreement documents. The entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereunder is contained in this Agreement, any addenda attached hereto, and all bid related documents, if any, which may or may not have been executed prior to the execution of this Agreement. 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 at length herein. SECTION FOURTEEN WAIVER AND 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 or Contractor. SECTION FIFTEEN ASSIGNMENT Any assignment of this Agreement by the Contractor without the written consent of the City shall be void. SECTION SIXTEEN WRITTEN NOTICE All communications regarding this Agreement should be sent to the parties at the addresses below, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective on the date personally served or, if mailed, as of the date of mailing, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee 5 at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may hereafter be specified in writing. SECTION SEVENTEEN GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. SECTION EIGHTEEN RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES 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 mayor for review and a determination. If the dispute, misunderstanding or conflict between the City and Contractor cannot be resolved by the City's determination within a reasonable time,jurisdiction of any resulting litigation shall be with the Superior Court of King County, Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. CUTTING EDGE ENTERPRISES THE CITY OF KENT JIM WHITE, MAYOR 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Date: Date: 5 Approved as to form: Roger A. Lubovich City Attorney Attest: City Clerk P U.AMCONPRACTCUTEDGEAGR w 7 Kent Vallev Annexation Summan, Sheet-Revision l To: Nhayie Porter. Planning 4/2 2/9 7 From: Robert Scribner Subject: Citv of Kent Annexation Proposal Attachment M'. Cite of Kent Annexation Bid Revision 1 Citv of Kent Annexation (Kent Vallev) This bid is based on performing the census Luutexation for the City of Dent developed from the provided area map. This bid is submitted with the following requirements from the City: 1. Area approximately 891 acres 2. .approximately 1665 living units. Estimated. 3. Estimated population of 3500-4000 4. 30 days between start and required completion 5. Request phone with voice mail. 6. Provide required GIS maps or equivalent . 7. Temporary City Badges for 14 or more Enumerators. S. Available copy machine ( Daily operations) 9. CoPy service will be provided as required as estimated on attached supply list 10. .E S 10.000.00 pre payment on June 1 1997 (Pavroll Purposes)— God cS� s•� z�r o� 11. Use of temporary employee for phone purposes. 12. Start annexation on y,lav 31 if approved by OFy1. This bid will provide the followimY: • Enumeration Sheets • Completed Callback Aheets All summary_ sheets • Block maps based on GIS maps or equivalent. • TracLbiock maps • Required manpower Census Taker tools and equipment • City of I`ent Summary Report • Formatted .Annexation report for O.F. I. • Computer generated documents • Trainin, session for enumerators. EXHIBIT Kent Valley Annexation Supplies Needed 4/22/97 SuoplV Name jDescriation & Reason Quantity Population Schedules Used for Enumerators Data Collection 350 Call Back Sheets Used for People missed to call in 1700 Block Summaries Used to tally each Block 100 Enumerator Dist. Summary Used to tally Tracks 20 Special Pop.Cen. Summaries Used to tally Annexation Data (Final) 10 Mayors Letter Given to each enumerator (City Info) 15 Door notices Left at homes with Knowone home 2000 Mileage Sheets Used by enumerators to track mileage 25 Enumerator Car Signs Bright Color Installed in Enumerators car window 30 (Cars signs can be used on both Annex's) 3" binders (notebook) white Ea. Enumerator OFM Report & City 6 11" x 17" Maps Annexation Map (Required By CFM) 20 Notebook Dividers (5 sheet) Used to divide Blocks in notebooks 50 sets 3" rubberbands -thin used to hang door notice at homes 1 Box Clear plastic Envelopes used to hang door notice (Find at Boeing) 2000 # 2 Pencils Used by enumerators and summaries 1 Box Clipboards Used by enumerators 14 Clear Plastic Sheet Protectors Used in Master Report Summarys 400 8 1/2 x 11" Maps Annexation Map (Required By CFM) 20 Badges For Enumerators and Supervisors 14 plus "@ =We will supply Master sheet Contract will be with Cutting Edge Enterprises Fed. # 91-1744539 UBI # 601-752-494 Please set up 1 phone line each with voice mail. One line for each Annexation) (We will need to knew the Phone Numbers soon to create door notices) We will need notebooks and dividers right awav May we use your Temperary Employee to answer phones for the first 5 days of each Annexaton? We would like to request a S 10,000.00 payment on June 15. 1997 prior to conpletion (Pa} Invoice will be due at delivery to City of Kent one Annexation and City Summary. Please clarify Invoice processing time required by City of Kent (Payroll Purposes) Please schedule Badge pictures late in the day or early evening !For part time employees) You can Fax information to us, if needed at 360-886-7209 (Smart Fax System) We will deliver Master copies 3 weeks prior to Annexation. Please remember that this is only a work sheet to heir) us meet eacn others needs Thank you for your help and trust, Robert Scribner 360-886-7209 or Work 206-655-0101 Rev. 1 page I Kent Valleyr Annexation Bid To: Margie Porter From: Robert Scribner Revision 1 Final Attachment (1) 4/22/97 The following bid is based on a 30 day annexation Period. Bid expires 60 days of receipt. Firm fixed price. COST BREAKDOWN Expenditures Cost Salaries $ 27,476.00 G & A $ 7,418.52 Map Development, Planning & Training $ - Copies & Supplies Travel & Allowances $ 1 ,168.50 Total Bid Amount $ 36,063.02 Contact: Robert Scribner 33025 Pacific PI. Black Diamond, Wa. 98010 Phone or Fax: (360) 886-7209 Daytime: 655-0101 preoared by P.OBERT SCRIBNER 4121219i Pace Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6 . 1997 Category other Business 1. SUBJECT: PERSONAL WATERCRAFT (JET SKI) - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: During discussions of amendments to the City' s boating regulations at the March 18, 1997 Public Safety Committee meeting, the issue of personal watercraft (jet ski) regulations was presented to the committee. The committee scheduled the issue of personal watercraft regulations for a hearing before the City Council which was held on April 1, 1997 . During its April 15, 1997 Public Safety Committee meet- ing, the committee recommended that the full Council consider two proposals regarding personal watercraft. The first pro- posal prohibits all personal watercraft operation on Lake Meridian. The second proposal restricts personal watercraft operating on the lake at speeds in excess of eight (8) miles per hour: (1) to the hours of noon to 6: 00 p.m. ; (2) on even numbered days of the calendar; (3) from May 16 to September 15 of any year. Both proposals are set forth in the enclosed ordinances. 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinances and correspondence 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: (1) Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Ordinance No. amending Chapter 4 . 06 of the Kent City Code prohibiting the operation of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian; OR (2) Councilmember 1 k, moves, Councilmember (<,VLL seconds to adopt Ordinance No. ,LLL_�L amending Chapter 4 . 06 of the Kent City Code regulating the operation of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian, __ DISCUSSION: ACTION• u. Council Agenda Item No. 4E THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 15 , 19 9 7 John Nason Architect 14405 S.E. 266th Street, Kent, WA 98042-8112 (206) 631-0294 41�t April 14, 1997 0,9 OFF�F��' City of Kent 1 FCF Pub2201ic 4th. Avtenue South Committee �FNTp0(��Fo�4�99� Kent, WA 98032-5895 4,9;r4r Re: Personal Watercraft (Jet Ski) Ordinance Dear Committee Members: I am writing today to express my opinion as a homeowner on Lake Meridian regarding the proposed Personal Watercraft(Jet Ski) Ordinance. As indicated by many of my neighbors, as well as many other people at the two previous public meetings, this issue seems to touch the lives and interests of many. As with issues which touch personal lifestyles, lines are drawn and sides established. 1 do agree with Ithe efforts being proposed and would concur with the comments made by others in the defense of the proposal. I have lived on the lake for 10 years and have definitely seen a deterioration in the safety or appearance of safety with the increased activities of the jet-skis and other similar`personal watercraft'. The problem seems to be with the inherent desire to run the machines 'wide-open'and as aggressively as they can go. They like to cut in and out of each others wakes and especially to like jump the wakes of power boats pulling wakeboards as they create larger wakes as well. This creates the best condition for jet-ski use but appears very dangerous to anyone on the end of a tow-rope who may fall or decide to quit his ride. The water-skier is placed in a dangerous position of needing to account for himself, watch out for the returning tow boat and now the jet-ski' that is possibly following much to closely and creating a sense of intimidation by being so close. I was advised by a new neighbor, recently looking forward to water-skiing on the lake, that after experiencing the above conditions during a sunny day that she felt she needed to look for an alternate location to teach water-skiing to avoid the intimidation of the average jet-ski operator. This will be difficult until controls as recommended are adopted. I have ridden these machines and am just as aggressive as the next operator. They are a lot of fun and allow an individual to play to the maximum, generally on his individual basis. It just seems that due to their growth they are outgrowing the smaller lakes and should be restricted in some way to allow the traditional City of Kent Public Safety Committee Jet Ski Ordinance April 14, 1997 Page Two watercraft users to also enjoy the water in the