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 - 08/17/1999
City of. Kent City Council Meeting Agenda CITY OF p��IIC�gP� Mayor Jim White Counci/members Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly Tom Brotherton Judy Woods Tim Clark Rico Yingling August 17, 1999 Office or she city Clerk CITY OF M�K� SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING rXYICCA August 17, 1999 Mayor Jim White Council Chambers 7 : 00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS : Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Tom Brotherton Tim Clark Connie Epperly Judy Woods Rico Yingling ******************************************************************* 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. ntroduction of Appointee 8. C o ndo Zuni r9- &im Paz 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2000-2005 Capital Facilities Plan B. 2000 Operating Budgetp C. Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan - Resolution 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B. Approval of Bills C. CDBG Year 2000 Funding - Set Hearing Date D. Public Access Studio Extension request - Approve E. Marina Pointe One Bill of Sale - Accept F. Promenade One Bill of Sale - Accept G. West Bay Bill of Sale - Accept H. So. 212th Street Warehouse Bill of Sale - Accept I . Progressive International Bill of Sale - Accept J. Engineering Offices Remodel - Establish Fund & Budget K. H.E. S . Safety Grants - Accept Grant and Establish Budget L. Sale of Surplus Vehicles - Authorize M. Street Use Permit - Ordinance ; , N.V�1�ondominium (Townhouse) Zoning ZCA-99-5 - Ordinance 3 0. Kent Memorial Park Light Pole Replacement - Accept as Complete P. Russell Road Park Bleacher Purchase - Accept as Complete Q. PS51 Two-Lot Short Plat Bill of Sale - Accept R. Kent Arts Commission Appointment - Confirmation S . 125, 000 Gallon Water Tank Seismic Upgrades & Painting - Acceptance T. Domestic Violence - Resolution � J (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 7 . OTHER BUSINESS 8 . BIDS A. Linda Heights Park Renovation 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION 13 . ADJOURNMENT ye C � NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk' s Office and the Kent Library. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk' s Office in advance at (253) 856-5725 . For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388 . 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 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTEE Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Public Hearings 1 . SUBJECT: 2000-2005 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to receive public input on the 2000-20005 Capital Facilities Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan includes all expenditures for the next six years as described in the Comprehensive Plan. This Plan is updated annually. Public input is encouraged as the City plans for future capital facilities and infrastructure improvements . 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Public Hearings 1 . SUBJECT: 2000 OPERATING BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is the first public hearing on the 2000 Operating Budget . Public input is desired and welcome as the City begins to prepare for the 2000 budget . 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5B Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17 , 1999 Category Public Hearings 1 . SUBJECT: SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public hearing of the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan and adoption of the resolution establishing same. The Public Works Director will give a brief description of the plan. 3 . EXHIBITS: Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan and resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council 8/3/99 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: NOUPA Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Resolution No. 1SSc) establishing the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting the 2000 - 2005 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. WHEREAS, after proper notice, the City Council of the City of Kent held a public hearing at the regular meeting of the City Council at 7:00 p.m. on August 17, 1999, to consider public testimony on the City's proposed 2000-2005 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan and, having considered public testimony to the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The 2000 through 2005 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, set forth in Exhibit"A"attached hereto and herewith filed with the City Clerk, is hereby adopted. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1999. 1 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 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:\LA WIRESOLM SIXYEAR--2000.RES 2 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Number Project Name Page 1 South 272°d/277`h Street Corridor Project 4 Auburn Way North to Kent-Kangley Road(State Route 516) 2 South 196`h/200th Street Corridor Project 5 West Valley Highway (State Route 181) to East Valley Highway 3 Reith Road/West Meeker at Kent-Des Moines Road 6 Intersection Improvement Project Reith Road/Meeker Street at Kent-Des Moines Road (State Route 516) 4 Interurban Trail Crossings Signal Interconnect at Meeker Street 7 and E. Smith Street Signal Systems Interurban Trail Crossing/RR Interconnections 5 Washington Avenue (State Route 181) High Occupancy Vehicle 8 Lanes Project James Street to Green River Bridge 6 Pacific Highway South (State Route 99) H.O.V. Lanes — Phase I 9 Kent-Des Moines Road (State Route 516) to South 25 2"`'Street 7 James Street at Central Avenue Intersection Improvement Project 10 James Street at Central Avenue 8 Canyon Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Project 11 Alvord Avenue to 971h Pl. South 9 West Meeker Street Widening Project—Phase I 12 9'ashington Avenue (State Route 181) to 64'h Avenue South 10 Southeast 256`h Street Widening Project—Phase I 13 1161h Avenue Southeast to 136`h Avenue Southeast 11 Sound Transit Rail Station/Transit Center 14 12 Pacific Highway South (State Route 99) H.O.V. Lanes —Phase II 15 South 252"`t Street to South 272"`t Street (Southerly City Limits) 13 132"d Avenue Soutbeast Street Widening Project— Phase I 16 Southeast 256`h Street to Kent-Kangley Road (State Route 516) CITY OF KENT SIB'. YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Number Project Name Page 14 South 212`h Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project 17 Green River Bridge to West Valley Highway, (State Route 181) 15 Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 18 16 Citywide Guardrail and Safety Improvements 19 CitYw.ide 17 Burlington Northern/Santa Fe RailroadlUnion Pacific 20 Railroad Grade Separation Project South 212"' Street, James Street and/or l illis Street/State Route 516 IS Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Sidewalk Repair 21 and Rehabilitation Program Project Cirvivide 19 Commuter/Shopper Shuttle Bus Project 22 Downtown 20 116`h Avenue SE Street Widening Project 23 SE 256't' Street to Ken t-Kangley High waY (SR 516) 21 Militarn Road at Reith Road Intersection Improvement Project 24 `N7est Meeker Street Widening Project—Phase II 25 Green River Bridge to Kent Des-Moines Road (State Route 516) 23 941h Avenue South at Canyon Drive (SR 516) Traffic Signal System 26 24 84"' Avenue South Pavement Rehabilitation Project 27 South 212"' Street to State Route 167 25 West Vallee Road at South 277`h Street Intersection Improvement 28 Project 26 Military Road at South 272"d Street Intersection Improvement 29 Project CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Number Project Name Page 27 132"d Avenue Southeast Widening Project—Phase II 30 Southeast 240'h Street to Southeast 256h Street 28 72"d Avenue South Extension Project 31 South 196'1' Street to South 200'` Street 29 Southeast 224`h/228`h Street Corridor Project 32 Military Road to 54'1'Avenue South 30 Military Road Widening Project—Phase I 33 Reith Road to Kenr-Des Moines Road(State Route 516) 31 Miscellaneous Traffic Signal System Installation 34 32 Central Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project 35 Willis Street (SR 516) to Green River Bridge 33 Southeast 256th Street Soos Creel: Bridge Replacement Project 36In —. (Vicinity 14e Avenue) 34 South 224"/228`h Street Corridor Project 37 84'h Avenue to Benson (State Route 515) CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: South 272"d/277`h Street Corridor Project Auburn Wav North to Kent-Kanglev Road (State Route 516) DESCRIPTION: Construct a ne A? five-lane roadway from Auburn Way to the Kent- Kangley Road (State Route 516), via South 277`h Street, Southeast 274`h Street, and 116`h Avenue Southeast, including a new bridge over the Green River, and a modification to the traffic signals at the intersections of South 2771h Street and Auburn lka, North and at 116`h Avenue Southeast and the Kent-Kangley Road (State Route 516). Project will include the construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks. street lighting, storm drainage, bike paths, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering..............S2,900,000 Right of Way Acquisition............S3,200,000 Construction ..............................S24,400,000 TOTAL .....................................S30,500,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): TLA. City of Kent, LID Funded, LID Pending, much of the project has been concluded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Canyon Drive/SR 516 is infeasible to widen to accommodate either existing or forecast traffic volumes, based upon existing topographic constraints through the Mill Creek ravine, and pre-existing development. Additional constraints are created by the discontinuity in the route of SR 516. Adequate additional east-west capacity to accommodate growth in the Lake Meridian and Covington areas is only available through construction of a new arterial roadway. Provides continuous arterial from Kent East Hill to SR 167 to Interstate 5. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air .Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 4 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM _ YEAR: 2000 - PROJECT: South 196`h/200`h Street Corridor Project West Valley Highway (State Route181) to East Valley Highway DESCRIPTION: Construct a new five-lane roadway from West Valley Highway to East Valley Road, including a new bridge over the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern Railroads' mainlines; widen South 196`h Street between West Valley Highway and 72"d Avenue South, signalization of the intersection of South 196`h Street at East Valley Road. Widen 80`h Avenue South. Project will include the construction of full-width paving, bridges, concrete curbs, °utters and sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, bike paths [from West Valley Highway to the Interurban Trail], landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. Portion under construction as of 7/1998. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering..............S2,500,000 Right of Way Acquisition............S4,700,000 Construction ..............................S25,530,000 TOTAL .....................................S32,730,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): TLA, City of Kent, LID Funded. RIW acquired, Bridge under construction PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The South 180`h Street/Carr Road and South 2081h/2121h Street `corridors' are infeasible to widen to accommodate forecast traffic volumes without additional east-west capacity, based upon existing development and topographic constraints. Additional capacity is required to accommodate existing and continued development in the northern industrial area of the City. Both South 180`" Street and South 2121h Street have at-grade crossings for both the UP and BNSF railroads, which hampers east-west freight mobility. Adequate additional east-west grade-separated capacity is also required to accommodate growth in the South Renton and Kent East Hill areas. Provides second phase of continuous arterial from 140`h Avenue Southeast to Benson Highway to Interstate 5. STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard Elimination, TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, DATA - Urban Trust Account [State]; LID - Local Improvement District 5 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: Reith Road/%. Meeker Street at Kent-Des Moines Road Intersection Improvement Project DESCRIPTION: Widen Reith Road and West Meeker Street from a point 500 feet west of the Kent-Des Moines Road to the Frager Road. Construct paving, concrete curbs, nutters and sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, bike paths, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................S37,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction ...................................S247,000 TOTAL ..........................................S284,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (U), City of Kent Funded, Design approval by DOT pending PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: West Meeker Street experiences considerable congestion during the morning and evening commute hours — in part, as a consequence of the signal system phasing, the high commuter traffic volumes resulting from the `attraction' to the commercial land-uses between Washington Avenue and Russell Road, and the constriction created by the two-lane bridge over the Green River. Additional capacity is required to accommodate existing and continued development in this area of the City. These interim improvements will partially accommodate these conditions until the long-term, ultimate widening of West Meeker Street. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal), (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination. TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, DATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 6 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: Interurban Trail Crossings Signal Interconnect at, Meeker Street, and E. Smith Street Signal Systems DESCRIPTION: Interconnect the existing traffic signals at the interurban Trail crossings at Meeker Street, and Smith Street to the UP crossing signals at said streets. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................S10,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction ...................................S195.000 TOTAL ..........................................S20S.000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (E), City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is required in order to upgrade the existing warning system originally installed by the Union Pacific Railroad a number of years ago. These improvements will provide the necessary improved advanced warning required to meet the increasing rail traffic demands that are projected with the addition of Commuter Rail service and increased commercial freight usage. By improving the Interurban Trail signals at Meeker Street and Smith Street, this will enable them to be activated by approaching trains and thus eliminating any potential traffic backups across the railroad tracks. STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard Elimination, TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, DATA - Urban Trust Account [State]; LID - Local Improvement District 7 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: Washington Avenue (State Route 181) High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Project James Street to Green River Bridge DESCRIPTION: Widen Washington Avenue (State Route IS 1) to seven lanes [two general purpose lanes each direction, one H.O.V. lane in each direction, plus turn lanes) from Harrison Street to State Route 516 (Kent-Des Moines Road), and four lanes south to the Green River Bridge, and modify the existing traffic signal systems at the intersections of Washington Avenue at West Meeker Street and Kent-Des Moines Road (State Route 516). Project will include the construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters and 10-foot wide sidewalks/bicycle-ways, street liQhting, storm drainage, bike paths, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. Add curbs, gutters. sidewalks and drainage (Harrison Street to James only). PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering.................S 160,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............S300,000 Construction ...................................S946,000 TOTAL .......................................S1,406,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (U), UATA, City of Kent, LID Funded, LID Pending PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated by compliance with the City's CTR [Commute Trip Reduction] Ordinance and the City Comprehensive Plan, and the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2020 to reduce peak hour single- occupant vehicle trips by encouraging high occupancy vehicle capacity. Washington Avenue is a regionally-significant north-south arterial heavily used by commuters for access from SR 516 and SR 167, to the industrial/commercial land uses in the Green River Valley. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State); LID — Local Improvement District 8 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: Pacific Highway South (State Route 99) H.O.V. Lanes -Phase I Kent-Des Moines Road (State Route 516) to South 252"d Street DESCRIPTION: Widen Pacific Highway South to provide a pair of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes from the Kent-Des Moines Road (State Route 516) to South 252"d Street, reconstruct existing sidewalks, provide a ten-foot wide concrete sidew•alk/bicycle path, and modify the existing traffic signal systems at the Kent-Des Moines Road, South 240`h Street, and at South 252"d Street. Project will include paving, concrete curbs, gutters, and 10- foot wide sidewalks/bicycle-ways, storm drainage systems, utilities, landscaping, and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering.................S466,000 Right of Way Acquisition............S1,000,000 Construction ................................S6,344,000 TOTAL .......................................S7,810,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (U), TIA, DATA, City of Kent, LID Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated by compliance with the City's CTR [Commute Trip Reduction] Ordinance and the City Comprehensive Plan, and the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2020 to reduce peak hour single- occupant vehicle trips by encouraging high occupancy vehicle capacity. Pacific Highway South (SR 99) is a regionally-significant north-south arterial heavily used by commuters for access from South King county to the employment centers in South Seattle, and provides alternative access to Interstate 5 to Sea-Tac airport. STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard- Elimination, TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, UATA - Urban Trust Account [State]; L1D - Local Improvement District 9 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: James Street at Central Avenue Intersection Improvement Project DESCRIPTION: Widen the easterly leg of the James Street at Central Avenue intersection to provide an exclusive right-turn lane for westbound traffic on James Street, and widen the northerly leg of the intersection to provide an exclusive right-turn lane for southbound traffic bound for the King County Regional Justice Center, King County/METRO Downtown Kent Park and Ride Lot, and the (potential) RTA Station site. Project will also modify the existing traffic signalization system. Project will include the construction of paving, concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks; street lighting; storm drainage facilities; utilities and appunenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................S25,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............S200,000 Construction ...................................S525,000 TOTAL ..........................................S750,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): UATA, RTA, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This intersection is heavily impacted by traffic coming off of the Kent East Hill, and traffic bound to/from the King County Regional Justice Center, to accommodate the heavy right-turn volumes in the southbound and westbound directions — in both the morning and evening commute hours. Southbound traffic is severely impacted by the congestion further south on Central Avenue — and the consequent impacts to southbound through traffic at this intersection. This results in a significant `cut- through' across the private property on the northwest comer of the intersection. Project will support improved access into the Downtown area, as well as to the RTA Commuter Rail station site, and the increased traffic generated by the changes in land-use in the Downtown area. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 10 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: Canyon Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Project Alvord Avenue 9, th Place South DESCRIPTION: Improve Canyon Drive (State Route 5 16) by extending the existing sidewalks along the southerly side of Canyon Drive, and construct new, concrete sidewalks along the southerly side of Canyon Drive, between Alvord Avenue and 941h Avenue South, and widen the pavement along the southerly side of the roadway to provide a bicycle facility. Project will include the construction of paving, concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; street lighting, minor storm drainage, and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................S46,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction ...................................S630,000 TOTAL ..........................................S676,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated by compliance with the City's CTR [Commute Trip Reduction] Ordinance and the City Comprehensive Plan, to reduce peak hour single-occupant vehicle trips; and encourage the use of non- motorized transportation modes. Project is rated by SCATBD as one of the highest priority projects in South King County. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District ] I CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: West Meeker Street Widening Project-Phase 1 Washington Avenue (State Route 181) to 64th Avenue South DESCRIPTION: Widen West Meeker Street to provide a five-lane roadway, including four general-purpose travel lanes, a center left-turn lane, and a bicycle facility, and modify the existing traffic signal system at the intersections of 64"' Avenue South and Washington Avenue. Project will include the construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters, and 10-foot wide sidewalks/bicycle-ways; street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Envineering.................51 5,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............S?50.000 Construction ................................S 1,075.000 TOTAL .......................................S1,500,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): DATA, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development along this section of Meeker Street has reached the point whereby a consistent five-lane roadway section is required to accommodate through traffic. Existing traffic volumes that exceed 25,000 ADT, west of the intersection of Washington Avenue, mandate a five-lane section to accommodate additional development. Shoulder improvements consisting of 10-foot wide sidewalks/bicycle-paths are required to provide safe access for school-age pedestrians to/from the new elementary school south of Meeker, on 64`h Avenue South, and maintain this street as a primary bicycle route. STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard Elimination, TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, DATA - Urban Trust Account [State]; LID - Local Improvement District 12 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: Southeast 2561h Street Widening Project-Phase I 1161h Avenue Southeast to 136`h Avenue Southeast DESCRIPTION: Widen Southeast 240`h Street to provide a three-lane roadway, including two general-purpose travel lanes, a center left-turn lane, plus additional language at key intersections, and a bicycle facility. Modify the existing traffic signal systems at the intersections of 116'h Avenue Southeast, 124r Avenue Southeast and 132"d Avenue SE. Widen cross-streets to construct curb returns at the proper locations at same intersections. Project will include the construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters, and 10-foot wide sidewalks/bicycle-ways; street lighting, storm drainage utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering.................S540,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............S350,000 Construction S5,017,000 ................................ TOTAL .......................................S5.907,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): TLA,, City of Kent, LID TIA Funding Secured[Transportation from King Couno,) PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development in the Lake Meridian and Meridian Country Club areas of the City, the City of Covington, and nearby areas within King Co. has reached the point whereby a consistent three-lane roadway section is required to provide safe left-turn access into the adjoining properties, and accommodate past development in the area. Further, shoulder improvements: concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bicycle- ways, are required to provide control of roadway drainage and prevent impacts to adjacent property owners, and to provide safe access for school-age pedestrians and cyclists, and general access needs to the area surrounding the Meridian Elementary School. STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement. (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard Elimination, TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, DATA - Urban Trust Account [State]; LID - Local Improvement District 13 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station/Transit Center DESCRIPTION: Perform supplementary engineering analysis with regard to access and rail/motor vehicle issues associated with the site of the RTA commuter rail station. Design and construct related roadway and pedestrian improvements attributed to the station. Project will include paving, concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, storm drainage systems, utilities, landscaping. and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary En2ineerin2.................S 1 50.000 Right of'Way Acquisition...............S300.000 Construction ................................S 1,050.000 TOTAL .......................................S1,500,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): RTA, STP (U), liATA, CMAQ, HES. City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The RTA commuter rail station is expected to generate approximately 290 new trips (580 trip ends and not including METRO bus trips), in 2010. These new trips will have a significant impact on the City's transportation system, in terms of traffic congestion. Further the logistics associated with railroad tracks and the proximity thereof to Central Avenue, present rail/motor-vehicle and rail/pedestrian concerns. As such, this project is required to assure reasonable movement of motor- vehicles and pedestrians into this commercial sub-area of Downtown Kent; and assuring that traffic safety issues are minimized. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air .Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination. TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 14 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: Pacific Hiahw�ay South (State Route 99) H.O.V. Lanes—Phase II South 252"d Street to South 272nd Street (Southerly City Limits) DESCRIPTION: Widen Pacific Highway South to provide a pair of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes from South 252nd Street to South 272n6 Street, reconstruct existing 10-foot wide sidewalksfbicycle-ways, provide a ten-foot wide concrete sidewalk/bicycle path, and modify the existing traffic signal systems at the Fred Meyer Shopping Center, South 260`h Street, and South 272nd Street. Project will include paving, concrete curbs, gutters, and 10- foot wide sidewalks/bicycle-wavy s, storm drainage systems, utilities, landscaping, and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering.................S400,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............S800,000 Construction ................................55,300,000 TOTAL .......................................S6,500,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (U), TIA, UATA, City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated by compliance with the City's CTR [Commute Trip Reduction] Ordinance and the City Comprehensive Plan, and the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2020 to reduce peak hour single- occupant vehicle trips by encouraging high occupancy vehicle capacity. Pacific Highway South (SR 99) is a regionally-significant north-south arterial heavily used by commuters for access from South King County to the employment centers in South Seattle, and provides alternative access to Interstate 5 to Sea-Tac airport. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination. TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 15 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: 132"`' Avenue Southeast Widening Project—Phase I Southeast 256`h Street to Kent-Kangley Road (State Route 516) DESCRIPTION: Widen 132n6 Avenue Southeast to provide a five-lane roadway, including four general-purpose travel lanes, a center left-turn lane, and a bicycle facility, modifying the existing traffic signal systems where appropriate, at the intersections of Southeast 2561h Street, and Kent-Kangley Road. Project will include the construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters, and 10-foot wide sidewalks/bicycle-ways; street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering.................5480,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............S500,000 Construction ................................S5,356,000 TOTAL .......................................56.336,000 FUNDI;\G SOURCE(S): City of Kent, DATA, STP (U) PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development along this section of 132"d Avenue has already reached the point-whereby a consistent five-lane roadway section is required to provide safe left-tum access into the adjoining propertied and accommodate forecast traffic volumes. Existing traffic volumes that exceed 20,000 ADT (near the intersection of 132nd Avenue Southeast and the Kent-Kangley Road) mandates an augmentation to a five-lane section. Further, shoulder improvements: concrete curbs, gutters, and 10-foot wide sidewalks bicycle-ways, are required to provide control of roadway drainage and prevent impacts to adjacent property owners, and to provide safe access for school-age pedestrians and cyclists, and general access needs to the METRO Park and Ride lot. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 16 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 PROJECT: South 212"' Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project Green River Bridge to West Valley Highway (State Route 181) DESCRIPTION: Remove and rehabilitate the existing roadway pavement to add additional lifespan to the roadway, between the Green River Bridge and the West Valley Highway (State Route 181). Project veil] include the removal and the replacement of the upper two inches (2") of the existing pavement in the curb (42) travel lanes in both directions, and a full-width asphaltic concrete overlay of the entire roadway. Project will also include the selective replacement of catch basin inlets and aprons, driveways, and curbs and gutters. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................S43,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction S607,000 TOTAL ..........................................S650,000 FU>\DING SOURCE(S): STP (U), City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing paving along this section of South 2121h Street is exhibiting signs of distress, as demonstrated by alligatoring, longitudinal cracking, and cracking of the curbs and gutters. The design lifespan of the roadway has been reached, necessitating reconstruction of the paving to extend the lifespan of the roadway, and prevent further degradation. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, DATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 17 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 - 2005 PROJECT: Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements DESCRIPTION: Make miscellaneous improvements to the City's Bicycle Route and Pedestrian system. Potential projects include improvements to 100`h Avenue Southeast north of James Street, Southeast 248`h Street east of 94`h Avenue South, and 152nd Way southeast, north of Southeast 272nd Street. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................S50,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction ...................................S550,000 TOTAL ..........................................S600,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (E), City of Kent Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated by compliance with the City's CTR [Commute Trip Reduction] Ordinance and the City Comprehensive Plan, to reduce peak hour single-occupant vehicle trips, encourage the use of non- motorized transportation modes, and provide safe routes for school-age pedestrians and cyclists. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, DATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 18 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 - 2005 PROJECT: Citywide Guardrail and Safety Improvements DESCRIPTION: Make miscellaneous guardrail improvements each year to enhance motorist safety. Candidate projects include the westerly shoulder at the intersection of 941h Avenue!South 222Id Street, Frager Road, 100'h Avenue Southeast (near the 22600 block), West Valley Road (north of the 27200 block). Upgrade existing guardrail end-treatments as mandated by State and Federal regulations. PROJECT COST Preliminan, Enaineering...................S16.000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction ...................................S165,000 TOTAL ..............S180,000 ............................ FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (E), HES, Cite of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated by compliance with Federal and State regulations, and the requirement to eliminate potentially hazardous roadway conditions. STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard Elimination, TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, DATA - Urban Trust Account [State]; LID - Local Improvement District 19 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 - 2005 PROJECT: Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad/Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation Project South 212th Street, James Street and/or Willis Street/State Route 516 DESCRIPTION: Construct grade separations of both the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad's and Union Pacific Railroad's main line tracks at the South 212th Street, and at either James Street or Willis Street/State Route 516. Project will support the increased number of trains through the City resulting from the re-opening of the BNSF Railroad's Stampede Pass line and increased activity through the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, as well as the commuter rail operations of the RTA. Project will ultimately include the construction of bridge structures, ground-water pumping systems, full- w idth paving, concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; street lighting, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering..............S5,000,000 Right of Way Acquisition............S'),000,000 Construction ..............................S38,000,000 TOTAL .....................................S46,000,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): P.E.: City of Kent, State; RTA P.E. (Prelim. Study Only) Construction: STP (U), State, City of Kent, Regional Funded Transit Authority, Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad and Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Railroad PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of freight and passenger rail traffic on both the UP!SP and BNSF Railroads' mainlines is dramatically increasing as a consequence of positive economic conditions in the Puget Sound area and the approved RTA plan. East-west freight and commuter mobility in the Green River Valley will soon reach a point of being significantly impacted by continued private development competing with the increased rail traffic - also created by private development activities and regional trade. Grade-separations are required to mitigate past and future development and increased rail traffic to maintain east-west mobility. STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal), (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard Elimination, TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, UATA - Urban Trust Account [State); LID - Local Improvement District 20 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000 - 2005 PROJECT: American With Disabilities Act Compliance Sidewalk Repair and Rehabilitation Program Project DESCRIPTION: Reconstruct and repair existing sidewalks and pedestrian ramps, and install new hard surfaced sidewalks to implement the requirements of the Federal Government's American With Disabilities Act. Project will include an inventory of the City's sidewalk/walkway facilities, identification and correction of existing deficiencies. Project will include the construction of concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks; minor storm drainage, and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering.................S 180.000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction ................................S1,6?0,000 TOTAL .......................................S1,800,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent Funded. Project on-going PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated by the Federal Government's American's with Disabilities Act. Repairs existing sidewalks, replaces deficient/substandard and/or missing .wheelchairipedestrian ramps, and brings same into compliance with the adopted Federal standards. STP — Surface Transportation Program (Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 21 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2000- 2005 PROJECT: Commuter/Shopper Shuttle Bus Project DESCRIPTION: Continue to provide enhanced transit service in the Downtown Kent business area through the use of a fixed route shuttle service, with demand-responsive routing capabilities. Service route points to include AM/PM peak hour service to new Sound Transit rail station, Aukeen District court, South King County Acti-6ty Center [SKCAC], South King County Regional Justice Center, and D.S.H.S. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering.........................S-0- Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction ...................................S360,000 TOTAL ........................................S360,000* *City share, which is equivalent to the lost fare box revenue that the county could have collected were not the city wanting a free service. FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (CMAQ), Metro, City of Kent Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard Elimination, TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, DATA - Urban Trust Account [State]; LID - Local Improvement District 22 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2001 PROJECT: 116th Avenue Southeast Street Widening Project SE 2561h Street to Kent-Kangley (SR 516) DESCRIPTION: Widen 1161h Avenue Southeast to provide a five-lane roadway, including four general-purpose travel lanes, a center left-turn lane, and a Class II bicycle facility. Project will include the construction of paving, concrete curbs, gutters, and 10-foot wide sidewalks/bicycle ways; paved shoulders, street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Envineering.................5250,000 Right of Way Acquisition.........:.....S350,000 Construction ................................S 1.680,000 TOTAL S2,280,000 ....................................... FUNDING SOURCE(S): liATA, City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Traffic studies have denoted that once the 277th Corridor project is opened for use, heavy traffic demand will be placed on this section of 116th Avenue which will act to funnel east/west movement on Southeast 256`}' Street to the 2 77th Corridor route. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 23 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2001 PROJECT: Military Road at Reith Road Intersection Improvement Project DESCRIPTION: Widen the east and west leas of the Military Road at Reith Road intersection to provide exclusive left-turn lanes for traffic on Reith Road, and an exclusive right-turn lane for northbound traffic on Military Road. Modify the existing traffic signalization system. Project will include the construction of paving, paved shoulders; street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................S65,000 Right of% ay Acquisition.........:.............S-0- Construction ...................................S485,000 TOTAL ..........................................S550.000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): DATA, City of Kent, STP (U) PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development on the Kent West Hill, coupled with the growth in the Puget Sound area and the regularly-occurring congestion along both Pacific Highway South and Interstate 5, results in significant congestion at this intersection in the morning and evening peak hours. Forecast v/c ratios will exceed the adopted standard unless interim improvements are made to provide additional capacity. STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard Elimination, TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, DATA - Urban Trust Account [Statej; LID - Local Improvement District 24 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2001 PROJECT: West Meeker Street Widening Project-Phase II Green River Bridge to Kent-Des Moines Road (State Route 516) DESCRIPTION: Widen West Meeker Street to provide a five-lane roadway, including four general-purpose travel lanes, a center left-turn lane, and a bicycle facility. Construct second bridge over the Green River parallel to the existing structure. Project will include the construction of full-width paving. concrete curbs, gutters, and 10-foot wide sidewalks/bicycle-ways; street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. Project will also include the construction of a concrete span bridge over the river. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering.................S376.000 Right of Way Acquisition.................S60,000 Construction ................................S2,130,000 TOTAL .........................................S2,566.00 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (BR), DATA, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development along this section of Meeker Street has alread% reached the point whereby the existing three-lane roadway section is inadequate to accommodate existing or forecast traffic volumes. Existing traffic volumes that exceed 26,000 ADT (west of the Riverbend Golf Course) mandate an augmentation to a four-lane section. Further, shoulder improvements: concrete curbs, gutters, and 10-foor wide sidewalks bicycle-ways, are required to provide control of roadway drainage and prevent impacts to adjacent property owners, and to provide safe access for school-age pedestrians and cyclists, and general access needs to the area. v STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HE'S - Hazard Elimination. TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, DATA - Urban Trust Account [State]; LID - Local Improvement District 25 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2001 PROJECT: 94th Avenue South at Canyon Drive (SR 516) Traffic Signal System DESCRIPTION: Install a multi-purpose traffic sigtialization system at the intersection of 94`h Avenue South at Canyon Drive (SR 516). Project will include pavement widening of 94`h Avenue South from South 248`" Street to Canyon Drive (SR 516), construction of curbs, gutters and concrete sidewalks, bicycle-ways, retaining walls/rockeries, construction of a turn island at the intersection of Canyon Drive, and construct safety improvement in the form of a right-turn deceleration lane on westbound Canyon Drive. Alon; the northerly side of Canyon Drive, reconstruct the existing curbs and walkways to meet current City Standards. PROJECT COST Preliminary Enaineerina...................S50,000 Right of Way Acquisition.................S60,000 Construction ...................................S540,000 TOTAL ..........................................$650,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): DATA, City of Kent, Mitigation Agreements, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development activity in this area has reached the stage, and the combination of travel speeds and traffic volumes along Canyon Drive have reached the levels, wherebv a traffic sianalization system is appropriate to provide safe access into the local residential areas bounded by 94" Avenue South, 104"' Avenue South, and Southeast 240`h Street/James Street. Further, signal improvements are required to provide safe access for pedestrians to/from the METRO bus routes along the Canyon Drive. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 26 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2001 PROJECT: 841h Avenue South Pavement Rehabilitation Project South 212`h Street to State Route 167 DESCRIPTION: Remove and rehabilitate the existing roadway pavement to add additional lifespan to the roadway, between South 2121h Street and State Route 167. Project will include the removal and replacement of the existing pavement in the curb (42) travel lanes in both directions, and a full-width asphaltic concrete overlay of the entire roadway. Project will also include the selective replacement of catch basin inlets and aprons, driveways, and curbs and cutters. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................S46.000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction ...................................S454.000 TOTAL ............................................S500,00 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (U), City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing paving along this section of 841h Avenue South is showing signs of structural distress, as demonstrated by alligatoring, longitudinal cracking, and cracking of the curbs and Qutters. Along many of the sections of the street that have been widened in conjunction with private development, there exists an inverted crown at.the former curb line. This results in ponding of stormwater in the street along the seam line, increasing the rate of failure of the roadway paving. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, DATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 27 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2001 PROJECT: West Valley .Road at South 2771h Street Intersection Improvement Project DESCRIPTION: Widen West Valley Road to extend the existing southbound left turn and right-turn lanes at the intersection of South 2771h Street. Project will also include the construction of paved shoulders, street lighting. storm drainage. utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................$45,000 Right of Way Acquisition.................S50,000 Construction ...................................S225,000 TOTAL ..........................................S350,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (E), HES, UATA, City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The traffic volumes at this intersection have reached the point whereby an extension of the existing right-turn and left-turn lanes are required to mitigate the congestion at the intersection and to accommodate additional development in the Green River Valley. Further, shoulder improvements are required to provide control of roadway drainage and prevent impacts to adjacent property owners. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement. (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination. TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account (State]; LID — Local Improvement District 28 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2001 PROJECT: Militan, Road at South 272"d Street Intersection Improvement Project DESCRIPTION: Widen South 272nd Street and Military Road to extend the existing left- turn pockets on the west and north legs of the intersection. Widen the north leg of the intersection to extend the existing southbound left turn and add a riaht-turn lane at the intersection of South 2 72nd Street. Project will also include the construction of paving, concrete curbs and gutters, paved shoulders, street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................S75,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............S100.000 Construction ...................................S575,000 TOTAL ..........................................S750,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (E), HES. UATA, City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The traffic volumes at this intersection have reached the point whereby an extension of the existing right-turn and left-turn lanes are required to mitigate the congestion at the intersection and to accommodate additional development in the Green River Valley. Further, shoulder improvements are required to provide control of road-vvay drainage and prevent impacts to adjacent property owners. STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U)•Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard Elimination. TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, UATA - Urban Trust Account [State]; LID - Local Improvement District 29 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2001 PROJECT: 132"d Avenue Southeast Widening Project—Phase II Southeast 2401h Street to Southeast 256`h Street DESCRIPTION: Widen 132"d Avenue Southeast to provide a three-lane roadway, including two general-purpose travel lanes, a center left-turn lane, and a Class Iib bicvcle facility. Project will include the construction of full-width paving, paved shoulders, street lightine, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering.................600,000S Right of It'av Acquisition...............600,000E Construction ................................5.136,000S TOTAL .......................................6.336,000E FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent, UATA, STP (U) PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development along this section of 132"d Avenue has reached the point whereby a consistent three-land roadway section is required to provide safe left-turn access into the adjoining properties. Further, shoulder improvements required to provide control of roadway drainage and prevent impacts to adjacent property owners, and to provide safe access for school-age pedestrians to/from the Martin Sortun Elementary School, and general pedestrian access needs. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 30 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2001 PROJECT: 72"d Avenue South Extension Project South 196`h Street to South 2001h Street DESCRIPTION: Construct new four lane roadway from South 196`h Street to South 200th Street. Project will include the construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; street lighting, crossing of Mill Creek, storm drainage, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineeringg.................S150,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............S660,000 Construction ...................................S>j0,000 TOTAL .......................................S1,350.000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent, LTD PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Continued development in the northern Kent industrial area, and high levels of congestion along West Valley Highway, between South 180`h Street and South 1961h Street Corridor, mandate additional north-south arterial capacity. Provides some relief for South 180`h Street, South 196`h Street, and South 212`h Street intersections along West Valley Highway. Provides improved access to South 1961h Street Corridor from industrial development along 72nd Avenue South. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 31 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: South 2241h/2281h Street Corridor Project Military Road to 54th Avenue South DESCRIPTION: Preliminary engineering and construction of a new five-lane roadway from SR 516 along Military Road to approximately the 224`h block, than from Military Road to 541h Avenue South, including a new bridge over the Green River. Project will include the construction of full-width paving, bridges, concrete curbs, °utters and sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. Potentially may include the installation of traffic signalization systems at the Corridor's intersections of military Road and Lakeside Boulevard. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering..............S 1,400,000 Right of Way Acquisition............S1,000,000 Construction ..............................S 15,600,000 TOTAL .....................................S18,000,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): TIA, City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The James Street and Meeker Street `corridors' are infeasible to widen sufficiently to accommodate forecast traffic volumes and future development without additional east-west capacity, based upon existing development patterns and topographic constraints. Additional capacity is required to accommodate existing and continued development in the northern industrial area of the City. South 212`h Street has at-grade crossings for both the UP and BNSF railroads, which also hampers east- west freight mobility. Meeker Street currently represents the only east- west arterial which crosses the Green River between the State Route 516 and Orillia Road/South 1881h Street interchanges on Interstate 5. Provides first phase of continuous arterial from Benson Highway to Interstate 5 though the industrial center of Kent. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban; (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, DATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District z� CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: Military Road Widening Project—Phase I Reith Road to Kent-Des Moines Road (State Route 516) DESCRIPTION: Widen and re-channelize Military Road to provide an interim three-lane roadway, including two general-purpose travel lanes, and a center left-turn lane. Project will include the construction of paving; street channelization; street lighting, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineeringg...................S40,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction ...................................S110.000 TOTAL ..........................................S150,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development along this section of Military Road has reached the point whereby a three-lane roadway section is required to accommodate through traffic and provide safe left-turn access into the commercial center southwest of the National Guard facility. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UATA — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 33 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2003 PROJECT: Miscellaneous Traffic Signal System Installation DESCRIPTION: Install a multi-phase traffic signalization system as determined to warranted. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................S20,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction ...................................S230,000 TOTAL ..........................................S_'50,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development activity in various locations in the City has, or will, reach the stage whereby the combination of travel speeds and traffic volumes will warrant the installation of traffic signalization systems. The Citv's Traffic Signal Priority List will be used to evaluate the recommended location. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account, UAT4 — Urban Trust Account [State]; LID — Local Improvement District 34 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2003 PROJECT: Central Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project Willis Street (SR 516) to Green River Bridge DESCRIPTION: Remove and rehabilitate the existing roadway pavement to add additional lifespan to the roadway, between Willis Street (State Route 516) and the Green River Bridge. Project will include the removal and replacement of the upper two inches (2") of the existing pavement in the curb (r2) travel lanes in both directions, and a full-width asphaltic concrete overlay of the entire roadway. Project will also include the selective replacement of catch basin inlets and aprons, driveways, and curbs and gutters. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering...................S 15,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................S-0- Construction ...................................S360,000 TOTAL. ..........................................S375,00.0 FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP (U), City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing paving along this section of Central Avenue is exhibiting signs of distress, as demonstrated by alligatoring, longitudinal cracking, and cracking of the curbs and gutters. The design lifespan of the roadway has been reached, necessitating reconstruction of the paving to extend the lifespan of the roadway, and prevent further degradation. STP — Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES — Hazard Elimination, TIA — Transportation Improvement Account. DATA — Urban Trust Account [State); LID — Local Improvement District 3.5 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2003 PROJECT: Southeast 2561h Street Soos Creek Bridge Replacement Project (Vicenity 148th Avenue) DESCRIPTION: Construct a new bridge crossing at Soos Creek and Elevate South 256th Street approaches above the 100 year flood plain. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering.................5200,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............300.000S Construction ...................................900.000S TOTAL .......................................S1.400.000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing bridge and roadway are overtopped during any significant rainfall event. Southeast 2561h Street is classified as a minor arterial and supports a significant amount of traffic. Its overtopping presents a safety issue to the motoring public as well as inhibiting emergency responses by police and fire services. STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement, (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitiaation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard Elimination, TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, UATA - Urban Trust Account [State]; LID - Local Improvement District 36 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2005 PROJECT: South 224"/2281h Street Corridor Project 84`h Avenue to Benson (State Route 515) DESCRIPTION: Construct a new three to five-lane roadway from 841h Avenue to Benson Highway (SR 515), including a new bridge over SR 167, and modification to the traffic simnal at the intersection of South 224th Street and 84t'' Avenue. Project will include the construction of full-%width paving. concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, bike paths, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST Preliminary Engineering.................S781,000 Right of Way Acquisition............S2.323.000 Construction ................................S9,396,000 TOTAL ...S12,500,000 .................................. FUNDING SOURCE(S): TI.A. King Countv, City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The James Street and South 208"/212t' Street `corridors' are infeasible to widen to accommodate forecast traffic volumes without additional east- west capacity, based upon existing development and topographic constraints. Additional capacity is required to accommodate existing and continued development in the East Hill area of the City. STP - Surface Transportation Program [Federal], (U) Urban, (C) Statewide Competitive, (BR) Bridge Replacement. (E) Enhancements, (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality; HES - Hazard Elimination, TIA - Transportation Improvement Account, UATA - Urban Trust Account [State]; LID - Local Improvement District 37 CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action: ,,�,)) Councilmember W moves, Councilmember d seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through T be approved. w Discussion /A�AA Action Al 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of August 3, 1999 . 6B. Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through July 30 and paid on July 30, 1999, after auditing by the Operations Committee on August 3 , 1999 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 7/30/99 220824-221081 $3 , 897, 864 . 93 7/30/99 221082-221567 3 , 120 , 773 .23 $7, 018, 638 . 16 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B Kent, Washington August 3 , 1999 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 5 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White . Present : Councilmembers Amodt, Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods, and Yingling, Operations Director/Chief of Staff McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Parks Director Hodgson and Finance Director Miller. Approximately 20 people were at the meeting. CHANGES TO Orr added Public Communications Item 4E National THE AGENDA Night Out . PUBLIC Yangzhou Exchange Students. Finance Director COMMUNICATIONS Miller explained that this is the fifth year of the Yangzhou Sister City relationship, and that the theme this year is music. She introduced two students from Kent, Lisa Chen and Ben Buckley, who have just returned from Yangzhou, and Zhang Yawei and Xiao Guang, who have just arrived from Yangzhou. Each student spoke about their experiences and thanked the Council for their support . Youth Art Winner. International Program Coordinator Joanne Schaut introduced Anna Slater, winner of the International Youth Art Award, and displayed Slater' s artwork. Ms . Slater then thanked the Sister Cities organization for allowing her to participate in the contest . Freight Mobility System. Barbara Ivanov of the Chamber of Commerce explained the work of the freight mobility system improvement team. She noted that the project focuses on low cost improvements to the system and the ability to deliver freight on time at a fair price. She distributed copies of the June 1999 Progress Report and answered questions regarding financing, benefits to citizens and impacts of legislation. She thanked the Council for their support . Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced _ that Susan Hill of the Police Department has been chosen as Employee of the Month for August . He stated that Ms. Hill has been committed to helping 1 Kent City Council Minutes August 3 , 1999 PUBLIC improve the community education program, and that COMMUNICATIONS under her leadership, the number of Volunteers In Police Services has grown from six to over fifty, resulting in 4, 382 hours of donated service in the past 2% years . National Night Out. Judy Mauhl of the Police Department thanked the Council for changing the time of their meeting in order to attend National Night Out events . She noted that there are 18 events occurring tonight and six more on other nights . She then presented baseball caps to the Councilmembers . CONSENT ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through N CALENDAR be approved. Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM GA) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of July 20 , 1999 . WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) 1998 Miscellaneous Watermain Improvements. ACCEPT the 1998 Miscellaneous Watermain Improvements con- tract as complete and release the retainage to Kar-Vel Construction upon standard releases from the State and release of any liens, as recommended by the Public Works/Planning Committee . The ori- ginal contract amount was $45, 158 . 05 . The final construction cost was $55, 056 . 05, the overruns being a result of an additional amount of material required to raise the watermain and the installa- tion of an air-vac valve. Adequate funds exist within the project budget to cover these overruns. STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J) VACATIONS Street Vacation, SE 272nd Near 132nd Avenue SE. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1548 setting September 7th as the public hearing date for the SE 272nd near 132nd Ave SE Street Vacation, as recommended by the Public Works/Planning Committee. 2 Kent City Council Minutes August 3 , 1999 STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K) VACATIONS Street Vacation, Hawley Road. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1549 setting September 7th as the public hearing date for the Hawley Road Street Vacation, as recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee. TRAFFIC (BIDS - ITEM 8A) CONSTRUCTION 1999 Traffic Striping. The bid opening for this project was held on July 29th with three bids received. The apparent low bid was submitted by Stripe Rite in the amount of $62 , 575 . 60 . The Engineer' s estimate was $57, 847 . 15 . The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Stripe Rite. CLARK MOVED that the 1999 Traffic Striping contract be awarded to Stripe Rite for the bid amount of $62, 575 . 