Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/06/1999
: r5«�...amp w.m5amx��5wru�aem I I�a�:l �5,W.7M..�P.NI5':.:rc.�srP2e^.r.kM S^i4�ry�:fiMPfl•k:V'NSatliMFIATMNf.. 1�5'•• ..n. ., .,. +,• �.-:«+ • nxvs'.x s nx-em-ne... �--+• �. f IIIII II IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII �i,1. IIIIIIIII NeM IINNNI m pppN�I1N1Nl pp III IIIIIIIII « .u�•u i��u•�ix: w�l uwulN ul� Iprlll ARAI llh NI II'Iq IIII, I�wl� uu Iw wwu I��wt a ml II� I ruuu h INNHIHhryll'' Illlll IIIIIIIIIIII I �IINL Nlllllllt�llll' I llllul IUNII WIIII w tl IIIIII wt� IIIN II I wwwwNllNllll�: I IIIN I Illlu' i III tluuuNN� �wIwIN IIII I I III I I I I� IIIIIIIIIII I u Illlf III Gllllllum IIIN I I I au. INuwNI I uwwl �wNl I �N� INIw� IwNllllllNull ■IINMIIIIINIilll d Inl I l ugIIIIIIINIuulw IiN�y�Illplllil IIII"Ili III I Ilgllill III IIIrU.,. '.. I III . IIII III III I l I 'I I Illlll , ', Illlllllllll�dll LIILIII IIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�«55NNNNN�NIw IN» N�5NN55NNNIIII NIII r I4N�I u IW I Ildlh ,I IIN►N INNNINII�I I �;w II III I III ,,�hllllll I �i I it IIII �NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIu' III h II I �1I��11"Illlll'"IIII 111�11111111 IIIII 9111IIII ;,',III W°I„�:II III' II I pl I I I I I IIIJI I U"'U I I U II I IIII tl t I II„„III, II II II II °iIIIII I I I I III I I I I I III u l I IIII 6 II II I I I d I II � N I�I III IIII .„I I I II N:N IIN II NI NIIII III I JI IIIII IIIII ..III 'I IIIIIIIII IIII I :IIII IIII � I II I � „„III :I I Ip II IIII Intl IIII. I ^III I II III II n I III I'�� I I ,hi llu III IIII.Ili III Ili IIIII I' I I�IIIIIIIIIII IIII III III o III I IIIII IIIII l i II I to„INNNIIII N I 14 I wlvl N I Ii I I III, I I I dull IIIII IIII III o II II I I, I II I I I I II I I I III I I I I IV I L I I I I II I I I IIII„IIIII III III NIIII III III.. IIII I IIIN III III„„III III III III„III „IIIII of IIII I„:III it II I «NNI Illll I I ..III Illlll I I III I IIII' I I r Ili IIII III IN NI III I I IIII I N I lli III 4I II I I I LI I l °�� I IIIIIIIII NNIIIII NI IIII IIIII .III I II Illlr� NN III I °IIIpII W mI I IuuJ��I N�Iw II'll Niel lyµNl IIIII NIW IIIIIIOI IIINNIIIII I�IItNNI III II II lu ulq I NIII q III iill I II Ill llu°III°hII�wIIIN�,I IIIIIIIIINII IIIINhllll�ll III'�'�iNlll�l II°�II�IIIIIIII'lllll�l�llllll� ill IIIIIIIIIN IINIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII I . IIIIIIIII N�a IIIIIII N �� ........... NNNNNN N ,NNI p.S.N.ea•. IN 'crman:w .mwslw:u:e[pmumm•:�: "" x••..•• •.• :'. � , r�I r ■riw��I .. m v:,5. „„,r,•:e,.f�a��:rr r a!VS+.y+YG..R 'iN'p�,xu•5•;Mf:t7SitN.1 .. yy�yyy�Mypyyyyyy�Yyyw„w»,, ,.. _. CITY AR J pt!mW JS SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 6 , 1999 7hV[CTA W,/or Jim White council Chambers v 7 : 00 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS : Leona Orr, President MAYOR: Jim White Tim Clark Sandy Amodt Tom Brotherton Rico Yingling Connie Epperly Judy Woods ******************************************************************* 1 . CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2 , ROLL CALL 3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4 , PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Employee of the Month B. Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting C. Proclamation - Prepare Because You Care M0 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS None 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B. Approval of Bills 19-719 C. LID 352 , 3rd Avenue Storm Drainage - Resolution D. UPRR Toys R Us Spur Franchise Ordinance - Adoption 34µg E. Sewer Rate Increase Ordinance - Adoption yl F. IAC Grant Application Resolutions A Agreement - Acceptance Lease G. Uplands Playfield g Approval H. Performance Measures Contract - Interlocal Annexation Agreement between Kent and Renton - Approval t Bill of Sale - Acceptance J. Tomlinson Short Pla 7 , OTHER BUSINESS gn Guidelines Amendment A. Central Avenue Desi B. Group Homes Regulations Amendment C . jq&+h �i: CDrrridor TIt3 Gran-t g , BIDS A. Employee Services Tenant Improvement, Centennial Building (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 9 , REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Potential Litigation B. Property Negotiations 13 . ADJOURNMENT ..i NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk' s Office and the Kent Library. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. Any person requiring a disability accommodation FoaTDDnrelayshould servicecontact callthe City in advance for more information. 1-800-635-9993 or the City of Kent (253) 854-6587 . CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B) FROM THE PUBLIC N PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) Employee of the Month B) Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting C) Proclamation - Prepare Because You Care CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action: Councilmember ��—moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through J be approved. u Lam'' Discussion Action 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 16 , 1999 . 6B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through February 26 and paid on February 26 after auditing by the Operations Committee on March 16, 1999 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 3/15/99 214033-214241 $ 567, 971 .46 3/15/99 214242-214661 1 554 . 181 . 56 $2 , 122, 153 . 02 Approval of checks issued for payroll for February 16 through February 28 and paid on March 5, 1999 : Date Check Numbers Amount 3/5/99 Checks 234005-234327 $ 241, 536 . 14 3/5/99 Advices 76948-76950 766 , 876 . 65 76951-77553 $1, 008, 412 . 79 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B Kent, Washington March 16 , 1999 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White . Present : Councilmembers Amodt, Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods, and Yingling, Operations Director McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Fire Chief Angelo, Planning Director Harris, Finance Director Miller, and Parks Director Hodgson. Approximately 30 people were at the meeting. CHANGES TO Chief Angelo ' s discussion of the Community AGENDA Emergency Response Team Program was added to Public Communications . A map was added to Consent Calendar Item 6D by the City Attorney. PUBLIC Absolutely Incredible Kid Day. Mayor White read COMMUNICATIONS a proclamation declaring March 18 , 1999 as Absolutely Incredible Kid Day in the City of Kent . He explained that Camp Fire Boys & Girls teaches boys and girls self-reliance, good citizenship and leadership, and encouraged citizens to take the time to communicate to a young person by note or letter how important they are, and let them know they are special and appreciated. He presented the plaque to Cheryl McGowen, Adventure Group Co-Leader. Castlereagh, Northern Ireland Delegation. Mayor White welcomed a delegation from Castlereagh, Northern Ireland to the meeting and noted that Kent and Castlereagh will formally become sister cities during special ceremonies in May. He noted that this delegation is visiting Kent to explore specific exchange and information sharing opportunities . He then introduced the lead official from the delegation, Alderman Mrs . Chambers . Alderman Mrs. Chambers thanked the Mayor, Council and staff for the wonderful welcome they have received, for the planned itinerary and for their hospitality. She introduced the other members of the delegation. Mayor White expressed apprecia- tion for their visit . 1 Kent City Council Minutes March 16, 1999 PUBLIC Comaam ty, Emergencv Resiponse Teams. Fire COMMUNICATIONS Chief Angelo pointed out that this area has the potential for natural and man-made disasters and that citizens should be able to survive for at least 72 hours on their own. He announced a class dealing with disaster preparedness, disaster fire extinguishment, disaster medical operations, search and rescue, disaster psychology, and team organization, so that citizens will be familiar with basic skills and will be able to help their neighbors . He noted that the first citizens academy will be on April 6 , 1999 and that a business academy will be held in the fall . state of the City Address. Mayor White gave his State of the City address, noting that the City is in the best condition in its history. He stated that the City is financially sound, that substantial reserves have been established, that property tax rates have been lowered, and that the City' s credit rating has been upgraded to AA status . He added that construction has continued on two transportation corridors (196th St. and 277th St . ) , bridges and roads have been built and other transportation improvement projects have been undertaken. He noted that the City has acquired and developed parks, managed annexa- tions, opened a Family Violence Unit, and delivered quality local government services and programs . White stated that the City will work on imple- menting changes in the land use and construction permit process, space planning, developing infrastructure for the future, developing the community rail station, redevelopment of the downtown area, and will make decisions regarding the Civic and Performing Arts Center. The Mayor pledged his continued support for police and fire services and prevention, and said the City must continue its ongoing commitment to strong and prudent financial management . He thanked the Council for their support . 2 Kent City Council Minutes March 16, 1999 CONSENT ORR MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through I , including an amendment to Item D. Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) ARflroval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 2., 1999 . WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) King County Water District No Ill Franchise Agreement Ordinance. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the King County Water District #111 Franchise Agreement Ordinance No. 3447 which grants Water District #111 authority to operate and maintain a domestic water supply system for Water District #111, s customers residing within the City limits of Kent, upon concurrence by the City Attorney with the language. This franchise ordinance was introduced at the March 2, 1999 Council meeting. SEWERS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) Iip 349, S.E. 223rd Sanitary Sewers, Final Assessment Roll. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3446 establishing the final assessment roll for LID 349, S.E. 223rd Street Sanitary Sewers, as recommended by Council . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) Mental Health Housing Foundation Sewer Extension. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale for the Mental Health Sewer Extension submitted by Mental Health Housing Foundation for continuous operation and maintenance of 140 feet of sanitary sewers and, release of bonds after the expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located at 26824 108th Avenue Southeast . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) Sewer Rate Increase - Authorization. DIRECT the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance for adoption of the sewer rate increase, as r✓ recommended by the Public Works/Planning Committee. 3 Kent City Council Minutes March 16, 1999 SEWERS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7C) East Hill Sewer Intercelp or. For the past several years, the Public Works Department has been developing the East Hill Sewer Interceptor project, which consists of a new lift station and an accompanying interceptor. The City has acquired many of the necessary easements, however, there are some which may require condemnation. Therefore, staff recommends that condemnation proceedings be authorized. This matter went to the Public Works and Planning Committee on Monday, March 5th, and is on a fast track to complete construction during this summer' s dry season. The City Attorney distributed a packet of legal descriptions for the properties, Exhibits A-N, and noted that within the last 24 hours two of the properties have been settled. ORR MOVED that the legal descriptions be made a part of the public record. Woods seconded and the motion carried. CLARK MOVED to adopt Ordinance No 3445 authorizing condemnation proceedings for the East Hill Sewer Interceptor. Woods seconded. Clark pointed out that this system must be restruc- tured, and is critical to the health of the City. His motion then carried. PLAT (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B) Emerald Ridge II Final Plat FSU-98-10 . This date has been set to consider the final plat application submitted by Tom O'Conner, for the Emerald Ridge II Final Plat . The City Council approved the preliminary plat with conditions on January 19, 1999 . CLARK MOVED to approve the Emerald Ridge II Final Plat and to authorize the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. Orr seconded and the motion carried. 4 Kent City Council Minutes March 16, 1999 RAILROAD (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) UPRR Toys R Us Suur Fr&nchise Ordinance. INTRODUCTION of an ordinance granting to the Union Pacific Railroad Company the right, privilege and authority to construct, maintain and operate a railroad spur track upon and across S. 196th Street . The City and Union Pacific Railroad Company have been through extensive negotiations and litiga- tion over the terms and conditions of a prior franchise agreement granted by the City that has allowed UPRR to cross 196th Street near the Toys 'R Us warehouse, just east of the Green River. All parties have finally agreed on renewal franchise terms . Under state law, a franchise cannot be passed by the Council until five days after its initial introduction. This franchise must also be published. Accordingly, the franchise is being introduced at this meeting, and will be scheduled for final passage at the next regular Council meeting on April 6, 1999 . The City Attorney provided a map to be included with the ordinance as an exhibit . ORR MOVED to make the map an exhibit to the ordinance. Woods seconded and the motion carried. TECHNOLOGY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) PLAN miinicr++e u er Purchase. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign a purchase agreement with R & D Industries for the purchase of a HP-9000 mini- computer in the amount of $146, 289 . 18, subject to City Attorney approval of purchase terms . In the Technology Plan, the need for new mini- computers was clearly identified. This is the City' s first major mini-computer under the plan. This HP-9000 will immediately be used to store database systems for Permitting, Public Works, G. I .S . and Parks software projects . It will have N%W-11 significant capacity for those systems to grow. 5 . ................. Kent City Council Minutes March 16, 1999 TECHNOLOGY On March 2 , 1999, the Operations Committee PLAN recommended purchasing a HP-9000 minicomputer from R & D Industries for $146, 289 . 18 . The City is saving approximately 20% on this purchase by utilizing an existing bid conducted by a state agency called the Communications Technology Consortium. In addition to saving approximately 20% or more from list prices, costs of conducting and advertising bids are saved. City Code Section 3 . 70 . 030 allows the City to use other agency' s bids in place of conducting its own bid process. EMPLOYEE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) SERVICES Premera Blue Cross Contract AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Premera Blue Cross Contract Renewal for 1999, as recommended by the Operations Committee on March 2, 1999 . This is an administrative agreement with Premera Blue Cross whose sole function is to provide claims administration services for the City of Kent . The renewal lists the 1999 State Mandated Benefit program changes that the City shall be incorpora- ting into the self-insured program. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Avvroval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through February 26 and paid on February 26, after auditing by the Operations Committee on March 2 , 1999 . A roval of checks issued for vouchers : Date 'heck Numbers Amount 2/26/99 213196-213576 $ 229, 317 . 70 2/12/99 213577-214032 083 , 109 . 76 $2, 312 ,427 .46 (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) 1999 Councilmanic Bonds. Bond ordinance and Purchase Contract On March 2, 1999, the Operations Committee recommended adoption of the formal Bond Ordinance and authorization for the Mayor to sign the Bond Purchase Contract for the 1999 LTGO. May Miller, Finance Director 6 Kent City Council Minutes March 16, 1999 FINANCE explained the difference between the City' s previous credit rating and the new AA rating. Dick King of Lehman Brothers noted that the bonds were priced today at 4 . 65%, which is a savings of approximately $50 , 000-60, 000 because of the upgrade in rating. Miller added that $12, 500 would be saved in insurance costs . King noted for Yingling that Boeing' s employment figures in Kent are not expected to change. McFall added that the City was able to provide evidence that the consolidation of Boeing' s space and defense activities would benefit the City. King noted for Amodt that about six cities in the region have AA ratings . WOODS MOVED to adopt bond Ordinance No. 3444 for the issuance of $20, 858, 000 plus issuance costs in 1999 Councilmanic Bonds and to authorize sign- ing of the bond purchase contract with Lehman Brothers . Amodt seconded. Clark noted that teamwork is required for projects such as this, and commended those involved. Orr agreed, noting that this will be a financial benefit to the citizens of Kent . Woods ' motion then carried. REPORTS Council President. Orr reminded Councilmembers of the Citizens Summit on March 18, and of their retreat on March 26 and 27 . Qgerat;ons Committee, Woods noted that the next meeting will be held on April 6 at 3 :30 p.m. Public Safety Counittee. Epperly noted that the next meeting is on March 23 at 5 : 00 p.m. Public Works & Planning Committee. Clark noted that the next meeting will be on April 5 at 3 :30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7 : 35 p.m. Brenda Jaco er CMC City Clerk 7 /All Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6 . 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LID 352 , 3RD AVENUE STORM DRAINAGE - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, adoption of Resolution No. establishing the City' s intent to form a local improvement district and setting May 4th as the public hearing date to form LID 352 - 3rd Avenue Storm Drainage project . 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECO LADED BY: Public Works/Planningt 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. 6C DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS March 11, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom W RE: Proposed L.I.D. — 1", 3', &-5'Avenues South (North of S. 25911' St) The City received a petition for the installation of storm drains in the vicinity of 3' Avenue South and South 259' Street as shown on the attached map. Subsequently, all property owners within the project area were contacted and there appears to be adequate support to proceed with the L.I.D. formation. Historically, the south Kent area north of South 259' Street between the railroads has suffered from storm drainage problems. Currently, there is no collection system and the only discharge is to the Green River and this outlet is inadequate to service the area. In addition, the outlet doesn't work at all during high river flows. This results in difficulties for developments and substantial onsite detention requirements. The City has pursued a project for the installation of a new outlet to the Green River. The City now owns the property on the north side of South 259t' Street between 1" and 3'Avenues. The plan includes the installation of a storm water pump station on this property. The pump station will allow maximizing the discharge to the river, as the pump will maintain maximum allowable discharge to the river even as the river level rises. The Green River Management Agreement between local agencies limits the discharge to the river to 30 cubic feet per second and no discharge is allowed at very high river levels. A modeling analysis has shown that with these limitations there are periods of time that the quantity of drainage will exceed the pumping capacity. Therefore, a storage facility is also planned along with the pump station on the City property to handle a portion of the excess water until it can be discharged and to improve water quality. The project, in addition to providing a discharge point for storm drainage, also reduces the volume of onsite detention required for each property. With the proposed City detention pond, onsite detention volume will be reduced by fifty r,�,d percent. The pump station and storage facility is currently being planned. Along with the pump station and detention pond, new storm drainage lines to service the local area could be installed to take advantage of the new outlet. These lines will benefit the local properties serviced, therefore it is proposed that the funding be through the formation of a Local Improvement District. It should be noted that in the past, a number of properties have signed No Protest LID Covenants for the installation of storm drains in anticipation of this storm drainage project Also, in the past, several property owners petitioned for the LID formation because of the drainage problems. Since the necessary outlet will be available in the near future and previously property owners have indicated interest, the City proposes to form the storm drainage LID at this time. The City initiated the process by holding a property owner meeting on February 23, 1999 to discuss the project and LID formation. The property owners were also asked to submit a Questionnaire and to comment on the proposal. PROPERTY OWNER SUPPORT AND COMMENTS Previously, six properties signed No Protest LID Covenants for storm drainage improvements. Six other properties and four properties with covenants indicated interest through the Questionnaiies. The results are shown on the attached Table. The total support is 65.7%. Several properties oppose the LID formation. Assessment No. 15 (Medosweet Farms) is concerned that they already pay a drainage utility charge and will have to pay the LID assessment for drainage in addition. They also contend they receive no benefit since this property is developed. They also threatened legal action to fight the LID formation. Assessment No. 20 strongly opposes the LID and stated that they will clarify at a later time why they oppose this process and their concerns of the entire project including the City funded detention pond. The owner of No. 14 and No. 16 opposes the LID but gave no reason. PROJECT FUNDING It is proposed that the conveyance storm lines will be funded 100% by the proposed Local Improvement District. The current cost estimate is $777,590.21. However, two properties within the service area are delineated wetlands and are therefore undevelopable. The cost associated with these properties will be paid by the City. Therefore, the total LID assessment is $697,968.51. The City's share is $79,621.70. The funded amount for the pump station and detention pond which the City would construct and pay for (100%) is $1,200,000.00 (Fund #D30). $890,000.00 is remaining after purchase of the property. MOTION: Recommend adoption of the Resolution setting a public hearing date on the formation of the LID for the properties shown on the attached map. `�"'' M742" m H rn O CL O N N L N CO Q m O N N 2 rN oCL N N N N * AA � 0 tit Nr �!h o CL O N N N N N Q) N C � , � C. ? C C % AC C w N N N r- MOOc•MOetcDI' NOM ^ ^ CD0Na00V V- �- S CDOO (DOOmvWm0 C a VLo � tiCOto1� in H ++ O c0 O N tM Lo cc CD to N cls r.- V- OD = O C OO +r- 0 (DN — ITV' V' M +`+ .4" 0cncMNNOO tO 0 M ' I.- W v O ' M m e- e1_ N N O N I` CD O CPO O! mN E cduir.: iNI- ti0C C6 ( 3 : C(DCo AmP-WiIV ti W N M N M �- ti V- N N Q' N N p', D v- •d' N I- N I` O 0 6F} 63 EA 6f� 69 6F} 6F} fA b4 d4 to N N 6R} fR 69 �} 6� f!'f Eflr Z LU/ F' a O t� Q � `o `o Q = 4- r Z � W U U +- F- to W a a. aLu � Ov) CJ O c c 4) CD CL CL CL in n U) N 7 ate = :3un (D � ? w? .. g' � L °. p oC F— otf ;, E E . a. a. ats p w 0 claC L C C c L C = .� V U C O E a. G = �1 gg (� m Q� Q� V � r (A NI.- L Q J U G J J J J U J W N m L c/! O L L L N L Q �; O T O Q fA Z 3 O j, y >► �+ C+. y y. .0 C �_ C N > UJ Q (nJM � JJJJ � JF— - li. I— = F— � l- U �•• �' U! � r E �p r N M d' to tD CD M 1`► M I� Lon cM No 0 Z 3 � e~- NCD � �-- � �- re- e�- OcpOCDCpOONOO O` e- oo 'r- OO r- pp � O � O �' t3. � ,� Z gjOg0000000p000000000 W J p 00 000 O 000 O OtD Q C L o � il O o a °' � o0 000 00 0I§ 1-0000 o M- 0 L r C N O � C E cc o L rNM � � eO CcCfCrNfnIt • V- O CL e� e� T- � N N d C H Z II 4 it Oka T O 0 _ STHAVES. y x I N 1 � •f - � I X - O n to © — I �� zm a ( ` ;o Zv M cm -io z j 3RD AVE S. .:' --------- -------a --------or--------� I ` ' j 1 , � �pIEIE O O x v i x c �c z1m om Pm m� 1-ST.AME S- - -----------a_.-___-------o. --- -------- B. N.S.F.R. R.' Ln ,�✓ U...A Ln OTC i O rn CD Z4 R y P� mz N --I i CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. SOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, °on A RE declaring its intention to order the construction of storm sewer drainagesy 1st, 3'd and 5t' Avenues South, north of South 259" Sot�e�South Kent and to of create a local improvement district to assess a pad specially benefited thereby, carrying out those improvements against the properties spec y and notifying all persons who desire to object to the improvements to appear and present their objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held on May 4, 1999. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,as follows: Section 1. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, to order the improvement of the properties within the area described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by iN...11 this reference made a part hereof, by the construction of a drainage system on Is`, 3`d and 5 h Avenues South, north of South 2591' Street in South Kent, to convey stormwater to a detention pond and pump station adjacent to and south of the property within the improvement area, with an outfall to the Green River, as more fully described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. All of the foregoing improvements 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 as long as that modification does not affect the purpose of the improvements. Section 2. The total estimated cost and expense of the improvements is declared to be $777,590.21 and approximately $91,975.04 of that cost and expense shall be paid by the City and the balance thereof(approximately $685,615.17) shall be borne by and assessed against the property specially benefited by the improvements to be included in a local improvement district to be established embracing as nearly as practicable all the property specially benefited by the improvements. Actual assessments may vary from estimated assessments as long as they do not exceed a figure equal to the increased true and fair value the improvements add to the property. Section 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the adoption of this resolution and of the date, time and place fixed for the public hearing to each owner or reputed owner of any lot, tract, parcel of land or other property within the proposed local improvement district by mailing such notice at least fifteen days before the date fixed for public hearing to the owner or reputed owner of the property as shown on the rolls of the King County Assessor at the address shown thereon, as required by law. This resolution also shall be published in its entirety in at least two consecutive issues of the official newspaper of the City,the date of the first publication to be at least 15 days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing. Section 4. All persons who may desire to comment in support of or object to the �..- improvements are notified to appear and present those comments or objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall in Kent, Washington, at 7:00 p.m. on May 4, 1999, which time and place are fixed for hearing all matters relating to the improvements and all comments thereon and objections thereto and for determining the method of payment for the improvements. All persons who may desire to object thereto should appear and present their objections at that hearing. Any person who may desire to file a written protest with the City Council may do so within 30 days after the date of passage of the-ordinance ordering the improvements in the event the local improvement district is formed. The written protest should be signed by the property owner and should include the legal description of the property for which the protest is filed and that protest should be delivered to the City Clerk. 50085208.01 "�" Section 5. The City's Director of Public Works is directed to submit to the City Council .✓' on or prior to May 4, 1999, all data and information required by law to be submitted. Passed at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington,this 6'h day of April, 1999. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of April, 1999. JIM WHITE,MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER,CITY CLERK APPRO FORM: FOS ;PR&S PLLC Special Counsel and Bond Counsel 50083201.01 '3' EXHIBIT 6(.B99 L.I.D. 352 SOUTH KENT STORM SEWERS (1ST, 3RD9 & 5TH AVE. S., NORTH OF S. 259TH ST.) STORM DRAINAGE 51 PROVEMENTS The proposed project is the construction of a drainage system to convey stormwater to a detention pond and pump station adjacent to and south of the LID area,with an outfall to the Green River. The construction will include 12", 18", 24" and 30" diameter storm drainage pipe and related appurtenances at the following locations: ON FROM TO 5`h Ave. S. approx. 1450 ft. north of approx. 160 ft. east S. 259th St. 5th Ave. S. approx. 1450 ft. north of approx. 1250 ft. south S. 259`h St. 3`d Ave. S. approx. 1430 ft. north of approx. 1240 ft south S. 259`h St. 3`d Ave. S. approx. 200 ft. north of approx. 50 ft. southeast S. '59`h St. to detention pond 1St Ave. S. approx. 1440 ft. north of approx. 1240 ft. south S. 259" St. 15t Ave. S. approx. 190 ft. north of approx. 50 ft. southwest S. 259th St. to detention pond Easement approx. 870 ft. north of awrox. 800 ft. east to S. 259th St. on 5`h Ave. S. 3 Ave S. General restoration is also included. March 17,1999 EXHIBIT "A" L.I.D. 352 SOUTH KENT STORM SEWERS (1ST, 31 9 & 5TH AVE. S., NORTH OF S. 259TH ST.) BOUNDARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the Southwest Russell Land Donation Claim No. 41 lying within portions of the South half of Section 24, T22N, R4E and in the North half of Section 25, T22N, R4E which lie South of the original plat of Waterman's Acre Tracts in Volume 12 of Plats Page 11, East of the Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul Railroad Right of Way, West of the East Right of Way margin of I" Avenue South and North of the North lines of Lots 2 and 3 in City of Kent Short Plat 77-33 recorded under King County- Auditor file No. 7802070643 all within the City limits of the City of Kent in King County, Washington. NYJF080 Project Number: 83-3008 I, BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk of the City of Kent, Washington, certify that the attached copy of Resolution No. is a true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted on the 6th day of April, 1999,as that resolution appears on the Minute Book of the City. DATED this day of April, 1999. BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: UPRR TOYS R US SPUR FRANCHISE ORDINANCE - ADOPTION 2 . SUNKARY STATEMENT: Adoption of the UPRR Toys R Us Spur Franchise Ordinance No. which allows UPRR to cross 196th Street near the Toys R Us warehouse, just east of the Green River. This is a 20-year franchise . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council 3/16/99 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . 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. 6D ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, granting to the Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns,the right, privilege and authority to construct, maintain and operate a railroad spur track upon and across South 196th Street in the City of Kent, King County, Washington. WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of a franchise ordinance of the City of Kent (Ordinance 2309), passed on September 8, 1981, the Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation ("UPRR") constructed, maintained and operated a railroad spur track at common grade upon and across South 196th Street in the City of Kent, the centerline of said street in the North 1/2 of Section 2, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M., located in King County, Washington; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 2309, by the terms of its Section 10, was effective as a franchise grant to UPRR for ten years; and WHEREAS, on or about October 13, 1991, the franchise granted in Ordinance 2309 expired by the terms of Section 10 of that Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent is willing to grant a franchise for a period of twenty years from the date of passage of this Ordinance, on the terms set forth herein; and WHEREAS, passage of this franchise ordinance is now appropriate; and WHEREAS, a separation of grade of said crossing is neither practicable or justified; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: .,..� SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The City of Kent, Washington, ("City") grants to the Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation, its successors and assigns ("UPRR"), subject to all conditions contained in this ordinance, the franchise and privilege of maintaining and operating one railroad spur track and crossing at common grade upon and across South 196th Street in the City of Kent, Washington, at the location described in Exhibit A (the "franchise area"), provided that the maintenance and operation of this track and crossing within the franchise area shall be performed in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions of this franchise ordinance and satisfactory to the City's Public Works Director and any other applicable authority. SECTION 3. UPRR, throughout the twenty-year franchise term and at no cost to the City, shall maintain and operate the track and crossing within the �-- franchise area subject to the following: (a) UPRR shall pay the entire cost and expense of maintaining, and/or operating said track within the limits of the street as it now exists or as it may be changed from time to time. However, this franchise shall not prevent UPRR from charging any other party to which UPRR may have granted or assigned an interest in this track, crossing or franchise all or a portion of the cost of maintaining, and/or operating said track. (b) The City does not presently plan or anticipate any modifications to the street that would require alteration or reconstruction of the tracks or crossing, except for modifications presently underway (and planned for completion in the vicinity of the crossing in the Spring of 1999) as part of the City's South 196 h Street Project. Union Pacific is responsible for all costs of track and crossing modifications in connection with the City's South 1961h Street Project, except that this provision shall not prevent UPRR from charging any other party, including its only customer, Toys "R" Us, for all or a part of such costs: it is the City's understanding that Union Pacific has in fact reached an agreement with Toys "R" Us pursuant to which Toys - 2- "R" Us is paying a portion of such costs. To the extent there occur any other modifications to the street during the first five years of the twenty-year franchise term, however, the City will pay for any track and crossing alterations made necessary as a result of such modifications. The City does not presently contemplate any changes to the street or grade during the last fifteen years of the franchise, and no such plans have been prepared or requested by the City, but if necessary at any time during the last fifteen years of the twenty year franchise term, UPRR agrees to alter the track and crossing within the franchise area to maintain the common grade should the City determine to change the street or grade in any manner. If the City decides to change the street or grade in any substantial way that would impact UPRR's tracks, the City shall include UPRR early on in the design phase of the Project. The City and UPRR each acknowledge that future changes to the street could require alteration of the track(s) beyond the limits of the street, and that any such alterations that may become necessary beyond the limits of the street shall be at no cost to the City. although nothing in this franchise shall prevent UPRR from charging any other party to which UPRR may have granted or assigned an interest in the track. The City and UPRR each further acknowledge that in the event that changes to the street require substantial modification of the tracks either within the street or beyond the limits of the street, UPRR will make an economic decision whether to modify its tracks at no cost to the City, or in the alternative to abandon its franchise consistent wit f its customer service contracts, in which event UPRR's tracks would be removed during the course of construction of the changes to the street. SECTION 4. UPRR, at no cost to the City, shall maintain in good repair (as determined by the City Public Works Director), and replace, when requested by the City, the crossing pad across the entire right of way, including sidewalks. UPRR shall plank between the rails and for one foot on either side thereof, and shall use either prefabricated hardwood, asphalt with metal guardrails, concrete or rubber panels, or other crossing pad of a type and design approved by the City Public Works Director. Maintenance of the crossing will be at UPRR's expense, but if resurfacing is needed due to heavy vehicular traffic over the crossing, the City shall use its best efforts to obtain any state or federal funding that might be available to improve the surface of the crossing. At no cost to the City, UPRR shall also install and maintain any crossing and protective devices required by applicable public authorities including but not limited to the City, provided, however,that the City shall `�-' - 3 - use its best efforts to obtain any available state or federal funding for such protective devices. UPRR shall install any requested crossing pad or protective devices within twelve (12) months from the date it receives notification from the City to make such changes; however, if these changes are subject to prior authorization from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ("WUTC"), then this twelve (12) month time period shall apply from the date of WUTC authorization or approval. SECTION S. UPRR shall not store railroad cars within the franchise area, nor shall UPRR stop cars within the franchise area for switching operations, nor shall UPRR use the franchise area in any manner that unreasonably interferes with travel within the City's right of way. SECTION 6. The City maintains the same control over South 196th Street within this franchise area as it has over other public streets within the City's jurisdiction. This franchise shall not restrict the rights of the City or other franchise holders in the City to enter upon South 196th Street within the franchise area for the purpose of locating, relocating, constructing, maintaining, repairing, or removing any public works, utilities, or facilities within., under or over the franchise area, but this work shall not unnecessarily interfere with the movements of railroad traffic over the franchise area. SECTION 7. UPRR shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this franchise ordinance, but only to the extent of UPRR's negligence or comparative fault. This indemnification includes liability for crossing design, signalization design, and/or maintenance, and road maintenance within the crossing area. It also includes any failure or omission on the part of UPRR to perform any action required by this franchise. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of UPRR's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. No act, inspection, approval or omission by the City shall affect UPRR's obligation to fully defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers. In addition, UPRR's obligation to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless shall survive the expiration or termination of this franchise ordinance. - 4 - .✓. SECTION 8. Nothing granted in this franchise shall release UPRR from obtaining all permits or other authorizations required by the City to maintain, operate, repair or alter the track and crossing either within or without the franchise area or to do any of the work contemplated by this franchise ordinance. SECTION 9. In the event that UPRR breaches this franchise agreement, the City may revoke this franchise after giving UPRR sixty (60) calendar days prior written notice, which shall state the grounds for revocation. Once revoked, UPRR, its customers, agents and assigns, shall immediately lose all right and authority to use this crossing, and the City may, at its option, restrict, block, close or remove the track and crossing within the franchise area. SECTION 10. If the spur crossing that is the subject of this franchise has not been in use for one (1) year or longer, this franchise may be revoked by the City after 30 days written notice to UPRR. Such notice of revocation shall be provided to: Mr. John W. Trumbull Manager, Industry and Public Projects Union Pacific Railroad Company 5424 S.E. McLaughlin Portland, OR 97202 If use of the crossing by UPRR and/or its agents or assigns commences again within that 30-day period,then the notice of revocation shall be ineffective and this franchise shall remain in effect. Once effectively revoked, UPRR, its customers, agents and assigns, shall immediately lose all right and authority to enter or use the franchise area, and the City may, at its sole option, restrict, block, close or remove the track and crossing within the franchise area. SECTION I L The franchise privileges granted in this ordinance shall be effective for twenty (20) years from and after the effective date of this ordinance. At the end of this twenty-year franchise term, all of UPRR`s franchise rights shall expire, and, if the franchise is not renewed, the City may, at its sole option, restrict, block, close or remove the track and crossing within the franchise area. SECTION 12. UPRR shall have no right to receive any award in condemnation, whether direct or inverse, as a result of this franchise. SECTION 13. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this franchise ordinance shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and UPRR. SECTIONI4. 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 15. UPRR shall, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of passage of this ordinance, file with the City Clerk its written acceptance of the terms, provisions and conditions of this franchise. If UPRR fails to file its written acceptance of this franchise, without additional conditions, by the end of this seven (7) calendar day period, this ordinance will be void and of no further force or effect. SECTION 16. This ordinance shall not take effect until accepted by UPRR within the time provided in Section 15. If accepted by UPRR within the time A provided in Section 15, this ordinance shall become effective five (5) days from the time of its passage and publication as provided by law or when accepted by UPRR, whichever is later. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK -6 - APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of ' 1999. APPROVED: day of , 1999. PUBLISHED: day of , 1999. 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:\Civi1\FILES\0185\031299.rev.fran.ord.doc ✓ - / - EXHIBIT A UPRR FRANCHISE AREA ,,✓' That portion of the North 1/2 of Section 2, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M., described as follows: Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 2; Thence South 0°17'19" West 1355.13 feet along the North-South centerline of said Section 2 to its intersection with the Northerly margin of South 196`h Street and the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence South 88°59'58" East along said Northerly margin 20.00 feet; Thence South 0°17'19" West 85.96 feet to the South margin of S. 1961h St. and a point on a non- tangent curve from which the radial center bears South 5°46'09" East 710.00 feet; Thence Westerly along the arc of said curve concave to the South 40.37 feet; Thence North 0°17'19" East 91.85 feet to an intersection with the said Northerly margin of South 196`h Street; Thence South 88°59'58" East along said Northerly margin 20.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. NKL99001 Protect Number: 91-3024C `� 22 N., R. 4E, W.M. 4 ;OPPCRATE PAPK / ILO" 5 / :Ot1"TY EMPLOYEES' / ANON i / NO.155318 s GOV. .14 T 4 LOT 10 LOT /' E 1,6s7,1t3.5060 0590 2 ry G 3CUTMCENTER CORPORATE PARK %A, A; BLOCK 5 v 788880 LOT 11j ♦J• \ \ E)uSTtNG 10' UnL+i" / \ •.(a,`\ ` =ASEMENT (PLAT'; / «� NEW R/W`` :`�� t'♦ ♦\ �►n%ujt,iE ,,/ ---- PARCEL NcL 12 `�\ \ �`♦ ` ` 50""00 AREA-27,505 S.F. j ��\S ♦:\� / \ y' �:E.S-..G 10' -RACK EASEMENT 'PLAT, \ . s rtjt6TF+ x CCRN/ 'R ^CRPCRA�c PARK EXISTING 25' ` `� ` ,J1 ti / ♦ \\ \ LOT RT PLAT I PUGET POWER =ASEMENP�` �`\ ( O pas 'a,`♦♦J��\ \\ PT - 54+10.31 BACK A.F. 79082A07a0 �� / V♦x\� `?sue ` PT - 34+13.6000 AM 0) 1 LOT 1 / .�;y `♦ ^ N 154976.38ef3 )USTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO. / ,, a♦ ``� r q `%T ♦\1`•817.2t0.7079 ♦ \ ��.}l PARCEL NO. 12 /' /i// `♦`\ S\ ` ; SOU T,iCE>f 3L.QKP'RATr aaRK TITLE NO. 155320 ` EXISTING 30' "N -RACX EASEMENT (P) ` ; �// E �/ \ \. \\ ` a .� n or ♦,% ♦\ XIS'^NG ♦ 4 \ \ k' PUGE" �':WE?-4ASEMENi\ w' \``.c_. 9�T` \`. A.F. '9032aC y ♦` \`CL4`i' SIr �• MIT T CUR%S DATA / �y/ `/� PRIVATE 1;7:L17r \ ` \F�f`\�" `♦ ` O 4,- 59"21.25- /'Q ''!,� �� \ti\� .\4�—.'♦ R - 750.00• : t 0• TEMPORARY �•P\ ~ N T 127.42' JQ' /i t C0N5T. EASEMENT C�\� ♦ ♦`��` NI /• ' // /♦ =YICT rURVE DATA fP'AT) \\ \ ♦ /_ R . 300.00 EXISTING 10' . 171.09, TELEP%ONE EASEUENT \ L - 310.98• A.F. 3007210534 �G THE BOEING COMPANY !�P PARCEL NO. 11 TITLE NO. 155319 TL NT S. 196TH STREET CITY OF KENT Er�wtr RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANS S. 196TH/20OTH CORRIDOR 44 OF 48 C. S. STA. "+00 TO STA. 56+00 GREEN RIVER TO W. VALLEY HWY. au in 41 A I 1= C T 7 F �°01"0' ^ �stc�r" Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SEWER RATE INCREASE ORDINANCE - ADOPTION 2 . SUTARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. amending the city code to implement a sewer rate increase . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECO)91=ZD BY: Council3/15/99 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENIITURE REQUIRED: $ SOUR E OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adjusting the scheduled charges for sewer service in the City. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT WASHINGTON, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 7.04.280 of the Kent City Code shall be amended as follows: .✓ Sec. 7.04.280. Schedule of charges*for service within inside City limits. The following are the sanitary sewer service charges for service inside the City limits. Type of Service Charge per month 1. Single-family residential dwelling as defined in $24.24 $25.33 Ch. 15.02 KCC. 2. le*Two-family or multiple-family residential $24.24 $25.33 dwelling as defined in Ch. 15.02 KCC, each unit separately charged. 3. Single-family residential/Lifeline: Eligibility $22-32 $23.41 criteria for Lifeline Rate shall be established by City Council. 4. All other than single-family residential, shall be U-24 3.3 8* billed in accordance with the consumption of water "per 100 cubic feet per month and at the following rate, except that no monthly bill shall be less than$24-24 2$ 5.33. 1 Sewer Rate Increase SECTION 2. Kent City Code Section 7.04.280, which is amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, o sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decisio shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the sam shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be i force on July 1, 1999, which is at least thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication, as provided by-law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 1999. APPROVED: day of 71999. PUBLISHED: day of , 1999. 2 Sewer Rate Increase I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by th City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the Cit of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P:\Civil\Ord inance\sewer.ord.doc Sewer Rate Increase Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: IAC GRANT APPLICATION RESOLUTIONS - PASSAGE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution Nos . authorizing the submittal of five grant applications to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) for acquisition of local park lands . Development and renovation projects will be accepted along with acquisition projects in May of 2000 . Staff has identified five priority acquisitions that are eligible for statewide grant funds : 1 . Acquisition of Chestnut Ridge Neighborhood Park Land. 2 . Acquisition of the Valley Floor Ballfields Community Park Land. 3 . Acquisition of the Canterbury Neighborhood Park Land. 4 . Acquisition of the East Hill Youth Sports Complex #2 Community Park Land. 5 . Acquisition of the Clark Lake Community Park Land. Please note : The first four projects would be reimbursement of funds already appropriated for completed acquisitions . The Valley Floor Ballfields and East Hill Youth Sports Complex Applications were submitted in 1998 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolutions 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Cannot project expenditure of property acquisitions at this time. SOURCE OF FUNDS : IAC if funded 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, authorizing application to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) for funding assistance pursuant to the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program as provided for in Ch. 43.98A RCW. WHEREAS, the City of Kent has approved a Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan for the area that includes the Chestnut Ridge Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, state and federal funding assistance has been requested to aid in financing the cost of land and facilities for local public bodies; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent considers it in the best public interest to acquire land in the Chestnut Ridge area;NOW,THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to make formal application to IAC for funding assistance. 1 ?. Any funding assistance received will be used for the acquisition of the Chestnut Ridge Neighborhood Park. J. The City of Kent anticipates that its share of project funding will be derived from Capital Improvement Program funds. 4. The City of Kent acknowledges it must support all non-cash commitments to the local share should they not materialize. 5. The City of Kent acknowledges that any property acquired or facility developed with IAC financial aid must be placed in use as an outdoor recreation facility or habitat conservation area and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise provided and agreed to by the City of Kent, IAC, and any affected federal agency. 6. This resolution may become part of a formal application to IAC. 7. The City of Kent will provide appropriate opportunity for public comment on this application. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1999. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of . 1999. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 2 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1999. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK PACiviIVtesoludonUAC.ra I.doc 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, authorizing application to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) for funding assistance pursuant to the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program as provided in Ch. 43.98A RCW. WHEREAS, the City of Kent has approved a comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan that includes the Valley Floor Ballfield Acquisition; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, state and federal funding assistance has been requested to aid in financing the cost of land and facilities for local public bodies; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent considers it in the best public interest to acquire the Valley Floor Ballfields Community Park;NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to make formal application to IAC for funding assistance. 1 2. Any fund assistance received will be used for the acquisition of the Valley Floor Ballfield Project. 3. The City of Kent anticipates that its share of project funding will be derived from Capital Improvement Program funds. 4. The City of Kent acknowledges it must support all non-cash commitments to the local share should they not materialize. 5. The City of Kent acknowledges that any property acquired or facility developed with IAC financial aid must be placed in use as an outdoor recreation facility or habitat conservation area and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise provided and agreed to by the City of Kent, IAC, and any affected federal agency. 6. This resolution may become part of a formal application to IAC. 7. The City of Kent will provide appropriate opportunity for public comment on this application. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 11999. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1999. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY ' 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, authorizing application to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) for funding assistance pursuant to the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program as provided in Ch. 43.98A RCW. WHEREAS, the City of Kent has approved a comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan for the area that includes the Canterbury Neighborhood Property; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, state and federal funding assistance has been requested to aid in financing the cost of land and facilities for local public bodies; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent considers it in the best public interest to acquire property in the Canterbury Neighborhood area;NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to make formal application to IAC for funding assistance. � 1 2. Any fund assistance received will be used for the acquisition of the Canterbury Neighborhood Park. 3. The City of Kent anticipates that its share of project funding will be derived from Capital Improvement Program funds. 4. The City of Kent acknowledges it must support all non-cash commitments to the local share should they not materialize. 5. The City of Kent acknowledges that any property acquired or facility developed with IAC financial aid must be placed in use as an outdoor recreation facility or habitat conservation area and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise provided and agreed to by the City of Kent,IAC,and any affected federal agency. 6. This resolution may become part of a formal application to IAC. 7. The City of Kent will provide appropriate opportunity for public comment on this application. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1999. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 11999. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 2 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1999. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK P\CivdUtao1uuowiAC.rm3 doc �✓ 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, authorizing application to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) for funding assistance pursuant to the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program as provided Ch. 43.98A RCW. WHEREAS, the City of Kent has approved a comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan for the area that includes the Snow Property; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, state and federal funding assistance has been requested to aid in financing the cost of land and facilities for local public bodies; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent considers it in the best public interest to acquire the Snow Property for the East Hill Youth Sports Complex #2; NOW. THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: l. The Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to make formal application to IAC for funding assistance. 1 2. Any fund assistance received will be used for the acquisition of the Snow Property for the East Hill Youth Sports Complex#2 3. The City of Kent anticipates that its share of project funding will be derived from Capital Improvement Program funds. 4. The City of Kent acknowledges it must support all non-cash commitments to the local share should they not materialize. 5. The City of Kent acknowledges that any property acquired or facility developed with IAC financial aid must be placed in use as an outdoor recreation facility or habitat conservation area and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise provided and agreed to by the City of Kent, IAC, and any affected federal agency. 6. This resolution may become part of a formal application to IAC. 7. The City of Kent will provide appropriate opportunity for public comment on this application. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington ,., this day of , 1999. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1999. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY �..✓ 2 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1999. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\Civi IViesolution\I AC.res4.doc 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, authorizing application to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) for funding assistance pursuant to the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program as provided for in Ch. 43.98A RCW. WHEREAS, the City of Kent has approved a comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan for the area that includes additional property acquisition at Clark Lake;and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, state and federal funding assistance has been requested to aid in financing the cost of land and facilities for local public bodies; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent considers it in the best public interest to acquire additional property in the Clark Lake area; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: l. The Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to make formal application to IAC for funding assistance. 2. Any fund assistance received will be used for the acquisition of additional property for Clark Lake Park. 3. The City of Kent anticipates that its share of project nding will be derived fr fu om Capital Improvement Program funds. 4. The City of Kent acknowledges it must support all non-cash commitments to the local share should they not materialize. 5. The City of Kent acknowledges that any property acquired or facility developed with IAC financial aid must be placed in use as an outdoor recreation facility or habitat conservation area and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise provided and agreed to by the City of Kent, IAC,and any affected federal agency. 6. This resolution may become part of a formal application to IAC. 7. The City of Kent will provide appropriate opportunity for public comment on this application. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1999. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1999. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 2 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , ,,. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1999. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\CivilUleto lution\l AC.ra5.doc V 3 � I Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: UPLANDS PLAYFIELD LEASE AGREEMENT - ACCEPTANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to enter into a lease with Union Pacific Railroad Company for renting Uplands Playfield. Since 1984, the City of Kent has leased the easternmost 27 feet of Uplands Playfield from the Union Pacific Railroad. The current lease expires on July 30 , 1999 . We have been leasing at a rate of $300 per year. The proposed agreement renews the five-year lease between the City of Kent and Union Pacific Railroad Company with a lease for one year (July 1, 1999 through July 1, 2000) which will automatically be extended from year to year for the purposes of park and recreation only. The first year rent will increase by $100, and by 3% annually. Staff is requesting approval of the lease agreement between City of Kent and Union Pacific Railroad Company for Uplands Playfield, and rent in the amount of $400 with increases per the agreement . 3 . EXHIBITS: Uplands Playfield Lease Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT• NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $400/year, plus increases SOURCE OF FUNDS : Operating Budget 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G Folder No. 00869-61 Audit No. PLD180 LEASE OF PROPERTY THIS LEASE ("Lease") is entered into on the day of , 1999, between UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY ("Lessor") and CITY OF KENT, a municipal corporation, whose address is 220-4th Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 ("Lessee"). IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: Article I. PREINIISES; USE. Lessor leases to Lessee and Lessee leases from Lessor the premises ("Premises") at Kent, Washington, as shown on the print dated July 1, 1999, marked Exhibit A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, subject to the provisions of this Lease and of Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Premises may be used for a park and recreation and for no other purpose. Article II. TERM. The term of this Lease shall commence on Jµly 1, 1999,and unless sooner terminated as provided in this Lease, shall extend for one year; and thereafter,shall automatically be extended from year to year. Article III. RENT A. Lessee shall pay to Lessor, in advance, rent of Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00) annually. The rent shall be increased by Three Percent(3%) annually,cumulative and compounded. B. Not more than once every three (3) years, Lessor may redetermine the rent. In the event that Lessor does redetermine the rent,Lessor shall notify Lessee of such change. Article IV. SPECIAL,PROVISION—CANCELLATION Effective upon commencement of the term of this Lease, the Lease dated May 31, 1984, identified as Audit No. PLD 180 (the "Prior Lease', together with any and all supplements and amendments, is canceled and superseded by this Lease, except for any rights, obligations or liabilities arising under the Prior Lease before cancellation, including any consent to conditional assignment,chattel agreement, or consent to sublease. The security deposit provision, if any, contained in the Prior Lease, will survive the cancellation of the Prior Lease and be made a part of this Lease. 4' Article V. SPECIAL PROVISION—FENCE/BARRICADE Lessee, at Lessee's sole cost and expense, shall construct and maintain, at all times during the term of this Lease, a fencelbarricade of a design satisfactory to Lessor, in the location shown on the attached Exhibit A. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease as of the day and year first herein written. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPAlNY KENT,WASHINGTON,CITY OF Bv: By: Senior Manager—Real Estate Title: NOTE: Cancels and supersedes Lease Audit No. PLD 130 dated May 31, 1984 4 Z _ � 1i . _c.=3viT��.r�x+�r...+�asli�R�TS7l,"...T-�- `�tT�a-�S�V•- '�� .. �LI y nA w' ra Cn i at • �'V J I - 1 i C I !ZA7�S 3TRLFT Y�O C.ti11R J/.�finThL,r1v — �— � — -,-��•'�� � .+ -t. Z 40 '+ r � •i N f'• W W a ► .," Donated -Property a.: a• a t S• PI f N WWI Cyc}onv�:Fence` r~ �.1 : �;p,r�ta��• EXHIBIT "An k�` `=� %.:« 0 GON-WASHINGTON RAILROAD & NAVIGATION COMPANY r ...* UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (Lessee) t �u !O S: so �+ �;# • Q: r�, ' :�° gent, King County, Washington -' ��- Lease to The City of Kent ` 3 Scale 1" 100' Office of Director - Real Estate 3 Omaha, Nebraska Jarn vy 20, 1999 ec o * LEGEND * Donated Property outlined •. • . " Lease shown. . . ........................ i " "x rvclnne fence shown. . . aID LS 11069S Appitam, Lail =3391: B :,�r Leedom 1. T"34MEWGS. So improvements placed upon the promises by Lessee shall bocomo a part of the realty. Section 2. IZSZRn MM I= PESOS ESGEil. r A. Lesser reserves to itself. its agents and contractors, the right to enter the Promises at such times as will not unreasonably ihtarfore with Lessee's use of the Promises. B. Lessor reserves (i) the =elusive right to permit third party placement of advertising signs on the premise&, mad (ii) the right to construct, maintain and operate new and szistiag facilities (iacluding, without limitation, trackage, !&aces, communication facilities, roadways and utilities) upon, *'war. across or under the Premises, and to grant to others such rights, provided that Lessee's use of the premises is not interfered with unreasonably. C. ' This Lase is sado subject to all outstanding rights, whether or not of record. Lessor reserves the right to renew such outstaadin9 rights. Section 3. p7►7 of Rffi�. Rent (which includes the &=.-1 rent and all other amounts to be paid by Leseeo under this Lase) shall be paid in lawful senor of the United States of America, at such place as shall be designated by the Lessor, and without offset or deduction. Section 4. SAS 7►sC aSaESSfB2lfi'S. A. Lessee shall par, prior to delinquency, all taxes levied during the lsfo of this Lease on all personal property and improvements en the premise* not bal's"ing to Lenses. Z! such taxes pr asw paid by Lesser, either separately or as a part of the levy en Le**Or'& real property, Lssee shall reimburse Lessor in full within thirty (30) days after rendition of Lssser's bill. B. SS the Premises are specially &&seemed far public improvements, the annual rent will be automatically increased by 12% of the full assessment asownt. Section S. WA!M ETmRTS. This Lease does not include any right to the use of water under any water right of Lessor, or to establish any water rights except in the name of Lessor. Section 6. h*• A.., OSE O! PRw+?Ewa A. Lessee shall use reasonable care and caution against damage or destruction to the Premises. Lessee shall net use or permit the use of the Promises for any unlawful purpose, Maintain any nuisance, posit any waste, or use the promisee in may way that creates a hazard to persons or proper". Lessee shall keep the promises in a safe. seat. clean and presentable condition, and in good condition and repair. Lessee &ball keep the Sidewalks mad public ways en the Promises, and the walkways appurtenant to any railroad spur track(s) on or sorviag the premises. free and clear trims any substance which might create a hazard and all water flow *ball be directed away from the tracks of the Lessor. B. Lessee shall net pozmit any sign on the promises, except signs relating to Lessee's business. C. if may imipsevumant an the promises not belonging to Lessor is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, Lessee Shall. within thirst' (30) days after such casualty, reeve all debris resulting thareirem. 2f L*a*ee fails to do &a, Loser may come" such debris, and Lessee agrees to reimburse Lesser for all mgMem4M inearred within thirty (30) days after rendition of Lessor's bill. 0. Lessee @ball esmply with all gever:Mntal laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders relating to Lossoo's use of the premises. Section 7. -�*Mn& r& aLw. lQRSSl+a'we Ra?ES. A. Witbmut the prior written consent of Lesser, Lessee shall not use or posmit the use of the promises for the gcaerntiaa. use. treatmeat. asmufasture, probation. storage or recycling of mar Razardous Substances, except that Lessee may use (i) small quantities of e� ehosicals suab as adhesives, lubricamts and cletaiaq fluids in order to conduct business as the promises and (ii) ether Razardmw Substances, other than hazardous wastes as defined in this Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. SS 6901. !rs L".. as amended (•RCRA•), that &so necessary for the conduct of Lessee's business at the promises as specified in Article 2. .he consent of Looser say be withhold by Lessor for any reason whatsoever, and say be subject to conditions in addition to those set forth below. I Page 1 a! 4 c:�u,rae,�aue�cro�rowa�:notswsc.trs it Dw LS 110695 IPPROM, L&W shall be the sole respensibility of Lessee to determine whether or not a contemplated use of the promises is a 9azardeus SubstanCe use. `✓ D. In no went shall Lessee (i) release, discharge or dispaso of any Hazardous Substances, (ii) bring any hazardous wastes as defined in ACHi Date the Promises, (iii) install or use on the Promises any underground storage teaks, or (iv) store any Hazardous Substances within one hundred foot (1009 of the center line of any main track. If Losses uses or pew C. ts th e use of the premises for a HazardOus Substance use, with or without Lessor's comment, Lessee shall furnish to Lessor copies of all pewits, identificati*n numbers and notices issued by govermawatal agon"*& in coamoetion with such Hazardous substance use. together with such other information on the Hazardous Substaaco use as may be requested by Lessor. IS requested by Lessor, Losses shall Cause to be performed an environmental assessment of the Premises upon tomination of the Lease and shall furnish Lessor a copy of such report, at Lessee's sale cost and expense. D. Without limitation of the provisions of section 12 of this 107Lhibit D, Lessee shall be responsible for all dosages, losses, costs, expenses, claims. fines and penalties related in any manner to any Hazardous Substance use of the promises (or say Property in proximity to the Premises) during the tom of this Lease or, if longer, during Loseee's occupancy of the promises. rogazdless of Lessor's consent to such use, or say negligence, misconduct or strict liability of any Mademaitiod party (as defined in Section 12), and including, without limitation, (i) say diminution in the value of the preaisss and/or any adjacent property of any of the Xndammtti*d parties, and (ii) the cost and expeas• of clown-up, restoration, containment. romediaties, decontamination, removal, investigation, monitoring, closure or post-closure. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Lassos shall no be responsible for Hazardous substances U) existing on, in or under the Promises prior to the earlier to occur of the commencement of the tom of the Lease or Lossoe's taking occupancy of the Promises, or (ii) aigrating from adjacent property not controllod by Lossse, or (iii) placed on. in or under the Premises by any of the Iadommifiod parties; except wbcre the Hmsard*us substance is discovered "' or the conzaain tion is exacerbated by, any excavation or iavcmtigatiaL uadertak*n by or at rho bobcat of Losses. Loose shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that any exceptions of rho foregoing to Losses's responsibility for Hazardous Substances applies. D. In addition to the other rights and remedies of Lessor under this Lease or as may be provided by law. if Lessor reasonably dotozo;nes that rho Premises may have been used during the tea ....y of this Lease or any prior lease with Lessee for all ar say peruse of rho Promises, or are being used for any Hazardous subatase* use, with or without Lessor's consent thereto, and that a aoloase or ether conzaalza=on may have occurred, Lessor say, at its election and at say tiro daring rho life of this Lease or thereafter (i) cause the Promises and/or any adjacent premises of Lessor to be tested. investigated, or monitored for the prosenaa of am7 Hazazdafs Substance. (ii) cause any Hazardous substance to be removed from the Premises and any adjacent leads of Lessor. (iii) cause to be performed any restoration of the Premises and any adjacent lands of Lessor, and (iv) Cause to be performed Lay ramodiation of, or rwspons* to, rho smvizommeatal condition of the Promises and the ad)acant lands of Lessor, as Landlord 76a9oaabl7 say dcsm ncaossazy or dcsizable. and the cost and expense thereof shall be reimbursed by Lessee to Lessor within thirty (30) days after rendition of Lessor's bill. In addition, Lessor may, at its election. rogaize Lcasee, at Losss•'s sale cost and expense. to portom such Vert. in which event. Loose shall psamptl7 commence to perfoa and thereafter diligently prosecute to csspletioa such Vork, using one or more contractors and a supervising consulting engineer approved in adVaace by Lesser. f. For purpeoes at this section 7, the torn •Hazardous substance" shall mean (i) those substances included within the definitions at *hazardous substaas:o', 'pollutant', •eon•-NI"-nt', ar 'hazardous waste', in the Comtrehoasive Davircamomtal Asspease, Cempoasation and Liability set of 1980, 42 C.S.C. SS 9601. !R JAS., as aasaded or in ACAi. the regulatim- promulgated pursuant to either such JLct, or state laws and regulations similar to or promulgated pursuant to either such Ant, (ii) any material. vast* er substance which is (26) Petzelo s, (H) asbestos, (C) flammable or explosive, or (0) radioactive: and (iii) such ether substances, materials and wastes which are or become regulated or e:lassitied as hazardous or tonic under todcral. state Or local law. Section S. RXZL-'-= 26. Lessee Vill arrange and pay for all utilities and services suppliod to the Promises or to Lessee. D. A21 utilitios and services will be separately metered to Lessee. If not separately nor-aced. Losses shall pay its pzoportionate share as reasonably detozmined by Looser. Section S. LMR- `. Lessee shall not allow =7 lions to attach to the Promises for any services, labor or materials furnished to the PreaLsoo or otherwise arising !ram Losses's nso of rho Promises. Lessor shall have the right to discharge =7 such lions at Losses's expense. ?age of 4 4+\LAWSON\PAX\FVO\FQMWN INDCLASC.