methods intended by their respective watercraft Traditional water-skiers likes smooth water. The residents who look to this seem to get their water-skiing in immediately after 9:OO AM on Saturday and Sunday mornings to avoid the public which also comes to the park. I do recognize that the lake is considered public property and through the Lake Meridian Park the general public is granted access to this fine body of water for the same uses as the residents around the lake, (who pay considerable property taxes for the rights to be here.) I feel that the residents are sharing, but our rights as homeowners should not be overridden for the benefit of the casual user who comes and goes. i have also been advised that the inherent, nuisance noise is also being addressed I believe this probably is the main reason that the jet-skis have come to the attention of the neighbors on the lake. The sound has a high-pitch whine that echoes around the lake and carries into every house on the lake! It really is like:having an off-road motorcycle race in yourbackyard whenever they get going on the lake. They go home when they're done. We just get more.irritated! Again as a homeowner, I thank you for your efforts to assist the new Kent residents on Lake Meridian in regards to this matter which has created stress and frustration and yet must be dealt with before something serious happens. I'm definitely a person who has been happy with the status quo and resists change, but i do feel that this lake has been a very desirous place to live and enjoy until the recent overtaking by the transient jet-ski operators. I have lived in this community my entire life and have some very fond memories of Lake Meridian. Again thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, J hn Nason, Homeowner. cc: Tom Brotherton, President LMCA Councils members My name is Mike McDonald and I live at 4303 S 253 St on the west hill . I own two personal watercraft and I recently became aware of the proposed ordinance to limit use of lake meridian by PWC. When I read the proposed Ordinance I felt compelled to voice my displeasure with it. After reading the ordinance and watching parts of the council meeting where it was discussed. I feel that three key issues are trying to be addressed. 1. Overcrowding on lake Meridian 2 . Noise abatement 3 . Safe operation of vessels including boats and personal watercraft The ordinance as proposed does not adequately or fairly address any of these problems. First overcrowding. By limiting the days PWC may use the lake it would seem to ease overcrowding. However on the other days it would be just as big a problem as ever. Wouldn 't a limit on the number of all types of vessels launched make more sense in controlling the number of vessels on the lake. This could be easily accomplished by limiting the parking of trailers to the available spaces or a given number of spaces and not allowing on street parking of trailers. Second Noise abatement. I believe that the current quite hours from 6 PM to 9 am is adequate as it allows those homeowners on the lake time to sleep in and several hours of quite evening time. The specific Limiting of use by PWC during the hours of 9 AM to 6 PM is completely unfair. The - argument has been proposed that PWC are somehow louder than other boats but in fact PWC are held to the same db rating as other vessels . Third safe operation of vessels . This is the issue that really got my hackles up both while watching the council meeting and when reading the proposed ordinance. Personal Watercraft are no more or less safe than any other vessel or for that matter cars, trucks, motorcycles , snowmobiles , or any other piece of power equipment if operated properly. It is solely the operator who can make a PWC unsafe. The idea that limiting the time they are used instead of enforcing current laws that address unsafe operation is crazy. Let me give you some examples , I live on S . 253 St a residential street with a 25 MPH speed limit cars routinely travel up and down my street at speeds up to 50 MPH. I 've even seen Motorcycles co up the hill faster than that. Should I ask you to ban traffic on my street ? No however lets talk about enforcement. The Kent police sat at 43 PL S for one afternoon last summer and guess what the speed of vehicles dropped drastically our street. One more example Cars traveling up and down Reith Rd behind our house, that ' s over 100 ft away, regularly have stereos so loud I can here them inside my house with the windows closed. Should we limit the hours that cars travel on Reith Rd ? Lastly I would like to say that if any activity is limited for the utilization of the lake for some other activity i. e. . limited hours so skiers may ski or fisherman may fish why shouldn't there be a dedicated time for Personal watercraft on the lake as well . Thank you for your time, Michael D. McDonald (� 3 ` C3Z3 i���\ rv� _, LLj > L C LL w C W (Y) LLI zi q, °c C m tD (D m (DfD a N < (� D tD D m CD a ° m o o 3 n o .� m C ° 0 (D D f D CD n s ° OD w D c w o o O c a o m o m a m . (D Q N a« ° CD (D cn o U) CD z '0 C m fA V) Q o c p 2 fD w � � o W c � ID Cn N rh J V/ OD OD NV . i1I Z ry 0) (.0 n- < (D CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 2) CT rC � 0 w (D cr cnUl @ m N o Cl) to ' o ° °1 N @C w 2 CD 1 Sound intensity (dB) co O v ^J co CD (D (D O O -1 O cn O CJ1 O U1 O Cn O Cn O O ■ cr ■ o 0 -0 MET ■ o c o N E W 0 N p - ■ (6 o O ■ a ■ �' (^7 ■ Q ■ ■ ■ cn A m ■ U1 O ■ a. CD ■ ■ Q co ■ ■ m O O ■ = O 3 (D _a (D .N.f .+ WO Q - _ m o N ~' ■ ■ rn = 0 ■ ■ ,Y CL B ; 0 0 O ■ ■ o ' o , � (D � � no ■ U) Q N Q n - O i CL N � I ■ ■ r o is i CD rn ■ ■ cr) : O cn O ■ O ■ N co ■ O O N O ^ ■ o ( r ro (n � �' U1 L -� CD CD J`ILnCD z rn. o CD d — rQ CD CD CD n LA � � �. n 1 n CD CD CD CD r7 i h Lv CD = � CD N A� b N CD CAD En CL '+. • CL O D CD O C CD UG O n CAD (m N O CDLn Ln CL cC C f CD �. L a CD CD ° o CD CDCD CD 0 uq C cp CDLM Cl \� Q ^ w ° .° a C � D o O a� < o Ln Lf) CD y CAD CD 1 a CD CD CD Un CD p �• O � � O � b Ln CD n O Ln � CD O �• O rp CD O O n CD O C15 En O AD UQ O x � CT CD O = 'S CD O cn y ly CL CD . �. CD C < 0 " CD CD CD Ln A)cn O CAD O V) � CD O C 0CD CD CD CD --t O "*� CD O CLCD O CD O �CO `ems D 7 CC D p n n Ln -� - - CD � � o � o C° ZD CD CD S� v - O >y cn o D c CD CD r— CD sv v CDTZI CRI CD �• rA J O o .r � � ( J CD CD cn CL o o o CD CnCL CDLn C�•D `r• '-r cn •� Z � O CD � �I CD UQ O LnCD CD � � o � 14 1.J�1 n+• �, "! CD cp CpCDCDCDO r Ln CD C CD CD AD CD r _ p) O m a' (� O Ln O O CD O O CD .�-+ ZD CD cn 173 Gq a w o O N a W C AD uq CD 0 CL CD CD CD r� O CD z .� � CD nova o C-D p T f In 1d A CD CD LIDLl n p' CD O �� J" Cb C� , CL'o CD Ln O � � � t � cL ` Z CD Q- C4 r U � c O O � c O CD CD «�. P7 Ln � CD � � o Ln CD p- CD r* En C9 CnD CD O..CD r, CAD � CCD o CD = g CD rw Cr1 U � ¢- �• v' �' rr- Z CD Ln CD p (gyp .�. 1 CD C'D «.t ..... C7 O O CD o 11 nA) CD CL i. CD C"D (D C CD o CD C1 �1 \ CD N a O ni k/A A r4 c c� CD CD r- o f o CD o Q p t Q CD CD CD { Ua `D b Er O Pol 0 �• � � CD p� UQ O tt^ _ O CDuq O S C Ga 1 W lh O UQ CDVq ^t CD CD CD Ol qT4 771 C) V� 73 r ¢, CDCD CD _ CD rc i to cn p J� O CD CD CD CD UCD ion n � � � THE FOLLOWING CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED SINCE APRIL 15 7 1997 April 28, 1997 i u j Kent City Council L Ar;� I � ' 220 4th Ave. South Kent, WA 98032 C'Ty OF KENT Ty �• = X Subject: Jetski Ordinance Dear Council Members, I (we) support the proposal for a total ban of personal watercraft (Jetskis and Skidoos) on Lake Meridian. Due to the small size of Lake Meridian and the shear number of personal watercraft using the lake, the noise levels for those living in the surrounding neighborhood have become intolerable. I (we) find it disruptive to life quality. Conversations cannot be held outdoors; windows and doors must remain shut on area homes. Since it has been determined noise levels from personal watercraft exceeds the residential noise ordinance this action should be legally enforceable. Many states have regulated the minimum lake size for personal watercraft operation at 300 acres. Let the city of Kent set a precedent for the State of Washington by following suit. Any other proposal sends the message that it is acceptable to compromise the law for specific user groups. Sincerely, 7 ,?o �Z'L' % ^ G'-= X ��� i�- lj � �; -� � � � /� ��% � �' `1Z �_� _���� April 28, 1997 n J Kent City Council _ 220 4th Ave. South OF KSIq-r Kent, WA 98032 Cl�( C! C Subject: Jetski Ordinance Dear Council Members, I (we) support the proposal for a total ban of personal watercraft (Jetskis and Skidoos) on Lake Meridian. Due to the small size of Lake Meridian and the shear number of personal watercraft using the lake, the noise levels for those living in the surrounding neighborhood have become intolerable. I (we) find it disruptive to life quality. Conversations cannot be held outdoors; windows and doors must remain shut on area homes. Since it has been determined noise levels from personal watercraft exceeds the residential noise ordinance ;his action should be legally enforceable. Many states have regulated the minimum lake size for personal watercraft operation at 300 acres. Let the city of Kent set a precedent for the State of Washington by following suit. Any other proposal sends the message that it is acceptable to compromise the law for specific user groups. Sincerely, -6 I< s K3r W 41�0u a is Sunday, April 27, 1997 LC >> c .. ice..: Kent City Council , Y �T � C! "ZK 220 4t'Ave. South Kent, Wa 98032 Subject: Jetski Ordinance Dear Council Members, We support the proposal for a total ban of personal watercraft(Jetskis and Skidoos) on Lake Meridian. The high speed at which they travel and no regard to any direction for safety. The speed for all watercraft on this small lake was set many years ago at 35 mph and these watercraft travel in excess of 45 to 55 mph. The spinning and turning donuts creates a noise which is unbearable and this can be set off by just two or three watercraft with this kind of driving. The jumping of wakes takes this watercraft completely out of the water and the noise increases again. We have insulated windows and heavy drapes to keep the house well heated,but it can't keep out this noise. You can't hold a conversation outdoors because this noise is beyond belief. Lake Meridian being a very narrow lake increases the noise level that much more. Many other states have regulated the minimum lake size for personal watercraft operation at 300 acres. We would like to see the City of Kent set a precedent for the State of Washington by following suit. Having lived on Lake Meridian since 1960 and watching the boating on the lake. It is for safety to life and health that we urge you approve this proposal, and it might be a start in the right direction. Respectfully, Clinton D. Pozd Betty June Poza cc://cdp/CDP /����� .