60 . Brotherton seconded and the motion carried. TRANSPORTATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. SET August 17th as the public hearing date for the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, as recommended by the Public Works/Planning Committee. PLANNING (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) 2000-2002 Home Interlocal Agreement. APPROVAL of the 2000-2002 HOME Interlocal Cooperative Agreement and authorization for the Mayor to sign the agreement and forward it to King County. COMMUNITY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) DEVELOPMENT Community Development Block Grant Interlocal BLOCK GRANT Agreement (ICA) . APPROVAL of the 2000-2002 Community Development Block Grant Interlocal Agreement, and authorization for the Mayor to sign this agreement and forward it to King County. ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6N) AMENDMENTS View Regulations. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3469 amending Section 15 . 08 . 060 of the Kent City Code 3 Kent City Council Minutes August 3 , 1999 ZONING CODE relating to view protection regulations, clarify- AMENDMENTS ing that the purpose of the regulations is to promote and protect public vistas of the Green River Valley by encouraging development in ways compatible with the protection of these view corridors, and further making other related changes . (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) Condominium (Townhouse) Zoning MCA-99-5) . This item was before the City Council on July 20, 1999 and was sent to the Public Works and Planning Committee for their review. The Committee reviewed ZCA-99-5 on August 2 , 1999 . Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department ex- plained that the Public Works & Planning Committee recommended the following: • To approve the proposed MR-T (Townhouse) zoning district as proposed by the Land Use & Planning Board; and • To disallow the rezoning of low density single family areas to MR-T (by requiring sites which are proposed for MR-T zoning already be zoning SR-8, multifamily residential, commercial or office) . He noted that, in addition, the Planning & Public Works Committee requested that staff initiate proposals with the Land Use & Planning Board aimed at offering density bonuses for condominium developments in all existing multifamily zoning districts, and agreed to do so. CLARK MOVED to approve the Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation for multifamily residential townhouse zoning (ZCA-99-5) and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Brotherton seconded. Orr offered a friendly amendment to include "as amended by the Public Works & Planning Committee on August 2, 1999 . " Clark and Brotherton agreed. 4 Kent City Council Minutes August 3 , 1999 ZONING CODE Orr then offered a second friendly amendment to AMENDMENTS create two different zoning densities to allow developers to apply for either 12 or 16 units per acre. She explained that that would give flexi- bility to the Council to accept or reject the proposal, and said it protects the 8-unit per acre property which may be considered for rezone . Clark and Brotherton agreed to the amendment . Lubovich questioned the criteria for determining either density. Clark responded that it would- have to be adjoining an arterial or have immediate access to an arterial, and if not located near some other commercial form of property it would be isolated and disproportionate in terms of its impact on the neighborhood. Orr concurred. She noted that another issue is traffic and said this proposal would provide flexibility to the person who seeks a rezone to build condominiums . Upon Yingling' s question, Orr explained that having two zoning options is a way of protecting neighborhoods from development that is too dense for the neighborhood. Amodt stated that this could benefit both the developer and the residents of the area. Clark' s motion as amended then carried. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6L) Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Grant. ACCEPTANCE and AUTHORIZATION for expenditure of Kent Drinking Driver Task Force grant funding as follows : Law Enforcement Education Partnership Program (LEEP Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) By the U.S. Department of Education under the Federal Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act 7/1/99-6/30/2000 $28,500.00 Kent Drinking Driver Countermeasure Program (DDTF) Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) Federal 402 Transportation/Highway Safety Funds 1999/2000 $28,012.50 2000/2001 $28, 012.50 5 Kent City Council Minutes August 3 , 1999 POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6M) Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Grant Funding. AUTHORIZATION to enter into contract negotiations for Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug (ATOD) Funds . A maximum of $84, 150 . 00 of ATOD Funds has been awarded to the City subject to successful negotiation and completion of a King County Contract . Seattle King County Health Department Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention Division Category 1, ATOD Prevention Project Two Year Youth Conference Support for Kent And Eight South King County School Districts' Junior/Senior High Youth 7/1/99 through 6/30/2001 $84,150.00 EMPLOYEE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) SERVICES Worker Compensation Third Party Administrator Contract. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to enter into an 18-month contract with Johnston & Culberson, Inc . to provide administration services for Worker Compensation claims and loss control services, as recommended by the Operations Committee at their July 20th meeting. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through July 15 and paid on July 15, 1999, after auditing by the Operations Committee on July 20, 1999 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 7/15/99 219958-220377 $ 597, 518 . 61 7/15/99 220378-220823 1 , 204 , 845 . 76 $1, 802 , 364 . 37 Approval of checks issued for Aavroll for July 1 through July 15 and paid on July 20, 1999 : Date Check Numbers Amount 7/20/99 Checks 237114-237501 $ 310, 490 . 04 7/20/99 Advices 82308-82890 864 , 179 . 04 $1, 174 , 669 . 08 6 Kent City Council Minutes August 3 , 1999 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) Capital Facility Plan. SET August 17 , 1999 for the Capital Facility Plan public hearing. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) 2000 Budget. SET August 17, 1999 for the 2000 Annual Operating Budget public hearing. REPORTS Council President. Orr thanked Epperly for her efforts enabling Councilmembers to participate in National Night Out . Operations Committee. Woods noted that the next meeting will be held at 3 :30 p.m. on August 17 . Parks Committee. Woods noted that the Committee will meet at 4 : 30 p.m. on August 17 . ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6 : 05 p.m. Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk 7 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CDBG YEAR 2000 FUNDING - SET HEARING DATE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set September 7, 1999, as the public hearing date for the Community Development Block Grant Year 2000 Funding. 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works and Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6C Id '. AVE 11, AVI - T I 6 l 3© -F } -1:' AVE 1' le'l i, .. 64 AVE N �r 'I liit,•f •� HI1 1V1: 'i W Vallcv Ilw Vi111t 1 i W L' ti F� 28 -12 AVF Sm a i� II I' Rai 11"ad I;1' 16'0,ood nl 76 AVh 5 - i,'I AVE huo 111"h1 tJ�H I V I N HN Kf{0 .M1IF allroud a IV - � _ {rglral s •of ROIL^A 'd y,2• - 24 F V,dlev Rd 32 - f. iJason IAvr !. f18 AVFIrb : 'dry ve AVE S e opt ,RN p` .i� I 100 AVE ,AVH SF nrn u,n Rd a �n IOB AV[; 20 �ri ;q``• MS AVI ' IIf 1l'F: tiF LJI A I: 13 I ---------_..____—_-- - I.'I' AVh :I' .� 27 r i J i � i r, iryl I IU AVF: SI•; _ r. 1111 AVE 'IF c �p V V Rh: - - -- - — -- 152 AVE. tih: O is I rc D < D < A m D D m .I I m —i N 3 30.70 z CDo , � ' rl O I Z N Z 0 0 /.M _ r - L.- a I 1 I _j m m I ' z oL- 1n `c. =a Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PUBLIC ACCESS STUDIO EXTENSION REQUEST - APPROVE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval to extend TCI ' s obligation to provide a public access studio facility to November 1, 1999 . TCI is required to provide this facility under Section 5 of TCI ' s current franchise agreement with the City (Ordinance No. 3108) including all amendments . Staff and the Operations Committee support this extension so that the City can pursue negotiations with Highline Community College to provide a full service "community" access studio. 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter to Operations (July 27) 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D CITY OF c1 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM XVICTA Mayor Jim White Date: July 27, 1999 To: Operations Committee Cc: Brent McFall, Director of Operations Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney M. Mulholland, IS Director Prepared by: Dea Drake, Multimedia Manager Subject: Public Access Studio- Extension Request -The City of Kent's Franchise Agreement requires TCI to provide and operate a Public Access Studio within eight miles of City Hall by July 1, 1999. City staff and Councilmember Clark have been working with TCI and other local cities on a regional approach to develop a more successful public access studio project. Council recently granted TCI an extension in order for City staff to begin investigating the possibility of forming a partnership with other agencies to operate the facility. The intention of this partnership would be to broaden the scope of the facility into more of a Community Access Facility, with a Public Access component. The most logical partnership pointed toward a local Community College or Public School District, to allow educational opportunities as well. Research and discussion with a variety of potential partners has been accomplished. Highline Community College, in particular, has expressed a strong interest in partnering on this facility. As part of this investigation, City Staff, Councilmember Clark and a Highline representative visited three community access studio facilities in the Portland, Oregon area which were operated by nonprofits. These facilities operated multiple community, educational and government access channels in their respective regions. Based on these visits, discussions with Highline, and discussions with City of Kent administration, we believe there is strong potential for partnership opportunities with Highline. Meetings with Highline representatives have been arranged for mid August, which will be followed by meetings with TCI and the other affected South County regional cities. Unfortunately, it is taking more time to put together a comprehensive analysis than we originally anticipated. We respectfully request an additional extension until November 1, 1999 to fully investigate this opportunity. By pursuing this, we offer a much greater asset to the Kent Community as well as the regional community. MOTION: To extend TCI's obligation to provide a public franchise studio facility as required under Section 5 of TCI's current franchise agreement with the City(Ordinance 3108), including all amendments,to November 1, 1999. Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: MARINA POINTE ONE BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for Marina Point One submitted by Marina Pointe I, LLC for continuous operation and maintenance of 1, 117 feet of watermain, 1, 134 feet of sanitary sewer and 1,441 feet of storm sewer improvements and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at 5305 S. 234th P1 . 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E _ Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PROMENADE ONE BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for Promenade One submitted by Promenade LLC for continuous operation and maintenance of 1, 450 feet of watermain, 1, 097 feet of sanitary sewer and 1, 216 feet of storm sewer improvements and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at 23301 54th Avenue S . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: WEST BAY BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for West Bay submitted by West Bay LLC for continuous operation and maintenance of 1, 933 feet of watermain, 1, 110 feet of sanitary sewer and 1, 531 feet of storm sewer improvements and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at 5410 S . 235th St . 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SO. 212TH STREET WAREHOUSE BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for S . 212th Warehouse submitted by O'Keefe LLC for continuous operation and maintenance of 336 feet of watermain and 115 feet of street improvements and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at West Valley Highway & South 212th Street . 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PROGRESSIVE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for the Progressive International Building submitted by Kevin L. Wold for continuous operation and maintenance of 231 feet of sanitary sewer improvements and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at 6111 S . 228th Street . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: ENGINEERING OFFICES REMODEL - ESTALBISH FUND & BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, authorization to establish the Engineering Remodel fund & budget and authorization to transfer funds from the designated project funds listed in the attached memorandum from the Public Works Director. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 2, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstroin RE: Engineering Offices Remodel With adoptions of the 1999 budget 6 new positions were approved for the Engineering Division. To date we have filled 3 of said positions and with that have used up our available workstations. To fill the balance plus the 5 more positions associated with the recent staff approval per the permit process we are out of space. As you're aware per the recent space studies Engineering is designated to expand to utilize the entire second floor of the Centennial building. Presently_ Employee Services has, on an interim basis, moved into a part of said second floor, however, there is still some vacant space remaining. To maximize the usage of said available space a remodel is in order. We have developed a preliminary plan with the aid of the space consultant that will provide us the necessary workstations. To do so however we had to utilize not onlv the vacant space but the existing halls, closets and lunch room plus remodel and reorganize our existing space. Total estimated cost of this remodel is $225,000, which includes the development of the construction plans and specs, permit fees, the remodel, construction management, furniture and etc. We are proposing to fund same by utilizing the $50,000 presently remaining in the remodeling fund (note said funds can either be transferred into a newly created Engineering remodel fund or the project billed against said fund up to the $50,000 amount), plus establish a new Engineering remodel project fund and transfer into same the following projects funds. 575,000 from fund R35 ($75,000 was budgeted for the repair of 42"' Ave near the intersection of Orillia Rd. 42"' Avenue is now being reconstructed and widened in conjunction with the Kentview Condominium project therefore these funds are no longer needed. Because these were gas tax funds which are designated for general road maintenance only said funds need to be transferred into the street fund and than $50,000 of unencumbered funds of the street fund needs to be transferred to this project fund.) $50,000 from fund D37 ($488,467 exists in the fund. The project was to construct a stormwater detention facility and channel improvements in the lower reach of Garrison creek. Because of wetlands it was concluded that securing the necessary permits to construct the detention facility would be near impossible so it was compensated for by doubling the size of the upper Garrison creek detention facility when it was constructed. Constructing the channel improvements still remains to be completed. It has also become more important in light of ESA and fish passage issues. The remaining funds, less the $50,000, are adequate to accomplish same 550,000 from fund W59 ($500,000 was budgeted for the acquisition of propene for the construction of a new reservoir within the east hill service area (590) of the water system. Based on computer modeling the reservoir needed to be in the vicinity of S248th Street and 1 16"' Avenue to address pressure and fire flow problems anticipated upon build out of the area. Acquisition of the property for the new shops provides the necessary site and since the reservoir only needs one to two acres thereof, the monies budgeted are more than adequate for its proportionate share of the acquisition costs. MOTION: Recommend to Council the establishment of the Engineering Remodel fund and budget along with authorizing transferring of the funds thereto as described herein including the expenditures therefrom. Engineering Remodel Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: H.E.S. SAFETY GRANTS - ACCEPT GRANT AND ESTABLISH BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works and Planning Committee accept H.E.S . Safety grants, establish a budget for same, transfer funds as necessary, authorize the Mayor to sign all appropriate grant documents and authorize the expenditure accordingly. The Public Works Dept has received notification of a series of HES (Hazard Elimination System) grant awards for a total of $294, 290 which will require match monies of $41, 341 . The match will be coming from City funds through R42 with the James Street project between 1st & Central Avenue project for $135, 000 to be funded by Sound Transit . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 6K DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 2, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom Dv RE: HES Grants As reflected in the attached memo, we have received notification of a series of HES (Hazard Elimination System) grant awards. For the eight projects the grant totals $294,290 which will require match monies of$41,341. Of said 541,341, however, only 522,441 is not funded as we will be ( Mna the James Street project between I" Ave and Central Ave project for 5135,000 to Sound Transit to fund its match as it relates to their commuter rail station project. Of the remaining seven projects, the 101st Ave & SE 256" St project involves installing a left turn arrow on the traffic signal, the 881h Ave & S 218t" St projects involves lane widening, street lightinQ and guardrail installation at the 90 degree corner and the balance involve "C" curbing the center line of the street to prevent left turn movements. Please be aware that these "C" curbing projects particularly on 1.04'b Ave from 25) St to 260t'' St and on Meeker St from WVH to 641h Ave will have a significant impact fronting businesses. For these projects our intent is to meet with the fronting business owners/property owners and go over the issues with them and enlist their input on possible alternative solutions before proceeding ahead. Further, per the "C" curbing project on 1041h Ave north of 256th St the opening this Fall of the 2771h Corridor project may provide sufficient traffic congestion relief there along that resolves the accident problem. Similarlv on Meeker St., if we are successful in getting the TIB grant to widen the street to 5 lanes, the accident problem there along should also be resolved. With regard to the matching funds sufficient monies exist in fund R42 (City-wide guardrail & Safety Improvements project fund) to cover same. It is the Public Works Department's recommendation to accept the grants, establish a budget for same. transfer funds as necessary, authorize the Mayor to sign all appropriate grant documents and authorize the expenditure accordingly. MOTION: Recommend to Council approval of Public Works Department's recommendation. M P7299 .� C7 Washington State Transporta;ion Buk;,�c M AY 17 1999 _ Department of Transportation 5CX 730 Own pia WAQ85G4-T ;,���-�, 41. E)EPT Sid Morrison Secretary o'Transc.,auor May 14, 1999 Mr. Don Wickstrom Public Works Director City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 1999 HES Selections Dear Mr. c strom: We are pleased to inform you that the following projects have been selected to be funded through the 1998-99 Hazard Elimination Program. This year, a total of 123 projects were selected from the more than 250 applications received. The selected projects amounted to approximately $14 million compared to total requests equaling more than $36 million. Maximum Project Federal Participation 101 Ave. SE & SE 256th St. $ 72,000 104`h Ave. SE btwn SE 256`h & SE 253'd St. S 8,100 88 Ave. S. & 218 St. $ 45,000 James Street btwn 1"Ave & Central $135,000 Kent Kangley Rd btwn 128`h Pl SE & 132nd Ave SE $ 13,500 Meeker St. at West Valley Hwy S 8,100 SE 240 St. at Safeway Driveway $ 2,340 SE 256`h St. & SE 260`h $ 11,250 Your projects will be funded in the following sequence: 1. Preliminary Engineering (PE/Design)upon receipt of: a. Project prospectus (reflecting latest cost estimate) - completed per Local Agency Guidelines. b. Local Agency Agreement showing only PE amounts. May 14, 1999 Page 2 2. Rights-of-Way Acquisition (R/W) upon receipt of: a. True Cost Estimate. b. R/W Plan per Local Agency Guidelines. C. Environmental documentation. d. Local Agency Agreement, supplemented, if applicable, showing R/W costs. 3. Construction (CN) after completion of PS&E and receipt of: a. R/W Certification. b. Environmental documentation. C. Local Agency Agreement, supplemented, when applicable, reflecting the total project cost. To obligate funding for these projects,please submit the items indicated to your Regional TransAid Engineer. Project expenditures become eligible for reimbursement once federal approval is received. Also, please remember your projects need to be completed within three years of selection and your agency must perform accident tracking and reporting for the three years following completion of the projects. Since these projects are included in the statewide safety bucket in the STIP, a STIP amendment will not be necessary. If you need assistance in completing your funding request, please contact your Regional TransAid Engineer. Sincerely, Cam` AAy DENNIS B. INGHAM Assistant Secretary TransAid DBI:ss DLZ cc: Terry Paananen,NW Region,NB82/121 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SALE OF SURPLUS VEHICLES - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUbBLkRY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, authorization to declare certain vehicles no longer needed by the City as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next public auction. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6L DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 2, 1999 TO: Public VVorlcs/Planning Committee FROM: Don �,\%icicstrom RE: Surplus Vehicles Attached is a list of Equipment Rental vehicles which are no longer needed by the Citv. As such, Nve are requesting that they be declared as surplus and sold at the next public auction. MOTION: Authorization to declare these vehicles as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next public auction. surplus Public Works Operations �� 2 3 1999 MEMORANDUM July 9, 1999 To: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Thru: Eddy Chu, Operations Manager4p--� From: Steve Hennesseyet Superintendent Subject: Surplus Vehicle Authorization Request I am requesting authorization to surplus the following vehicles and that have been replaced with the 99 purchases and are no longer needed by Fleet Services. All of these vehicles meet Fleet Services replacement point system except #5302. This vehicle has had heavy construction use and would require mechanical and body repairs that would not be cost effective to repair. All of these vehicles will be sold to the highest bidder at the next public auction. SERVICE VEHICLES Unit# Yr. Serial# Mileaee Description 5302 89 512414 70,000 GMC Cargo Van 5365 * 88 C14809 96,000 Ford I Ton Utility 8713 * 87 481862 92,400 Dodge '/Ton PU * Meets Fleet Services Replacement Point System of 20 (1 Point Per Year, 1 Point Per 1 OK) CC: Dianne Sullivan Frank Olson Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: STREET USE PERMIT - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, adoption of Ordinance No. 3!j7/ amending Chapter 6 . 07 of the Kent City Code relating to street use permits by adding new subsections pertaining to street vendors, sidewalk cafes, and sidewalk displays, as well as making other related amendments . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6M ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 6.07 of the Kent City Code entitled "Street Use Permits" by adding subsections relating to street vending, sidewalk cafes, and sidewalk displays upon public places within the City of Kent, and by making other related amendments. WHEREAS, there has been increased interest in the use of public places in the City for the purpose of locating and operating street vending units, sidewalk cafes, and sidewalk displays; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is desirable to allow these types of uses on public places within the City if appropriately regulated so as not to create a public nuisance or a public safety hazard; and WHEREAS, in order to allow these types of uses on public places in a manner that does not create a public nuisance or public safety hazard, it is appropriate to amend the Kent City Code provisions relating to street uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it appropriate to define the post- election period for removal of political signs in order to ensure a period of time between elections when signs are to be removed in order to minimize confusion to voters of the candidates and the office they seek; and 1 Street Use Permits WHEREAS, the City Council also finds it appropriate to make other related amendments to this code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 6.07 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 6.07 STREET USE PERMITS Sec. 6.07.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum rules and regulations relating to street use associated with property development and to other uses of streets, sidewalks, public property, public rights-of-way and other public places for private purposes,and to provide for enforcement. Sec. 6.07.020. Definitions. The following words and phrases, wherever used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section except where otherwise defined and unless the context shall clearly indicate to the contrary: A. Abutting property means and includes property bordering upon and contiguous to a public place. B. Applicant means any person or entity applying for the issuance or renewal of a street use permit or any person or entity that has been issued a street use permit. C. Banner means any pliable canvas or cloth sign material or holiday or festival decor such as garland or similar decor stretched over or across any public place. D. Director means the director of public works of the city and/or his or her designee including Kent city code enforcement officials. E. Drivewav means that portion of apublic place which provides vehicular access to abutting property through a depression in the constructed curb or, when there is no constructed curb, that area in front of such abutting property as is well defined or that is designated by authorized signs or markings. 2 Street Use Permits F. Portable Ssign means a sign which is not permanently affixed to the ground or to a building or structure and which may be easily moved. G. Public place means and includes streets, avenues, ways, boulevards, drives, places, alleys, sidewalks, planting (parking) strips, squares, triangles and other rights-of-way open to the use of the public, and the space above or beneath the surface of same. This definition specifically does not include streets, alleys, ways,planting strips and sidewalks which have not been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use. H. Sidewalk cafe means a portion of a public sidewalk on which tables and chairs are placed for the use of patrons while consuming food and/or beverages, including liquor as defined in RCW 66.04.010 served by a cafe, restaurant or tavern located on abutting propeM. I. Sidewalk display means a display of goods and wares on a public sidewalk for retail sale to the public by the owner or manager of a business upon abutting property, which products are being offered for sale inside the business. J. Sidewalk vending unit or vending unit means a movable cart or similar device that is operated from a fixed location on a public way from which food, beverages(excluding liquor) flowers plants and/or merchandise are provided to the public with or without charge. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to mobile caterers, generally defined as: person(s) engaged in the business of transporting food and beverages in motor vehicles to residential business, and industrial establishments pursuant to prearranged schedules and dispensing items from the vehicles for retail sale to the personnel of such establishments. K. Sign means any medium, including its structure and component parts, which is used or intended to be used out of doors to attract attention to the subject matter for advertising, identification, or informative purposes. L. Special events means carnivals, fairs, festivals, parades, and other similar short- term uses of public places. 3 Street Use Permits A Use means and includes, but is not limited to, the following types of uses: to conduct a parade or other similar event upon any public place; to operate any sidewalk display, caf6 or restaurant, or any food cart or other similar vending unit upon any public place; to construct, store, erect, place, maintain, or operate in, upon, over or under any public place, any sidewalk cafe, food cart, or restaurant, staging, scaffold, structure or material,machinery or tools used or to be used in connection with the erection, alteration, repair or painting of any building; or to move any building across or along any public place; or to use or occupy any public place for the storage or placement of any material, equipment or thing; or to allow any vehicle to be upon that portion of roadway designated as parking or curb space for purposes of selling or soliciting in addition to merely parking; or to open, excavate, or in any manner disturb or break the surface or foundation of any permanent pavement of a public place, or to alter the established grade of any street, or to disturb the surface of, dig up, cut, excavate or fill in any public place; or to construct, reconstruct, maintain or remove any sidewalk or crosswalk, pavement, sewers, water mains, grading, street lighting, or appurtenances thereto, except when permitted by ordinance, or to do any work in, or erect any structure under, along or over any public place and other such uses. N. Vendinz means the commercial sale of food, beverages (excluding liquor), flowers, plants, and/or merchandise only from a sidewalk vending unit upon public ways of the City of Kent. Vending does not include liquor as defined in RCW 66.04.010, tobacco, firearms, munitions, or any article which a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing, or any materials restricted by the fire code from direct access or handling by the public. Sec. 6.07.030. Permit required. It shall be unlawful for anyone to use any public place for private purposes without having first obtained a street use permit from the director as required in this chapter and without complying with all the provisions of this chapter. See. 6.07.030. Uses and peFmits Sec. 6.07.040. Construction and property development. 4 Street Use Permits A. Generally. No person shall be issued a project,building, grading,or fill permit without first obtaining a separate street use permit from the department of public works except as follows: 1. An apphean application is made for a permit to make an addition, alteration or repairs to a single-family residence; 2. An applie application is made for a permit to make an alteration,repair or minor addition (less than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) in value) to any structure other than a single-family residence. 