=2 f no I.S 110695 APPROVED• LAW Section 10. A. ye alterations. improvements or installations may be Bads on the Praises without the prier consent of Lessor. such Consent. if given. shall be subject to the needs and requirements of the Lessor in the operation of its 3ailroa'd and to so" ether eenditiew as Lessor s withtalrmli.es to App Cable impose. in all events such consent shall be conditioned Upon Strict standards. goveSrmental requuiraonte and Lesser s that-curses a, All alterations. improvements or installations shall be at L.eesoe's sole cost and • axPonae. C. Leases shall comply with Lessor's then-curreat clearance standards, except (i) shore to government&l requirement, or (ii) for any to do ee mould Gauss Lessee to violate as app improvement or causes Oa plats prior to Leese taking possession of the Premises if such improvement or device Complied sigh Lessor's clearance standards at the time of its installation. 0, any actual or implied knovledge Of Lessor of a violatiea of The clearance requirements of this Lease Or of any go+eamental requirements stall not relieve Lessee Of the obligation to comply with such requirements, nor shall any consent of Lessor be deemed to be a representation of such compliance- section 11. aS-2S• Lessee accepts the Pzsmisos in its present Condition with all faults, whether patent or latent, and vighout warranties or Covenants, empress or implied. Lessee acknowledges that Lessor shall have no duty to maintain, repair or improve the Premises. Section 12. art=SV I= TND220r—' A. Lou a material part of the Consideration for this Lease. Lessee. to the e extant it MaT lawfully do se, waives and releases nay and all claims against Lessor for, And Agrees to 4-dwosity' defend and hold harmless Lesser, its affiliates. and its And heir officers, agents and employees (•Indaaifiod parties') lrom and against, any loss, doubts (including, without limitation, punitive er consequential damages), injury, liability, claim, demand, cost at empense (including, without limitation, attorays' foes and court costs). Zino or penalty (collectively, Oosser er) incurred by any person (including, without limitatioa, Lesser, remise, or any employ« arising from or related to (i) any use o1 the Premises by Lessee es any invitee or licensee of Lessee. (ii) any act or omississ Of Lessee, its officers. agents, employees, litemsoes or invitees, or any breach of this Lease by Lessee. a, .he foregoing release Bad indemnity shall apply regardless of any aegligenea' misconduct or strict liability of nay Indsmoigied Pasty, except that the indemnity, Only' a"" net apply to Any Less caused by the sole, active Bad direct negligence of our Indemnified Party if the Loss (i) was net occasioned by fire or ether casualty, Or (ii) was net occasioned by water, inclutdsnq, without limitation, water damage due to the Position, location, construction or condition of A" structures or other imprevsents or facilities of nay Indemnified Party. C. lfhore applicable to the Loss, the liability Pteviasms of an•, contract between Lessor and Lessee covering the eszriage of shipments or trackage serving the Premises shall govern the Loss and shall supersado the previsions of this Section 12. 0. no provision of this Lease with respect to insurance shall limit the extent Of the release and indemnity Provisions of this Section I" Section 13. - h. Lessor may terminate this Lease by giving Lessee notice of tosinstion. it Lusoo (i) tails to pay cost within fifteen (15) days after the due date, or (ii) doiaults tinder aaT ether obligation of Lessee under this Lase Bad. attar written aetias is given bT Lessor to Lessee spocigTing the default. LOSSsl tb lsieither n ALI evea�thsnithi�0) dae to m niter the default. or to notice is complete the cure expo T given. a. WetwithgasudLLof the term Of this Lease set forth in article IZ.d.. Lesser os Lessee may terminate this Lease without Cause upon thiM (36) dmTs" Amoco to the otter Party: previdsd. however, that at Looser"s olostiam. no such terminatieB bT Lessee shall be effective unless and until Losses has vacated and restored the Premises as required in Section ISW, at which time Looser shall refund to Lessee, an a pro rat& basis. any unearned rental paid in advance. �...+r Section 14. L!S "s It>�ZEi• Lessor's remedies for Lessee's default are to (a) otter and take possession of the Premises. without te--jn=tiag this Lease, and relat the praises an behalf of Losses. Collect and receive tee root from reletting, and charge Lessee for e cost ai relettiag, and/or (b) terminate this Lea h the se as pace 3 0= 4 ,,N L6,uo.\Pas\root roeu\2wouxAst.as I IIM LS 110695 JLPPRM=, LM prodded in Section 13 1) Abe" and sue Losses for damagas, and/or (a) exercise such other remedies as Lessor say have at law or in equity. Lessor say enter and take possession of the Premiss by self- help, by eh-aging leeks, if necessary, cad May lock out Lassos, all without being liable for damages. Section 1S. 1. upon tosfaimatioaa howseover of this Lanese. Lassos (i) shah have peaceably and quietly vacated and surrendered possession of the Premisoo to Lessor. without Lessor giving any notice to quit or demand for possession. and (ii) shall have roneved Iran the !remises all structures.s. property aarty and other Materials not belonging to Lessor, and restored the mustsao et�u ground �cao as good removal of as the same was in before such structures Vows erected, including, foundations, the filling in of emeavatimm and pits, and the removal of debris and rubbish. S. IS Lessee has not completed such removal cad restoration vithia thirty (30) days attar taainatifn of this Lease. Looser say, at its election, cad at any tine or ti=09, (i)bperfill iaratene work d. and Lasso* shall re��......a Lessor for the cost thereof within thirty (30) days after after• of such election (ii) take title to all or any portion of such structures or lsepssty by giving to Losses, and/or (iii) treat Lassos as a holdover tonaat at vill until such removal and restoration is completed. Section 16. FaR ap"'-'CS. Lameoe shall telophon* Lessor at 1-000-336-9193 (a 24-Lour saber) to dsteain* if fiber optic cable is buried on the Praises. If cable is buried on the Premise*, Lassos will telephone the tales^'--'•^icatioas fompany(iss), arrange for a cable locator, and M"o arrangements for relocation or other protection of the cable. Notwithscr—A4 compliance by Lessee with this Section 16, the release and indenn ty provisions of Section 12 above shall apply fully to our damage or destruction of any toleco:unications system. section 17. E4=Sr9.• ay notice, consent or appreval to be given under this Lasso shall be in writing. and personally served, seat by reputable courier service, or somt by certified mail, postage Prepaid- return receipt requestod. to Lessor at: Contacts a foal Estate Delaraasnt, Seem 1100. 1416 Dedye street. Omaha. Nebraska ca a 6i179; d to Lasses at the above address. or such other address as a party say designer* is notice given to the other panty. hailed notices shall be dosmed served five (5) days after deposit in the U.S. Nail. Notices which are personally served or sent by courier solrice shall be dewed served upon receipt. Section Is. Ma'[ZMMM. A. Lessee Shall net sublease the Promises, in whole or in part. or assign. easumbsr er transfer (by operation of law or ethervioe) this Leass, without the prier consent of Looser, which consent nay be denied at LesSsae's sole and absolute dissantioa. imy Purported transfer er asstgaaent without Looser's consent shall be void and shall be a default by Lessee. S. Subject to this Section Is. this Lass* shall be binding open and inure to the benefit of the parties berate sad their respective heirs, executors. administrators, successors and assigns. Section 19. S = If, an reasonably dor*raiaed by Lessor. The Premise's cannot be used by Lasses beemuso of a condensation or sale in lieu of condemnation. tken this Less shall automatically tosinats. Laser shall be entitled to the entire award or precoodm for any total or partial eondssatien or sale is lieu thereof, including, without limitation. any avast or psosomW for the value Of tbo lsasabold ester* Created by this Lasso. 9)oaewitbseiMd4sg the feaeegoiMg, Less" shall have the right to pursue roasvery from the condemming authority of such sampessation as May be sepaateir awarded to Lassos for Lessee's relocation egsneeS. the taleisg of Lessee's Powsamal psolarty and nutmsos. and the interruption of or damage to Losses' business- Section 20. 1T"allfti'•s tELs. if either party "gains as attests, to enasaee "is Lease (including, without limitation, the indemnity Previsiona of this Lease), the pewwailiag party is entitled to recover reasomamlo attoraet's foe*. Section 21. This Lease is the entire agreement between the partiaa. and supersedes all ether oral or ✓ written agreements between the partioo port- -i to this transaction. Except for the unilateral redetoraiaatien of aaaual rent as previdad in asticl* 222., this :ease may be amended only by a vritten instrument signed by Lessor and Looses. Page 4 o: 4 c:�:�r.ar�ru:�r<ro�rvwas�:>rowss.as r c� /0 Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6 . 1999 -� Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PERFORMANCE MEASURES CONTRACT - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STAT +'I T�� As recommended by the Operations Committee on March 16 , authorization for the Mayor to enter into a contract with Management Partners, Inc . In its 1998 Target Issues, the Kent City Council directed Administration to explore the use of Performance Measures as a management tool for evaluating City service delivery. To d funs t execute this prhire a suretconsultant and, the city gtoeconduct aocustomer performance mea satisfaction survey in the 1999 Budget . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo 4 . RECORDED BY: operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 ExPE,,r ITURE REQUIRED: $3 4 9 3 0 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1999 Budciet 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H . ................ City of Kent MEMORANDUM DATE: March 11, 1999 TO: Kent City Council Operations Committee FROM: Dena Laurent, Government Affairs Manager SUBJECT: Performance Measurement Project and Consultant Contract In its Target Issues,the Kent City Council has directed Administration to explore the use of Performance Measures as a management tool for evaluating City service delivery. To execute this project, the City budgeted funds to hire a performance measure consultant and to conduct a customer satisfaction survey in the 1999 Budget. At your March 16 meeting, we request approval of the attached consultant contract, allowing us to commence the project. The primary objectives of this project are: ✓ To train the organization's managers on performance measurement concepts as a tool for management and decision-making ✓ To develop and implement measurement systems to track on an ongoing basis, 1-2 performance measures per division. The measures should look to outcomes rather than inputs or outputs, and should build on those performance management system the City currently utilizes(i.e. police and fire accreditation, GFOA budget development standards, etc.). ✓ To develop and implement a customer satisfaction survey, which in addition to other outcome- based performance measures,will assist the City is assessing its performance over time, and ✓ To communicate the performance measures to our employees, stakeholders and citizens in a manner that enhances their confidence in the City of Kent. Based on these objectives, we drafted a Request for Proposal for performance measure consulting services. The proposal was distributed to consulting firms nationwide, and advertised in the Puget Sound Business Journal. We received 12 proposals which we evaluated based on responsiveness to the proposal, qualifications and experience,proposal quality, project team quality and price. We have selected the firm of Management Partners to assist us with this work. The attached contract calls for compensation of$34,930, which is within the budgeted funds available for this project. Management Partners helped to form the International City and County Managers Association Center for Performance Measurement in 1994. They have directed numerous performance measure development projects for municipalities across the country, including the Cities of San Mateo and Oakland, California, as well as for Orange County, California. They frequently provide training for ICMA Center to a variety of jurisdictions and will bring a breadth of knowledge and experience in municipal performance measures from across the country to our project at the City of Kent. We anticipate beginning this project following City Council contract approval in early April. We anticipate selecting the measures by mid-summer and plan to conduct our customer satisfaction survey in August. A baseline on many measures will be established in 1999, with a full year of data available at the end of 2000. If I can provide additional information about this project and/or contract, do not hesitate to call me at 253-859-4154. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into the date fully executed below, between the `"' CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation, (hereinafter "City"), Management Partners, a professional consultant, (hereinafter "Contractor"), located at 4407 Sweetbriar Street, Ventura, California 93003. RECITALS WHEREAS,the City desires to retain consulting services for the purposes of developing and implementing performance measures; and WHEREAS, Contractor agrees to perform 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 CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES Contractor will perform services on behalf of the City to provide consultation,training and facilitation for the development and implementation of performance measures as set forth below. The 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 Mayor or his designee, 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 his services: l. Review City documents,plans and current input/output measures and become familiar with City departments and operations. 2. Provide training on the role and development of performance measures for City management staff. Training will include the topics of data collection and implementing a performance measurement system. 1 3. In collaboration with City department managers and the Performance Measurement Resource Team (city staff team), develop outcome-oriented performance measures. The Consultant will provide appropriate sample measures in topic areas indicated by the City. The Consultant will work with the City to identify measures used in similar communities that could later be used for benchmarking. Where selected measures indicate a customer satisfaction rating, the Consultant will recommend appropriate survey questions for a customer satisfaction survey. The City will conduct said survey later this year. 4. Develop a performance measure implementation plan. The plan shall include the measures, recommendations and directions for necessary data collection and an internal/external communication plan for communicating the results of the work to our employees, stakeholders and citizens. Roles and responsibilities, required meetings and specific deliverables are further detailed in Attachment A. Hours devoted to work and the project timelines are outlined in Attachments B and C. The Contractor shall be subject to provisions of Attachments A, B and C as part of this contract. SECTION TWO CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES The City will be responsible for providing appropriate staff contact,resources and information throughout the project. The City will be responsible for providing the facilities and supplies necessary for training and Resource Team work, such as paper, pencils, flip charts and related materials. Roles and responsibilities are further detailed in Attachment A. �..r' 2 SECTION THREE TERM The term of this Agreement shall begin on April 7, 1999 and shall extend to the time necessary to complete the duties set forth herein as mutually agreed, or December 31, 1999, whichever comes first. SECTION FOUR TIME DEVOTED TO WORK In the performance of the services described herein,the Contractor shall devote the number of hours to the work according to the timelines as is indicated in Attachment B and C 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. SECTION FIVE PAYMENT The City agrees to pay the Contractor for all work described by this contract at a cost of $34,930. These costs are inclusive of all hours spent on and off site and include all travel expenses. The work shall be paid according to completion of the following activities outlined in Attachment A: Completion of Activity 1: $4,191.60 Completion of Activity 2: $11,002.95 Completion of Activity 3: $13,448.05 Completion of Activity 4: $6,287.40 3 SECTION SIX INVOICING PROCEDURE Invoices for work performed by the Consultant shall be presented to the City based on the provisions of Section Five. The City shall make payment to the Contractor within thirty days of receipt of invoices. SECTION SEVEN TERMINATION The parties agree that either party may terminate this Agreement upon written notification to the other party. 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 EIGHT 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 NINE 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 4 discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. 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. SECTION ELEVEN 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. SECTION TWELVE 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 5 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 THIRTEEN 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 FOURTEEN ASSIGNMENT Any assignment of this Agreement by the Contractor without the written consent of the City shall be void. SECTION FIFTEEN 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 at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may hereafter be specified in writing. SECTION SIXTEEN GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. SECTION SEVENTEEN 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 6 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. CONTRACTOR THE CITY OF KENT John Baker, President Jim White, Mayor Management Partners, Inc. City of Kent 4407 Sweetbriar Street 220 4`h Avenue South Ventura, CA 93003 Kent, WA 98032 Date: Date: Approved as to form: Roger A. Lubovich City Attorney Attest: City Clerk CAUSERS\DOCMJLTMVROFAGRE 7 Attachment A �d Roles and Responsibilities Key Project Activities & Responsibilities Party Responsible Contract Administration Brent McFall, Director of (including evaluation of contractor performance) Operations City of Kent Contract Coordination Dena Laurent, Government (including development of schedule, coordination Affairs Manager and Project of activities, evaluation data collection & Lead reporting) City of Kent Collaboration on Project Design McFall, Lead and Team Design & Delivery of Training Contractor, Lead and Team Provision of industry standard Performance Contractor Measures, recommended survey questions and recommended methods of communicating project results Development of Kent's Performance Measures Contractor, McFall, Lead and including design and implementation of Team measurement systems The Performance Measures Resource Team will: • include representatives of all City of Kent departments, • play an advisory role in training design, • will provide information on all performance measurements currently used in the departments as well as information on other performance programs in place (i.e. accreditation, certifications, etc.), and • provide assistance in the design and implementation of measurement systems necessary to track the new outcome-based performance measures. The Operations Department will: • administer the consulting contract, • provide the Project Lead, • convene the Resource Team, and • provide support services to the Team and the Consultant. Meetings 8 The contractor will meet initially with the Director of Operations, the Project Lead and key staff for their input on the design and delivery of the Project's deliverables. Following this initial ... meeting,the contractor will meet and work closely with the City's Project Lead and Resource Team. The Project Lead and Resource Team will work cooperatively with the selected contractor over the duration of this contract. The following will be the minimum number of meetings to be scheduled by the contractor: • Planning session with the Director of Operations, Project Lead and Key Staff. • Planning and data gathering sessions with the Project Lead and Resource team. • Follow-up design and development meetings with the Lead, Team and individual City Department personnel, as needed. • Regular progress meetings with the Director of Operations, Lead, and others as appropriate. • Review of draft recommended measures, measurement methods, survey questions and communication strategies with the Director of Operations,Lead,Team and others as appropriate. • Review and presentation of Final Report with the Director of Operations and Project Lead. Deliverables The contractor will be responsible for the following deliverables. • The contractor will be expected to provide a comprehensive set of training materials, including a description of the training design and curriculum, a master schedule, training manuals, and training materials (such as handouts, audio and video recordings, and visual aids). The City reserves the right to use training materials that are developed under this contract. • The City reserves the right to video tape one or more training sessions, for such purposes as providing"make-up"training to late hires or informing its elected officials and administrators. • The Contractor shall provide a comprehensive set of outcome-based performance measures tailored to the municipal services delivered by the City of Kent. The contractor should indicate those measures being used by other cities comparable to the City of Kent, should the City choose to track those measures in comparison with other cities. • The Contractor shall indicate from the set of reported measures,those which he or she feels would work well for the City of Kent given its size, operation, management issues and current measurement systems. 9 The Contractor shall assist the City in development of measurement systems to ensure ` the successful tracking of the new performance measures. The City bears the responsibility for final implementation and ongoing management of these measurement systems. • The Contractor shall provide the City with a draft workplan for ongoing maintenance of the new performance measures, their measurement systems and communication of the results to our employees, stakeholders and citizens. • The Contractor shall provide recommended customer satisfaction survey questions tailored to the municipal services delivered by the City of Kent. The contractor should indicate those questions being used by other cities comparable to the City of Kent, should the City choose to track those questions in comparison with other cities. • The Contractor shall provide a recommended communication plan for communicating the results of the performance measurement project with our employees, stakeholders and citizens on an annual basis. 10 4, Attachment B Project Activities - City of Kent _ _-- __� SSanior Project rnnsul ant! li j HcliLS j j0= I,To al Hours To a1 - Activi 1 -Project Start-Up and Administration 41 1.1 Hold planningsession with director of operations, project lead, i I i ' and K113V staff 21 41 4+ _ Review bud et,Council oals,strata is or business plans, and I I ( i f other documents i 2 1 41 41 1.3 Review pro ram mission statements and existin measures I 81 S 1 81 241 $2,618 Subtotal-Activi 1 I � I Activi 2-Provide Trainin on Oevelopin Performance Measures 41 4i 2.1 Customize trainin materials 31 1 i 2.2 Review traini materials with Proiect Lead and i performance Measures Resource Team 121 41 4 2.3 Provide trainin to division directors andprogram managers. I I i (3 sessions,3 departments each) 1 161 81 81 1 2.4 Provide follow-up consultation with pro ram staff I 1 I 1 in small roues 31 I 161 16i 63i $7,771 Subtotal-Activi 2 I 1 I i Activi 3-Develop Performance Measures 2, 61 6I 1 3.1 Review Dols ob'ectives identified duringtrainin consultations; 41 fi1 6 i I 1 16i I 3.2 Review data sources and collection procedures 1 81 16 i 3.3 Develop outcome-based measures I I indudin customer satisfaction measures and recommended I I I 1 ; I I I i customer satisfaction surve estions) 81 I 1 3.4 Review measures with Performance Measures Resource Team II I 21 21 3.5 Revise and finalize measures 1 171 301 301 771 $7,295: 1 I I 1 a Subtotal-Activi 3 ! I Activi 4-Plan for Im 41 41 I®mentation 41 i 4.1 Develo im lemel tation Ian for new rformance measures 1 21 41 41 I I 4.2 Develop recommendations for R fom�attin 41 4.3 Present draft report to Performance Measurement Team 21 21 21 4.4 Revise final re rt based on comments 41 4.5 Present final re ort to Director of Operations and project Lead ( resent to others as requested) j 161 101 101 26I $4,300 Subtotal-Activi 4 1 1 I 1 i 72 $4 1 641 641 2001 5 , 0. 1 i ,61 0 Subtotal I i 53,000, l..x enses I 1 S34,930 Project Director time GRAND TOTAL r\ c0 N Y 0 3P C m Y LO r. cn 0 ! E It t9 'O CL � m � w � N awl m � tff O t6 y R i y y H m CD y O` ly0 m yy C Cy7 cc £ V y E o m a CO G X O E O N O y y p C d `p m cc m cfl C d m ` N CCL 3 Z C m C C tmm� t l0 y � p lC9 O ; t) y Q 3 V V O m > t QQ m m C O m C O O y: cr O m y 4 y •2 m C r r a. •� � . y s c t y Y C to O O O m m d O ` =i am !� E y O j 12 yad y N 7 C O O pi 0 cc cl ° C cc 3 p N y c�0 O y0 _ O eC0 L _ � C C' d c° � 3 s 3 1 E 3 �_ m = E n m 3 o a3i w a m y —�' w m r .O '°Q j N N > y > H C'1 > 'j U y > > > > > O ►.. O G3 C C) 7 61 y O C+f O C 0'! G1 C O m m m m •• m •- 2 CL r N f7 N 17 lA .0 r N Ch U f7 Ch Q of ? V Q Q r r r Q N N N CV Q �'•� � � 1 `n Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN KENT AND RENTON - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works and Planning Committee, approval of and authorization for the Mayor to execute the proposed Interlocal Annexation Agreement between the cities of Kent and Renton. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, agreement map, and Public Works/Planning Committee minutes of 3/15/99 4 . RECObIIKENDED BY: Public Works and Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXpMMjTUgZ REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I CITY OF Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 859-3390/Fax (253) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM March 31, 1998 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN KENT AND RENTON On March 15, 1999, the Public Works and Planning Committee unanimously approved an Interlocal Agreement between Kent and Renton, which sets the boundaries for the two .° city's Potential Annexation Area(PAA). Although Kent's northern PAA boundary was located by the City Council to extend along S. E. 192°d Street, Renton continued to maintain a PAA boundary that extended along S.E. 208th Street. This Interlocal Agreement will overcome that conflict and as Kent annexes into this northeast area, Renton will not have cause to protest. I I CENTENNIA I USERSI PLANNINGIPUBLICUIM--H1 Renton Kent.doc 220 4th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895 Z310 F=_t17Crr LED SuCS/R--;ri RECEIV'ED_= :- -- OCT2S GSS )' C[rY OF KEN p�,�NNING 0EPARTM;:h!- AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF RENTON AND KENT RELAT1ING TO POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA DESIGNATION THIS IS AN AGREEMENT between the Cities of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("Renton"), and Kent, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("Kent"), hcreir a er collectively referred to as the "Cities." RECITALS A. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110(2), the Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990, as amended, requires each City within the County to propose the location of an urban growth area, and B. The Countywide Planning Policies adopted and approved by Ordinance 10450 on July 6, 1992 by the County Council and amended by Ordinance 11446 on July 19, 1994 and ratified by Cities within the County, establishes rules for designating potential annexation areas for cities within the countywide urban growth boundary, and C. Countywide Planning Policy LU-31 states that in collaboration with adjacent counties and =1.-s and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each City s:ail designate a Potential Annexation Area(PAA), and D. It is in the public interest that the jurisdictions cooperate to designate logical and acaievabie P AA boundaries, and NOW THEREFORE,the Cities hereby agree: 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this agreement is to confirm the decision made between the Cities for the identification of a common boundary for their respective PA.-k boundaries. 2. DEFINITIONS. Potential Annexanon Area (FAA): The unincorporated urban area adjacent to a city, within which urban growth shall be encouraged and phased, and which is expected to annex to the city. Annexation is expected to occur sometime during the next 20 years at which time the city will provide services and utilities. ° ` " h d " ' Gf B-Ah-Sa- Urban Growth Areas: Areas proposed by the cities and designated by the County within whit urban growth shall be encouraged and phased and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. Urban Growth Boundary: The boundary marking the limit between the urban growth areas and other areas such as rural and resource areas where urban growth is not permitted. The boundary shall be designated by the County in consultation with the appropriate cities, under the requirements of the Growth Management Act, as amended. H:',�i�ap�ctip::t;,,,Iry i�RLCC.DCCG�C6J 3 -FECTED PARTIES. The designation of PAAs in Exhibit"A"(trap) attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this agreement are of interest to a variety of affected parties, including property owners, area residents, the general public, special service districts and the municipalities. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING LAWS AND STATUTES. This Agreement in no way modifies nor supersedes existing laws and statutes and is consistent with existing laws and statutes. In meeting the commitments encompassed in this Agreement, all parties will comply with the requirements of the Annexation Statutes, Open Public Meetings Act, State Environmental Policy Act, Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies for King County. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES. A. The Cities acknowledge the PAA boundary and each respective Cities' PAA illustrated in Exhibit"A". B. The Cities will only annex territory within their designated PAAs. C. Kent acknowledges that Renton has legitmi =concerns regarding the need to protect the aquifer that serves its Springbrook Springs water utility and agrees to enter into discussions within sixty(60) days of the signing of this agreement that will lead to an agreement between the Cities to protect the Renton Springbrook Springs Aquifer recharge az-a that extends to approximately SE 206th Place on the south and 103th Avenue SE on the east. Mechanisms to be considered, include, but are not necessarily limited to, land use regulations (type and intensity), recharge area set asides, and public education. The agreement between the Cities shall be executed within 18 months of the signing oft; is agreement. D. Kent also acknowledges that Renton has recently acquired the Cleveland property south of the Springbrook Trout Farm, off Talbot Road South as a future public park and Renton acknowledges that Kent has recently acquired property south of S 200th Street for a neighborhood park. Since service areas for these two parks will likely overlap, both Cities agree to enter into discussions regarding the possible interface of these two recreation facilities. E. .'_ ' Freeway) en 0te West, . .92and sireet on the MGM, 9;nd Avefffiq -9- a-0-ahe awe, tt._ H9S.t Stmet , the 5• E?.1divlpG�pla�da' NT53101—DOG RE-P ITC�t I OF) SUCE/PL5, ! 050 ice.. -Fr Renton acknowledges that Kent has identified the 196th Street Corridor project between East Valley Highway and SR-515 as one of its concurrency projects which the City of Kent believes should be built by 2010. Since most of this project will occur within Renton's PAA with the potential of impacting the Springbrook Springs watershed as well as the new park site on the former Cleveland property the Cities agree to enter into joint discussions with each other and King County regarding the potential development alignment, financing, and scheduling of the 196th Street Corridor project between.the East Valley Highway and 108th Avenue SE (SR-515). Representatives from both Cities' parks and public works departments should be represented in these discussions. 6. AIMENDMENTS. A. If either of the Cities desires to modify their respective PAA such that it would a5ect that of the other City, it shall contact the other parry to this Agreement to begin discussions regarding PAA boundary amendments. The Cities agree to participate in such discussions when called. Either Party is authorized to call a meeting upon 30 days written notice. B. The proposed amendments shall be supported by written evidence of a significant chano: in one of the criteria listed in paragraph 6(D), below. The Cities shall concur that the substantial change warrants an amendment to the original designated common P A.-k boundary between.the Cities, as shown in Exhibit"A", attached. C. A public process shall be conducted.regarding an amendment to the common PAA boundary between the Cities. In determining whether PAA boundary amendments to the original designated common P AA boundary between the Cities should be made the Cities shall be guided, but not limited, by their findings with respect to the criteria in 6.D. below. D. Criteria for Amendment to Potential Annexation Areas • Recognition of resident community identification. • Financial and technical ability to provide municipal services. • Creation of logical service areas (vehicular accessibility and utility construction). • Recognition of physical boundaries. Bodies of water Topographical features Watersheds Freeways • Protection of critical/resource areas significant to a particular jurisdiction. Protection of critical areas Opportunities for urban separators • Logical boundaries. Elimination of unincorporated islands No overlapping potential annexation areas E. The proposed amended PAA agreement shall be submitted to the respective cities' legislative authorities for approval. F:\divkots\aUd:'-!,NTSRLOC.DOC �Ci•'��^r��J FDM-fl OEI) Slj(r]/FL 111 ..rrl 7. DURATION AND TERMINATION. This Agreement is effective upon signature of both Cities and shall continue in effect from year to year unless terminated by a six month written notice by one City Council to the other. 8. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Any provision of this Agreement which is declared invalid or illegal shall in no way affect or invalidate any other provision hereof and such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. A. Renton shall indemnify and hold harmless Kent and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of Renton, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that any such suit based upon such a claim, action, loss or damage is brought against Kent, Renton shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided,that Kent reserves the right to participate in such suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved. If final judgment be rendered against Kent and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, or jointly against Renton and Kent and their respective officers, agents and employees,or any of them, Renton shall satisfy the same, .including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. B. In executing this Agreement, Kent does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release Renton from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or affect of Renton City ordinances, rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability an&or validity of any such Renton City ordinance, rule or regulation is at issue, Renton shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against Kent, Renton shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. C. Kent shall indemnify and hold harmless Renton and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs,-expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of Kent, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that any such suit based upon such a claim, action, loss or damage is brought against Renton, Kent shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided,that Renton reserves the right to participate in such suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved. If final judgment be rendered against Renton and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, or jointly against Renton and Kent and their respective offcers, agents and employees, or any of them, Kert shall satisfy the same, S../ including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. nr.r r%rl D. In executing this Agreement, Renton does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release Kent from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or affect of Kent City ordinances, rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such Kent City ordinance, rule or regulation is at issue, Kent shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against Renton, Kent shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and a=mey's fees. 10. ADMINISTRATION. This Agreement shall be administered by: A. The Mayor of Kent or the Mayor's designee, and B. The Mayor of Renton or the Mayor's designee. CITY OF RENTON CITY OF KENT Jesse Tanner Jim W�dte Mayor Mayor Date Date Attest: Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk Date x97nd Avg. ov 0 O 1"4 IN A S !� O i ♦ ham/ � C 96 A%S 7 d >r VC O m ~ 9� h PI S TTI g � 7O N o � 102.d Ag SE o los/d Ptic - p O •�j' lath Ave SE p � A M 9 s 1061A Ave SE Avelam A.St YJ AN yil =ih Ave 1061h A»SE WA ry�y A>< Im Ale SE AA ltgh Ave SE � 9: 1111h Aw X U rb* i 11111 "" r IIIIjIjIjF�l � � � 113%PI p 11 un w p II11111111 1 rU CD � I u I 111 i;i i 1 1 I I I161n Aw St .�} 19fh Aw SE s T W I.ry Fes—i 1}R� 118%Mt$E 1.1 a 9 CD oO ic O �r CM� mopg �? I29N Ave SE G ,b• p n g o :Ilh Aw IZNn Ave SE 1211h A.SE _ Soo C4, mop 0 G•� Q - Uy!A s 3i a (/� A 32nd A.A k � � = � 3 I PI SE n O T 13AIh Aw IJIN Aw A • � Ati s � tt k I. 52 a t 'ts �)1�dye I g., qu OSE IIOth Ah E IMN Ave SE 11gh I/01n Aw C p Illnd An 5E4 Pi p �{ p s hi ti 1451h Aw SE 1 IA/lh PI SZ +Q � ?I 9 L 1171h A*SE 1/1N Am t A � 17.• PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE March 15, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT_: Chair Tim Clark, Tom Brotherton, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Jim Harris, Gary Gill, Roger Lubovich, Fred Satterstrom, Tom Brubaker, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Jim and Elsy Rust, John Santana, Merry Hayes Anoroval of Minutes of March 1. 1999 Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved to approve the minutes of March 1, 1999. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Rico Yingling and carried 3-0. Proposed Interlocal Annexation Agreement Between Kent and Renton Planning Director Jim Harris reminded the Committee that Administration had been directed to work on a problem that had arisen the last time the item had come before the Public Works/Planning Committee. There were questions concerning the eastern leg of the 192"d/196`h Corridor Project and how de-annexing an area adjacent to SR167 would affect Kent's ability to acquire a right-of-way for the corridor project in the future. He said Operations Director Brent McFall had talked with the City Administrator of Renton and they worked a solution to the problem. Renton has withdrawn its desire to annex the subject strip of land. Mr. Harris showed the Committee Members a map detailing the area in question, and described the proposed future annexation boundaries between Kent and Renton. Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to the Council to approve the Proposed Interlocal Annexation Agreement between Kent and Renton. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and carried 3-0. Condemnation—East Hill Interceptor Easements Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker presented an Ordinance in Eminent Domain or Condemnation to provide the Attorney's Office the authority to condemn certain properties so a sanitary sewer line could be constructed for a station known as the Del Webb sewer. The sewer is fast reaching its maximum capacity and needs to be rebuilt. All of the alternatives have been looked at and the only feasible route financially is the one selected which will go through a number of residential backyards. Staff is negotiating with the property owners and hope to not have to condemn all of the properties that will be listed in the ordinance. Building the sewer line is necessary,.and authority is needed to move forward to file lawsuits if negotiations with property owners are not successful. There are 28 total properties with 15 having settled and 13 not. There are no houses impacted,but there could be some outbuildings which may have to be moved, restored, or replaced. There is one business, a daycare, on one property and negotiations are ongoing in trying to settle the issue of having a reasonable backyard playground for the children. The procedure of notification to property owners is to go directly to the home, explain the project and try to purchase an easement. Each parcel has it's own individual characteristics. Price cannot always be agreed upon and may be determined by whether it's encumbered with wetlands or setbacks. It's a significant intrusion and property owners can no longer build on the easement,but may be able to landscape it. If negotiations are not successful, an eminent domain ordinance is passed. Negotiations are continued, but ultimately a court action is filed. The trial is two-phase with a determination first Kent City Council Meeting Date AI)ril 6 . 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: TOMLINSON SHORT PLAT BILL OF SALE - ACCEPTANCE 2 . sumKARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, acceptance of the Bill of Sale for Tomlinson Short Plat submitted by Terry R. Tomlinson and Mary Tomlinson for continuous operation and maintenance of 205 feet of waterline, 467 feet of sanitary sewers, 311 feet of storm sewers and 192 feet of street improvements and, release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located in the vicinity of South 235th Place & 100th Avenue Southeast . 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMM�4'�NDED 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. 6J o -I g� °o d H ! 0 ST Z t 222ND ST x ^222ND ST W S 222N0 ST poi, \..-� �• 2 yt it N SE 224TH ST o �•t.! C9N 224 PL ��..�• 225 h SE W ¢ SE 22STM FL cc 225 a a G 0 Y_ � 4 j *T x �v �•, c a 228T" 9T `x a W ij j �r N s = o 0^ O °' o SE22TTM c H�[[ S 22BTH S 229TH ST - 228`CT vST SE 228TH ST SE 22 � ' o 22 < Z cr.le, t� � N N.T.S. w •,2 SE 231 ST ?90 PL •� omi 1 232ND 9T 32NO S1 m S 232NO SE 232 ST NOVAC LN °D SE 232NO PL --- CT i z 233 PL c I � m sf1 4 PL DO ST it PROJECT LOCATION x `RFF" - °° 5E 236T" 'T I O 2W6TH PL r GP E l �+ ¢ 237TM ST J BOULGROW NAY Y9P� 237TH a X. N• W p �Fl W PL W c SE 238TH ST` C > m z c ¢ cc ¢ S 238TH O1 ¢ s w w, GEORGE W ¢ o o x SE z 239TM ST ST o• ai z ¢ - m FYIEN CT 2 o ~ ' ¢ W S 299TH PL h PL rn J S 240TH STx rR i w c 241ST ST m w ccCE R Lu > 5 ` I Y _ ¢ Q o PIONEER ST J M x S 242N0 T ¢o ¢ F d S 242NO CT cc u x ¢—j w MCMIL AN TEMP ANCE ST .�, a S ST ¢ s SMITH gi N 2V4TH cn SE 244 ST SE 244TH W W t ¢ HAM i6 �'� _ a' 9E 2114 CT h ST W""-- �Jq `\ r W m '^ E 245 PL s 1pr > WEILAND ,,, SE 246TH ST ¢ 2116 PL �rA ail Y TACOMA �C �I 1 cc _ 247TH o 247 PL r = Kf slq o CHERRY �Fy \ �� w >¢ CT = s� DEAN ST = HILL ACLTN T 9 ` M1, cc \` CI !M �o GUIDER-SON ST �;� D7 y = E SERTTLE a W r s SERTTLE STJJ d' a a CHICAGO ST ' `�'; �� S 252NO ST ET, Y = % 9 CLEARVIEW » I ry t. uj c i LAUREL ST > c SQ 1, 259 PL W = _ =M° a HEMLOCK ST ` z W !9 \, "� O = 2 r .W. -j 1� O N = CARTER ST ¢ ¢ n m FILBERT ST j W = ¢ s9 NARION ST MARRN W W W ¢ 15 t o uv �E WALNUT ST aI- WQPI F 4T TOMLINSON SHORT PLAT Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: CENTRAL AVENUE DESIGN GUIDELINES AMENDMENT ZCA-99-1 2 . SUMMMY STATEMENT: The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on February 22 , 1999, regarding the proposed Kent Downtown Design Guidelines - Central Avenue District, and has recommended approval of the proposed guidelines as outlined in the attached memo. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Guideline booklet dated 2/12/99, and Land Use and Planning Board minutes of 2/22/99 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPEE. ITTJ E REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember flp moves, Councilmember seconds to approve/mQdiny the Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation of approval of the proposed Kent Downtown Design Guidelines - Central Avenue District per the attached memo and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION: W MCI �- ACTION: �M 4� alv�c� y Council Agenda li Item No. 7A CITY OF Jim White, Mayor ��'MIVVICIa, Planning Department (253) 859-3390/Fax (253) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM April 6, 1999 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: LINDA PHILLIPS, PLANNER SUBJECT: CENTRAL AVENUE DESIGN GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION The Downtown Strategic Action Plan, adopted in 1998 by the City Council calls for revising the existing Downtown Design guidelines to add more specific guidelines for each of the seven downtown districts identified by the plan. The guidelines are proposed to guide new development, infill, and redevelopment. As is the case with the existing guidelines, the revisions and additions will not effect existing development unless a renovation or redevelopment of existing buildings and/or site improvements is proposed. The guidelines are intended to provide a forum for coordination between developers, business and property owners and the City. If the process is successful, the City, the public, and the property and business interests should all benefit from more attractive, convenient, and safe site and building design. BACKGROUND During the last two or three years, we have received more comments about the appearance of the Central Avenue District than any other downtown district, so City staff and John Owen, from MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design began the design guidelines implementation project with the Central Avenue District. All of the principles expressed in the existing design guidelines, found in Zoning Code Section 15.09.045 and the Downtown Design Review Handbook, have been incorporated in the proposed new guidelines,with more detail. If the Central Avenue Design Guidelines are adopted, Planning Department staff, with advisory assistance from MAKERS will begin to prepare revised and/or additional guidelines for the other districts. The guidelines will be consistent with the character of each district, and the Central Avenue District Guidelines will provide the basic model. When all of the district guidelines have been drafted, the format used for this initial district will be changed to a format that will serve all districts in one document. The core of the document will be the basic guidelines that apply to all districts, with specific guidelines and graphics for each individual district where appropriate. The existing and proposed design guidelines are presented in a narrative and graphic format. The purpose of presenting design guidelines in this way is to make the guidelines easily understandable for all users. Because this format is different from the format used for the Kent Zoning Code, a separate handbook, similar but more comprehensive than the existing handbook, is appropriate. The handbook should be adopted as part of the Zoning Code when updated 220 4th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 Central Avenue Design Guidelines April 6, 1999 Page 2 design guidelines for all districts have been adopted. At that time the following changes would ` be made to Zoning Code Section 15.09.048. 1. A reference would be inserted in Section 15.09.048 where the existing design review criteria are now listed. 2. The existing design review criteria (15.09.048.D) would not be applicable to development proposals in the Central Avenue district. The existing criteria are incorporated into the Central Avenue Design Guidelines which will serve as the basic guidelines for all of the districts, with some changes and additions to reflect the different character of each district. 3. The Pedestrian Plan Overlay (A and B class streets) sections would be retained in the Design Handbook. They are discussed in the proposed new guidelines and would be incorporated with the updated guidelines in the new Handbook. RECOMMENDATION On February 22, 1999, the Land Use and Planning Board voted to recommend adoption of the proposed Central Avenue Design Guidelines with the following amendments: • Page 5, Section I.B (1), paragraph h; the addition of the phrase "it is recommended that" supermarkets and similar multi-department businesses...and replacing the word "required" with"be encouraged"to place these sections next to... • Page 24, Section H.D (2): add the term "retail oriented" in the following areas; change the subsection title "Provide pedestrian friendly building facades" to read "Provide pedestrian friendly retail-oriented building facades" Delete "pedestrian friendly " in the first paragraph to read "retail oriented" street front facades, rephrase the terminology where indicated from "Pedestrian-oriented space" to read "Retail-oriented pedestrian space" in sentence "c". • Page 39, Section IV.E (2): soften the specific colors and shades used but delete the references to specific colors: " - gmy, beige, tan, efeqm, and bam red, gray, biffgwidy, w - • Page 39, section N.E. (2): change the "Use of colored mortar" to read "Use of colored Mortar with colored blocks." When the Guidelines are adopted by the City Council, a reference to the Central Avenue Design Guidelines should be placed in Zoning Code Section 15.09.048. Guidelines should then be drafted for the remaining downtown districts and presented to the Land Use and Planning Board for review and recommendation and to the City Council for adoption. At that time, the Zoning Code and Downtown Design Review Handbook should be revised accordingly. LP.-pm IICENTENNIAI USERSIPLANNINGIPUBLICICC34.doc cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Central Avenue District Table of Contents ORGANIZATION OF GUIDELINES.......................................................................1 APPLICATION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES ...........................................................2 I. SITE PLANNING ............................................................................................3 A. Response to Surrounding Context and Unique Site Features........................... 3 B. Relationship to Street Front...............................................................................4 C. Side and Rear-Yards Compatibility....................................................................7 D. Siting and Screening Service Areas ...............................................................••• 8 E. Street Comers ...................................................................................................9 ............... F. Site Design for Safety................................. ..................................... 11 G. Residential Open Space.................................................................................. 17 II. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS...............................................................................20 A. General Pedestrian Access Requirements......................................................20 ......................... B. On-Site Pedestrian Circulation ................ ...............................20 C. Pedestrian Access in Parking Lots ..................................................................23 ............................ D. Pedestrian Amenities..................... ...................................... 24 E. Pedestrian Areas at Building Entries ...............................................................26 .................. F. Pedestrian Activity Areas and Plazas.............................................................. 27 III. VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PARKING.......................................................29 A. Access Streets........................................................ ........................................ 29 B. Vehicle Entrances and Driveways 29 ......................................... C. Parking Lot Location and Design..................................................................... 30 IV. BUILDING DESIGN......................................................................................31 A. Building Concept ..................................................................................... 31 ....................... B. Human Scale and Pedestrian Orientation ................................ 33 C. Architectural Scale............................................... ........................................... 35 ....................................... D. Building Details and Elements ..........................••.,"" 37 E. Materials and Colors................................................................................... ..... 39 ...................... F. Blank Walls. ...............................................................................40 G.Mechanical Equipment and Service Areas............................................... Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue district Page i ��ascoLa ooc•v12/99-Draft for Review V. LANDSCAPE AND SITE DESIGN.............................................................. .4*1 A. Landscape Concept.........................................................................................brt` B. Preferred Plant Materials.................................................................................44 C. Parking Lot Landscaping .................................................................................46 DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................47 Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Centrai Avenue District 97MOL4,DOC-7111199-Draft for Review Page�� Organization of Guidelines This draft document categorizes the guideline topics into several sections, each dealing with a separate design issue such as: • Site Planning; • Pedestrian Access; • Vehicular Access and Parking; • Building Design; and • Site Design and Landscaping. Each section contains guidelines dealing with that topic. Many of the guidelines set requirements and standards that must be met. However,the purpose of the guidelines is to create a site and building design compactible with community goals and context However,the guidelines were formulated to place a minimum burden on projects by guiding project design in the following_ways: They often allow for a variety of options to fulfill a requirement Many of the standards or requirements do not add costly features or require expensive construction. " - • Many guidelines only apply if the element in question is in proximity to and/or visible from the street or a park. Some guidelines only apply to conditions where they are most beneficial. Some guidelines offer incentives such as reduced parking or greater development capability. Most importantly, the guidelines do not inhibit creative design. In most cases the project's architect or landscape architect may suggest an alternative to meet the intent of the guideline. It is suggested that the Central Avenue District Design Guidelines Checklist be used to note which guidelines apply to the proposed project Planning Department staff will review which regulations apply during or shortly after the pre-application meeting or before initial design meeting in order to assist the applicant and to facilitate final approval. During project review, the staff person will check those regulations that have been satisfied. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9735col4.Doc-2112M- Draft for Review Page 1 Application of Design Guidelines The Central Avenue District Design Guidelines apply to Central Avenue, from James Street to Willis Street as indicated on the map, Figure 1, in the downtown area of Kent. The Central Avenue District shown on the map is composed of General Commercial (GC) and Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) zones.The guidelines apply to each zone as appropriate to the uses permitted in the zone. Notable exceptions are the residential guidelines that apply only in the DCE zone because residential use is not permitted in the GC zone within the downtown plan boundaries. Other examples are guidelines for outside storage that apply only in the GC zone because outside storage is not permitted in the DCE zone. The guidelines are intended to revise and supplement the design standards in the City of Kent zoning ordinance. Some of the guidelines state that the City may relax or modify zoning ordinance standards if, in the City's determination,the guidelines are met. Other guidelines include provisions,requirements or considerations that are in addition to the zoning ordinance standards. Where the guidelines and zoning ordinance standards conflict,the City shall determine which regulation applies. street---.. p k G90 <3t13 .¢Q.-... capa thSti�ei rib 0 G fls• �g Titus trkxt ° o .Q,o 0 63 16 r a ,4a i7 a, .d• i „,� Q{°o ilk ly oant���!P o •Willis ll�og:q'o ►� +ca._ .►ice .0 Figure 1. Central Avenue District Boundaries. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 157,Sr ni d Onc.v11M-Draft for Review Page 2 I. Site Planning A. Response to Surrounding Context and Unique Site Features INTENT: ■ To upgrade the Central Avenue District's appearance and create an attractive entrance to downtown Kent. ■ To create an attractive redevelopment setting. ■ To encourage a mix of auto-oriented and pedestrian-oriented uses. ■ To create a pedestrian-friendly environment. ■ To create a compatible edge between business and adjacent residential properties. GUIDELINES: Take advantage of the proximity to the commuter rail transit station. This space left blank for revisions if Transit Oriented Development Study determines a special provision is applicable. LA(2) To encourage commuter rail transit ridership and transit-oriented development,the City will place special emphasis on Guidelines I.B,11-4,II.B,II.C,ILD,II.E,M.A, M.B,M.C,and IV.B for projects within 1,200 feet of the center of the commuter rail passenger platform. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District Page 3 9735GOu.00cs11M- Draft for Review B. Relationship to Street Front INTENT: ■ To create an active, safe pedestrian environment. ■ To upgrade the downtown's visual identity. • To unify the Central Avenue streetscape. ■ To improve circulation. GUIDEUNES: I.B(1) Relate development to pedestrian-oriented street frontage on Class A and B pedestrian streets. / / IJAr►tGt StaCtt '--�� A lS StrtCt— r i �I � . � _—_I i = dl=�#I•� • .r i l j .a • n : ■ 25 • I i u' I' !1•I I ...y.r — � 'Uri M CLASS A PEDESTRIAN STREET •+ CLASS 8 PEDESTRIAN STREET OF PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WA' Figure 2. Class A and B Streets in the Central Avenue Corridor District Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District - Page e Cc_nf d���.�„„� - Draft for Review Class A streets are intended to accommodate and foster the greatest pedestrian usage in the downtown area. When a property line abuts a right-of-way designated Class A, a continuous street wall should be maintained along the property frontage abutting that right-of-way. Breaks in the continuous street wall are permitted where pedestrian access is being provided into or through the site. Breaks in the continuous street wall to provide for vehicular access to the site are restricted on a Class A street and should only be permitted when there is no frontage on a Class B street or undesignated street or alley from which vehicular access may be provided. Similarly,the continuous street wail should not be interrupted by surface parking areas on a Class A street unless there is no property frontage on a Class B street or undesignated street or alley. Class B streets are pedestrian-oriented, but also accommodate vehicular access to the site. A continuous street wall should be maintained for a minimum of 50% of the length of the property frontage abutting the Class B right-of-way. Vehicular access to the site is permitted from the Class B street to the property within the remaining 50%of the Class B frontage. Surface parking areas may front on the Class B street within the 50%area. However, surface parking areas should not be located in front of the building. Accordingly,the development must adhere to the following standards unless the City determines that they prevent viable site development. a. Buildings must present a"pedestrian-oriented facade" (see definitions)to the street. b. The maximum building setback from Central Avenue Class B areas within the area `�-- designated for 50% street wall and Class A cross streets is 20 feet. A setback area is allowed only if a pedestrian activity is planned for that space, such as outdoor dining associated with an eating establishment or garden space associated with residences. The setback area may also be utilized for a recessed entryway or plaza. The setback area may not be used for parking. c. Building entries must have direct access to the public sidewalk(entries may be on the side of buildings but they must be visible from the street and connected by a pedestrian pathway). d. Parking is prohibited between the building and the street front. No parking is allowed within 20 feet of Central Avenue, except in the 50%. e. If the public sidewalk is less than 12 feet wide, set the building back sufficiently to provide at least 12 feet of walking surface. f. No large item display areas (e.g. auto sales) are allowed in the front yard area. g. Buildings over 200 feet in length measured along Central Avenue should include a pedestrian pass-through to allow people to access the rear of the lot. (Note: The City may waive this requirement if it is not in the public interest and if the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. h. On class A and B streets, supermarkets and similar multi-department businesses that include bakeries, delis, flower shops, fruit and vegetable sections are required to place these sections next to the pedestrian street, with display windows or doors to the street. Walk-up outdoor bakery, deli, and flower sales windows are encouraged as pedestrian amenities. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District ��5 s nnr.7117M- Draft for Review Page 5 I Exception: The City may permit a I deviation from the specific standards if it v �' determines that public benefit may be achieved in terms of the Intent described above and if the deviation is consistent l with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed deviation will result in increased pedestrian activity and visual interest along the street. I E awl Figure 3. A variety of pedestrian amenities can be accommodated in the allowable setback area. Figure 4. Example of desirable building configurations on Central Avenue. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 973SGOL4 oocm12/N-Draft for Review Page 6 C. Side and Rear Yard Compatibility INTENT: ■ To promote functional and visual compatibility between adjacent properties. GUIDEUNES: I.C(1) Minimize visibility and impacts of incompatible uses. In GC-zoned areas where outdoor storage and service areas are permitted, locate service areas, outdoor storage areas and other intrusive site features away from neighboring properties to reduce conflicts with adjacent uses. Where the City deems necessary, landscape screening or other form must be planted along property lines adjacent to "incompatible uses." Incompatible uses include: outdoor storage adjacent to any other use,service areas adjacent to any other use, and commercial development adjacent to or across a street from a residentially zoned property. The buffer and/or fencing of outdoor storage and service areas must conform with the requirements of KZC Sections 15.04.140.E.8, and 15.07.040.0 as a minimum standard. Additional buffer area or screening may be required. a. If changes in topography between the residential and adjacent property are sufficiently great, then modifications to some of the above buffer options may be '�► allowed. b. Integrate outdoor storage areas and loading facilities where permitted into the site design to minimize their size,reduce visual impact,and allow for pedestrian and vehicular(where appropriate)movement between sites. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District page 7 1735GOLe OOC-2112M- Draft for Review D. Siting and Screening Service Areas INTENT: ■ To reduce the visibility of unsightly uses (trash containers for example), in the business district. ■ To encourage more thoughtful siting of trash containers and service areas, balancing the need for service with the desire to screen its negative aspects. GUIOEUNES: Reduce impact of service areas and mechanical equipment. a. Locate service areas(trash dumpsters,compactors,mechanical equipment, and storage yards and loading docks in the GC zone) so as not to have a negative visual, auditory (noise), or physical impact on the street environment, and adjacent residentially zoned properties. One of the purposes of this guideline is to reduce the noise impacts of service areas. Coordinate with waste and recycle contractors when locating dumpsters and recycle containers. b. When service elements are visible from the sidewalk and adjacent properties,the elements must be screened. Dumpsters,refuse,and recycling collection points shall be screened in accordance with Guideline I.C,"Side and Rear Yard Compatibility." MZC![AMC%L N.1 MarmVer. ` Unds=pini I sol'�d Enclosure py`ttST'ER, :x`: •/ '•1••- rf• • 1•f `C .\ �t �////// �• .}fir.: I Trellis doors i Comte pad Figure 5. Service areas should be located and screened in ways that minimize their visual, auditory, and olfactory impacts and avoid their interference with site circulation or other activities. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue Distract 9735GOL4 OOC-2/12199- Draft for Review Page 8 E. Street Corners INTENT: ■ To improve the appearance of highly visible locations. GUIDELINES: I.E(1) Enhance the visual quality of development on corners. New development on corner lots at street intersections must enhance the property's visual qualities at the comer by one or more of the following methods: a. Locate the building within 15 feet of the property corner nearest the street intersection and enhancing the building's comer with a building element such as a comer entry, tower, comer window sculpture, or other device. Q Figure 6. Example of a positive street comer site planning. b. Design the building in a way that will allow the comer to serve a pedestrian- attractive use such as outdoor dining, flower carts, information or merchandise kiosk or newsstand. c. Install substantial landscaping (at least 200 SF of ground surface area with trees and shrubs or ground cover) at or near the comer of the lot. Landscaping could include plant material to form a low hedge. However, care should be taken to not create a visibility or security problem. Container gardens,public art, or other features attractive to pedestrians may be substituted for landscaping, subject to Planning Department approval. d. Other element or method approved by the city. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9735GDl4.00c.2112m- Draft for Review Page 9 LE(2) When the corner is adjacent to a City-designated gateway intersection, coordinate with the City to provide significant gateway elements such as landscaping, banners, special lighting, or art. Note: It is especially important that buildings locate on or near the corners along central avenue because the corners are so visible. Such a configuration provides excellent exposure for businesses. Stylemakers, the salon on the northeast corner of Meeker and Central,provides an example of appropriate site design Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 97IscoL4 ooc-utuM- Draft for Review Page 10 F. Site Design for Safety INTENT: ■ To promote personal safety and property security. ■ To ensure the nighttime environment is safe and inviting. ■ To ensure that lighting, landscaping, and other site features contribute to personal safety. ■ To discourage vandalism and reduce maintenance. GUIDELINES: I.F(1) Minimize conflicts between drivers and pedestrians through the siting of structures, location of circulation elements,landscape design,and placement of signs. Incorporate the following methods for protecting pedestrian safety, where appropriate: a Limit the number of potential encounters between pedestrians and vehicles through site design. b. Were pedestrian and motorist paths must cross(e.g.,at crosswalks),provide adequate sight distance and ensure that landscaping does not block pedestrians and drivers' views. e. Within parking lots provide raised sidewalks, crosswalks,and pedestrian walkways where possible; or provide at-grade walkways protected by curbs and/or landscaped areas. e. Distinctively mark pedestrian routes through parking lots,using vertical design elements, special paving,painted crosswalks or signage. f. Separate service vehicle access and loading zones from pedestrian areas where possible. g. Use on-site directional signs to clearly mark pedestrian and vehicular routes. I.F(2) Locate, design,and site structures to maximize site surveillance opportunities from buildings and public streets. Incorporate the following methods to increase personal safety and security,where appropriate: a. Avoid site design features that create entrapment areas (e.g. tunnels, long corridors, opaque fences) in locations with pedestrian activity. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District enscoLd ooc-111zr99- Draft for Review Page 11 F. Site Design for Safety INTENT: ■ To promote personal safety and property security. ■ To ensure the nighttime environment is safe and inviting. ■ To ensure that lighting, landscaping,and other site features contribute to personal safety. ■ To discourage vandalism and reduce maintenance. GUIDELINES: I.F(1) Minimize conflicts between drivers and pedestrians through the siting of structures, location of circulation elements,landscape design,and placement of signs. Incorporate the following methods for protecting pedestrian safety, where appropriate: a Limit the number of potential encounters between pedestrians and vehicles through site design. b. Were pedestrian and motorist paths must cross (e.g., at crosswalks),provide adequate sight distance and ensure that landscaping does not block pedestrians and drivers' views. c. Within parking lots provide raised sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian walkways where possible; or provide at-grade walkways protected by curbs and/or landscaped areas. e. Distinctively mark pedestrian routes through parking lots, using vertical design elements, special paving,painted crosswalks or signage. f. Separate service vehicle access and loading zones from pedestrian areas where possible. g. Use on-site directional signs to clearly mark pedestrian and vehicular routes. I.F(2) Locate, design,and site structures to maximize site surveillance opportunities from buildings and public streets. Incorporate the following methods to increase personal safety and security,where appropriate: a. Avoid site design features that create entrapment areas (e.g. tunnels, long corridors, opaque fences) in locations with pedestrian activity. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 3735caL4 ooc-znu"- Draft for Review Page 11 All area rifible rros public etreet. II l 1 I f C; I v.i 00 THIS It A x— o..d.eea.reaeedin y parkins provides no etespe route.is out of j view fros public street. 1 I I i 00wr 00 THIS Figure 7. Design the site to avoid creating potential entrapment areas. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District gsc0�400c-y12- Draft Review Page i2 » b. Ensure that site and buildings provide sight lines that allow building occupants u and passersby to observe outdoor on-site activities. C. Site buildings so that windows, balconies and entries overlook pedestrian routes, vehicular circulation routes, and parking areas and allow for informal surveillance of these areas, where possible. Root OecL aav Window Balcony s • Figure & Site planning and building design can promote 'eyes on the streeC and safety. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 3735GOL4.00c41t2M- Draft for Review Page 13 LF(3) Provide adequate lighting levels in all pedestrian areas, including building entries, along walkways, parking areas,and other public areas. Include the following in lighting plans: a. Provide an overlapping pattern of light at a height of about 10-15 feet in lighted areas. ru AA i • . a 00 THIS x�z a Q � Q DOWT oo THIS Figure 9. Smaller scale lighting standards, 10-15!feet in height evenly spaced, and at consistent foot-candle levels provide for greater safety. A minimum of 2(IESNA, illuminating Engineering Society of North America, standards are 1.1)foot-candles on the ground is recommended, but a minimum of 4 foot candles should be provided on specifrc pedestrian routes. b. Provide lighting at consistent lumens with a gradual transition to unlighted areas. Avoid creating highly contrasting pools of light and dark areas,which can be temporarily blinding. c. Provide adequate lighting at all building entrances, exits and corridors between buildings, at least 4 foot candles during active use,especially where doors are recessed. d. Indicate specific lighting levels in each lighted area. Design lighting levels so that pedestrians can identify a face 15 yards away (generally, a minimum of 4 foot-candles) in order to reduce anonymity and to give pedestrians the opportunity to choose another route if they feel unsafe. e. Ensure that site lighting is confined to the project site and does not cause glare on adjacent properties. ' f. Place light posts and standards so that they do not create hazards for pedestrians or vehicles. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9735coL4 Doc-2112M- Draft for Review Page 14 MiphrphtWc of Pecimtrian Zonaa Ovarail Uluminadon Figure 10. Lighting pedestrian zones. I.F(4) Design landscaping so that long-term growth will not interfere with site lighting and surveillance. Include the following in lighting plans to provide for compatibility of landscaping with site lighting: a. Ensure that the type and placement of light fixtures in the landscape will allow for achieving site lighting guidelines established in the previous section. b. Space landscape elements to allow for long-term growth without interfering with site lighting. c. Select plant species considering long-term growth characteristics. d. Prune shrubs to allow for adequate surveillance(no taller than approximately 3 feet in height). Limb trees to a height that allows visibility under them(approximately 6 feet). a o Figure 11. Low bushes and trimmed street trees screen parking, yet still allow visual access. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9735col4 ooc-v+2M- Draft for Review Page 15 LF(5) Use durable, high quality,safe,vandal-resistant materials in site furnishings and .,.�. features for ease of maiatenance. Include the following site plan elements: a. Use high-quality materials in site f rnishings and features, such as walls and paving, that are durable and easily maintained. b. Design site features and select furnishings that discourage vandalism. For example, large blank walls encourage vandalism. Furnishings that are easily removed, or that do not convey an image of care, invite misuse. c. Use materials that promote safety, such as non-slip walkway surfaces. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue Distract PARP 1R G. Residential Open Space (Apply to DCE zone only) INTENT: ■ To provide an open space network which will accommodate a wide variety of activities,public and private. GUIDELINES: I.G(1) Design each space within a residential open space network with a specific use in mind. Anticipate activity opportunities for all ages,accessible to all units. I.G(2) Ensure that new residential mixed-use development provides one or more of the following options: a. Balconies d.Furnished children's play area b. Screened patios e. Roof-top open space—roof garden or game court c. Small,shared courtyards I.G(3) Ensure that the open space network provides for privacy of residents while allowing for security and surveillance from residential units. I.G(4) Ensure that the open space network is well lit at night. I.G(5) Encourage the definition of open space by landscaping that also provides shade and wind protection where needed. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 97WG0L4.00c-V12M- Draft far Review Page 17 Figure 12. Design and landscape site to define open space for both private and commercial use. O - 0 Q p C9 0 Q To Be Avoided Preferred v Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 18 97MOL4,00C•v+I"- Draft for Review Page »wv . , � t �"M„r"" � • i I II. Pedestrian Access A. General Pedestrian Access Requirements INTENT: ■ To improve the pedestrian environment by making it easier, safer and more comfortable to walk between businesses,to the street sidewalk,to transit stops, and through parking lots. ■ To ensure that pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks and bus shelters, connect all modes of transportation. ■ To provide safe, continuous pedestrian access in both the north-south and east- west direction. ■ To provide the pedestrian,disabled person and transit user with a safe and clear path to the entry door of a building. ■ To provide connections for residents in mixed use complexes to parks, schools, shopping and transit routes GUIDELINES: II.A(1) Provide pedestrian access onto the site from the main street on which the use is located. Where a use fronts two streets,access shall be provided from the street closest to the main entrance or,preferably,from both streets. All buildings shall have a paved pedestrian path at least 60"wide(preferably%"wide)from the street sidewalk to the main entry. Buildings with entries not facing the street should have a clear and obvious street sidewalk to the entry(Siting Buildings and Parking Lots). This path should be separate from vehicular traffic or raised above the vehicular pavement. In residential or mixed-use complexes, locate pedestrian pathways in clear view of residents and passersby. Note: In the case of encumbrances the clear pathway width shall be no less than 48"' Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9735GOL4 ooc-v+�- Draft for Review Page 20 ILA 2 Ensure that all pedestrian paths correspond with Federal,State and local codes for handicapped access, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. II.A(3) Provide adequate lighting, at least 4 foot-candies,at the building entries and all walkways and paths through parking lots. �4 c� O Q - r Figure 14. Provide a safe, accessible pedestrian route from the street to the building entry(front parldng in GC zone only). Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District Page 21 9735coL4 ooc•211Z'99- Draft for Review B. ON-SITE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION II.B(1) Provide pedestrian paths or walkways connecting all businesses and the entries of multiple buildings on the same development site. See also II.A above. Special paving at the corner enhances pedestrian access to the site. •�0�5 :4 � Transit stop �J ! Walkway connects the public sidewalk with the building entrance. 60 I Walkway along the front � of the building connects individual stores. LU •! W u~i •� ;tl w cc O I� I Z_ Walkways connect the l building entrance to fld1M0 adjacent sites. Figure 15. In this large-scale commercial site, wide, landscaped walkways provide pedestrian connections. (Front parking lot as shown permitted in GC zone only). Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 3733GOL4.000-211Z"-Draft for Review Page 22 C. Pedestrian Access in Parking Lots INTENT: ■ To provide safe and convenient pedestrian paths from the street sidewalk through parking lots to building entries in order to encourage walking between businesses and contribute toward reducing local traffic impacts. GUIDELINE: H.C(1) Provide pathways through parking lots. The following distances should be considered somewhat flexible to account for the length of the parking lot and driveway locations. A specially marked or paved crosswalk must be provided through parking lots greater than 150 feet long(measured parallel to the storefront)or more than 2 bays deep(approximately 75 feet measured perpendicular to the storefront). Generally,walkways should be provided every four rows and a maximum distance of 150 feet shall be maintained between paths. U.C(2) Develop an on-site pedestrian circulation concept. The project applicant should be able to demonstrate how the overall circulation concept provides for pedestrian circulation. Walkways should be integrated with the required parking lot landscaping. (See Sections V.A and V.C.) LU Cam i sd. I I I' IL ia Fra,t ------- --- --------C5- - i I ! To Be Avoided Preferred ` Figure 16. The figure on the!eft illustrates good parking lot circulation. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District page 23 9735GOL4.00c-21+V"- Draft for Review D. Pedestrian Amenities �- INTENT: ■ To provide safe, comfortable pedestrian circulation throughout the Central Avenue District GUIDELINES: II.D(1) Provide pedestrian weather protection. a. All buildings located along designated pedestrian-oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian weather protection at least 3 feet wide along at least 80%of the building's front face as a means to partially satisfy some of the requirements in Sections H.D,IV.A, IV.B, IV.C, and N.D. The weather protection may be in the form of awnings, marquees,canopies or building overhangs. b. Canopies or awnings should not extend higher than 15 feet above ground level nor lower than 8 feet at the lowest point. c. The color,material and configuration of the pedestrian coverings shall be as approved by the City. Coverings with visible corrugated metal or corrugated fiberglass are not permitted unless approved by the City. Fabric,plastic and rigid metal awnings are acceptable if they meet the applicable standards. All lettering and graphics on pedestrian coverings must conform to KZC Section 15.06-Sign Regulations. II.D(2) Provide pedestrian friendly building facades. The ground story facades facing designated Class A and B pedestrian-oriented streets and public parks shall feature "pedestrian-friendly" street front facades which consist of one or more of the following characteristics listed in a-d below: a. Transparent window area or window displays along at least 50%of the length of the ground floor facade. b. Sculptural, mosaic or bas-relief artwork over 50%of the length of the ground floor facade. c. Pedestrian-oriented space,"as defined in Section I.F. (1), located adjacent to the sidewalk. At least 500 SF of pedestrian-oriented space must be provided for every 100 linear feet of facade as measured along the property lines adjacent to the street ROW. d. Other special landscaping or building design feature approved by the City. ILD(3) Pedestrian amenities For all proposals on all Class A pedestrian-oriented streets, provide at least three-of the following pedestrian amenities near the sidewalk. Provide at least one amenity on all Class B street fronts. a. Pedestrian furniture such as seating space lighting, drinking fountain. b. Pedestrian weather protection as defined in Section II.D(1). Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District Page 24 „ Q- Draft for Review c. Pedestrian oriented open space. ( See definitions) d. Substantial perimeter landscaping(lawn if configured in a"front yard" setting between building front and the sidewalk.) e. Artwork. f. Space for transit stop with seating. g. Window displays over the majority of the front facade. h. Decorative screen wall, trellis or other building or site feature. i. Pedestrian lighting. j. Other site configurations and elements that encourage pedestrian activities as approved by the City. Figure 17. Pedestrian covering along street fronts. i l S Figure 18. Pedestrian-oriented facades are critical in retail areas. Preferred To Be Avoided Preferred Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District page 25 9MG0L4 DOCT,z; - 0raft for Review E. Pedestrian Areas at Building Entries . INTENT: ■ To use the architectural elements of a building and landscaping to highlight and define the entrance and enhance the visual character of the building. ■ To improve pedestrian environment by creating a pleasant, inviting space where building and sidewalk meet. GUIDEUNES: ILE(1) Enhance building entry access. Three or more of the following must enhance the primary public entries of all businesses and multifamily residential buildings located on Central Avenue: a. Weather protection such as an awning, canopy,marquee or other building element to create a covered pedestrian open space of at least 100 square feet. b. At least 200 square feet of landscaping at or near the entry. c. Pedestrian facilities, such as benches,kiosks, special paving,bicycle racks,etc. k. A trellis, canopy,porch or other building element together with landscaping. e. Special pedestrian-scaled lighting. (Lights that specifically light pedestrian areas or : surfaces and that are lower than 15 feet in height.) f. Adjacent window displays. g. Building ornamentation such as mosaic tile,relief sculpture, ornamental wood or metal trim,etc. h. Artwork or special pedestrian-scaled signs. i. Other methods as approved by the City. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 97!t3G0L4 00C- 2 - Draft for Review Page 26 F. Pedestrian Activity Areas and Plazas INTENT: ■ To provide a variety of pedestrian-oriented areas to attract shoppers. GUIDEUNES: II.F(1) Provide pedestrian-oriented open space at key locations. On pedestrian oriented streets,where the front building facade is not directly adjacent to the sidewalk,the space between the sidewalk pavement and the building(the front yard) shall be developed as a garden, lawn, landscaped area, and/or pedestrian-oriented space meeting the criteria stated below. To qualify as a"pedestrian oriented space" an area must have: 1. Visual and pedestrian access(including handicapped access) into the site from the public ROW. m. Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving. n. On-site or building mounted site lighting providing at least 4 foot candles (avg.)on the ground. o. Seating; at least 4 linear feet of seating area(bench, ledge, etc.)or one individual seat `-- per 60 SF of plaza area or open space. p. Landscaping that does not act as a visual barrier, set either in the ground or in containers. q. Site furniture, artwork or amenities such as fountains, kiosks, etc. A "pedestrian oriented space" shall not have: r. Asphalt or gravel pavement. s. Adjacent unscreened parking lots. t. Adjacent chain link fences. u. Adjacent on-site "blank walls" without "blank wall treatment." Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9735GD14 DOC-2 IZVO-Draft for Review Page 27 Planters organize space and 1 1 1 1color1 enhancedean*circulation and seating Window buildingform Trees define plaza space patterns WI�IyV' nN"' w rAww Irl Figure Landscape enhancements serve several roles in this plaza, which serves as a good a sal ��� � ; ����i�a .*!y * .,� I r '��Jf'• ���, 4�`. y ■ pedestfian-ofiented space. Kent Downtown Design • Centralr rict Page 28 .. Draft for Ill. Vehicular Access and Parking A. Access Streets INTENT: ■ To mitigate traffic impacts. ■ To create a safe,convenient network for vehicle circulation and parking. GUIDEUNES: M.A(1) Provide for vehicle access streets through large lots with more than one street frontage. The City may require all development projects on properties of more than three acres which front on two streets to provide"through streets"between the bordering streets. The required through street may be part of the parking lottsite circulation,but parking, fronting directly on the street shall be minimized. Street trees other than parallel parking, and sidewalks or pedestrian paths are required along through streets in accordance with Guideline H.C.(2). Location of ingress to and egress from the through street shall be as approved by the City. The through street shall conform to City Public Works Department standards and requirements and be a minimum of two 12-foot-wide lanes. B. Vehicle Entrances and Driveways INTENT: ■ To improve automobile and pedestrian safety. ■ To decrease traffic congestion and simplify automobile movements. GUIDEUNES: Restrict vehicular access on Class A streets. permitted only when Vehicular access (driveways) to the site on Class � eshouldeyefrom which vehicular there is no frontage on a Class B street,under Stier access may be provided. Property owners are encouraged to share driveways as a means of reducing cost and congestion. (See Section I.B.) Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Centrai Avenue District page 29 3735GOL4 DOC-2112M- Draft for Review C. Parking Lot Location and Design INTENT: ■ To ensure that parking lots are attractive, safe, and convenient. GUIDELINES: III.C(1) See KCZ Section 15.05 for parking lot design standards. See Section I.B of this document for parking lot location and Sections ILC and 11.1) of this document for parking lot access improvements. III.C(2) Pavement markings and entrance signs Place all markings and signs for individual stalls on the pavement. No free-standing or wall-mounted signs for individual stalls are permitted to extend higher than 2 feet above grade. No more than one entrance sign per parking area entrance is permitted. The sign shall conform to KZC Section 15.06,shall be less than 13 feet in height above grade,and shall have a surface area of no more than 10 square feet per side. The sign may be 2 sided. The sign shall not be internally lit,but may incorporate neon lights. M.C(3) Screen all moveable parking lot equipment,such as barrels,saw horses, etc.,from the public right-of-way. E LC(4) See Section VA of this document and Kent Zoning Code Section 15.07 for landscaping standards. i j . N-Al' Figure 20. Attractive parking lot landscaping. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District page 30 9rMOL4 GOC-2112M- Draft for Review IV. Building Design A. Building concept INTENT: ■ To encourage building design that is appropriate to the site, and becomes a positive element in the architectural character of Central Avenue. ■ To encourage consideration of overall building design without prescribing a specific architectural style or organization. (Note: Other building design guidelines in this manual address specific building elements or specific aspects of building form.) GUIDEUNES: IV.A(1) Organize architectural elements into a unified whole to fit with local context and objectives. While Central Avenue is currently dominated by auto-oriented commercial uses, its proximity to downtown,the market, and the proposed regional transit station means that the Central Avenue area will experience more pedestrian activity in the future. Also, Central Avenue is important as a gateway to downtown Kent. Therefore,the pedestrian orientation and attractiveness of buildings on Central Avenue,especially between Smith and Gowe Street, are important. To this end,the building concepts of this area should employ pedestrian orientation. (See N.B.below.) The project proponent must graphically describe the proposed building's design concept: How are the various building elements, such as walls,roofline,entries, modulation, materials, decorations, signage, etc., organized into a functional and attractive composition. Furthermore, the project proponent must describe how the concept relates to site conditions, such as visibility, access,pedestrian circulation, and neighboring development. "Design concept" is used to mean the ideas or relationships that determine the building's overall character and function. Some examples of design concepts are illustrated below. The proponent may suggest other design concepts. a. Axial Symmetry. A formal design organization common in classical revival and colonial-styled buildings. b. Horizontal Banding. This device is common in Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie-style houses. It is sometimes less appropriate in multifamily residences since it diminishes the individuality of separate units and makes the building appear longer. c. Organization Around an Exterior Space. Orientation of the building around a courtyard, garden, or other outdoor space is an effective way to integrate site planning and architectural design. Titus, Webster and Meeker Court buildings in Kent Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District page 31 3725GOL4 ooavw�-Draft for Review illustrate this technique. d. Symmetric Balance. This concept builds a planning composition from numerous similar or complementary forms. The composition should reflect local context, site conditions, or building function. e. Consistency of Detailing. Incorporating harmonious and proportional ornamentation, fascia, columns, or other distinctive detailing helps to lend scale and character. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9735GOL400c-2/1M- Draft for Review Page 32 B. Human Scale and Pedestrian Orientation INTENT: ■ To encourage buildings that are"comfortable"by relating building elements to human scale. GUIDELINES: IV.B(1) Incorporate human-scale building elements. All new buildings and major exterior remodels must employ at least two of the following elements or techniques toward achieving a"human scale" (see definition). If a proposed building is 3 stories in height,or more than 100 feet wide as measured along any facade facing a street and visible from that street,then building shall use at least three of the listed elements. a. Balconies or decks in upper stories, at least one balcony or deck per upper floor on the facades facing streets -balconies are encouraged to be at least 6 feet deep and 10 feet wide. b. Bay windows that extend out from the building face (See definition of Bay Window in Definitions). c. At least 150 SF of pedestrian-oriented space d. Individual windows, generally less than 32 square feet per pane and separated from other windows by at least a 6-inch molding. e. Gable or hipped roof,providing that the hipped or gable roof covers at least one half of the building's footprint and has a slope greater or equal to 3 feet vertical in 12 feet horizontal. f. A porch or covered entry g. Spatially defining building elements that define an occupiable space such as a trellis, overhang, canopy or other. h. Upper story setbacks,providing one or more of the upper stories are set back from the face of the building at least 6 feet. i. Composing smaller building elements near the entry or pedestrian-oriented street fronts of large buildings as in the example in Figure IV.A(1)a. j. Other design methods proposed by project applicant. The City may consider other methods to provide human scaled elements not specifically listed here. The proposed methods must satisfy the intent of the design principles. The City's decision as to whether the proposal is approved will be final. All proposals for achieving human scale are subject to approval by the City. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9735coL4 oac-2/12m- Draft for Review Page 33 ores or ndow b Building mounted Entries with direct wi window for plantings Gabled roof forms facade lights pedestrian access from ._ encouraged encouraged sidewalk mandatory. / Inset entry courtyards Deck terraces, i and other forms or encouraged _ __ _-- building articulation are encouraged._ Figure 21. Examples of building elements that help to add human scale. ®M MEM ri I EM ! _1 J ----- ` i I Figure 22. This is a mixed-use buik&g with pea4estrian-oriented retail on the first floor and apartment units on the second floor. A tower element anchors the comer of Gowe Street and Central Avenue. Note how the tower element reduces the apparent horizontal length of the building fagade and the pattern of windows and columns adds a rhythm and refinement to the fagade. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District page 34 a7ascou ooavfus9-Draft for Review C. Architectural Scale INTENT: ■ To encourage new development to be compatible with downtown Kent's architectural size and character. GUIDELINES: IV.C(1) Reduce scale of large buildings. To achieve an architectural scale consistent with other structures in downtown Kent all new buildings over three stories,or over 10,000 SF in gross building footprint,must provide at least two or more of the following features along their facades visible from public ROW and pedestrian routes and entries. a. Upper story setback. To qualify for this option,upper stories must have a setback from the ground floor of at least 10 feet from the face of the second floor facing the public ROW. b. Horizontal Building Modulation- "Horizontal Building modulation" is the stepping back or projecting forward of portions of a building facade within the specified intervals of a building width and depth as a means of lessening the apparent bulk of a structure's continuous exterior wall. Buildings may satisfy the regulation for ., architectural scale if all building facades within 400 feet of a public right of way or park, and/or visible from that right of way or park,conform to the following standards: • The maximum width(as measured horizontally along the buildings exterior) without building modulation shall be 100 feet. • The minimum depth of modulation shall be 6 feet • Roof decks or balconies may be used as all or part of the building modulation if each individual balcony has a floor area of 100 square feet. c. Modulated roof line -Buildings may satisfy the regulation by modulating the roof line of all facades visible from a public ROW or park according to the following standards: • For flat roofs or facades with a horizontal eave, fascia or parapet,change the roofline so that no unmodulated segment of roof exceeds 100 feet, measured horizontally. • Gable, hipped or shed roofs with a slope of at least 3 feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal qualify for this option. • Other roof forms such as arched,vaulted, dormer or saw-toothed may satisfy this regulation if the individual segments of the roof without a change in slope or discontinuity are less than 100 feet in width. d. Building "articulation"with design elements such as the following, so long as the interval does not exceed 100 feet. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District page 35 e»scoL<ooc-v1�- Draft for Review • Repeating distinctive window patterns at intervals equal to the articulation interval. • Providing a porch, patio, deck, or covered entry for each interval. • Providing a balcony or bay window for each interval. • Changing the roofline by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables,or other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval. • Changing materials or colors with a change in building plane. • Providing a lighting fixture, trellis, tree or other landscape feature within each interval. e. Clustering smaller uses and activities around entrances on street-facing facades. f. Massing of substantial landscaping and/or pedestrian-oriented open spaces along the building facade. g. Other design methods or modulation schemes proposed by project applicant. The City may consider other methods to provide architectural scaled elements not specifically listed in a f above. The proposed methods must satisfy the intent of the design principles listed in the Downtown Action Plan. Scale reduction can be accomplished by a combination of methods. Buildings not facing public rights-of-way and/or pedestrian routes do not require scale reduction. Note that the City may increase the 100-foot interval for modulation and articulation to better match surrounding structures. All proposals for achieving architectural scale are subject to approval by the �~ City. i i A i ail IL I Figure 23. The rooffine, windows, and details of this building are coordinated to provide a rhythmic breakup of an otherwise horizontal budding. Note how the awnings and lights provide human scale while their repetition relates to the building massing. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines-Central Avenue District page 36 9T3=L4.00c•2JI2M- Draft for Review D. Building Details and Elements INTENT: ■ To increase the attractiveness of buildings close by. When buildings are seen from a distance,the most noticeable qualities are the overall form and color. If we take a three-story commercial building that is 100 feet wide and 35 feet tall then we must be at least 200 feet away from the building for it to fit within our cone of vision so that we can perceive its overall shape. At that distance, windows, doors and other major features are clearly visible. However,as we approach the building to within 60 to 80 feet from the building(approximately the distance of a pedestrian or driver to a Central Avenue business) we notice not so much the building's overall form as its individual elements. When we are even closer,the most important aspects of a building are its design details,texture of materials, quality of its finishes and small, decorative elements. In a pedestrian-oriented business area, it is essential that buildings and their contents be attractive up close. Therefore, these guidelines include principles and regulations that require all buildings to incorporate design details and small-scale elements into their facades. GUIDELINES: IV.D(1) Enhance buildings with appropriate details. All new buildings shall include at least three of the following elements on the facades that face a public street or park. (Note: The term"decorative"does not necessarily mean that the element must be ornate or feature applied decoration. A"decorative"element may be quite simple if it is suitably scaled and related to the building's concept.) a. Articulated or Decorated Rooftes: such as an ornamental molding,entablature, frieze or other roofline device visible from the ground level. If the roofline decoration is in the form of a linear molding or board,then the band must be at least 8" wide. (See Section N.A.) b. Decorative Treatment of Windows and Doors: such as a decorative molding (e.g., a typical wooden style molding found on pre-WW II buildings) or framing details around all ground floor windows and doors located on facades facing or adjacent to public streets or parks or decorative glazing or door designs. c. Decorative Railings, Grillwork or Landscape Guards. d. Landscape trellises. e. Decorative Light Fixtures with a diffuse visible light source such as a globe or "acorn" that is not glaring or a decorative shade or mounting. f. Decorative Building Materials, including the following: �--' • Decorative masonry, shingle brick or stone; Individualized patterns or continuous wood details such as fancy butt singles in Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9735GOL4 DOC•7Jtvs9- Draft for Review Page 37 a geometric pattern, decorative moldings, brackets, wave trim or lattice work, ceramic tile, stone, glass block,carrem glass, or similar materials. • Other materials with decorative or textural qualities as approved by the City. The applicant must submit architectural drawings and material samples for approval. g. Decorative Paving or Artwork:. The artwork may be freestanding or attached to the building,and may be in the form of mosaic mural,bas-relief sculpture, light sculpture,water sculpture, fountain, free standing sculpture, art in pavement or other similar art work. Painted advertising sign murals or graphics on signs or awnings do not qualify as a method to satisfy IV.D(1)requirements. All artwork used to satisfy this condition is subject to approval by the City. h. Other similar features or treatment approved by the City. All proposed methods for satisfying this guideline are subject to City approval IV.D(2) Design Elements for Espresso Stands and Street Vendors The design of the stand or cart and the materials used are subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. The stand or cart must be constructed of good quality, permanent materials. Tarps,bare plywood,cardboard, plastic sheeting,corrugated fiberglass or other similar materials are not permitted. The design,materials, and colors must be compatible with the proposed location. Awning quality must be the same as required for permanent buildings in section II.D.1:-%' of the design guidelines. The stand or cart must be adequate in size for storage,trash containers, and other facilities. No outside storage is permitted. Wiring and plumbing must be hidden from view. One sign, maximum area, four square feet,two sided,is permitted. Menus and price lists not over two square feet in area are not signs for the purpose of this guideline Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District page 38 973=L4 oaa7J,2M9-Draft for Review E. Materials and Colors INTENT: ■ To encourage the use of high-quality compatible materials that upgrade the visual qualities of downtown Kent. GUIDELINES: IV.E(1) Retain existing facades. Use of metal siding,metal screening,plastic, plywood, sheet wood products or fiberglass to cover over existing facades is discouraged. Wood should not be used to cover over existing brick or cast stone masonry. IV.E(2) Use compatible building materials. If metal siding is used as a siding material over more than 25%of a building's facade, the metal siding must have a matted finish in a neutral,muted or earth tone such as buff, gray,beige,tan, cream,white. Or it may have a dulled color such as barn-red,blue-gray, burgundy or ocher. If metal siding is used over 25%of the building facade,then the building design must include the following elements: • Visible window and door trim painted or finished in a complimentary color. • Corner and edge trim that cover exposed edges of the sheet metal panels. ` Exception: Where the City determines that specially treated metal siding is used as an accent material to achieve special architectural character,the City may approve metal siding as a material even though it does not meet the above specifications. If concrete blocks (concrete masonry units or"cinder blocks") are used for walls that are visible from a public street or park,then the concrete block construction must be architecturally treated in one or more of following ways: • Use of textured blocks with surfaces such as split face or grooved. • Use of colored mortar. • Use of other masonry types such as brick, glass block or tile in conjunction with concrete blocks. The following materials are prohibited in visible locations unless the City grants an exception. • Mirrored glass. • Corrugated fiberglass. • Chain link fencing (except for temporary purposes such as a construction site), barbed wire or razor wire. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9735GOL4 OOC-2/1 Z'%- Draft for Review Page 39 F. Blank Walls �rt INTENT: ■ To reduce the visual impact of large, plain walls. ■ To reduce the apparent size of large walls through the use of various architectural and landscaping treatments. GUIDELINES: IV.F(1) Treat all blank walls (as defined in Definitions)within 50 feet of the street ROW, park or adjacent lot and visible from that street, park or adjacent lot in one or more of the following ways: a. Installing a vertical trellis in front of the wall with climbing vines or plant materials. b. Providing a landscaped planting bed at least 5 feet wide or raised planter bed at least 2 feet high and 3 feet wide in front of the wall or berm,and planting with plant materials that obscure or screen at least 501/6 of the wall's surface within 3 years. e. Providing artwork(mosaic, mural,sculpture, relief, etc.) over at least 50% of the blank wall surface. c. Other methods as approved by the City. All of the proposed methods are subject to City approval. The applicant must submit architectural plans and elevations showing proposed treatments for approval. The City may waive blank wall treatment where the requirements conflict with the fire code regulations. L boo* Figure 24. Blank walls can be softened and given relief, interest and human scale in several ways Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 3735coL4 oaa2/12/s9- Draft for Review Page 40 G. Mechanical Equipment and Service Areas INTENT: ■ To prevent unsightly intrusions in highly visible corridors GUIDELINES: IV.G(1) Locate and/or screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment so that it blends with the architecture of the building and is not visible from the street or adjacent properties. IV.G(2) Whenever feasible, locate and/or screen utility meters, electrical conduit, and other public and private utilities apparatus so as not to be visible from the street. Figure 25. Mechanical equipment and service areas should be screened from view. Kent Downtown Design Guidefines—Central Avenue District page 41 9735GO: 70a I /9 -Draft for Review V. Landscape and Site Design A. Landscape Concept INTENT: ■ To encourage landscape design that will enhance the pedestrian environment and compliment building and site design. ■ To define plant species that are of low maintenance, resistant to drought and otherwise appropriate for conditions within the business district. GUIDELINES V.A(1) Develop a site landscape design concept that enhances pedestrian routes, building qualities, and site functions. The project plan must include a landscape design concept that enhances pedestrian routes, building qualities, and site functions. The landscaping concept should be suitable and fitting with the bustling,active character of the Central Avenue corridor and integrate with and enhance the surrounding neighborhood landscape character. At a minimum,the landscape concept must include the following elements: a. A unified pedestrian circulation system with amenities and plantings. b. A coordinated system of open spaces and/or planted areas that provide the required pedestrian areas. The plan shall indicate how the various spaces and plantings relate to achieve the project's site design objectives of continuity, variety, activity, etc. c. Plantings and/or site features that enhance the buildings' architectural qualities. Plantings should be in scale with the building at plant maturity and should enhance the building modulation and entries. In addition, the concept should consider the following landscape design objectives where appropriate: a. Where feasible, coordinate selection of plant material to provide a succession of blooms, seasonal color and a variety of textures. b. Provide a transition in landscaping design between adjacent sites, within a site and from native vegetation areas in order to achieve greater continuity. c. Design landscaping to create definition between public and private (residential) spaces. d. Design landscaping to provide a transition between built structures (vertical planes) and the site(horizontal planes). e. Use plantings to highlight significant site features and to define the function of the , site, including parking, circulation, entries and open space. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 37sscou ooC.Zf12�- Draft for Review Page 42 Figure 26. Examples of different landscape concepts. r i • i I • I • I 1 1 }� I • • iT I I 1 ! 1 l i i I Axial symmetry along a path Informal landscape island to to enhance a building entry soften open space s Arched walkway below Bosc of trees to separate Formal landscape elements parking or service yard from to deflue pedestrian routes building and reinforce building geometry Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District page 43 B735GOL4 ooc-2112M- Draft for Review B. Preferred Plant Materials INTENT: ■ To encourage the use of hardy, attractive,easily maintained plant material. ■ To provide visual continuity by using plant materials from a specified plant list of a limited number of varieties and species. ■ To encourage the use of trees and shrubs as an important unifying element within the business district to strengthen the image and continuity of the streetscape. For this reason, the plant material selection list has been purposely restricted to a few species. GUIDELINES: V.B(1) Coordinate street trees and plantings along the Central Avenue frontage to unify the roadway image. V.B(2) Select plant materials from the City's list of trees and shrubs to satisfy landscape requirements and provide visual continuity along the roadway. The following is a list of plant materials that are approved for use in the Central Avenue Corridor District. Proponents may use other plant materials approved by the City. Hardy perennial and annual flowers are encouraged to add color to the landscape. (Note: See City of Kent Street Tree Program, 1994] STREET TREEs Small trees for planting under power lines Newport flowering plum Prunus cerasifera "Newport" Chanticlear Flowering Pear Pyrus calleryana "Clwidelear" Large trees for infill or replacement of existing trees Sweet Gum is the predominant street tree within the downtown study area. Sweet Gum trees are too large to plant under utility lines and have aggressive root systems,as evidenced within the downtown area. Sweet Gum trees can, however,make good street trees if given adequate room to grow. In areas where existing Sweet Gum trees line a street and overhead utility or pavement damage is not a concern,then Sweet Gum trees should be considered. STREET FRONTAGE Evergreen shrubs(24 feet in height) Darwin Barberry Berberis darwinii Winged Eunonymus Eunonymua alata "compacta" Oregon Grape Mahonia aquafolium "compacta" Otto Luyken Laurel Prunus i. Otto Luykens Japanese Holly"Convexa" Illez crerwa "Comes" Larusfinus"Spring Bouquet" Viburnum tins "Spring Bouquet" Evergreen Enonymus"Sarcoxie" Enonymus fortunei radicans "Sarcoxie" Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District g»scoL..00c•vv, "- Draft for Review Page 44 GROUND COVER `�-✓ Lawn Kinnikinnik Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Cotoneaster Lowfast Cotoneaster "Lowfast" Common Winter Creeper Euonymus fortunei radicans Creeping Mahonia Mahonia repens Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 3rnsGoLs ooc-v+am- Draft for Review Page 45 C. Parking Lot Landscaping INTENT: ■ To develop a positive image for the district ■ To reduce the summertime heat and glare build-up within and adjacent to parking lots. • To improve the views of parking areas for shoppers and area residents. ■ To provide landscaped areas within parking areas in addition to landscape buffers around the perimeters of parking lots. GUIDELINES: V.C(1) Within the design review process,the applicant may submit an alternative landscaping plan to meet the surface parking area landscaping requirements of the Kent Zoning Code (Sections 15.05.0" and 15.07 (See KZC Section 15.07.070 R.). The alternative landscaping proposal must provide a better solution for one or more of the following items: a. Integrates interior surface parking and landscaping with required biofiltration swales or surface water detention ponds. b. Incorporates or protects natural features including wetlands, significant trees and vegetation, and slopes. c. Preserves distant views. d. Provides a significant pedestrian oriented-space such as a"pocket park"or amphitheater in excess of what is required under the KZC. e. Creates an extension or connection to a local park or a regional bicycle/pedestrian trail system. f. Provides for outstanding public art within pedestrian view. g. Provides outstanding enhancement and support for the City-designated gateway intersections h. Addresses the context of the site more effectively than could be done within the zoning code standards, and results in a superior plan. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District page 46 3735coL4.00c•2/121ss-Draft for Review Definitions Architectural Elements - As used in these guidelines, the term architectural elements refers to the elements that make up an architectural composition or the building form, and can include such features as the roof form, entries, an arcade, porch, columns, windows, doors and other openings. `Architectural elements' is used interchangeably with architectural features in these guidelines. Architectural Character- The architectural character of a building is that quality or qualities that make it distinctive and that are typically associated with its form and the arrangement of its architectural elements. For example a prominent design feature may convey the architectural character of a structure. Examples are a distinctive roofline, a turret or portico, an arcade, an elaborate entry, or an unusual pattern of windows and doors. Architectural Scale -The perceived height and bulk of a building relative to other forms in its context. Modulating facades and other treatments may reduce a building's apparent height and bulk. Balcony-A balcony is an outdoor space built as an above ground platform projecting from the wall of a building and enclosed by a parapet or railing. Bay Window-A bay window protrudes from the main exterior wall. Typically,the bay contains a surface that lies parallel to the exterior wall, and two surfaces that extend perpendicular or diagonally from the exterior wall. Blank Walls-Walls subject to "blank wall" requirements are any ground-level wall over six feet(6') in height measured from finished grade at the base of the wall,and longer than 50'measured horizontally, that does not have any significant building feature,such as a window, door, modulation or articulation, or other special wall treatment within that 50' section. Courtyard-A courtyard is an open space, usually landscaped, that is enclosed on at least three sides by a structure or structures. Curb Cut- A curb cut is a depression in the curb for a driveway to provide vehicular access between private property and the street. Deck- A deck is a roofless outdoor above-ground platform projecting from the wall of a building and supported by piers or columns. Design Details -Architectural or building design details refer to the minor building elements that contribute to the character or architectural style of the structure. Design details may include moldings, mullions, rooftop features, the style of the windows and doors, and other decorative features. Facade -A facade is any portion of an exterior elevation of a building extending from the ground level to the top of the parapet wall or eaves, for the entire width of the building elevation. A front facade is typically the facade facing the major public street(s). An entry facade is typically the facade with the primary public entry. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9735coL4OOC-2112199- Draft for Review Page 47 Foot-candle - A foot-candle is a unit used for measuring the amount of illumination on a surface. The amount of usable light from any given source is partially determined by the source's angle of incidence and the distance to the illuminated surface. Frontage -As used in these guidelines, frontage refers to length of a property line along a public street or right-of-way. Front Yard-As used in these guidelines, the front yard is the area between the street(s) and the nearest building facade. Human Scale -The size of a building element or space relative to the dimensions and proportions of the human body. Lumen-A lumen is a unit used for measuring the amount of light energy given off by a light source. Modulation-Modulation is a stepping back or projecting forward of portions of a building facade within specified intervals of building width and depth as a means of breaking up the apparent bulk of a structure's continuous exterior walls. As used in these guidelines,the modulated portions must be at least 4 feet deep in order to qualify as modulation. Pedestrian-Oriented Facades-"Pedestrian-oriented" facades are those that feature one or more of the following characteristics: 1. Transparent window area or window displays along at least half the length of the ground floor,_, facade. 2. Sculptural,mosaic or bas-relief artwork along at least half the length of the ground floor facade. 3. "Pedestrian-Oriented Space" -As defined below. 4. Other measures that meet the intent of the criteria, as approved in conjunction with overall design review approval. Pedestrian-Oriented Space -A pedestrian-oriented space is an area between a building and a public street that promotes visual and pedestrian access onto the site and that provides pedestrian-oriented amenities and landscaping to enhance the public's use of the space. Generally, effective "pedestrian- oriented spaces" have: • Visual and pedestrian access into the site from the public right-of-way, • Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving, • On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least 2 foot candles(avg.)on the ground. • Seating; at least 2' of seating area(bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 SF of plaza area or open space. • Landscaping that does not act as a visual barrier to views from the street or adjacent buildings. • Site furniture, artwork or amenities such as fountains, kiosks, etc. • Pedestrian weather protection or other enclosure, such as an arcade or gazebo. Generally, "pedestrian-oriented spaces" shall not have: Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 9775coL4 ooC-2/1299-Draft for Review Page 48 • Asphalt or gravel pavement. • Adjacent unscreened parking lots. Adjacent chain-link fences. • Adjacent "blank walls" without "blank wall treatment." Pedestrian-Oriented Streets—As defined in Figure 2. Service Areas- Service areas refer to areas, enclosed or open, that contain equipment and uses such as ground level mechanical equipment, utility vaults, loading zones, outdoor storage areas, and trash and recycling areas. Site Planning- Site planning is the arrangement of buildings, driveways, sidewalks, landscaping, parking,public open spaces, and other facilities on a specific site. Good site planning will result in a cohesive site design concept and take into consideration natural features,topography, drainage requirements, access points,the design of neighboring sites, and other features in the immediate vicinity of the site. Streetscape -The streetscape is the visual character and quality of a street as determined by various elements located between the edge of the street and the building face, such as trees and other landscaping, street furniture, artwork,transit stops, utility fixtures and equipment, and paving. Where there are frequent and wide spaces between buildings,the streetscape will be defined by the pattern of building and open space and the character of that open space. Kent Downtown Design Guidelines—Central Avenue District 97:5co14 ooc-211Z%-Draft for Review Page 49 CITY OF IMIMI 77 Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 859-3390!FAX i25'1 8)0 :tia q James P. Harris, Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearin: 1�'ebruary 1-1 1 )+1+.) The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Ron Harmon at 7:00 p.m. on Monday. February low) it, Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT lanes 1' Harris, Planning Director Ron Harmon, Chair 1-red Satterstrom, Planning Manager Tem, Zimmerman, Vice Chair f-,,-/ich, Vssistant City Attorney Brad Bell [Iarnciti \Iottram, Admintstrative Secretary Steve Dowell Jon Johnson David Malik Sharon Woodford APPROVAL OF MINUTES Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Dag id \Iah1 S1 1't) ]1)h 1 ) :1 motion to approve the minutes of January 26, 1999. Motion carrier. ADDED ITEMS TO THE. AGEND:k None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None ZCA-99-1 CENTRAL. AVENUE DESIGN GUIDELINES AMENDMENT p ;1 Satterstrom stated that. this Plannrn<> �1ana�er, Fred Satterstrom re rc5en?cd l:inda Phillips, y1r. board has had some familiarity with the Cerrtrai Avenue Desigr: (.guidelines in terms of having held a couple of workshops. The rationale for having the Central Avenue Guidelines came from the downtown strategic action plan adopted by the Council one year ago. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 2 `~ Mr. Satterstrom stated that the downtown strategic action plan proposed that specific guidelines be adopted for the development of all seven downtown districts. This is the first downtown district to undergo a study of urban design and this is the first study area to have proposed design guidelines. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the City intends to use the design guidelines as a prototype for future design phases in the downtown district and to use the guidelines as a collaborative effort between city staff and the developer. Mr. Satterstrom said that the portion of Central Avenue area under consideration is between James Street on the North, Willis Street on the south, south of Jason Avenue and one side of Gowe Street. He stated that the two zoning designations within this area are GC (General Commercial) applies to the area north of Smith Street between Smith and James and south of Gowe Street to Willis. Between Gowe and Smith Street the designation is DCE (Downtown Commercial Enterprise). Mr. Satterstrom stated that the GC zone is hospitable to vehicular oriented uses while the DCE zone is more pedestrian oriented by its intent. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the City of Kent's design review process was established in 1992 and is comprised of a committee of administrative officials, chaired by Jim Harris,Planning Director who oversees the downtown design review. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the downtown design review process was developed at the same time the (DCE)Downtown Commercial Enterprise zone was created. He stated that the(DC)Downtown Commercial zoning underwent revisions as the city moved away from development standards to the design process utilizing design guidelines in lieu of regulations. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the parameters of each site development went through a design review process and was adjudicated by the Downtown Design Committee. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the design review process has been successful. He stated that approximately twelve proposals have undergone design review. Mr. Satterstrom stated that City staff works collaboratively with developers to reach mutually agreeable design compromises. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the downtown design review has not been site specific in relation to proposed development, which has been problematic for Planning staff in coordinating design qualities for downtown. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Central Avenue Design Guidelines are designed to specify and promote the uniqueness of an area through the design review criteria for that area. Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff recommends approval of the Central Avenue Design Guidelines. He stated that the guidelines would be referenced in the zoning code as a design document applicable to Central Avenue if adopted by City Council. Mr. Satterstrom said that once the guidelines are adopted, development greater than $20,000. will be reviewed pursuant to the design guidelines. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Satterstrom stated that 195 public notices were mailed out along with a detailed summary of the proposed design guidelines. He stated that the Planning staff had a low return rate from the mailing. John Owen,Maker's stated that he was the City of Kent's consultant on this project. He stated that the guidelines are intended to augment the zoning ordinance and provide guidance specific to Central Avenue. He stated that staff recognizes Central Avenue as a thoroughfare with numerous automobile oriented businesses. Mr. Owen stated that methods to heighten the appearance of Central Avenue is being considered as well as ways that would attract further pedestrian oriented uses. Mr. Owen defined Central Avenue as a Class B street. He explained that a Class B Street does not mandate that businesses must face a street and allows for the inclusion of parking lots. Mr. Owen stated that stores located closer to streets provide better visibility for the business area and that some areas of Central Avenue could be enhanced with in-fill. Mr. Owen stated that the design guidelines address appropriate lighting as well as parking lot configurations that would provide adequate security and safety. Mr. Owen cited Seattle's University Place where sidewalk and parking design configurations with pedestrian-oriented street fronts have dramatically increased retail business in that area. Mr. Owen spoke at length on the design guideline aspects concerning architectural scale and quality. He stated that developers have transformed unattractive buildings with the use of Styrofoam panels as well as including window treatments and enhanced signage. Mr. Owen stated that the guidelines are designed to encourage property owners to ultimately improve their property with simple architecture and wise utilization of their sites that will increase retail business. The guidelines will establish a historical character and style for the community. Mr. Owen stated that the guidelines strive to improve the overall appearance and quality of Central Avenue with the incorporation of design features to hide unsightly storage and service areas and mechanical equipment on buildings. Mr. Owen elaborated upon the features of the design guidelines relating to pedestrian-oriented storefronts and the use of pedestrian weather protection. Board member, Steve Dowell voiced concern over the use of the word"must"within the context of the sentence on page 1 indicating that"Many of the guidelines set requirements and standards that must be met.... .. Mr. Dowell stated that the use of this word is dictatorial, making this document a set of rules instead of guidelines. Mr. Owen stated that many of the design guidelines are governed by the zoning code required by ordinance. Mr. Dowell stated that on Page 2 of the design guidelines it states that"the guidelines are intended to revise and supplement the design standards in the City of Kent zoning ordinance. Some of the guidelines state that the City may relax or modify zoning ordinance standards if, in the City's determination, the guidelines are met." Mr. Dowell asked Mr. Owen to clarify if the City has the option to modify the zoning ordinance standards if they meet guidelines. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Owen concurred that the City hal the option to modify the zoning she met the intent of the guidelines.ance standards specifically if the applicant can show that he or Planning Director, James Harris stated that Kent's Zoning Code envisions allowing the Planning Director to modify design review plans pertaining to off-street parking and landscaping. He stated that incorporation of this stipulation in the design guidelines would allow for development flexibility and not place developers in situations that could lead to variance requests. Mr. Owen responded to Mr. Dowell's request by stating that a street wall is defined as a building facade facing the street. Mr. Owen stated that Central Avenue is a Class B street which does not require a full street wall as expected on a Class A street such as Meeker. Mr. Owen stated that parking and setbacks could be expected in certain areas along Central Avenue although by having buildings face the street in close proximity to the street right-of-way gives a sense of enclosure to the street creating pedestrian ambiance and character. Mr. Satterstrom stated that some streets within the Central Avenue design guideline areas are non- classified streets whereas the expectations for a Class A or B Street would not apply. Mr. Satterstrom stated that street walls are here Class B Srtreets may have a 40 ent regulations but jolto1ines 60%as ss A wallstreets will have breaks m the buildings Mr. Satterstrom stated that the frontage along Kent Junior High is a Class B Street and zoned DCE with GC zoning across the street. He stated that existing developments along Central Avenue closely correlates to a Class A Street, particularly on the West Side. Mr. Dowell asked if a building could be constructed on more than 50% of the property. Mr. Satterstrom concurred with Mr. Dowell and stated that when a development is proposed, the expectation would be for 50% development of the property. Board member Terry Zimmerman voiced otal Avenue once the design guidelines are theher concern additional on development that may be currently proposed on Central adopted. Mr. Owen stated that the results of studies conducted to look at cost overages indicated an approximate one half percent increase in cost to the developer for project add-ons. Board member Sharon Woodford questioned the discrepancies noted regarding upper story setbacks on page 33 and 35 of the guidelines. Mr. Owen stated that this exemplifies that setbacks are not specific requirements but options. Ms. Woodford asked Mr. Owen if setbacks depend on whether development is pedestrian oriented or architecturally oriented. Mr. Owen concurred with Ms. Woodford. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 5 Board.Member Brad Bell voiced concern that adoption of the design guidelines would create a nonconforming status for existing structures and Mr. Satterstrom stated that this would not occur. Mr. Bell asked if the expansion of sidewalks would increase public right-of-way and if property owners would be compensated for the additional sidewalk dedicated for the public right-of-way? Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff is proposing 12-foot pedestrian sidewalks for Central Avenue due to the high volume of through traffic with a minimum of 10-foot sidewalks. He stated that staff had theorized that the city would not pay for the additional property required for the public right-of-way but would require that buildings set back further with a paved area along the front of the property in addition to the existing sidewalk width. Mr. Satterstrom stated that it was staffs belief that benefits would accrue to the businesses along the Central Avenue corridor if the property owner were to provide the additional distance between the edge of the sidewalk and the actual building line. Mr. Harris stated that the property owner would be responsible for maintaining their property between the sidewalk and the building line for removal of ice, sleet and snow. Mr. Bell stated that many of the lot sizes in the Central Street area are small and an increase in six to eight feet in the sidewalk could prevent development of those parcels. Mr. Satterstrom stated remodeling of existing developments in this area would not necessitate setting a building back and the sidewalks would remain at its present width. He stated that a wider sidewalk configuration pertains to new development on vacant parcels. Mr. Dowell referred to a chapter on page 5 of the guidelines that used the term "required" in dictating where supermarkets and multi-department businesses must locate sections of their businesses. Mr. Dowell voiced concern that using this terminology seemed authoritarian and took flexibility away from the design guidelines. Mr. Owen concurred with Mr. Dowell and suggested using the term "encourage" in place of"required". Mr. Harris concurred that "encourage" is in keeping with staff s desire-to accommodate both the city and the developer. Mr. Dowell noted scrivener errors on page 11 of the design guidelines. Mr. Harris assured Mr. Dowell that scrivener errors throughout the design guideline document would be corrected. Mr. Dowell voiced his opposition that dictated the use of specific shades or colors on buildings as indicated on page 39 of the guidelines. Mr. Owen stated that the reason color samples are given is so the city will not end up with buildings painted in bold or high vibrancy colors. Mr. Dowell stated that the"use of colored mortar"with concrete blocks should be changed to reflect"use of colored mortar with colored blocks". Mr. Dowell noted that the use of metal siding was discouraged as a covering for existing facades and '.✓ asked Mr. Owen what alternatives were available. Mr. Owen stated that materials used to cover existing facades is less durable than maintaining the original facades made of brick or masonry Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 6 materials. Mr. Owen suggested rephrasing the guideline title IV.E (1) from "Retain existing facades"to"Restore existing facades". Chair Ron Hannon voiced concern that he did not see provisions in the guidelines for a free walk cycle on Central Avenue as it is the city's intent to facilitate traffic movement as well as provide for safe and efficient pedestrian walkways. Ron Harmon suggested implementation of a longer walk cycle. Mr. Dowell stated that future development needs to ensure that buildings are not placed next to streets with solid walls. He stated that buildings need to incorporate pedestrian oriented features such as windows and entranceways. Mr. Owen stated that this issue is of paramount importance and is addressed on page 24, 33 and 40 of the guidelines. Mr. Dowell stated that page 24, Section II.D (2) c. should be changed from"pedes#rian oriented space" to read "retail-oriented space". Steve Dowell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to open the Public Hearing. Motion Carried. Linda Johnson,Executive Director,Kent Downtown Partnership, 16605 SE 264th, Kent,WA stated that her design committee has worked with John Owen and Fred Satterstrom. She stated that Central Avenue is a good starting point for implementation of design review guidelines as many new residents to Kent believe Central Avenue to be downtown Kent. Ms. Johnson stated that she has gone through the design review process for the Kent Downtown Market Place and that the guidelines allowed for flexibility in development and has not added to the cost of the project. She stated that she was in favor of incorporating color standards. Ms. Johnson stated that the design committee and Kent Downtown Partnership supports adoption of the design guideline and hopes that Central Avenue will begin to experience in-fill. Hugh Lieper, 815 Rieten Road, Kent,WA stated that he is a commercial real estate consultant. Mr. Leiper stated that Mr. Benaroya built Boeing's first space center. He stated that Mr. Benaroya developed a first class million square foot facility setting the tone for future development in the Kent Valley. Mr. Lieper suggested that the city form an architectural committee made up of highly qualified architects with expertise in design review. He stated that Central Avenue's design guideline development should serve as an example for upcoming development. Mr. Lieper stated that Central Avenue is a busy arterial that supports daily traffic flow of 30,000 automobiles. He stated that when the 277th Street corridor is complete, northbound traffic would increase substantially on Central Avenue. Mr. Lieper stated that future development along this corridor needs to be attractive and accessible to both pedestrians and motorists. Tom Lobb,304 Scenic Way, Kent, WA said that he has resided for 12 years a half block east of Central Avenue on Titus Street. He voiced concern with a landscaping project at the northeast corner of Central and Titus. Mr. Lobb questioned the rationale for additional landscaping when existing landscaping was adequate. He said that the landscaping included the use of water intensive Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 7 plantings without an irrigation system in place to adequately maintain the area. Mr. Lobb stated that it is not cost effective for the city to conduct a landscaping project of this scale. He stated that this type of landscaping should not be allowed within the provisions of the design guidelines. Mr. Lobb stated that over the years, he has witnessed deaths on Central Avenue as a result of automobile collisions and pedestrians crossing Central Avenue. He said that it is unconscionable that the design guidelines do not include provisions for a pedestrian underpass or overpass for Central Avenue. Mr. Lobb stated that residents east of Central Avenue need to have a safe pedestrian crossing available in order to use alternate forms of transportation such as the train or bus. Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Ms. Zimmerman asked Fred Satterstrom how the City of Kent intends to partner with property owners to improve Central Avenue. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the city is designing and implementing the Gateway Projects at Meeker and Central, and at Smith and Central. These projects will include unique and special landscaping, signing and gateway treatments intended to impart special qualities to enhance the pedestrian crossings. . Mr. Satterstrom stated that over$600,000 have been set aside over the next five years for the gateway projects which will include pedestrian crossing improvements. Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff would look at various features which could be implemented to improve pedestrian crossings such as the use of better lighting, longer walk cycles and different paving materials. He stated that separate grades or elevated crossings would not be considered. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the cost to construct these type of crossings are exorbitant,particularly since they require ramping for ADA accessibility as well as large areas of land for development Mr. Satterstrom stated that a study is underway to determine where economic development opportunities exist within a thousand-foot radius of the commuter rail station. He stated that staff would look at improving pedestrian connections between and across the streets located within that radius. Jim Harris stated that the gateways are funded but may not be built until 2000. Mr. Satterstrom stated that citizens interested in involvement with the Gateway process should contact Linda Phillips at 859-3390. Brad Bell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of #ZCA-99-1 Central Avenue Design Guidelines with the following amendments: • Page 5, Section I.B (1) Paragraph h: the addition of the phrase "it is recommended that" supermarkets and similar multi-department businesses...and replacing the word "requ " with "be encouraged"to place these sections next to.... • Page 24, Section II.D (2): Add the term"retail-oriented' in the following areas; Change the Land Use and Planning Board Minutes February 22, 1999 Page 8 Subsection title"Provide pedestrian friendly building facades"to read "Provide pedestrian friendly retail oriented building facades", Delete "pedegl4wn fi4em r" in the first paragraph to read "retail oriented" street front facades, rephrase the terminology where indicated from "Pedestrian-oriented space"to read "Retail-oriented pedestrian space"in sentence"c.". • Page 39, Section IV.E (2): Soften the specific colors and shades used but delete the "and "burn ,-mat references to specific colors " , • Page 39, Section IV.E (2): Change the "Use of Colored Mortar" to read"Use of Colored Mortar with Colored Blocks". Motion Carved. Board member Jon Johnson stated that he favors implementing design guidelines for Central Avenue and approves of the amendments. He shared his concern about the need for safe pedestrian crossings. Mr. Malik concurred with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dowell. Sharon Woodford and Terry Zimmerman voiced their support for the inclusion of color guidelines. Ms. Zimmerman stated that the colors described in the guidelines seem to be schematic colors that coordinate well with other City of Kent efforts currently under way. ADJOURNMENT Steve Dowell MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. IS pe fully Submitte e . arris etary Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6 . 