�� ✓f'c HMS l April 28, 1997 C+i r KENT CiTY C!-EFK Kent City Council 220 4t' Avenue South Kent, Wa. 98032 Dear Council Members: I'm writing this to show my support of the total ban of Jetskis and like watercraft on Lake Meridian. In consideration of safety ,the lake is much too small for such use. I have lived on 266t' Ave. S.E. , across the street from the lake, for over thirty-five years. The noise from the Jetskis no longer allows us to sit on our deck in peace and tranquillity, but more important is the safety factor. Let's not wait for an accident to happen before putting an end to this dangerous recreation on Lake Meridian. Sincerely, Frances Wilson 14324 S. E. 266"' Street Kent, Wa. 98042 27 April 1997 Ar* � 37 Kent City Council C i OF EFK C1T" C_�=X 220 4`' Avenue South Kent, WA. 98032 Subject: Personal Watercraft Ordinance Dear Council Members: I know you have heard the pros and cons many times already. I'll skip all that. I've lived within 150 feet of Lake Meridian since 1958, so I'm aware of what was and what is. Please support the proposal for a total ban of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian. Thank you for caring. Peace (I hope), (J� , Charles E.trson 14324 S. E. 266"' Street Kent, WA. 98032 E- lOr� /ail Office of t!,e "I'&, ror .arR 3 7 1997 98cs�,Z RECLEiVELE UJei �Oc� /c r�U� ��i rn orb i r7 Agee imUn 7- �v �7Ersor� / (cJ fer-crti4� Or7 / SAv u/cL .� e. erg /�� n�/ �U l 1�/ o r ���i�`OS 7h .S-"/9 e✓ P7ricyr��c� r3/ ��/ Si4 �z/ h�Zi�rcL. I T� �nf (LOSS /7e7 /7/sUe— Ti7c 7 naS icr U CD 0 Tr o �4 i'I Cz 777 e cf" Tr1 T �� e� /S h a uJ� ll� 74k-o �— S�ro 7�i/rJoise� //u /vn . C ocr Cv6u./C/O -GIs nols� �� Ve-1 %? 6%W/7 17 'le f r y �'7eiq�borhoo � �.cJh y vurs � 49 e� / I S Zee-'? M/-? CAL SO //� U �3r1c� i/9� %s u�© � der f-�� �zr �i�in,�es �' p/cr�'Otcl� , S U)i rom irk Are G/ (f, 7 0� 7 .s� J i /�O.S� CtJ�p Sig .�S tfJelr i nr UOYt i� Occ i' ro 6r7� Cr S n c:'er SC(h��Er /� G e� c�JEs e t� Cl 6� E /s Morn oar� � �ci r r� n c�ch�/clre 64.)CCc /GI /ou /��rn L � i7�7�7/ri �1�e S Jam. e7Ls�.s �rOni / C1h�l�rr 777,- Lli7 E�i � 6/� 014/? All CzGi7C�rr7�=�- -02 rim; / l"tC rt e_ Grp e.cv, / �O -e. cvrDn cv vv y. set -7 ro/3] i y� 7Z /7 rlof P�J�iI uSe . oc�r c�ec� car /VR7ZI 4) 74V /9-7�Ze i- 7e 7,t 12- h,�/s .� 7Z e- / /7 t O e r S 74b� C/q Lw- S e--, 7�e �'/3'1 ; /rhe�� Sj ee- C ) /7o/sue rAc/n dr Cl i r'�cTi O n . (�tJC'� h O�f?E✓ c; D c.C� �7R-UC�i ��� C�'�n �1 i c:7L/ D� 0 � (.�J`I ITT /S (4 Lt) r4--74�rC r14 Y��^ S/n c ere y y To: The Kent City Council f AFC, 3 0 1997 CITY Of: KENT QITY CLERK Subject: Personal Watercraft (PWC) Regulation on Lake Meridian We would like to thank the Kent City Council for addressing this issue. Lake Meridian is the smallest lake in King County where motorized activities are permitted. Lake Meridian's size coupled with rapid growth in PWC ownership and their use by many different types of riders has left us with a problem. After two public hearings there are several points which are clear: • Some action needs to be taken. Both residents and PWC operators agree that unsafe conditions are regularly caused by either irresponsible or negligent operators. • U.S.Coast Guard reports show that, nationally, PWCs are 10 times more likely to be involved in an accident as other boat types. In some states the ratio is 15:1. • Noise is a major problem for people living in the vicinity of the lake. The state and city noise ordinance forbids making a sound louder than 75 decibels at the shoreline. ALL PWCs must be operated very gently to avoid violating the noise ordinance. ANY PWC which jumps wakes or performs any other stunts which lift its exhaust out of the water will violate the state noise limits. • PWCs are the fastest growing segment of the boating market. The number of PWCs operating on the lake is also growing. Action to control noise and improve safety must be taken soon. PWCs are marketed with one message: "Kicking up spray is fun." PWCs put out up to 85 decibels with the exhaust underwater and up to 105 decibels when jumping waves. It is unreasonable to expect that any PWC on the lake will not eventually be operated as it was designed and sold. The furthest one can get from shore on Lake Meridian is 850 feet. As the following chart shows, every time a PWC is pushed hard on 95% of the lake the noise limit will be violated and when a PWC exhaust is out of the water, the sound reaching the shore is always over the state and city legal limit.. Using measured sound levels to identify and cite violators is impractical and has not worked in Kent in the past. The key to enforcement is to eliminate the activities which produce the violating sound levels. Personal Watercraft Sound Levels 110 T 0 ut of Water (105 dB) 105 100 95 ZWater 90 '1960 Feet dB) $� Legal 0 75 Limit m 70 i (75 d8 65 '680 Feet 60 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Distance from Watercraft(Feet) Sauce:Absorption of Sound in Stil Air,50%Relative Humidity,M Hz,Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,6M Edition The Lake Meridian Community Association Board of Directors voted to support banning PWCs from Lake Meridian because the lake's small size makes it near impossible for PWCs to operate there without violating both state and city noise ordinances and making the lake significantly less safe for other boaters. A ban would permit the fullest enjoyment of the lake by more people while solving the noise and safety issues unique to PWCs. It is important to keep this issue in the proper perspective. PWCs are toys designed to stimulate the rider with speed and excitement. They are easily portable. The vast majority of PWC users on Lake Meridian already transport their PWCs to the lake. There are several larger bodies of water within easy driving distance. It is not a great hardship to take PWCs where there is more room. Thank you for your efforts to improve the safety and quality of life for all of the city's residents. Tom Brotherton President, Lake Meridian Community Association I ' �rnu n/ f, i I i i 1 1 �I � KL`- NT- KANGLcY RD 14629 Southeast 267th Street Kent, Wa 98042 April 28, 1997 Kent City Council D 220 4th Avenue South MAY - 1 1997 Kent, Wa 98032 CITY OF KENT Subject: Jetski Ordinance CITY CLERK Dear Council Members: We wish to advise you that we support the proposal for a total ban of personal watercraft (Jetski and Skidoos) on Lake Meridian. The noise level is intolerable. It is impossible to carry on a conversation with friends in your own yard. We have lived at this address for forty-one years. The first year our real estate taxes were $279.00 now they are over $4500.00. If the taxes don't force us to sell the noise from the Jetski's will! We have seen a number of near accidents out in front of our home on a noisy afternoon. If someone doesn't get killed it will be a miracle Sincerely yours, Mr! & Mrs. p Gerber 9 14649 SE 267th Street Kent_ WA 9804 April 29, 1997 Kent Citv Council �J 9 �� 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 MAY - 1 1991 CITY OF KENT CITY CLERK Dear Councilors: My wife and I support the proposal to ban jetskis and other such personal watercraft on Lake Meridian. Contrary to our expectations when we voted for annexation, the lake has been effectively unpoliced since Kent took over. The word is out among jet ski operators that they can come here and do as they please. When not racing from one end of the lake to the other, they churn around in zig-zags and circles or jump across the wakes of ski boats, endangering the skiers. Most weekends, the noise on shore is equivalent to a chorus of chain saws from morning to night. Solo performances occur throughout the week. The only practical means to enforce a personal watercraft ordnance is to have a police boat in the water all day, every day. No ordnance could do much to reduce the noise, and the ability to improve safety is questionable. Lake Meridian is really too small to accommodatejet skis. Noise propagates across its width with hardly any attenuation and the lanes used by water skiers take up a significant portion of its surface. A young friend who used to run his ski boat on the lake has quit coming because he thinks it is too dangerous. I have personally witnessed a number of near collisions. Sooner or later, someone is going to be hurt. Please do the right and sensible thing_ and ban personal watercraft from Lake Meridian. Yours very truly, Robert C. Martin MAY - 1 1997 CITY OF KENT Kent City Council CITY CLERK 220 qth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Council Members: I support the proposal for a total ban of personal watercraft (jetskis and the like) on Lake Meridian. Due to the small size of the lake and the sheer numbers of personal watercraft that use it, the noise level for those living in the surrounding neighborhood has become intolerable. The noise degrades our quality of life. Conversations cannot be held outdoors. Windows and doors must remain shut in area homes. Since it has been determined that noise levels from personal watercraft exceed the residential noise ordnance, a ban should be legally enforceable. A significant number of personal watercraft on the lake are operated recklessly and constitute a safety hazard to skiers and pleasure boats. Many States have regulated the minimum lake size for jetskis at 300 acres. The City of Kent should set a precedent for Washington by following suit. YOU CS very truly. Z74 j 5 /7 J I 9 E � U ED M Al - 1 1997 CITY OF KENT Kent City Council CITY CLERK 