3. The director determines, in his or her discretion, that the issuance of a separate street use permit for each project,building, grading or fill permit is not necessary to regulate the use on the public place. B. Sig*s- Moving of Structures. Prior to application and issuance of a street use permit for any building or structure to be moved across, along or upon any public place within the city and sited within the city, the applicant shall first obtain a building_permit for the siting of such building or structure. Sec. 6.07.050. Signs. The following provisions shall appl to o the placement of signs on public places: A.4- Signs may be placed on a public place without a permit only as follows: 1.a: Portable signs. Portable signs as defined herein may be placed on a public place without a permit upon the following conditions: width ef a sidewalk or- wa4s", te less than feuf (4) feet, or- ether-wise impede the banner-shall be installed within fiamf(4) feet ef the feee ef eur-b or-the edge of a tfa-v > highway, er-alley. a. The location of the sign shall not reduce or obstruct pedestrian passage on the sidewalk to less than four(4) feet to the nearest street trees, utility poles, traffic control signs and devices,parking meters, fire hydrants,buildings and other similar 5 Street Use Permits devices and structures. Furthermore, such placement shall be consistent with anv gpPlicable standards established by the American with Disabilities Act and shall not obstruct vehicular traffic or parking or the use of any crosswalk, wheel chair ramp, bus, or taxi zone. (2)1 . No portable signs shall be installed or placed upon power poles, telephone poles, street light standards, sign posts, trees, traffic controllers, markers, on any railing, bridge, overpass, street, crosswalk, public building or lawn or open area surrounding any public building. (33c. No portable sign shall be installed-in, er placed within tie ) ten 10 feet of a driveway, wheelchair ramp, crosswalk, or intersection or placed or situated on a public place in such a way as to constitute a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public or interfere with the use of the public place. (4)d. Portable signs shall be installed so that the top of the sign does not exceed an elevation of thirty-six (36) inches higher than the height of the sidewalk, bike path or walkway. Where these improvements do not exist the thirty-six-inch height limitation shall be measured from the highest edge of the street, alley or driveway. (�}e. Portable signs shall be constructed of weather-resistant wood, metal or plastic. Canvas, cardboard and paper signs are prohibited. (6)f. Attachment of paper, plastic, balloons, or cardboard to a sign entFanee is not permitted if such attachment extends the approved height or width of the sign. (7)g Portable signs shall not be weighted down, or otherwise attached to public property in such a way as to resist impact by a traveling vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian. K. Political campaign signs. Political campaign signs may be placed on a public place without a permit except, however, no sign shall be placed or situated on a public place in such a way as to constitute a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public or interfere with the use of the public place. Owners of political campaign signs shall be responsible for their post-election removal within seven (7) days following the 6 Street Use Permits date of the election for which the campaign signs were displayed. For general and primary elections, it is a rebuttable presumption that the post-election period extends to January 1st of the year of said election(s). after their-„�e 0. Banners. Banners may be placed on a public place only by permit pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. d4. Other. All other signs are prohibited on public places for private purposes and on any equipment, facilities and structures located upon public places, including,but not limited to,power poles,telephone poles, street light standards, sign posts,trees,traffic controllers, markers, railings,bridges, overpasses, and public buildings. 5. Removal. Owners of signs and banners displayed for temporary events shall be responsible for their removal within seven(7) days following the last date of the event or the activity for which the signs were dis_played. B. Violations. In addition or as an alternative to the remedies provided in this chapter, the director may remove or relocate signs which are placed on a public place in violation of the provisions of this sxbsection, 6.07.0 or which the director determines, in his or her discretion, constitutes a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public or interferes with the use of the public place. Q Other uses „f'.,ubli, jqreper, y it shall be unlawful f anyene to , any „blie plaee fer- pr-iva4e pufpeses, witheut ha-ving first obtained a street use pefmit from th Sec. 6.07.060. Street Vendors. No mrson shall sell, offer for sale, solicit orders, rent, lease, or otherwise peddle from a public place, using a mobile cart, using a vehicle, or by any other mobile method without first obtaining a vending permit as follows: A. Permit Application. In addition to the information required by this chapter, the applicant must provide the following before a vending permit can be issued: 1. Submit the name and home and business addresses of the applicant, and the name and address of the owner, if other than the applicant, of the vending business or sidewalk vending unit to be used in the operation of the vending business. 7 Street Use Permits 2. Submit written approval for the vending by the abutting property owner -- and/or street level tenant, if the tenant and property owner disagree, the property owner's decision controls. The street level retail occupant of the abutting QropertYshall have the right of first refusal for a permit subject to the abutting_property owner's written approval. 3. Submit an accurate drawingshowing howing the public area to be used, along with plans detailing the design and size of the vending unit to be used. 4. Procure and maintain liability insurance pursuant to Section 6.07.140(e), naming the City of Kent and the abutting_property owner as additional insureds in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00). B. Location review. Upon receipt of an application for a permit or permit renewal, the director shall review the location to determine if it is suitable for vending. In making this determination, the director shall consider the following criteria: 1. A sidewalk vending unit is limited to one assigned location. 2. No permit shall be issued for a location within ten (10) feet of a driveway, wheel chair ramp, bus stop sign, or crosswalk at any intersection or any location which unreasonably interferes with the public's or City's use of the right-of-way. The location of the vending unit shall not reduce or obstruct pedestrian passage on the sidewalk to less than four(4) feet to the nearest street trees,utility poles, traffic control signs and devices, parking meters, fire hydrants, buildings and other similar devices and structures. 3. The permit operating area must be within a commercial or industrial zone as such are defined in the Kent Zoning Code. 4. No permit for a vendor shall be issued for a proposed vending site located within two hundred (200) feet of an existing_vendor or retail store in which the permit applicant's product is the primga product of the existing vendor's site or retail store without the written consent of said permitted vendor or retail store. This distance requirement shall not apply to applications for special events or festivals issued under a Master Use Permit issued pursuant to Section 6.07.100. 5. If a proposed vending site is located within two hundred (200) feet of a park or public school, the vendor must present written consent of the cites director of 8 Street Use Permits Parks and Recreation or the school district respectively, if a proposed vending site is located within two hundred(200) feet of a private school the vendor must present written consent of the administrator or manager of the private school. This distance requirement shall not apply to applications for special events or festivals issued under a Master Use Permit issued pursuant to Section 6.07.100. 6. The use of vending devices must be compatible with and must not unreasonably interfere with the public interest in use of the public ways as public ri ts- of-way. 7. The location of the sidewalk vending unit shall not reduce or obstruct pedestrian passage on the sidewalk to less than four (4) feet to the nearest street trees, utility poles,traffic control signs and devices,parking meters, fire hydrants,buildings and other similar devices and structures. Furthermore, such placement shall be consistent with any applicable standards established by the American with Disabilities Act and shall not obstruct vehicular traffic or parking or the use of any crosswalk, wheel chair ramp, bus, or taxi zone. 8. No person or corporation shall either pay or accept payment for the written consent required for issuance or continued operation of a sidewalk vending permit. 9. In the event that two or more applications for the same location are received, the earliest application, if approved, shall be awarded the location. C. Health and safety standards. 1. Vendors of food and beverages shall comply with all standards established by the Seattle-King County Health Department. 2. All sidewalk vending units in which food or beverage preparation occurs shall be inspected and approved by the City Fire Department to assure compliance of any cooking or heating apparatus with the following provisions: A-. Deep fat, oil, or grease cooking processes employing heated liquid shall be protected by a fire extin u_g_ishing system approved by the fire department. Processes involving heated fat, oil, grease, or liquids other than water shall be shielded from the public. 9 Street Use Permits b. Processes requiring flammable gas, liquid, or solid fuels shall not be permitted, unless approved by the Fire Department. LPG containers shall be limited to no more than five gallons capacity, and no more than one container per cart or vendor display. C. Storage of extra fuel is prohibited in the area of vending, or in any buildings, except as permitted by the Fire Department. d. Vendors using open-flame cooking where steaks, hamburgers, sausages, hot dogs, or other products producing grease laden vapors are cooked shall not be stationed beneath the awning or canopy of a building. Exception may be made when evidence is presented satisfying the Fire Department that no special threat is imposed to the building or awning by virtue of vendor location. e. Pressure-cooking appliances shall be prohibited. f. A 40B, C fire extinguisher is required in all vending carts using open-flame cooking or cooking products producing_�ease laden vapors. D. Conditions. AU person with a valid vending license issued pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. All vendors must display, in aprominent and visible manner, the license issued by the director under the provisions of this chapter. 2. Food and beverages sold must be capable of immediate consumption. 3. The height of the vending unit, excluding canopies, umbrellas, or transparent enclosures,which must be approved by the director, shall not exceed five(5) feet and the vending unit must be capable of being�pushed by one 1 person. 4. The vending site must be clean and orderly at all times, and the vendor must provide a refuse container for use by patrons. 5. Soliciting or conducting business with persons in motor vehicles is prohibited. 6. No merchandise shall be displayed using street furniture (planters, street lights, trees, trash containers, etc.) or placed upon the sidewalk. In addition, sales of merchandise shall not be allowed from a vehicle. No use of any automatic coin-operated 10 Street Use Permits vending dispenser shall be allowed. Persons conducting a sidewalk business must use a sidewalk vending unit. 7. Vendors shall not hinder use of My phone booth, mailbox,parking meter, fire alarm, fire hydrant (including automatic sprinklers or standpipe connections), newspaper vending machine, waste receptacle, bench, transit stop, or traffic signal controllers. 8. Vendors shall obey any lawful order from a police officer or Fire Department official during an emergency or to avoid congestion or obstruction of the sidewalk. 9. No vendor shall make loud noises or use mechanical audio or noise- making devices or hawk to advertise his or her product. 10. No licensed sidewalk vending unit shall be left unattended on a sidewalk, nor remain on the sidewalk between midnight and 6:00 a.m. 11. Utility service connections are not permitted, except electrical, when provided by the owner of the abutting_property. Electrical lines are not allowed overhead or loin in n the pedestrian portion of the sidewalk. 12. Signs, banners and/or streamers may be attached to the vending unit for the purpose of advertising or identifying the vending unit, subject to approval of the abutting property owner or representative or agent) and the director. As determined by the director, such signs, banners, and/or streamers shall be situated so as to not unreasonably obstruct views of neighboring property or create a public safety hazard. Sec. 6.07.070. Sidewalk Cafes. No person may operate a sidewalk cafe without a permit from the director as follows: A. Permit application. In addition to the information required by this chapter, an applicant must provide the following before a sidewalk cafe permit can be issued: l. The anticipated periods of use during the year and the proposed hours of daily use, including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. 2. Whether any liquor, as defined in RCW 66.04.010, will be sold or consumed in the area to be covered by the permit, and 11 Street Use Permits 3. Procure and maintain liability insurance pursuant to Section 6.07.140(e), naming the City of Kent as additional insureds in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). B. Terms and conditions. 1. The director may issue a permit for use of a sidewalk for sidewalk cafe purposes in the event and to the extent that he or she determines that: a. The applicant is the owner or occupant of the abutting property and operates a cafe, restaurant, or tavern thereon; b. The location of the sidewalk cafe shall not reduce or obstruct pedestrian passage on the sidewalk to less than four (4) feet to the nearest street trees, utility poles traffic control signs and devices parking meters, fire hydrants,buildings and other similar devices and structures. Furthermore such placement shall be consistent with any applicable standards established by the American with Disabilities Act and shall not obstruct vehicular traffic or parking or the use of any crosswalk, wheel chair ramp, bus or taxi zone: and C. The proposed sidewalk cafe area is included within a food-service establishment permit issued by the Seattle-King County Health Department or has otherwise been authorized by said department. 2. The director may include such terms and conditions in the permit as the director may deem appropriate, including but not limited to: a. Restrictions as to the number and placement of tables and chairs and as to the hours and dates of use; b. A requirement that the area be cleared when not in use as a sidewalk cafe, or upon the order of the director or other appropriate city officer such as the Chief of Police or Fire Chief or their authorized representatives; C. Provisions that the permittees shall maintain the sidewalk in a clean and safe condition for pedestrian travel; d. A requirement that the applicant clear the sidewalk as may be necessary to accommodate deliveries to abutting or other nearby properties; 12 Street Use Permits e. Regulations upon lighting and illumination of the sidewalk cafe, limitations upon noise, and restrictions upon the placement of furniture or equipment used in connection with the sidewalk cafe; f. The posting of a surety bond or establishment of an escrow account in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; g_ If the sidewalk cafe causes a change in pedestrian travel patterns, appropriate modifications to the sidewalk in the immediate vicinity in order to accommodate the change or to assure compliance with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act; h. Restoration of the sidewalk upon completion of the use. 3. Unless expressly authorized by the director,no pavement shall be broken, no sidewalk surface disturbed, and no permanent fixture of any kind shall be installed in or on sidewalk area in connection with a sidewalk cafe. 4. The director may suspend or revoke the permission granted if an applicant violates this chapter, any implementing rules, or the terms and conditions of the permit. C. Liquor. Liquor, as defined in RCW 66.04.010, as now existing or hereinafter amended,may be used and sold at a sidewalk cafe when authorized in both the use pern it and provided for in this chapter and by permit of the Washington State Liquor Control Board, and not otherwise. D. Sidewalk condition. The applicant shall comply with the terms and conditions of the sidewalk cafe permit issued, shall maintain the sidewalk in a clean and safe condition for pedestrian travel, and shall immediately clear the sidewalk area when ordered to do so by the director or other appropriate City officer such as the Chief of Police, Fire Chief or their authorized relresentatives. See. 6.07.080. Sidewalk displays. The owner or manager of a business upon abutting_property making retail sales to the public may, without a permit, display on a public sidewalk goods or wares that are being offered for sale inside the business. Sidewalk displays are subject to rules of the director, and the following criteria: 13 Street Use Permits A. The location of the sidewalk display shall not reduce or obstruct pedestrian passage on the sidewalk to less than four(4) feet to the nearest street trees, utility poles, traffic control signs and devices, parking meters, fire hydrants, buildings, and other similar devices and structures. Furthermore, such placement shall be consistent with any applicable standards established by the American with Disabilities Act and shall not obstruct vehicular traffic or parking or the use of any crosswalk, wheel chair ramp, bus or taxi zone. B. , The display must be flush against the building of the abutting property, must leave entrances and driveways clear, and may not extend more than three (3) feet into the sidewalk. C. The display must be removed during those hours that the business is closed. If the display is in place before sunrise or after sunset, the display must be lighted and readily visible to passing pedestrians on the sidewalk. D. Sales of goods or merchandise displayed must occur on the abutting_privately owned property. E. The display may not contain liquor, tobacco, firearms, munitions, or any article which a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing, or any material restricted by the Fire Code from direct access or handling by the public. F. The display must be removed any time the director, Chief of Police, or Fire Chief determines that a clear sidewalk is needed and reguets removal for use of travel or transportation, street cleaning or maintenance, street utility work, a crowd control event or parade, or an emergency. G. The city assumes no responsibility for the items on display, irrespective of whether the loss occurs through accident, collision, vandalism, theft or otherwise. Sec. 6.07.090. Street closures. A.777 The city may permit the closure of a portion of a street-or road within the boundaries of the city. No closure of any street or road of any duration in time or length shall occur except in accordance with a permit issued by the director, and such other laws or regulations which may be applicable. 