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: GROUP HOMES REGULATIONS AMENDMENT ZCA-99-3 2 . SUba ARY STATEMENT: The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on March 22 , 1999 regarding the proposed Group Home Regulations Zoning Code amendment and recommends approval of the proposed amendment . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo and Land Use and Planning Board minutes of 2/22/99 4 . RECOMNDED 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/me the Land Use and Planning Board' s recom- mendation of approval of the Group Home Regulations Zoning Code amendment and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION: / V ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7B CITY OF Jim White, Mayor �J► C'TA Planning Department (253) 859-3390/Fax (253) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 STAFF REPORT MARCH 22, 1999 MEMO TO: RON HARMON, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #ZCA-99-3—GROUP HOME REGULATIONS INTRODUCTION In January, 1991, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2958, which amended the zoning code with regard to the siting of group homes. The ordinance was the culmination of a process that began in 1989, when Mayor Dan Kelleher appointed a committee to review the siting of group homes in the city. This committee was appointed to look at the zoning code in light of amendments that were made to the Federal Fair Housing Act in 1988 by Congress. These amendments prevent discrimination with regard to housing opportunities on the basis of handicapped or familial status. This memorandum will outline the current status of the City's group homes regulations and propose minor amendments to these regulations. The Land Use and Planning Board discussed this issue in workshop on March 8, 1999. BACKGROUND The ordinance adopted in 1991 revised the definition of"family", created definitions of"group homes", and amended Chapter 15.04 of the code with regard to the siting of group homes and how they were to be allowed in the various zoning districts. These amendments will be summarized below. DEFINITIONS With regard to the definitions, the ordinance outlined the following definition for the term "family": Family: Family means one (1) or more individuals related by blood or legal familial relationship, or a group of not more than six (6)persons who need not be related by blood or a legal familial relationship, living together in a dwelling unit as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit, excluding class II and III group homes as defined in section 15.02.173. (Section 15.02.135, Kent zoning code) The term "family" is an important term to define, since it is referenced in the definition of single-family and multi-family dwelling unit. With regard to group homes, the ordinance established three classifications of group homes. Class I group homes were defined as follows: 2304111 AVENUE SOUTH / KEN-r.NVASHINGTON 9s032-5sgi • ZCA-99-3 Group Home Regulations March 22, 1999 Page 2 Group Home: Class I group home. Class 1 group home means publicly or privately operated residential facilities such as state-licensed foster homes and group homes for children; group homes for individuals who are developmentally, physically or mentally disabled; group homes or ha�Way houses for recovering alcoholics and former drug addicts; and other groups not considered within class II or III group homes. 1. Group home, class I-A. A class I-A group home shall have a maximum of seven (7) residents including residential staff. 2. Group home, class I-B. A class I-B group home shall have a maximum of ten (10) residents including resident staff. 3. Group home, class I-C. The number of residents for a class I-C group home will be based upon the density of the underlying zoning district. (Section 15.02.173, Kent zoning code) Class I group homes tend to be fairly small in scale, and often seek to locate in single-family residential units. The various types of Class I group homes are typically regulated by various sections of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) by the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). These regulatory provisions include adult family homes (RCW 70.128), care of children, expectant mothers, and developmentally disabled (RCW 74.15), ' facilities for mentally handicapped (RCW 71.24), and boarding homes (RCW 18.20). Section 15.02.173 also provides definitions of Class II and Class III group homes, which are referenced in the definition of "family". Class II and III group homes are facilities for juveniles and adults, respectively, under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. These definitions are outlined below: Class II group home. Class II group home means publicly or privately operated residential facilities for juveniles under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. These homes include state-licensed group care homes or ha�ay homes or juveniles which provide residence in lieu of sentencing or incarceration, and halfway houses providing residence to juveniles needing correction or for juveniles selected to participate in state-operated work release and pre-release programs. The planning director shall have the discretion to classify a group home proposing to serve juveniles convicted of the offences listed under class III group home in this section as a group home class III, and any such home shall be sited according to the regulations contained within the group III classification. 1. Group home, class II-A. A class I-A group home shall have a maximum of eight (8) residents including resident staff. 2. Group home, class H-B. A class I-B group home shall have a maximum of twelve (12) residents including resident staff. 3. Group home, class II-C. A class II-C group home shall have a maximum of eighteen (18) residents including resident staff. Class III group home. Class III group home means privately or publicly operated residential facilities for adults under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system who have entered a pre-or post-charging diversion program, or been selected to participate in state-operated work/training release or other similar programs. Such groups also involve individuals who have been convicted of a violent crime against a person or a crime against property with a sexual motivation and convicted or charged as a sexual or assaultive violent predator. There are several Class I group homes located in the City of Kent. Most of these are either adult family homes or foster homes that primarily serve children. At this time, no licensed Class II or III group homes are located within the City of Kent. ZCA-99-3 Group Home Regulations March 22, 1999 Page 3 USE REGULATIONS: As mentioned, the ordinance also established where various classes of group homes would be permitted in the city. Generally, Class I group homes are allowed in residential zoning districts as a principally permitted or conditional use, while Class II and III group homes are only allowed by conditional use permit in multifamily districts.. Furthermore, Class III group homes are not allowed in any residential zoning district. The attached Section 15.04.020 of the zoning code shows how group homes are permitted in the various zoning districts in the city. NEED FOR POSSIBLE AMENDMENT The City's group homes regulations have functioned fairly well since they were adopted. Staff from the City's Office of Housing and Human Services has reported that in working with providers of group homes and DSHS that the regulations are fairly straight-forward and clear. However, in 1995 the United States Supreme Court considered a case in which a group home (Oxford House) was not permitted by the City of Edmonds, Washington with regard to placement of their facility in a single-family residential zone (U.S. Supreme Court, City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., et al., 115 S. Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801). The City of Edmonds would not allow Oxford House because it had ten residents and the City's code prohibited more than five unrelated persons from occupying a dwelling unit in the applicable zone. The Court found in favor of Oxford House, and determined that cities must provide reasonable accommodations to disabled persons in single-family zoning districts. This case has provided a warning for cities all over the country to re-examine their regulations pertaining to the siting of group homes, particularly group homes located in single-family residential areas. With regard to the City's zoning code, we have examined the occupancy requirements as defined for a "family" and for various classifications of group homes. This is an issue which is particularly important to clarify for Class I group homes, which are allowed in single-family zoning districts. As outlined above, a "family" is defined in our code as up to six unrelated individuals. Group homes vary in size from seven occupants for a Class I-A group home to up to eighteen for a Class II-C group home. The City's group homes ordinance provided for different sizes and classifications of group homes, and regulates each differently, as outlined in the attached Section 15.04.020. Don Largen from McConnell/Burke has analyzed the City's regulations (see attached memorandum) and recommended that we amend our definition of group home to further distinguish it from the definition of family. The rationale for this is that the term "family" is used in context of defining what a dwelling unit is. For example, the definition of single-family dwelling in the zoning code is as follows: Dwelling, single-family: Single-family dwelling means a detached residential dwelling unit, other than a mobile home, designed for and occupied by one (])family (emphasis added). (Section 15.02.115, Kent zoning code). As stated earlier, a group home has its own definition and its own set of regulations pertaining to where they may be located and under what conditions. Therefore, from a use classification, group homes are distinct from dwelling units, and the proposed amendment would serve to help make this distinction clear, and thus potentially easier to administer. Another approach is to amend the definition of "family" to include a proviso regarding making reasonable accommodations relating to the Fair Housing Act, as outlined in the attached memo. Some jurisdictions in the area have taken this approach, including King County. Due to the fact that the city's definitions and regulations pertaining to group homes are fairly clear, however, such a proviso may not be necessary or advisable in our case. ZCA-99-3 Group Home Regulations March 22, 1999 Page 4 In addition to clarifying the definition of family, members of the Land Use and Planning Board also brought up a concern relating to the lack of an occupancy limit for Class III group homes. Class III group homes, which relate to facilities for adults under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, are regulated by the State of Washington Department of Corrections under Chapters 137-56 and 137-57, Washington Administrative Code. It may be advisable to reference these regulations in the City's definition for clarification purposes. RECOMMENDATION Planning Department staff recommends that the definition of"family" found in Section 15.02.135 of the zoning code be amended as follows: Family: Family means one (1) or more individuals related by blood or legal familial relationship, or a group of not more than six (6)persons who need not be related by blood or a legal familial relationship, living together in a dwelling unit as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit, excluding class L II and III group homes as defined in section 15.02.173. Staff also recommends that the definition of Class III group home found in Section 15.02.173 of the zoning code be amended as follows: Class III group home. Class III group home means privately or publicly operated residential facilities for adults under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system who have entered a pre-or post-charging diversion program, or been selected to participate in state-operated workltraining release or other similar programs, as provided in Chapters 137-56 and 137-57 WAC. Such groups also involve individuals who have been convicted of a violent crime against a person or a crime against property with a sexual motivation and convicted or charged as a sexual or assaultive violent predator. Staff from the Planning Department will be prepared to present this issue and answer question at the March 22 public hearing. If you have any questions prior to the hearing, please contact me at 850-4799. KON:pm grholubh.doc Attachments: Sec. 15.04.020 Residential Land Uses McConnell/Burke Consultants cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Laurie Evezich,Assistant City Attorney Don Largen,McConnell/Burke �c. 15.O4.020. Residential Land Uses. Zoning Districts 13 ally Permitted Uses d ■Condifla tal Uses 4■Accessory Uses N ga g' One sin9lrlandty dwelling per lot P P P P P P P P P I P P P P A(1) A(1) A(1) A(1) One duplexperlot P One modular home per lot P P P P P P P P P P P Ouplaitis P P P Aultlfamily dwellings P P P P P(4) P P P P C IM C(s) M m 113j .,Aullifamay dwellings for senior CitSuns P(?1 P P P(J) PM ,+Aobile homes and manufactured homes P Wobee home parks p P p P P (13) (13) (13) (13) ;coup homes loss I-A P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C C C P 3rol its loss LB P P P P P P P P C C C C P Grvu es loss bC C C P P P P P P C C C C P :;mup homes loss ILA C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class q 8 C C C C C C C C C C C C C ;rove homes lass tl C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class III C C C C C C C C C Rebuiidfaccessory uses for existing PM P(6) P(6) P(6) P(6) p(6) p(6) p(6) P(6) P(6) P(6) P(6) PM P(6)Ip(6) dwellings Transitional housing P(� P(� Guest cottages and houses A($) A(a) A(i) F I I �6) iiooming and boarding of not more than A A A A A A A A A H three personsI —P- 1 Farm worker accommodations A A(9) A A(9)(IT) ran Accessory uses and buddtngs A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A customarily appurtenant to a permitted (ta) use Accessory dwelling units A A A A A A A A A A A A A (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) (t0) (10) 00) (t0) (10) (101 100) (10) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Accessory living quarters (14) (141 (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (t4) (14) (14) (14) (11) (t4) Home occupations A A A A A A A A A A A 01) (11) (11) (11) (11) (U) (it) (11) (11) (11) (11) Service buildings A Storage buildings and storage of A. A A A A A A A A A A A recrvadonai vehicles (16) (16) (16) (16) (16) (16) (16) (16) (16) (16) (16) D churches;• welfare facilities: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C f churches, retirement homes, (12) convalescent homes and 'other welfare facilities whether privately or publicly operated, facilities for rehabilitation or correction,etc. 6 Planning and Hearing Excrniner Services McConnell/Burke, Incorporated 10604 N.E. 38th Place Suite 227 Kirkland. Washington 98033 (425) 827-6550 FAX: 889-0730 February 25, 1999 To: Kevin O'Neill From: Don Largen,Planning Consultant Subject: _qrotjp Homes As you requested we have reviewed the issue of group homes in the context of the City of Edmonds vs. Oxford House Supreme Court ruling as it may apply to your current code structure, particularly the relationships established in the definitions section of Title 15. The bottom line of the Supreme Court ruling is basically this: a definition of single family is intended to establish the nature of a use that is compatible with the intent of the underlying zoning district. It is not a legitimate means to place a numeric cap on the number of people that may occupy a dwelling. The reasoning is that within the 'family' definition there is no limit placed on the number of related persons that may occupy a dwelling. Therefore, by using the family definition as a means to limit the number of unrelated persons, this runs afoul of the Fair Housing Act mandate for jurisdictions to "...make reasonable accommodations to disabled persons in order to afford such persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling ...". In light of this we have reviewed your definitions of'family' and 'group homes' along with how group homes are addressed in the body of the zoning code. The short version of our conclusion is that we do not see a fatal flaw with your definitions or the code provisions. Our reasoning is as follows: • The definitions section of the code is quite specific in defining different categories of group homes (Class I, H, and III) based on the nature of the facility and the number of people who may reside in them. Taken together, the definitions cover the spectrum of"disabilities" anticipated within the Act. • Further, the code permits Class I group homes outright in the various residential districts, most notably single-family districts. To your benefit is also the fact that you define and allow for Class H and Class III group homes even though there are none in the city at this time. In other words, the city has clearly taken steps to anticipate and make "reasonable accommodations" for these uses. Given the City's definitions of group homes and the clear intent in the code to allow these uses in residential districts, the definition of'family' is basically pre-empted (i.e. the unrelated 6 person restriction) when it comes to these uses. ,Having said all that there is one aspect of the definition of'family' that could be viewed as problematic. In this definition, Class II and Class III group homes are specifically excluded from 1 the definition of family, i.e. the unrelated 6 person limit does not apply. The question becomes why exclude Class II and Class III group homes from the family definition and not Class I? This does appear a bit contradictory given the intent of the rest of your code provisions. Our recommendation is that the definition of'family'be amended to exclude Class I group homes along with the Class H and Class III. This is the only change we see as being necessary to make your group home provisions 'bullet proof under the Fair Housing Act. Other jurisdictions have taken one of two approaches, provided they have done anything at all. In the single family definition they have either excluded group homes (including terms such as 'adult family homes') in some manner from the definition, or they have stated that the family definition is not intended to conflict with the Fair Housing Act. An example of this would be Federal Way. Their definition of'family' reads as follows: "Family shall mean an individual or two or more individuals related by not more than four degrees of affinity or consanguinity and including persons under legal guardianship, or a group of not more than five persons who are not related by four degrees of affinity or consanguinity; provided. however, that any limitation on the number of residents resulting from this definition shall not be applied if it prohibits the city from making reasonable accommodations to disabled persons in order to afford such persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling as required by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(b)." (our emphasis) While the above approach likely satisfies the legal concern over group homes and the definition of family, it puts staff in the position of having to interpret what constitutes a 'reasonable accommodation'. We believe that a simple exclusion of group homes from the definition is the cleanest most direct way of addressing this issue. RECEIVED MAR U 1 1999 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 CITY OF Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 859-3390/Fax (253) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM APRIL 6, 1999 MEMO TO: JIM WHITE,MAYOR, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #ZCA-99-3—GROUP HOME REGULATIONS INTRODU In January, 1991, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2958, which amended the zoning code with regard to the siting of group homes. The ordinance was the culmination of a process that began in 1989, when Mayor Dan Kelleher appointed appointed to loo committee the zto a view code siting of group homes in the city. This committee wasby Congress. in light of amendments that were made to the Federal Fair housing opportunities on the basis of These amendments prevent discrimination with regard handicapped or familial status. On March 22, 1998, the Land e see nd Patna hed Bsta r conduceportted ted a public hearing to consider amendments to these regulations minutes). This memorandum will summarize the issue and outline the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board. BACKGROUND The ordinance adopted in 1991 revised the definitionthe cned tlons of three the siting of classes of group homes, and amended Chapter 15.04 ofhode with regard to us zoning cts. The group homes and how they were to be allowed s the thanOwere adopted. Staff from he City group homes regulations have functioned fairly well Y Office of Housing and Human Services has reported that in working with providers of Services DSHS) that the regulations are homes and the State Department of Social and Health fairly straight-forward and clear. However, in 1995 the United rmitted by the City of Edmondtates Supreme Court s a case in which a group home (Oxford House) was no p Washington with regard to placement of their facility in a et 1single-family S. rest. d ntial z76, e (U.S. Supreme Court, City of Edmonds v. Oxford Hotcse, I 2204th AVENUE SOUTH I KENT.WASHINGTON 98U32-5895 ZCA-99-3 Group Home Regulations April 6, 1999 Page 2 801). The City of Edmonds would not allow Oxford House because it had ten residents and the City's code prohibited more than five unrelated persons from occupying a dwelling unit in the applicable zone. The Court found in favor of Oxford House, and determined that cities must provide reasonable accommodations to disabled persons in single-family zoning districts. Because the City allows various classes of getup homes with varying degrees of occupants in different zoning districts, staff from the Planning Department and Law Department feel that the current regulations provide "reasonable e accommodations"r oncurred, that minlored in the Edmonds amendments be made e. Staff did recommend, and the Lan some of our definitions for clarification. RECOMMENDATION The Land Use and Planning Board recommends the following two amendments: Section 15.02.135 of the zoning code be amended as follows: Family: Family means one (1) or more individuals related by blood or legal familial relationship, or a group of not more than six (6) persons who need not be related by blood or a legal familial relationship, living together in a dwelling unit as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit, excluding class I,class II and III group homes as defined in section 15.02.173. Section 15.02.173(C) of the zoning code be amended as follows: Class III group home. Class III group home means privately or publicly operated residential facilities for adults under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system who have entered a pre- or post-charging diversion program, or been selected to participate in state-operated work/training release or other similar programs, is Rrovided in ('1.apters 1 t7.56 and 137-57 WAC. Such groups also involve individuals who have been convicted of a violent crime against a person or a crime against property with a sexual motivation and convicted or charged as a sexual or assaultive violent predator. Staff from the Planning Department will be available }t t e April 6 City Council meeting present this issue and answer questions. If you have an questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at 850-4799. KON:pm grhomcc.doc cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Laurie Evezich,Assistant City Attorney Don Largen,McCormell/Burke CITY OF �� Jim White, Mayor rk��cs Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544 James P.Harris,Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing March 22, 1999 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning 21999 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. Harmon at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March , LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT James P. Harris,Planning Director Ron Harmon, Chair Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Terry Zimmerman,Vice Chair Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Brad Bell Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attorney Jon Johnson Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary David Malik w Sharon Woodford LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Steve Dowell APPROVAL OF MINIMU 22, 1999 minutes that his name be Chair Ron Harmon requested one correction to the February removed and replaced with Brad Bell as the Board member MOVED and David d Malik close the public hearing; SECONDED a as indicated on page seven of the minutes. Brad Be motion to approve the minutes of February 22, 1999 as amended. Motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None ZCA 99 3 GROUP H �FTi ATIONS eMF.NnlVIENT Senior Planner, Kevin O'Neill stated that this issue was originally identified during the overall zoning code update worked on by the Board in 1998. He said that the City Council adopted an ordinance relating to the regulation of group homes in 1991 based on amendments to the Federal Fair 220 4th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 2 Housing Act adopted by the United States Congress in Ordinance No.88. These am d p ed inp rta na vended ed to the siting of group facilities. Mr. O'Neill stated that the definition of 'family" and created Class I, II and classifications �locate in the city oup homes. .e ordinance also defined where the various classifications of group homes could Mr. O'Neill stated that the ordinance amended the definition of 'family"by limiting lly m�gr°scale of unrelated individuals to six persons. He stated that sin le fams I ily group homes are neighborhoods under the City of group homes often cited as single family homes in g Y Kent's current ordinance. Mr. O'Neill stated that housing underlying cpzonges dim seven(7)residents up to a number of residents based on the density of the release sites set up Mr. O'Neill stated that Class II and III grOAp limber of Cl s I group homes are predominately kand no Class II or III under the criminal justice system. There are a n that group homes currently existing in the City of Kent. Mr. ssafi t onsthe can be located City includes classifications for single family residential uses and whe those use la in the City of Kent. He stated that there is a comprehensives set of use regulations for the can be located in single-family up dhential ome classifications. He stated that only Class I-A group home areas (limiting occupancy to seven or less residents). Mr. O'Neill stated that staff was looking at group home regulations based on a United States Supreme Court case that eminated from an action concerning group homes in the City of Edmonds. He stated that an organization desired to place a group home facility for ten residents in a single- family residential zone. Mr. O'Neill stated that the a stated that the Court found in fa�olow r f the group the group home based on the city's occupancy limitations. H home, and that the City of Edmonds had not provided reasonable accommodations for handicapped persons. Mr. O'Neill stated that Planning staff has worked in conjunction with McConnell/Burke Consultaney's office in looking at ts, the City's Office of Housing and Human Services san�e��Ntteill said staff concluded that the City of Kent's regulations in light of the Edmond City is making reasonable accommodations under the City's current regulations to accommodate varied classifications of group homes in a mix of zoning districts. Mr. O'Neill stated that Planning staff recommends that the definition of"family" found in Section 15.02.135 of the zoning code be amended as follows: Family: Family means... excluding class I II and III group homes.... Mr. O'Neill stated that the reason for staffs recommendationirefine ��changes distinction between �Ch "family",and group homes. He stated that staff s recommendationthe two uses. group homes are regulated nor the underlying occupancy limit but would clarify Mr. O'Neill stated that at the March 8 workshop members of the Land Use Board voiced concern Land Use and Planning Board Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 3 that existing definitions for Class III group homes does not have occupancy limitations. Mr. O'Neill stated that the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) does not stipulate a classification or maximum number of persons that can occupy a Class III group home. He stated that a stringent process regarding Class III group homes through the Department of Corrections is stipulated in Chapters 137-56 and 137-57 of the WAC. Mr. O'Neill stated that if such a site were located in the City of Kent, the state process would involve the use of a search committee, an advisory panel involving city officials and require an extensive public process. Mr. O'Neill stated that the City of Kent's zoning code regulations stipulates that Class III group homes can only be sited through a conditional use permit requiring a public hearing process. Mr. O'Neill stated that staff felt it necessary to clarify that h added to is regulating erence the WAgroup rr folio ses and recommends that the following definition should b Class III group home. Class III group homes means ... as provided in Chapters 137-56 and 13 7.5 7 WAC. Such groups... Brad Bell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Chair Ron Harmon recognized that no public representation was present to speak on ZCA-99-3 Group Home Regulations Amendment and thus entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Brad Bell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED close the public hearing. Motion carried. Brad Bell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to accept staff s recommendation to amend the definition of"family" and definition of"Class III group home"relating to ZCA-99-3 amendments to group home regulations. Motion carried. _ADJOURNMENT Sharon Woodford MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James P. Harris Secretary ADDED ITEM Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6. 1999 �. Category Other Business ADDED ITEM 1 . SUBJECT: 196TH STREET CORRIDOR - TIB GRANT - ACCEPT & ESTABLISH BUDGET 2 . SU XARY STATE: On April 2nd, the Public Works Department received a grant agreement from the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) for the construction phase of the 196th Street Corridor project (West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway) . On April 5 the Public Works/Planning Committee recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the grant agreement, direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for same. 3 . EXHIBITS: Grant agreement 4 . RZCOMMENDED BY: Public c Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDaETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . ZXPENDITURE R$OUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 64 CouncilmemberU moves, Councilmember seconds to authorize the Mayor to sign the 196th Street Corridor Grant Agreement, direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for same . DISCUSSION: ACTION: % Council Agenda Item No. rl6,- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS April 2, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grant 192"d/196`h/200t' Street Corridor (9-P-106(001)-3 West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway We have received a grant from the TIB for the construction phase of the 196' Street Corridor project. At this time,we are requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement, direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said corridor project. Due to time constraints, we are requesting that upon Committee's concurrence of same, this item be placed on the Council agenda for April 6, 1999. MOTION: Recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the TIB grant agreement, authorize staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said corridor project. [TTransportation Improvement Account (TIA) it Project Agreement for Construction Proposal Lead Agency City of Kent Project Number Authority Number 9-P-106(001)-3 9915089P Project Title& Description S 192nd/S 196th/S 200th Stage 3 West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway Total Amount Authorized Authorization to Proceed Effective From $7,784,740 March 12, 1999 IN CONSIDERATION of the allocation by the Transportation Improvement Board of Transportation Improvement Account (TIA) funds to the project and in the amount set out above, the agency hereby agrees that as condition precedent to payment of any TIA funds allocated at any time to the above referenced project, it accepts and will comply with the terms of this agreement, including the terms and conditions set forth in RCW 47.26; the applicable rules and regulations of the Transportation Improvement Board, and all representations made to the Transportation Improvement Board upon which the fund allocation was based; all of which are familiar to and within the knowledge of the agency and incorporated herein and made a part of this agreement, although not attached. The officer of the �w✓ agency, by the signature below hereby certifies on behalf of the agency that local matching funds and other funds represented to be committed to the project will be available as necessary to implement the projected development of the project as set forth in the CONSTRUCTION PROSPECTUS, acknowledges that funds hereby authorized are for the development of the construction proposal as defined by Chapter 167, Laws of 1988. If the costs of the project exceed the amount of TIA funds authorized by the Transportation Improvement Board, set forth above, and the required local matching funds represented by the local agency to be committed to the project, the local agency will pay all additional costs necessary to complete the project as submitted to the Board. This shall not prevent the local agency from requesting an increase in the amount of trust funds pursuant to applicable rules of the Board. Projects in clean air non-attainment areas are subject to air quality conformity requirements as specified in RCW 70.94.The lead agency certifies that the project meets all applicable Clean Air Act requirements. IN CONSIDERATION of the promises and performance of the stated conditions by the agency, the Transportation Improvement Board hereby agrees to reimburse the agency from allocated TIA funds and not otherwise, for its reimbursable costs during the above referenced quarter year not to exceed the amount specified. Such obligation to reimburse TIA funds extends only to project costs incurred after the date of the Board's allocation of funds and authorization to proceed with the project. LEAD AGENCY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD somft"or MayorIchaimaan Date Executive M*Mr Dace TO Form 190.057 Revised 01/97 ... //J I Kent City Council Meeting Date April 6 , 1999 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: EMPLOYEE SERVICES TENANT IMPROVEMENT, CENTENNIAL BUILDING 2 • SUM—M-ARY STATEMENT: Parks Facilities staff recently went to "Bid" for construction to complete necessary improvements for the Employee Services offices in the Centennial Center. Eight bids were received. Staff recommends awarding the contract to the low bidder DP, Inc . for $36, 792 plus WSST. 