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98031 Dear Council Members: I support the proposal for a total ban of personal watercraft (jetskis and the like) on Lake Meridian. Due to the small size of the lake and the sheer numbers of personal watercraft that use it, the noise level for those living in the surrounding neighborhood has become intolerable. The noise degrades our quality of life. Conversations cannot be held outdoors. Windows and doors must remain shut in area homes. Since it has been determined that noise levels from personal watercraft exceed the residential noise ordnance, a ban should be legally enforceable. A significant number of personal watercraft on the lake are operated recklessly and constitute a safety hazard to skiers and pleasure boats. Many States have regulated the minimum lake size for jetskis at 300 acres. The City of Kent should set a precedent for Washington by following suit. 7 Yours very truly April 28, 1997 Kent City Council D L5 C 0 lY1 15 � ' 220 4th Ave. South Kent, WA 98032 MAY - 2 1997 Subject: Jetski Ordinance CITY CITY CCLERKT Dear Council Members, I (we) support the proposal for a total ban of personal watercraft (Jetskis and Skidoos) on Lake Meridian. Due to the small size of Lake Meridian and the shear number of personal watercraft using the lake, the noise levels for those living in the surrounding neighborhood have become intolerable. I (we) find it disruptive to life quality. Conversations cannot be held outdoors, windows and doors must remain shut on area homes. Since it has been determined noise levels from personal watercraft exceeds the residential noise ordinance this action should be legally enforceable. Many states have regulated the minimum lake size for personal watercraft operation at 300 acres. Let the city of Kent set a precedent for the State of Washington by following suit. Any other proposal sends the message that it is acceptable to compromise the law for specific user groups. Sincerely, i/ `j MAY - 2 1997 Kent City Council CITY OF KENT 220 4th Avenue South CITY CLERK Kent, WA 98032 Dear Council Members: I support the proposal for a total ban of personal watercraft Oetskis and the like) on Lake Meridian. Due to the small size of the lake and the sheer numbers of personal watercraft that use it, the noise level for those living in the surrounding neighborhood has become intolerable. The noise degrades our quality of life. Conversations cannot be held outdoors. Windows and doors must remain shut in area homes. Since it has been determined that noise levels from personal watercraft exceed the residential noise ordnance, a ban should be legally enforceable. A significant number of personal watercraft on the lake are operated recklessly and constitute a safety hazard to skiers and pleasure boats. Many States have regulated the minimum lake size for jetskis at 300 acres. The City of Kent should set a precedent for Washington by following suit. Yours very truly, 0o11 i 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 vessels and related activities within the City by adding a new subsection prohibiting the operation of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian. 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 few years, recreational uses and more specifically. vessel traffic on the lake have increased dramatically; and WHEREAS. the increased popularity of personal watercraft has resulted in increasing conflicts with other uses on the lake. such as waterskiing, creating concerns for public safety; and WHEREAS, Lake Meridian is approximately one hundred (100) acres in size and due to the small size of the lake, all vessel traffic exceeding eight (8) miles per hour must operate in an area at least two hundred (200) feet from the shoreline and one hundred feet(100) feet from other vessels and swimmers and must proceed around the Lake in a counter-clockwise direction: and 1 - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - PROHIBITTON WHEREAS. personal watercraft are small. highly maneuverable, and fast vessels that must operate in the same traffic area as other vessels and waterskiers; and i WHEREAS, testimony was presented during the April 1, 1997, public i " hearing before the City Council on this matter as well as during the public safety committee meetings held on March 18, 1997 and April 15. 1997 that increased use of personal i watercraft operation on the lake interferes with waterskiing and other recreational related activity on the lake causing a threat to public safety: and WHEREAS, testimony was also presented to the Public Safety Committee that the decibel level requirements of RCW 88.12.085 would require personal watercraft to operate in a small area in the center of the lake making it impractical for personal watercraft to operate within the traffic pattern of other vessels on the lake; and WHEREAS the recreational uses of personal watercraft as compared to recreational uses of other vessels on Lake Meridian are inconsistent due to the high volume of traffic on the lake and the lakes small size: and i WHEREAS, more benign uses of the lake such as sailing, kavaking, swimming and fishing are interfered with during the operation of personal watercraft; and WHEREAS. the City Council desires to maximize the recreational use of the lake for all users to the greatest extent possible. and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that recreational water dependent activities can be safely enjoyed on the lake: and - PERSONAL. WATERCRAFT - PROHIBITION , WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the testimony presented to the Public Safety Committee and the full City Council has further reviewed alternative proposals to enhancing safety on the lake. and WHEREAS, although the prohibition of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian would deny certain uses on the lake, it would provide the largest number of users of the lake a safe environment for lake related recreational uses; and WHEREAS; the prohibition of personal watercraft operation 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 HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The findings set forth in the recitals above are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth herein in full. SECTION2. Section 4.06.020 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: 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" as currently enacted and as hereinafter amended, are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated herein: 1. 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. I 3 PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - PROHIBITION RCW 88.02.030 Exceptions from vessel registration. 4. RCW 88.02.090 Inspection of registration - Violation of chapter. �. RCW 88.02.110 Penalties - Disposition of moneys collected - Enforcement authority. B. The following provisions of Chapter 88.12 of the Revised Code of Washington, (RCW)entitled "Regulation of Recreational Vessels" as currently enacted and as hereinafter amended, are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated herein: 1. RCW 88.12.010. Definitions. ? RCW 88.12.015. Violations of chapter punishable as misdemeanor - Circumstances - Violations designated as civil infractions. 3. RCW 88.12.020. Operation of vessel in a negligent manner - Penalty. 4. RCW 88.12.025. Operation of vessel in a reckless manner - Operation of a vessel under the influence of intoxicating liquor - Penalty. 5. RCW 88.12.035. Failure to stop for law enforcement officer. 6. RCW 88.12.055. Enforcement - Chapter to supplement federal law. 7. RCW 88.12.065. Equipment standards - Rules - Penalty. 8. RCW 88.12.075. Tampering with vessel lights or signals - Exhibiting false lights or signals - Penalty. 9. RCW 88412.085. Muffler or underwater exhaust system required - Exemptions - Enforcement - Penalty. 10. RCW 88412.095. Personal flotation devices - Inspection and approval - Rules. 11. RCW 88.12.105. Failure of vessel to contain required equipment - Liability of operator or owner - Penalty. 12. RCW 88.12.115. Personal flotation devices required - Penalty. II 13. RCW 88.12.125. Water skiing safety - Requirements. 14. RCW 88.12.135. Loading or powering vessel beyond safe operating 4 - PERSONA L WATERCRAFT - PROHIBITION ! ability - Penalties. n_ aitiC SECTION 3. Section 4.06 200 of the Kent City code is hereby amended by adding a new subsection, Subsection C., as follows: Sec. 4.06.200. Lake Meridian - Motor powered vessel restrictions - water skiing ax4 _ personal watercraft operation prohibited. A. Generallv. The following rules and regulations are adopted for the use of motor-powered vessels on Lake Meridian: I. It is unlawful to use or operate any vessel powered by motor power on Lake Meridian, except that vessels with the following engines will be permitted: a. Water-cooled outboard engines of stock manufacture or stock manufactured inboard engines with outboard drive units (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: or watercooled direct drive inboard engines equipped with a muffler or silencer of sufficient size and capacity, to effectively muffle and reduce noise similar Ili to that of outboards and inboard/outboards. This includes both propeller and jet propulsion watercraft. b. Air-cooled outboard or inboard engines of stock manufacture rated by the manufacturer at ten horsepower or i less. C. Electric tishin.r trollin« motors. 2. No vessel shall operate in excess of eight miles per hour after 6:00 p.m. until the hour of 9:00 a.m. and not in excess of thirty-tive miles 5 - PERSONAL W_\TERCRAFT - PROHIBITION per hour from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ;. Vessels 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. 4. All vessels operating on Lake Meridian shall carry United States Coast Guard approved personal flotation devices in good condition for each person in the vessel 5. Motor-powered vessels operating after sundown shall be equipped with and have lit proper running lights. 6. The anchorage or moorage of unoccupied vessels is prohibited except when tied to a pier or dock with the permission of the owner of the pier or dock. 7. No remote controlled vessels powered by internal combustion engines shall operate before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. S. 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: I. Water skiing on the lake at speeds up to and including eight miles 1, 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. ;. It is unlawful to water ski within three hundred feet of shore except as follows: a. from p rivately owned shoreline, water skiers may start at and return to shore by means of the most expeditious route: 6 - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - PROHIBITION b. from City owned shoreline, water skiers may start or return (deep water start) from a distance of 300 feet or greater from shore but are prohibited from starting or stopping within 200 i 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 skiers may temporarily exceed the speed limit of eight miles per hour. 4. All persons in vessels towing, persons on water skis, tubes, surfboards, or similar contrivance shall remain seated at all times. 5. All operators of vessels having in tow or otherwise assisting a person on water skis, tubes, surfboards or similar contrivance shall comply with Section 4.06.06o. 6. Regulations stated in this subsection shall not apply to vessels used in water ski tournaments, competitions, expositions, or trials therefore, which have been duly authorized by the City. C. Personal Watercraft prohibited No person shall operate a personal watercraft on Lake Meridian at anv time. SECTION 4. - Severahilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be un constitutional 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 5. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in y force thirty (30) days from the time of its Final approval and passage as provided by law. JINt WHITE. MAYOR 7 - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - PROHIBITION . 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 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:\LAMORDINANCVETSKU.ORD l i I i 3 - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - PROHIBITION 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 vessels and related activities within the City by adding a new subsection regulating the operation of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian. i, i 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 few years, recreational uses and more specifically, vessel traffic on the lake have increased dramatically; and WHEREAS, the increased popularity of personal watercraft has resulted in increasing conflicts with other uses on the lake. such as waterskiing, creating concerns for public safety; and � WHEREAS. Lake Meridian is approximately one hundred (100) acres in size and due to the small size of the lake. all vessel traffic exceeding eight (8) miles per hour must operate in an area at Least two hundred (2-00) feet from the shoreline and one l - PERSONAL W:ATE[ZCRAFT - REGULATIONS hundred feet (100) feet from other vessels and swimmers and must proceed around the lake in a counter-clockwise direction: and WHEREAS, personal watercraft are small, highly maneuverable, and fast vessels that must operate in the same traffic area as other vessels and waterskiers; and WHEREAS, regulations on water related activities have been in place for a number of years; however, these regulations did not contemplate the increasing use of i personal watercraft; and WHEREAS, testimony was presented during the April 1, 1997, public hearing before the City Council on this matter as well as during the public safety committee meetings held on March 18. 1997 and April 15. 1997 that increased use of personal watercraft operation on the lake interferes with waterskiing and other recreational related activity on the lake causing a threat to public safety; and i WHEREAS, the City Council desires to maximize the recreational use of the lake for all users to the greatest extent possible. and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that all different types of recreational water dependent activities can be safely enjoyed on the lake; and WHEREAS,restricting the times when personal watercraft may operate will give all users an opportunity to utilize the lake and reduce potential conflicts in uses and enhance public safety: and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the testimony presented to the Public Safety Committee and the full City Council has further reviewed alternative proposals to enhancing safety on the lake: and 2 - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - REGULATIONS 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 HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The findings set forth in the recitals above are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth herein in full. SECTION 2. Section 4.06.200 of the Kent City code is hereby amended by adding a new subsection, Subsection C.. as follows: Sec. 4.06.200. Lake ]Meridian -Motor powered vessel restrictions -water skiing and personal watercraft operation. A. Generallv. The following rules and regulations are adopted for the use of motor-powered vessels on Lake Meridian: 1. It is unlawful to use or operate any vessel powered by motor power on Lake Meridian. except that vessels with the following engines will be permitted: a. Water-cooled outboard engines of stock manufacture or stock manufactured inboard engines with outboard drive units (inboard/outboards) which vent all exhaust gases through the lower drive unit in conjunction with cooling an d/or vent at a point on the drive unit which is under water i water at all times; 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. - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - REGULATIONS b. Air-cooled outboard or inboard engines of stock i manufacture rated by the manufacturer at ten horsepower or less. C. Electric fishing trolling motors. 2. No vessel shall operate in excess of eight miles per hour after 6:00 p.m. until the hour of 9:00 a.m. and not in excess of thirty-five miles per hour from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Vessels 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. 4. All vessels operating on Lake Meridian shall carry United States Coast Guard approved personal flotation devices in good condition for each person in the vessel. 5. Motor-powered vessels operating after sundown shall be equipped with and have lit proper running lights. 6. The anchorage or moorage of unoccupied vessels is prohibited except when tied to a pier or dock with the permission of the owner of the pier or dock. 7. No remote controlled vessels powered by internal combustion engines shall operate before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. S. 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 take at speeds up to and including eight miles per hour is permitted any time between dawn and dusk. 4 - PERSONAL, WATERCRAFT - REGULATIONS 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. ;. 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 skiers may temporarily exceed the speed limit of eight miles per hour. 4. All persons in vessels towing persons on water skis, tubes, surfboards, or similar contrivance shall remain seated at all times. 5. All operators of vessels having in tow or otherwise assisting a person on water skis, tubes. surfboards or similar contrivance shall comply with Section 4.06.060. 6. Regulations stated in this subsection shall not apply to vessels used in water ski tournaments. competitions, expositions. or trials therefore. which have been duly authorized by the City. C. Personal Watercraft In addition to RCW 88.12.145 adopted in Section 4 06 020 the following regulations shall apply to personal watercraft. Personal Watercraft may be operated on the lake at speeds up to and mcludinQei(2ht (8) miles per hour any day f989aaaad 6:fp:r Personal Watercraft may be operated on the lake at speeds in excess of eight (8) miles per hour only as follows: 5 - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - REGULATIONSI a. between the hours of 12:00 noon and 6:00 o.m.: b. on even numbered days of the calendar: and C. from and includiniz 'vlav 16 throud and includiu i September.15th of any year. SECTIONS. - Severability. If anv 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. i SECTION 4. - Effealve 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. 6 - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - REGULATIONS I hereby certify that this is a true cope of Ordinance No. , passe by the Citv 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 ORDINANCJETSK12.ORD iI I 7 - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - REGULATIONS Kent City Council Meeting Date Mav 6. 1997 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: 1997 ASPHALT OVERLAYS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was held on April 9th with three bids received. The low bid was submitted by M.A. Segale, Inc. in the amount of $348, 039. 10. The Engineer's estimate was $432, 389. The project consists of asphalt overlaying a number of streets in the Valley and East Hill areas. The Public Works Director recommends award of the contract to M.A. Segale, Inc. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $348, 039. 10 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1997 Overlay Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember ! �'��' seconds that the 1997 Asphalt Overlays contract be awarded to M.A. Segale, Inc. for the bid amount of $348, 039. 10. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS May 1, 1997 TO: Mayor & Council FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: 1997 Asphalt Overlays Bid opening for this project was held on April 9th with 3 bids received. The low bid was submitted by M. A. Segale, Inc. in the amount of S348,039.10. The Engineer's estimate was $432,389.00. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the 1997 Asphalt Overlays contract be awarded to M. A. Segale, Inc. for the bid amount of $348,039. 10. BID SUMMARY M. A. Segale 348,039.10 Lakeside Industries 375,769.20 Watson Asphalt Paving 429,517.50 Engineer's Estimate 432,389.00 MOTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the 1997 Asphalt Overlays contract be awarded to M.A. Segale for the bid amount of 348,039. 