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tab 4 . RECONIIKENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDTTZ E RE4II._TRBD: $36 , 792 , plus WSST — SOURCE OF FUNDS: CIP 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to authorize entering into an agreement with DP, Inc . to complete the Employee Services Tenant Improvements Project for $36, 792 , plus WSST. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. SA PARKS FACILITIES BID TAB PROJECT : EMPLOYEE SERVICES TENANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BIDDER BID AMOUNT DP, Inc . $36, 792 Spadoni Const . $38 , 400 Valhalla Construction $41 , 300 Mike Werlech $42 , 391 Father & Son $49, 950 Sunset Pacific $51 , 300 Modern Builders $61, 381 Springhills Engineering, Inc . $67 , 600 REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT UU" � q,a f B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 33 C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PARKS COMMITTEE F. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Lk �' P Olt OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES March 2, 1999 rn��n►�7TTFF MFMRF.RS PRESENT: Chair Judy Woods, Tim Clark, Sandy Amodt � Vlral�ai a a,.a.. +.�f STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall,Ramona McCall, Becky Fowler, Joe Lorenz,Dena Laurent,Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: James Diehl Approval of Combined Check Detail Vouchers Dated 26/9 May Miller presented the Combined Check—Detail Vouchers Dated 2/26/99 in the amount of $2,312,427.46. Committee Member Tim Clark made the motion to approve the Vouchers dated 2/26/99. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Minicomputer Purchase Joe Lorenz, Network Manager, introduced Ramona McCall, Senior Systems Analyst, who headed up the minicomputer purchase. Ms. McCall told the Committee that the proposed machine is one funded in the tech plan. She briefly described how it was determined to purchase that particular computer, and relayed that Marty Mulholland,Director of Information Systems, had specified some high level requirements such as a machine to serve the entire City, high availability, a server to accommodate current databases in use or under development, and that would allow for additional citywide databases currently being specified. A timeline was set for acquiring the server. Other members of Information Systems were consulted in order to develop the specifications and an online Hewlett Packard configuration program was used. Stan Waldrop, one of the systems analysts who manages the Oracle Database that will host the databases on the new server, provided much help and information. After a requirement statement was determined, a Hewlett Packard sales technology team, consisting of a sales person and a technology expert,was invited to come for consultation. At the same time, two parallel paths were started. A draft RFQ was written in case of the need to go for arch for an improved government contract that would allow bid, and another path was launched to se to City Attorneys Pat for the purchase of the computers. Such a cc thntract was e machine specified could bfound and broughte pur hased under that Fitzpatrick and Tom Brubaker to make contract. was to speak Two meetings were held with the HP tech sec t tm. The purpose of the eam presented a three different about requirements at the functional level. At the second meeting the tech configurations based on the spectrum guidelines given them. Those configurations were gone through line by line and their merits debated. In order to meet the high availability, it was decided to go with the machine that has the built-in Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks or RAID system. After requirements were decided and converted into specifications, they were then turned over to the R&D Industries representative,James Diehl,who developed quotes. Two candidates were put forward for quotation and from that a final candidate was selected. A 20% savings under list price was hoped for and a 29% savings under list was achieved. This unit system is designed to take over from the entry level enterprise server being used now. That unit system is hosting three databases, Parks, Public Works, and Permitting and is also hosting the Level 1 Geographic Information applications. That server will be not be abandoned but will be kept as the GIS server, dedicated to Level 1 cartography efforts from which the GIS will be distributed to the network. The hope is that everyone will be able to access GIS files and layers, and access the tabular data behind it in the Oracle Database. The new machine will take over a giant database warehouse and will have many instances of databases which in the long-range plan will all communicate with each other. This machine was chosen because it can handle 300 concurrent users. Tim Clark asked for examples of how the different departments would use the GIS data. Joe Lorenz said that GIS was used when working with the TCI agreement for defining streets within the City limits. With the system deployed out through the network, current City boundaries can be brought up and street addresses searched and pinpointed on the GIS map. Additional information can be added in layers such as roads and parks. Ramona McCall said that one of the long-range goals is to have the Novell Network computers on the counter in a department such as Planning where people can come in and have self-service. Sandy Amodt questioned whether people would be able to access city codes. Ms. McCall said policy related problems would have to be worked out with all the departments together. The capability is there to provide that technology but things that are on the counter will have to be limited and restricted and those decisions will have to come from the departments that are currently providing that information. Tim Clark reminded the Committee that at one time they had explored the concept of information kiosks such as those the City of Mercer Island has and was wondering whether there was any long range strategic plan to create something like that where citizens could actually access basic information by kiosk. Brent McFall said this database system is a better situation than the kiosk, and ultimately, any PC hooked to the Internet will have that access. He said the City is in contract with a new code publication company and the City code will be online. Sandy Amodt moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council to authorize the purchase of a HP-9000 minicomputer from R&D Industries and carried 6, .2 9.18, subject to City Attorney approval of purchase terms. The motion was Blue Cross Contract Becky Fowler, Benefits Manager, discussed the Premera Blue Cross contract for 1999.yShe is do he p program is running at about 80%of expected claims. The City is self-insured and is am g claim processes each week. The fund balance is $1, 853,000,however costs are increasing. The increase for the 1999 Admin rate went to $37.78 per employee from $31.77 which is a$6.01 increase or about 18%. Ms. Fowler said the City was able the ear 2et a 000-year contract The City has�a rate guarantes time with Belue with Cross and now has a contract agreement for 1999 and year increases held to about 8%. Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council to approve the Premera Blue Cross contract for 1999. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Bond Ordinance and Purchase Contract May Miller, Finance Director, said the Bond Ordinance and Purchase Contract was for the 1999 Councilmanic Bonds in the amount of$20,858,000. The ordinance and contract are the technical documents that have to be in place. The firm of Foster, Pepper& Shefelman does the official bond ordinance, reviewing all the legal details of what the money will be used for, how long the terms will be, and whether it is a tax exempt issue. They set all the legal requirements mandated by law such as terms and conditions, how payments are made, what the maturities are,who authorizes them, and what kind of disclosure there is. The Mayor then has to sign a contract with the underwriter, Lehman Brothers, represented by Dick King. He purchases 1999u Theoffering allonly change may be languageo� for sale. The whole bond process will people completed o March 31,such as wire transfers or transmittals. languag a stipulating new ways that may pay over the span of Tim Clark requested a schedule that shows the decline of indebdedneodt asked f there wastime aMs. Miller said she could do a graph showing that information. Y penalty for early payment. Brent McFall responded that the contract does not have an early payment option unless it is written in and there is a call provision municipal bonds based ods. That n a certain return y is not done because it results in a higher interest rate. Investors y over a certain period of time, and anything that clouds that isinterest makes rathe bond less attractive- es than there would have Anything that makes the bond less attractive results in higher been with the cleanest possible issue. Mr. McFall said a presentation will be made to both Mooupgraded, y's add Standard&Poor h results inlowerand rating agencies in an effort to try and get the City s bond rating pgr d, interest rates. Before the bonds are actually sold,the underwriters will do an analysis to determine whether or not it's cost effective to insure the bonds. If they are insured, a Mtl�would a a that phis is the lowest t in a lower interest rate,but there is also cost associated with the insurance. Y interest rate a bond issue has ever been financed for the City.on the taxpayers.lanfied that Counc arelpaid out of the do not use property tax money so they are not a direct debt money set aside to do capital projects within the existing Tales tax unand starsng taxes tax funding The debt payment will be made within the existing structure Brent McFall said the final interest rate will be established achie e a closing AA sting but thererates are many ate daily. Right now the City has an Al rating and hope factors in the rating process. One of the things the rating agencies look at is stability and local employment. Boeing's layoff announcements weigh on the City's bond rating. ✓ Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council 1.) approval of the formal Bond Ordinance for the 1999 Councilmani� totaling Lehmanlus issuance costs, and 2.) request authorization for the mayor to sign bond purchase agreement Brothers. The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. term an to d a Committee Member Rico Yingling asked if there was a long as an o' en spade corridor,a,but he site. Lori Flemm said the City was only looking at the areacquisition along Springbrook Creek, ' perhaps in the future if there is additional property the City could create a trail or a widened shoulder along the road as or bicycles t tiles heor said d she does not envision any public use within the green belt suc picnic viewing opportunities. John Hodgson, Director of the Parks & Recreation Department, said that the environmental division in Public Works is identifying potential gre elttrai s that are City owns and is looking into the development aspect for 9 passively used or not used at all throughout the entire for then s like sth s. Lori Flemmtem. He said eadded are lot of streams through a out t has anintern that will be looking into this type of opportunity, that the Parks Departm r if they have programs established. and to see what other cities do o Jones Rico Yingling asked how long it takes for a site to become a it that has a watelatable with saturation of answered that to be a wetland it has to have the surface. There can be an impacted surface with anMr Yingling stated his concern water that is still not a wetland and the area has to be evaluated by biologists. ma that the City might look for opportunities to designate areas something welland thatlse. Lori Flemm not could not mitigate on e because of the incentive of mitigation for funds to improve an already said a site cannot already be a wetland, as the City Corps of existing wetland. Anew wetland would have of wet and created and the Army Jeff Jones agreed that the Engineers would actually do the designs Corps would have to concur with the work that is done and it would ldhat the City would hire have to meet their approval. He said there are also consultants from other agencies that would create checks and balances. Some sites are close calls and might require additional evaluation at other times of the year. Gary Volchok, realtor with CB Richard Ellis, told the committee Enhe gineer cas that the n call something wetlands but it is the Federal Government's Corp of Army makes the designation. The City can go to the Corps and ask zf ora ssistance. He said They had gotten Matlack had been trying to develop their property for overY every permit, gone to the City Council, the hearing examiner,etlands area that could be they went to the Corps, the Corps said to find a 20,000 sq. foot used to mitigate the filling of Matlack's property. Mr. Volchok called this a win-win situation that benefits everyone. Civil Engineer for the project, Dana Mower of DBM Consulting extension rs, said atl ack's he hexisting ad been working on this project for four yeas, and said it is facility. The Corps of Engineers treats an extension differently entlytha if i exist ng were a sta Ides alone piece of property because they want to encourage expansion rather than the building of new facilities. Any property that has designated wetlands has to mitigate either on their site or off site. Typically the mitigation occurs on site and if there ' ✓ the would have done mitigation on site. had been enough room on Matlack's property, Y But between the open ditch reconfiguration, meeting the storm quality retention requirements of the City, and mitigating for the wetlands, about 0% of the property they need. would have been lost and Matlack would have lost one of the four spurs bj Connie Epperly moved to accept the Wetland Enhancement t Conneith Mat ack,l Pan, su motion ect to approval of permitting agencies, and enter into agree mentwas seconded and carried 3-0. Frisbee Golf Course approached the Park Planner, Perry Brooks, told the Committee that several people had Parks Department asking for a Frisbee Golf Course. AetsGR gholf Courseow is a short are er course that uses a special Frisbee which is thrown in bask some courses in Seattle, one in Pierce County, and several one of the fash to olumbi,grow sports in nothing within a 20 mile range of the Kent Valley. it the country. The proposed site for the Frisbee Golf Course is adjacent trarely used but because there o Lake Fenwick Park in an unused area. There are a couple of passive trails that are aren't very many people on the site, there has been a lot of dumping there. Mr. Brooks maintained that the course, with added activity, would cut down on the dumping. Frisbee Golf is a very low impact sport— basically people walking spound and rt at mayberonlye into a basket. There aren't a lot of people involved in the at this t 10-15 a day, so it has very low maintenance and cost. A group of vo trees, with mostlnteers is y of vegetation and second growth undergrowth of blackberry bushe interested in clearing the area, which has a sot No trees would be cut down, only the blackberry bushes cleared out. The volunteers would maintain the site e dregular nd sensitive. r Perry said this group of people tends to be more environmentally Y `�--` Acquisition for the baskets would be around $2,000- $2500> and signs and a map would cost about $4,000. The infrastructure is already there with r strCou oms across ty Open Space bond t and parking on site. The money v+ol om the Kingand the area is a very low flood spot money. Existing trails and roads would be utilized, with a stormwater detention pond that drains into Lake se now. Throwing distance never'ck. Typically, the courses are 9 and 18 hole courses and there are 12 holes the exceeds more than 300 feet, which is a par 4. Parks would like to start clearing this spring and have the course going by summer. Judy Woods asked if the baskets would be put up and taken down every day. Mr. Brooks said they would be put into concrete footers directly into these andost and would not tBrooks be moveable. Rico Yingling asked what the annual maintenance at the site. There would be no r. said it would only be that incurred with picking up trash mowing or yard maintenance, and the volunteers have said they would take care of other maintenance. The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m. a � PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES March 1, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tim Clark, Tom Brotherton,Rico Yingling ��vi•ai•aa a s ada.r STAFF PRESENT: Bill Wolinski,Phil Noppe, Tom Brubaker,Don Wickstrom, Gary Gill,Dea Drake, Dena Laurent,Jackie Bicknell, Paul Scott PUBLIC PRESENT: Elsy & Jim Rust, John Santana, Merry Hayes [J UPRR Toys `R Us Spur Franchise—Ordinance Tom Brubaker,Assistant City Attorney, presented the Union Pacific Railroad Toys `R Us Spur Franchise which relates to the 196`h Street Corridor improvement project. An existing railroad track spur which crosses 196`h Street serves the Toys `R Us warehouse, the only customer on the south of 196`h Street. An extensive dispute resolution process with Toys `R Us and Union Pacific Railroad on this spur franchise has been ongoing in trying to get UPRR to fulfill its obligation to realign the spur to the same grade of the new road alignment. Part of resolving the dispute is to get a new spur franchise ordinance, which would be a 20 year franchise for UPRR to operate their spur track across 196`h Street. Mr. Brubaker asked for Committee approval and then forwarding to Council for introduction at the March 16`h meeting. Under state law an ordinance cannot be passed within 5 days of its introduction. Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend introduction and passage of a franchise ordinance that would allow the Union Pacific Railroad Company to construct,maintain, and operate a railroad spur track upon and across South 196`h Street. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. TCI N votiations with Seattle—Report Tom Brubaker said TCI is regulated primarily by the Federal Communications Commission,however the City of Kent has gained some regulatory authority over TCI because TCI uses its streets in order to string their cable throughout the City to service various customers. TCI came to the City about six years ago for a franchise to operate within its streets. When that franchise was established, the City imposed some contractual terms on the issuance of the franchise which gave limited authority to the City that grows directly out of the use of the streets. The City cannot regulate except on the very most basic level of service. Chair Tim Clark asked if it would be appropriate for customers to forward any complaints to the City. Mr. Brubaker said it would be appropriate to let the City know any time there is a problem with TCI within the limits of the City of Kent. The City has a consultant, Cable Communications Consultants, that handles service complaints. Customers may call them at 253-833-8380 to file a complaint. If the response is not satisfactory from the consultant, they may call the City of Kent's Information Services or the City Attorney's Office. The City of Seattle was expecting by January 1, 1999 to have TCI complete an extensive rebuild of its infrastructure cable system within the City of Seattle. The purpose of this rebuild was to provide expanded levels of service, more channels, improved Internet access, and fiber optic capability. TCI announced late last year that they weren't going to make that deadline, and that precipitated controversy between the City of Seattle and TCI. A lot of issues were put on the table and discussed ' and out of that grew a series of three ordinances and one resolution issued by the City of Seattle, most of which have been passed. These resolutions and new agreements with TCI were passed as a condition extending TCI's time to complete their fiber optic rebuild which is now due to occur in nine months on October 1, 1999. hs to finalize the The Rebuild Ordinance grants TCI the extension of nine arn setrved. The activation will betdone on a an additional two months to activate those customers wh other ordinance roiling window of 11% of their customer base per month I wasre ently purcn track. hased by AT&T The authorizes the transfer of control of TCI to AT&T, as third ordinance is called the Cable Customer Bill of Rights, which establishes stricter standards on —� customer compliance and customer service requirements for TCI. That bill has not yet been passed by the City of Seattle. The Resolution is to study telecommunications infrastructure opto as on people heir own.hava complained study will to the City of Seattle, asking them to get a new provider or go into business analyze various options available and is due by September 1, 1999. Most likely Seattle is not looking for their failure to handle customer to terminate its franchise with TCI. TCI is paying Seattle S ve also,a0 eed to a$10,00 per month penalty service as promised in their franchise agreement. They for failing to get the rebuild done on time and have agreed to give their customers rebates of$5.00 or more per month for those not receiving the new level of servl e on Tim Clark asked if it would be possible to duplicate the Cable able. Hoomer weve of r, TCI ghtsOr in b each a of minor scale in the City of Kent. Mr. Brubaker said it may p its franchise with the City of Seattle which basically acted as reopen eirer for ©franchise l existing franchi and se agreement and gave Seattle an opportunity to tighten down some of gs• Kent does not have a situation right the City so there is not the angle with expectations and understandin have an upcoming deadline on P e to reopen the franchise. They doh P P August 1, 1999 to provide the City with a fiber optic buildout and two c ov City can broker out a they fail either of those measures,th studio. I ey will be in breach. At a osed ordinance. It's possibly instituting something similar to Seattle's prop resolution to that breach,p Y g approved b Seattle as a good also possible TCI may be willing to enter into whatever bill of rights is a p Y faith effort to the community. Ti m Clark asked for a motion to direct administration to explore the possibility the motion wacreating seg seconded Band of Rights similar to.Seattle's franchise. Tom Brotherton so moved an carried 3-0. Mr. Clark clarified that the impact behind that direction would be to look at the possibilities for the August deadline and what Seattle has come up with in terms of providing better service for the consumers here in this local area. *':eridian Stormwater GIP its Don Wickstrom, Director of public Works, said the City is uniquein tea opetiontcosts and then on drainage utility. The City has a basic rate which covers maintenance asin is charged for those top of that, if a basin needs specific capital improvements, as annexed, that improvements. When the Meridian Valley w year, the City established theare miles to the City. se County rate was dropped,which was$7.09 per month or$8 peerr , standard maintenance and operation rate at $2.36 per month. That needed just covers those costs. In order to do a capital improvement, an analysis of the basin was what the prolems were. The The Public Works Department had to do significant studies t�00 wow ofmpro vements in that basin studies were done and it was determined that about $10,000, were needed. Some improvements have citywide significance and thcosts should was. Mr.W�kstrom citywide,but the bulk are basin specific. Tim Clark asked what replied that this CIP is strictly an introduction at this timeY n linflOasked what thew would fund eneral lifp to six e �� then the rest of the money would come from a bond. RicoYingling expectancy of the drainage improvements would be. Mr. Wick d be m said yhe design is for a 100 year storm event,but the life of each individual improvement Tom Brotherton stated that some of the costs were due to overt actions by King County before the area was annexed into the City and asked if there was a plan to seek cost recovery from the County. Don Wickstrom said that as part of the annexation, two agreements were executed with the County. The County said they would continue to build 2400, and pay their share and not protest the annexation. As part of the 240`h street construction, they've done major culvert work crossing 240`h at the shopping ding 208 center at the northeast corner of 132nd and 240`h. Subsequent ��X n n tThey commi were buitted paying they wanted the City to reimburse them for cost expenses after for half of the flume replacement on 256`h Street past Soos Creek. That's about a thousand feet of flume and is a high priority regarding the fisheries issue. At that time the County said that if the City wanted to see capacity improvements on streets within its PAA, it had to commit to paying the County back upon annexing it. They have subsequently changed that policy and Kent would no longer have to pay them back after annexation. Bill Wolinski,Public Works Environmental Engineer Supervisor, gave an overview of the Capital Improvement Program for the Meridian area. When the City annexed d h excess eridia 8 al quarrea an thof e area, it added 6.6 square miles to the City. The sub-tributary of the Soos Creek Watershed. The Soos Creek Watershed is considered one of the premier sub-watersheds in the lower Green River system in the Is one standpoint the heavily es developed areas resource. It is heavily utilized by the Chinook and Coho salmon, even though in King County. Big Soos Creek is the principle stream of the whole system and most is not within the City limits itself. There are three major tributaries�an the VMallendGolf Coors and downy creek, to 256�ates Street outside the City limits and flows through the Men y Another major sub-drainage and enters the Big Soos Creek system at the Kent/Covington boundary. �.✓ area is called the Lake Meridian sub-drainage area and about half of that area is the lake itself. It outlets and crosses Kent Kangley Road and flows down 11�and ere is a ters to the Big Soos Creek proposed alternative system at the Kent/Black Diamond Road outside the City realignment of that system which would take the outflow in an easterly direction and connect into the Big Soos Creek. The other major sub-drainage is the Suzette Creek drainage area that It crosses through the Road and is a large wetland system associated with the south part of Kent Kang y g Springwood Apartments and ultimately is confluent to the Big Soos Creeexati n, all side th bl ity limits informat o the south. When the City Inherited this area as part of the Meridian osentire area was managed by King was researched that had been developed by the County. County's Surface Water Management program. Before sta that there waook anys they information evaluated the available information and as a result determinedhad done some studies in available on the sub-watershed to base a comprehensive CIP. The County the area but they weren't comprehensive enough. Thee as identified to do a comprehensive conditions and also the capacity of the modeling to characterize the flows under existing and stream channels and the associated culverts. The scope of the study was to stay mainly within the main stream systems. There are a lot of sub-drainage areas in the individual developments,but staff didn't have the resources for that level of investigation. So a fairly comprehensive assessment of the entire watershed was undertaken by looking at the capacities and adequacies of the culverts based on the existing and future conditions. Because the area is considered a high fisheries resource, there is an upcoming federal action under the Endangered Species Act to list the Puget Sound Chinook as endangered. Staff is very sensitive to characterize existing conditions of the fisheries tha wltat of the ould have totire sub-waterhe addressed ender the in determining whether or not there would be any problems Endangered Species Act and also to look at any potential problems associated with fish passage. Tom Brotherxon remarked that an area immediately east of the Lake Meridian watershed between the watershed and the Big Soos Creek was within the City boundaries but not included in the study. Mr. Wolinski said the area actually drains directly into the Big Soos Creek system. Mr. Brotherton stipulated that there was some development potential along 256`h Street even though most of that area �- is within the King County Parks system and would probably not be sold. Mr. Wolinski said that area wasn't included in the hydrologic analysis because the City was looking at main stream drainage and the drainage from this area drains into the Big Soos Creek. He said there may be small scale local problems associated with that,but the City has small drainage funding programs set up to address those problems. Mr. Wolinski related that staff undertook the fisheries evaluation of the entire system and characterized any problems because of the extent of development that is taking place. There were problems identified with regard to lack of vegetation along the stream and fish passage. Because of the requirements that are going to be imposed upon the City, the fisheries needs were integrated into the overall CIP for the drainage area. Basically, the results of the study identified numerous culvert deficiencies. Culverts were undersized, inadequately passing existing flows, and there was intersection flooding occurring throughout the entire drainage area. Areas were identified where vegetation was lacking along the streams and there were fish blockage problems. As a result of the problem identification, staff came up with about$10,300,000 in CIP needs throughout the entire watershed. 82%of the $10,300,000 would be associated strictly with flood control needs of the area and about 18%with fisheries needs.. With that figure, a funding analysis was done to identify a funding mechanism to implement the program in a reasonable period of time,taking into consideration the City's existing bonding capacity. A six year funding program was identified that would initially take the rate that is imposed now covering operations and maintenance of$2.36 per .� month. In January 2000,the rate would be raised to $4.89 per month and one year later in January 2001 it would be raised to $7.25 per month. There is money committed from the general drainage fund and some monies from King County to complete projects that the County had initiated. Tim Clark asked what information was used for prioritization criteria. Bill Wolinski answered that the main thrust was the severity of impact whether or not it would potentially cause any property or safety issues as far as the depth of the water over roadways, conditions which most impacted the fishenesSeveral areas within the watershed had actual physical blockages that prevented the fish from utilizing major stretches of the creek. One thing that concerns residences within the Lake Meridian area is the water level within the lake. The Public Works Department is starting to do some improvement in the�Fnrther into the et of the lake by reestablishing the capacity of the channel to convey flows out of the lake implementation period, staff will be concurrently evaluating two different long-term options of improving conveyance, one of which would be an alternate route from the lake where a natural stream channel is created that would take a large portion of the flow and connect it into the Big Soos Creek. Another alternative involves improving the conveyance system along 152"d Street and creating an improved channel to alleviate problems. Most of the culverts the permitting agencng 152nd ar of �esawou dte aallow city for even minor storms. Work would depend on cost and whether the construction of a new channel. Another project is along 256`h Street where there is about 1400 feet of concrete channel that runs aloe, the road. This project originated in the County and has been cost shared between the City and the County. The project is being pursued with Federal funding under the Corp of Engineers program and the City has potential funding from the Salmon Bill to bring some money into the project. It is a highly productive fishery in this Meridian Valley stream system. Any future attempts to widen the road at 2561h would require relocation of the flume, so the County channel elt in order buildi g itto be proactive it would away from the roadway take this flume and convert it into a more natural stream Y �✓ and connecting into Big Soos Creek. Don Wickstrom said this project is very important to the regional permitting agency of fisheries. The concrete channel is not fish friendly. It has excessively high velocity and the fish have a hard time moving through the channel during the wet season. There are also a lot of potential problems with regard to hot�conditions s close to o lethal evelsally little for the fish. A lot major part of the channel and the water tempera small salmon stay in the channel throughout the summer. One series of projects is in the Suzette Creek system which vegetation eandf in addition t verts that are undersized. improving the The channel has been heavily impacted by the removal culverts, the Department plans to do some vegetation work along these stream channels. Tom Brotherton remarked about a comment in the hydrologic analysis a Cat said ity eeca basinga lot e of lam rid to of the model itself was calibrated but asked whet not verified. He said that could be donesto verify some of the key on an unverified model. Mr parameters like total system flow, etc. Bill Wolinski replied ake level t staff data fohave Lake Meridian and the a certain amount of data in some of the watersheds. There were three years of County had a gauging station near the confluence of the system the ear onsetBig wet Creek er ren this u network of gauges throughout the entire watershed was set up beforee on o son and measurements are being taken to look at w validity nd to the needs of the conveyance system.problems The flooding problems and there are deficiencies g plan is to continue to collect data throughout the implementation period and refine the models and make the best use of all the information available. Phil Noppe,Public Works Department Engineer, said the modeelsimulates el Cheat entire si hydro dr tlogices cycle and there is a calibration stage that is performed to make sure 1 existing conditions. A number of years of calibration data were in one watershed, staff eee Meridian. ls they en the various parameters are calibrated that represent a hydrologic have a pretty good match on simulating hydrologic conditions of the soil types and infiltration rates in the area. One report shows observed lake levels and simulated lake , levels and they flows,atch quite and actual well, so staff feels confident with the model itself. Mr.N°PPees of data that can be observed which said flows of water past a certain point are really the only typ represent calibration data time series. Tim Clark was concerned about impact fees to mitigate new development.impact fees n then Wick There were om said ere are no impact fees in the drainage areas,but there are somep some area charges attached to the first bond issues but subsequent to that there haven't been any system development charges for drainage. Mr. Clark asked if it would be appropriate to explore something for the new development specifically affecting the Soos Creek basin.generated or whether there wou ick t rom reduction said it would be hard to dictate how much revenue would be sibility in the drainage rate. Mr. Clark asked for a motion to direct administration therton soo explore moved andethesmotion of mitigation fees to offset some of the development costs. Tom was seconded and carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m. REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. EXECUTIVE SESSION A) Potential Litigation B) Property Negotiations