10. Kent City Council Meeting Date May 6. 1997 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: 35, AERIAL BUCKET TRUCK (LIFT TRUCK) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this equipment contract was held on March 18th with one bid submitted by Altec Industries, Inc. from Dixon, California. The bidding requirements stated that the City would consider a demo unit under 5, 000 miles and less than one year old. The demo unit bid submitted was $63 ,405.20, however, this unit did not meet the required specifications. The Public Works Director therefore recommends that the new 1997 unit be awarded to Altec Industries, Inc. for the bid amount of $63 ,986 . 24 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $63 , 986. 24 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Equipment Rental Reserve Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: /' 1 n Councilmember ti moves, Councilmember !/V �c seconds that the 35 , Aerial Bucket Truck contract be awarded to Altec Industries, Inc. for the bid amount of $63 , 986. 24 . DISCUSSION• ACTION: ^ Council Agenda Item No. 5B DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS April 10, 1997 TO: Mavor & City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: 35' Aerial Bucket Truck Bid opening for this equipment contract was held on March I Sth with 1 bid submitted by Altec Industries Inc in the amount of $63,986.24. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the 35' Aerial Bucket Truck equipment contract be awarded to Altec Industries Inc. in the amount of 563,986.24. BID SUMMARY Option: Demo Unit New 1997 Unit Altec Industries $63,405.20 $63,986.24 MOTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the New 1997 35' Aerial Bucket Truck equipment contract be awarded to Altec Industries, Inc. in the amount of $63,986.24. aPR. -08' 97 �TC;EIC11Y Cf !iEN PW PE f0�V'S BID FCR.M TO: City Clerk RE' : BID # ER-01-97 City Hall 220 4th Avenue South Kent , Washington 98032 The 1.1mdersigned hera 'Dy certifies that Dan Garbez has personally read and thoroughly understands the Specifications and Re(zuirments for (1) NEW 1997 35 FOOT AERIAL BUCKET TRUCK WITH SERVICE BODY OPTTON: THE CITY WILL CONSIDER A DEMO UNIT tT.NnER 5 ,000 MILES AND LESS THAN 1 YEAR OLD The undersigned 'hereby proposes to provide the equizmenz in accordance with said 1pecifica ions at the fcllcwig schedule of rates and prices : NEW 1997 LNIT Ease aid $ 59,137.00 Sales Tax 8. 2% 's a 4, 849. 24 Total Bid r 63,986,24 CPT=CN: DEi+10 UNIT (STP_TE YEAR & MILE-CT; YR . 1997 MILEAGE under 5,000* Base 3,d S 58,600.00 Sales Tax 8. 2"4 5 4,805.20 Total Bid $ 63 ,405.20 The undersigned bidder hereby proposes anc agrees to provide the equipment , if awarded him , within * 180-240 days aster award of the bid. The required bid security consiatinc of a certified check, bid bond, or cashier' a heck in the ameur_t of act less than 5'k of the total amount bi is hereto attached. * Demo unie can be delivered in about 60 days. APR, -O8' 97I liEl 11 ll CITY OF KP``T PW GPcRATIOVS P D07 Notice of acceptance Of this bid or r=T-ast fo: additional information should be addressed no the endersianed at the address stated abcve . Altec Indus r.ies Inc . Name or Bidder --/➢an Garbez 134, rch 1. 1997 Date 325 Industrial Way Dixon CA 95620 Address (916) 678-0800 Telephone 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 - Negotiations for Property Acquisition I OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES EEBRUARY 5, 1997 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson-Committee Chair, Leona Orr , Tim Clark for Jim Bennett STAFF PRESENT: Norm Angelo, Brent McFall, Mav Miller, Kelli O'Donnell MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: None. The meeting was called to order at 4:34 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson gave introductions. A42:proval of 1/30/97 and 1/31/97 Vouchers Cotmitteemember Orr moved to approve payment of the 1/30/97 and the 1/31/97 vouchers. Acting Commiteemember Clark seconded the motion which passed with a vote of 3-0. Live Burn Simulator Project Fire Chief Angelo informed the Committee that the Live Burn Simulator project had been approved by Council previously to allow for environmentally safe and computer controlled live fires for training purposes. At the time the project was passed, the project was reconfigured to meet budget limitations. Angelo continued that some unavoidable changes have emerged. The final design requires the mounting of the simulators on the outside of the building for the new technology. Additionally, Washington Natural Gas needs to come from 240th instead of 248th which requires cutting of more asphalt and some added ditch work. The cost of these changes is $35,000. The second request, Angelo stated, addresses the ability to use the full capacity of the facility with the two props and enhancing the future citizen academy experience. Angelo explained that a typical fire causes flashovers in which the fire preheats the room and materials to the point that the fire will touch the ceiling and flashover and ignite the gases from the build up of the fire. He noted the importance of being able to simulate this both for training and public education. This would require an addition to the downstairs prop amounting to $38,000. Angelo added that the first part of the request for $35,000 is critical to the project while the $38,000 is optional but will be more expensive to add later. He requested that funds be appropriated from the unallocated CIP funds. Clark asked if this would negatively impact the CEP fund. Director of Operations Brent McFall responded that the CIP revenue is above budget due to two factors: the real estate excise tax was productive in 1996; and, the sales tax of which 1/4 goes in to the CEP has been higher then expected. He concluded that this proposal will not negatively impact the CEP. Clark asked if this was to be a shared facility. Angelo stated that shared use is still anticipated which will help with operational costs but not capital costs. After further discussion Commiteemember Orr moved to recommend authorization for the Fire Department to use $73,000 of the unallocated CEP funds to complete the live burn simulator project. Acting Committeemember Clark seconded the motion which passed with a vote of 3-0. Banking Services Request for Proposal Finance Director May Miller explained that the current banking service contract expires on June 1. 1997. She noted that U.S. Bank has provided excellent service but it is important to look at what other services are available. Miller reviewed the timeline for the RFP process with the Committee and explained that responses will be reviewed for the services provided, customer service, and innovation/automation. She added that there will be some conversion time necessary if a new contractor is selected and that U.S. Bank has aereed to extend their contract on a month to month basis through December. May distributed the letter received from U.S. Bank agreeing to the extension. Miller stated that the RFP does ask to have a full service, local branch office as this is important to the operation. of the city's financial services. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -'L\iINUI•ES, CONT. Fe�i-ti ry ^ . 1��11 Acting Committeemember Clark asked if the possibility of computers were considered such as expansion into parks facilities, etc. He suggested that this could be linked to scheduling park facilities and kiosks could allow payments and scheduling at outlying sites. McFall responded that this is in the planning stages. Clark asked if the RTA site would have linkage. McFall replied that it could certainly be looked at. Miller responded that a number of sites need to coordinate when looking forward in conjunction with the automation plan with processes for internal controls. December Preliminary Financial Report Miller noted that under State law, the city is required to keep the books open until January 20 and the vouchers that the committee had just approved are for additional December expenses. May reviewed the report with the committee during which she noted that permits are reported at 44% over budget. McFall stated that this is an indicator of future assessed valuation that will result in property tax collections. Clark asked if the increase was in residential or commercial. McFall responded that it was mixed and Miller noted the graph showing the mix in the report. While reviewing the fines and forefeitures on page 19, May noted that some incorrect assumptions had been used in the budget figures; even though the revenues are under budget, they are over 1995 actuals on page 20. During the review of the golf operating revenues and expenses, Orr requested a printout of the maintenance budget at the golf course for the last four or five years. Miller reviewed the projected general fund adjustments noting that the final impacts of the manufacturing tax exemption could still be taken up until the end of February. McFall noted that the final regulations are not even in place. May then reviewed the remaining project funds with the committee. Suburban Cities Regional Governance & Finance Proposal McFall asked for guidance from the committee on the proposal received from Suburban Cities Association and asked if the committee felt that a worksession of the council should be held next week or before the next council meeting. Clark suggested that the complexity of the issue would best be handled by an informal discussion. McFall stated that this proposal provides some guidance to the Suburban Cities Association as they go through the Growth Management Planning Council but it may ultimately change as the process goes forward. He noted that the overall strategy is to have a more well developed position than Seattle and King County. He stated that it is the committees pleasure how to proceed and that he would be Glad to coordinate with the Council President. Durina discussion Clark suggested hat it could be tied into the informal dinner discussed at the retreat with a worksession at 6:00 p.m. and dinner at 7:30 p.m. The committee concurred conditional upon Council President approval. There being no further business to be brought forward, Committee Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m. Pare 2 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 1992 CONIMITTEE MEMBERS PRESEN'C: Jon Johnson-Committee Chair, Leona Orr , Tim Clark for Jim Bennett STAFF PRESENT: Roger Lubovich, Brent McFall, Nlav_ Miller. Kelli O'Donnell MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: None. The meeting was called to order at 4:3 4 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson gave introductions. A-1242roval of 2/13/97 and 2/14/97 Vouchers Committeemember Orr moved to approve payment of the 2/L3/97 and the 2/14/97 vouchers. Acting Committeemember Clark seconded the motion which passed with a vote of 3-0. Senior Center Roof Replacement Budget Finance Director May Miller explained that last summer a consultant had looked at the Kent Commons and felt that some repairs would extend the roof life for a few more years. The Senior Center roof has failed and is leaking with dry rot, etc., Miller continued. She stated that the consultant recommends that the old roof be totally removed for repairs and replacement. May noted that the old roof is only ten years old and should have lasted longer but the contract had been awarded to the low bidder and as sometimes happens the best materials were not used. She explained that the subcontractor who did the work is out of business so there is no way to go back to him. The new roofing would be a better material with a ten year warranty and as part of the bid a contractor will inspect to make sure it is installed correctly with the materials ordered. The cost to do this would be $150,000 total which would be funded from the $60,000 remaining from the Commons and $90,000 from unanticipated fund balances resulting from sales tax, May stated. Miller introduced Facilities Manager Charlie Lindsey. Lindsey distributed a picture of the roof and explained that the experimental material used previously was a built up roof with a laminate over it. He noted that you can see that the laminate has peeled off in most areas. Lindsey also stated that around the copula the siding is damaged and will need to be repaired also. Orr asked if there is a possibility that more damage will be found when the old roof is removed. Charlie agreed that there is a possibility and Miller added that there is a contingency budget of$16,621 set aside in case of further damage. Orr noted that the Senior Center roof has been leaking for five years. Committeemember Orr moved to recommend authorization to proceed and establish a budget of$150,000 to be funded with a transfer of$60,000 from the unused Kent Commons roof project with the balance of $90,000 to come from the CIP fund balance. Acting Committeemember Clark seconded the motion and the motion passed 3-0. Regional Governance & Finance Proposal Director of Operations Brent McFall stated that this item was presented at a Council meeting a few weeks ago briefly and that a Council Workshop is scheduled for next week. He noted the purpose of bringing it up in this meeting was to review the proposal in some detail so that the committee would be in the position to make some recommendations at the workshop. He noted the importance of understanding what this document represents. McFall explained that a staff group had worked on this issue under the auspices of Suburban Cities Association (SCA) to establish a policy position. If adopted, this position would be the SCA negotiating position going into the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) meetings where the issue of what level of services of government would be paid for by whom and how will be decided upon. Brent clarified that this is an attempt to provide guidance to SCA representatives on the GNPC whom he thought would be Bob Edwards from the City of Renton and Rosemarie Ives from Redmond. At the special meeting of SCA on February 26, it will be decided if this document or a modification of it will be the OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINtTTES, CONT. Fehr iary 1 A 1097 position of SCA going into GN>PC. McFall offered to review the document noting that he was on the committee that developed it. He explained that not everyone on the committee agreed on everything that is in the document but overall the consensus is it is a good position. Brent explained that the debate over what services the city government should offer versus the county government usually takes place because of a crises. The crises in this situation is the King County budget which has come about because of incorporations and annexations of areas into existing cities therefor shrinking the direct service areas of the county. Tax receipts also shrink from the county road tax and 85% of sales tax. The comee identified, and King County concurred, that mirt there currently exists an urban subsidy whereby taxes collected from cities pays for urban services in unincorporated areas. McFall stated that depending on how it is calculated it is estimated that $10 to $31 million annually is shifted. He noted that the cities feel this is unacceptable; service levels should be determined by revenues from the service area. King County is not functional as an urban service provider and, he noted, that this is even contrary to King County policies stating that service levels should be determined by revenues from the service area. Cities should be providers of urban services and King County should provide rural services to unincorporated areas and regional services, McFall summarized that the problem lies in determining what regional services are. McFall stated that the proposed position is for SCA to aggressively approach King County and get them to step out of providing urban services. The proposal also calls for agreement with King County and all of the cities by 1998 establishing annexation areas. King County has never agreed to the boundaries of the potential annexation areas (PAA) and some areas are left out of anyone's P AA. McFall continued that one position that is under consideration is that cities would be responsible for planning, zoning, and permitting of their PAA's whether they are currently in the city or not. The rational is those areas will eventually inherit whatever happens there. During further explanation, McFall stated that the county would make the bold step of saying they would no longer provide urban services to PAA's and if residents want those services they can annex to the existing city or form their own. He continued, that by stepping out of the urban business, money would be freed up for King County to provide regional services. The debate will be determining what regional services are. Cities will work with the county to negotiate packages such as human services, courts, police, parks, swimming pools, etc. He noted the importance of recognizing that every city in the county may have to take some of the things they don't like such as pools. He also noted that every annexation will not make sense from a financial standpoint. If the whole premise is accepted that the urban rural he is a distinct dividing line and that everything on the urban side of the line will be inside a city, then we as cities will need to step up and take on those responsibilities. Each individual city will be responsible for determining what their own level of service will be. One city may emphasize police or parks for example, cities will always be different but ultimately responsible for making those decisions. McFall offered to answer any questions the Committee had noting that this could be a dramatic shift in the provision of government services. He added that this issue has periodically been talked about for the past 20 or 30 years without the pressure of a crises. Johnson noted that the same issue periodically pops up again and that he thought it was interesting that SCA has always though of pools as regional not suburban. McFall noted that the rational was not in the broader context. King County has wanted to shift the cost of operating pools with no benefit to the cities. He noted that a significant example would be the proposal for human services to become a regional function. If that happens. the city no longer would be in that business. McFall pointed out that this is a prime example of giving up a function that is dear to us and that we do Page 2 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. Fe�rnary 1 C, 1097 well. Johnson questioned what would happen with the courts. McFall responded that using the court as an example we have just went in the other direction; most King County cities use district court but for the past four years we have operated our own and been pleased. He noted the kev is to realize that everything is on the table for debate over what is regional and what is local During further discussion, Clark stated his concern regarding the agricultural development district and who would have authority to grant/remove rights, funding, and enforcement. McFall stated that it had not specifically been discussed but it would be on the table. Clark questioned whether the county is taking into consideration the impact of the Growth Management Act and related changes in densities and the demand upon services that it will drive. This could impact junior taxing districts as well as public safety and public health. Clark questioned how the city could contend with that or would it be a regional service. McFall stated that public health would probably be funded and handled by the county. After further discussion of potential impacts, Clark requested that McFall prepare a brief synopsis of services and the pros and cons of them being urban or rural for the Council workshop. McFall noted that he could only do so by his own speculation as SCA is only developing their strategy as is King County and Seattle. During further discussion, McFall noted that at the February 26th meeting of SCA, this proposal may be adopted or thrown out. He noted that at the end of the council's workshop a determination is needed of whether the City of Kent can or cannot support this proposal or what modifications they would like to be able to support it. Clark asked if the outcome was to establish principles to apply. McFall replied that it is a statement of principles that will be modified as we go through the GV1PC. Kind County Charter Review: McFall stated that at the last SCA meeting the King County Charter Review had been brought up and it is up to the Council if they want to offer any recommendations from the City of Kent. Tim Clark noted that he would be attending the public meeting tonight. Clark noted that there is an overlap with SCA and the Charter Review. He stated that he doesn't feel represented on the King County Council since public hearings are not in the area affected and the people living there have to go to work. He also noted his concern that as the regional provider of service this principle should be in their language for the charter. Clark also raised the issue of density in urban boundaries re<oardin`_ the provision of =reen space. Orr noted that it doesn't seem as though urban separators of green space exist. McFall agreed, stating that it is a guideline not a requirement and usually boundaries are streets. After further discussion of regional versus local governance, Clark asked if the Committee wished to give any direction for the King County Charter Review hearing. Johnson noted that his concerns have already been addressed: One, reducing districts from 13 to 7 as areas shrink -- this would reduce costs for budgeting and staff; and two, non-partisan elected offices as these are regional issues not partisan. He noted that during his ten years working at King County, he saw issues being bogged down by partisanship. McFall suggested that the recommendations of the charter review committee should be placed on the ballot instead of the King County Council picking and choosing what is placed on the ballot. Orr concurred. Johnson noted that at Summit I and II the county was the only one who wanted to go from 9 districts to 13. McFall pointed out that King County has the Charter Review process but can also change codes at any time. A discussion of the number of districts followed December Preliminary Financial Report: May Muller reviewed the financial report with the committee noting on Page 25 that at this point it appears Page 3 OPERATIONS CONINIITTEE MINUTES, CONT. February 19,A-9 ?Z there will be $1.9 million more in the ending fund balance than budgeted without the police contract settlement. She noted it is expected to be finalized at approximately Sl million which will be used to replace the S1 million that was expected to be needed from the CIP She added that the sales tax exemption impacts have still not been fully reported. McFall added that a conservative approach is still being followed. After vlav concluded her report, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 6:07 p.m. as there was no further business to be brought forward. Pa<,e 4 (Please put in Council agenda CITY of packet) i Jim White, Mayor U James P.Harris,Planning Director CITY COUNCIL PLANNING CONMTTEE VIINL'TES March 18, 1997 Planning Committee Members Present: Citv Attornev's Office Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Tom Brubaker Jon Johnson Other Planning_Staff Mark Hinshaw 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 9 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 mixed use 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 panting standards when developments add specific i i33d ?20401 AVE.SO. l KENT WASRINGTON 98032SR95/TELEPHONE i206185 g_}}00/F.AX R59- City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 amenities. Mr. O'Neill suggested establishing a 25 percent threshold requirement of either use in order to qualify for a bonus. The fourth issued 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 M1- 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. City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 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. 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 necessary. 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. Hinshaw 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 Attorney 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. City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 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 goes before the Council. Mr. Brubaker explained that this would give 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 more 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 layed 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 City 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 brief discussion about the fiber optics potential installation. Committeemember Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. 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 49 as follows: 9. Annexations shall, to the extent practical, pay their own way- 4 City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED and Tim Clark SECONDED a motion to approve the annexation policy dated March 18, 1997 with the modification to 49. Motion carried. CHAMBERS TASK FORCE REPORT - SCHOOL IMPACT FEES - (B. Hutchinson) Building Official Bob Hutchinson explained that his concern with the Chambers Task Force Report is their recommendation to change the timing of the fee collection. He explained that he had written his concerns to the Chief of Staff Brent McFall in a memo. He stated that a copy of the memo was included in the agenda packet. Mr.Hutchinson reviewed his concerns. He explained that collecting the school impact fees at a later time could create procedural problems and possibly cost more to implement than the cost savings in terms of housing affordability. He recommended that the fee collection remain as it is now (collected at the time the building permit is issued). Committee member Jon Johnson stated that some of the builders that he has discussed this issue with would rather pay all of the fees at one time. He stated that it would be best to leave the fee collection as it is now. Kathy Larson, Chair of the Chambers Task Force, explained that it was the intent of the task force to reduce construction costs of schools and carrying costs to the builder. Ms. Larson suggested forming a small working group from the Task Force Committee to work with City staff and walk through the actual process. She explained that it would be a great opportunity for the task force to get a better understanding of the process. Chair Leona Orr asked for the Finance Department to report whether the school impact fees could be collected at alater time. She commented that the builders that were on the task force were in favor of delaying the payment and indicated that the later the fees were paid the less impact there was on the cost of the house. Mr. Hutchinson explained the Building Code does not require a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued for single family or duplex dwellings and there is nothing administratively set up to flag a final inspection. He stated that there is no difficulty in collecting the school impact fees at this time because they simply don't issue a building permit until the fees are paid. Mr. Satterstrom explained at this time the City has a minimal amount of administrative costs because the school impact fees are charged at the time the building permit is issued. He stated that if there was a way to run a credit card imprint at the time they apply for a building permit and then charge the card at a later day that would be okay. He explained that administratively the City could run 5 City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 into problems when attempting to collect the fees if the current system is adjusted to collect fees just prior to occupancy. Committee member Jon Johnson commented that having a small working group look into these issues is an excellent idea that should be pursued. Chair Leona Orr stated that the Committee would defer this item until the task force group could come back and present their findings to the Committee. Orr requested that Ms. Larson get a group together and make arrangements to sit down with staff. CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL - (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom asked the Committee to hold a public hearing regarding the current use assessment proposal at the next regularly scheduled Planning Committee meeting (4/15/97). Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to hold the necessary public hearing. Motion carried. FENCE SUMMIT APARTMENTS (located between 108th &236th/238th) - (T. Clark) Committee member Tim Clark explained that during a community meeting for the Park Orchard Annexation citizens voiced a concern with the amount of foot traffic on 108th. Clark commented that the apartment complex originally had a fence in place which discouraged such traffic. Clark explained that the Mayor and City Council members had assured the citizens that the City would take action to bring the foot traffic under control. They discussed creating no parking zones or limiting street parking by decal so only residents would be allowed to use the street for parking. Clark commented that now that nearly a year has lapsed residents are willing to forfeit all parking. Chair Leona Orr stated that there was a petition from citizens asking that the fence be restored. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that their is no code requirement that would give the City authority to force the apartments to reconstruct the fence. He explained that if the issue is parking on the street, he would recommend that this item be put on the Public Works Committee. Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a motion to direct the City Attorney's office to contact the owner of the apartment complex and ask them to reconstruct the fence and to inform the owner that if the fence is not replaced the City will have to consider other solutions that may include limiting or restricting on-street parking. 6 City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at :07 p.m. 7