14 Street Use Permits — B.-2-. The director may issue a permit for closure of such street or road if such closure is consistent with the general health, safety and welfare of the citizens. The director is authorized to require that issuance of the permit is dependent upon fulfillment of such conditions as are necessary to ensure the closure is carried out in a safe, uniform and reasonable manner, including but not limited to: La: The execution of a written agreement regulating access to the street by emergency vehicles and local residents during the closure. 2.13,: Procurement and posting of a bond, cash and/or proof of insurance in an amount sufficient to ensure payment for damages and/or all cleanup costs associated with the closure, and a held haffniess agfeemet4 an indemnity agreement and/or deposit as set forth in subsections 6.07.060 6.07.140 and 6.07.150 below. 3.e: Use of city-approved signs and barricades for the closure. Sec. 6.07.100. Master use permit. The director may issue a master use permit for special events and other instances involving_multiple uses and/or users under this chgpter. In such case, the director shall have the discretion to determine the amount of insurance that will be required depending on the risks associated with the level of uses under the permit. The director shall also have the discretion to modify the conditions of this chapter for the use(s) applied for as deemed appropriate in order to consolidate uses or accommodate multiple users under a master use permit. lSec. 6.07.110. City development or use; exemptions. The requirements of this chapter shall not apply to: A.--: Street, drainage, water or sewer maintenance work performed by the city, including street, drainage,water or sewer installation and improvement work authorized by ordinance, or street, drainage, water or sewer improvement projects under contract with the city shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. B.-2-. The city initiated closure of any highway, street or road. Sec. 6.07.948:120. Permit application. To obtain a permit under this chapter,the person shall file an application on a form furnished by the city for that purpose. Every application shall, where applicable: 15 Street Use Permits A.4- Identify the property by legal description and address for which a bid er fill permit is being sought or an accurate description of the public place or portion thereof desired to be used. B.2- Provide the use desired to be made of such public place by the applicant. C.& Identify the owner of the property abutting the public place for which the permit is sought. being develeped D. For construction and property development, to the extent required by the director: 1.3- Provide the plans and specifications for any utility or structure desired to be constructed, erected or maintained by the applicant in or on a public place. 2.4. Identify routes to be utilized to and from the property. 3.6-. Identify the contractor and subcontractor responsible for the development work. 4.-7 Include the state contractor's number of such contractor or subcontractor. 5.9-. Include the city business license number of such contractor or subcontractor. 6.4-0, Include a copy of any building permit as required in section 6.07.050 G4Q below for any building or structure to be moved across, along or upon any public place, pursuant to a permit issued herein, and sited within the city. E. Provide other information as required to the director. F.9-. Be signed by the owner or the agent of the applicant. Sec. 6.07.0-50-.130. Processing of applications. A. The director shall examine each application submitted to determine if it complies with the provisions of this chapter. The director may also submit the application to other city departments such as the fire, police, and planning departments for review and comment. In order to ascertain any facts which may aid in determining whether a permit shall be granted, the director may inspect the premises which are desired to be used under the permit. 16 Street Use Permits B. If after review of the application the director finds that the application presented to him or her for approval conforms to the requirements of this chapter,and ase that the proposed use of such public place will not unduly interfere with the rights of the public or unduly interfere or compete with adjaeeat uses on abutting public or private property or otherwise constitute a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public, then he-of -,he the director may approve such application. ei�y, the appheant shall first obtain a building pefmit fef the siting ef sueh buildia sWdetufe. See. 6.07.868:140. Indemnity deposit; surety bond; liability insurance. A. , damage or-expense ,the The applicant shall provide a cash indemnity deposit to the depaAment efpublie we city unless the director determines that there is not a probability of ipjgM damage or expense to the city arising from an applicant's proposed use of any public place. The amount of the cash indemnity deposit shall be determined by the director, governed by the anticipated amount and extent of injury, damage or expense to the city, and determined at the time of application approval. Such indemnity deposit shall be used to pay the cost of plan review, inspections, surveys, and other administrative services performed by the city, of restoring the street and removing any earth or other debris from the street, the replacement of any utility interrupted or damaged, or the completion of any work left unfinished, the cost of filing of an indemnity agreement with the department, if such an agreement is required with the permit, and any other expense the city may sustain in conjunction with the permitted work. The balance of the cash indemnity deposit, if any, after the foregoing deductions,shall be returned to the applicant. If the indemnity deposit is insufficient,the applicant will be liable for the deficiency. If the director determines that engineering studies must be made prior to the approval of any application for permit, the cost of such study shall be paid for by the applicant, or deducted from his indemnity deposit. 17 Street Use Permits B. In lieu of or in addition to the cash indemnity deposit, the The director may l' of a addi t sh rode ;v deposit, the applicant to file with require�� � ��-�-� �.,,, .a. .,..u.. �'deposit,, PP the public works department a surety bond which has been approved as to surety and as to form by the city attorney. The surety bond shall meet all the requirements provided in subsection A-.LA) above relative to a cash indemnity deposit, shall run for the full period of the permit., and shall be in an amount to be fixed by the director, and shall be conditioned such that the applicant shall faithfully comply with all the terms of the permit, all the provisions of this chapter, and all other ordinances of the city. C. If the application is for the construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance or removal of any sidewalk, pavement, sewers, water mains, grading, street lighting or appurtenances thereto, the applicant shall file with the public works department a surety bond approved as to surety and as to form by the city attorney. The surety bond shall run for the full period of the permit and may be required by the director for a period of one (1)year after the acceptance of the permitted work by the city, and shall be in an amount fixed by the director. The surety shall be conditioned such that the applicant shall faithfully complete all portions of the work according to the standard plans and specifications of the city, and the specific plans for the work as approved by the city engineer. D. The director may require any permit holder to post a surety bond in the calendar year following the period of a permit when the extent of possible damage to a public place cannot be completely determined. E. Subject to other requirements for insurance set forth in this chapter, theThe director may require an applicant to procure and maintain in full force and effect public liability insurance naming the City of Kent, in an amount sufficient to cover potential claims for bodily injury, death or disability, ate-€e property damage, and when appropriate, as determined by the director,products and/or completed operations which may arise from or in connection with the permit. The director shall establish the amount of such insurance, and a certificate of insurance eepy ef the pelie shall be provided to the city for review prior to issuance of the permit. 18 Street Use Permits F. The director has the discretion to require one(1)or any combination of the above requirements prior to issuance of a permit as the director deems appropriate, considering the use proposed by the applicant, in order to reasonably protect the city's interests and the health, safety and welfare of the public. Sec. 6.07.070-.150. Indemnity agreement. The applicant shall be required to execute a written agreement supplied by the city attorney to forever hold and save the city free and harmless from any and all claims, actions or damages of every kind and description which may accrue to or be suffered by any person by reason of the use of such public place or of the construction, existence, maintenance use or occupation of any such structure, services, fixtures, equipment and/or facilities on or in a public place pursuant to this chapter. In addition, such agreement shall contain a provision that the permit is wholly of a temporary nature, that it vests no permanent right whatsoever, and that pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, that the permit may be revoked without cause upon thirty Q0) days' notice or without such notice, in the event the permitted use shall become dangerous or unsafe or is not being operated in accordance with the provisions of this title, the same may be suspended or revoked. Sec. 6.07.OW.160. Permit issuance, expiration, and renewal. A. EvM permit issued under this chapter shall be issued conditioned upon and subject to the right of the city to restrict, suspend, or revoke the permit as provided in section 6.07.180 below. B. Every permit issued by the depai4ment ef piablie we director under provisions of apt Ssection 6.07.040 shall expire in accordance with the expiration date of the respective building, grading, or fill permit. In no such case shall the life of the street use permit extend beyond twelve (12)months from date of issuance. C. Permits issued for special events or occurrences, such as festivals or street closures, shall expire on the date established by the director as the ending date of the event or occurrence. D. All other permits issued pursuant to this chapter, except those permits for which a shorter term is herein specified, shall be effective as of the first day of the month of 19 Street Use Permits issuance, regardless of the actual date of issue, and shall expire twelve (12)months from the effective date thereof, unless sooner revoked in the manner provided in this chapter. E. Unless suspended, revoked or denied as provided in this chapter, and subject to a location review as set forth in this section, all permits issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter may be renewed on or before the date of expiration of such permit, upon payment for the ensuing term of the established fee, minus the application charge. A vendor renewing a permit for a business that has changed the size of the vending area or location, or who has added heating or cooking apparatus since the last application/renewal must follow requirements for a new application. F. Street use permits are not transferable. Sec. 6.07.49A:170. Permit and inspection fees. A. The basic fee for a street use permit shall be as follows: under- subse see iens 6.0:7.030 B.,, G. and -s'beye-sh^'azi-bec weaty-rfiye dciiiss ($25.8111 1. Sec. 6.07.040. Construction and Property Development: fifty dollars $( 50). 2. Sec. 6.07.060. Street Vendors: one hundred dollars ($100) per year. Permits are issued annually. 3. Sec. 6.07.070. Sidewalk Cafes: one hundred dollars ($100) per year. Permits are issued annuallv. 4. Sec. 6.07.090. Street Closures: fifty dollars ($50). 5. Sec. 6.07.100. Master Use Permit: one hundred dollars ($100). B. Where total inspection time exceeds two (2) hours., an extra charge shall be invoiced to the applicant at a rate of,wenty a^"^w^ ($20 nm per- an hourly rate to be established annually by the director. 20 Street Use Permits Sec. 6.07.OW.180. Speeiat—eenditiens, suspension or- Fevoestion for- noneomplianee. Director's decision to deny, revoke, suspend, or restrict. A. Pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the director shall have the power and authority to deny the issuance or renewal of any permit applied for or to revoke, suspend, or otherwise restrict any permit issued under this chapter. The director shall notify such applicant or permittee in writing, by mail or personal delivery, of the denial of a permit application or the suspension or revocation of an existing_permit and the grounds therefor. B. The issuance of a permit for use on a public way is subject to the use and needs of the city and the general public,whether such needs are temporary or permanent and for public or private purposes (i.e., utility construction work in public way by private service provider), and is a grant of a temporary revocable privilege to use a portion of the public way to serve and benefit the general public. The applicant shall have the burden to prove that any proposed use will enhance and further the public interest consistent and not in conflict with the use of the public way by the „enteral public and the city for other authorized uses and activities. All permits granted under the provisions of this chapter may be restricted, suspended, or revoked without compensation by the director, upon thirty(30) days'prior notice when the use and needs of the city and generalpublic are paramount to the applicant's use or the applicant's use does not enhance and further the public interest or is in conflict with the use of the public way. The director shall have the discretion to determine priorities of conflicting uses of public places or may deny any or all such uses or proposed uses. 1, The d:,-ester- e f„„blie . erksor- dew: „ ,te .., ,-sting s e.,d e e oke piziixt issued hereunder- e whenever- e C. Any permit issued under this chapter may be suspended or revoked immediately based on one or more of the following_grounds: 1. Any other license or permit issued pursuant to this chapter has been suspended, revoked, or cancelled. 21 Street Use Permits 2. The applicant has violated or failed to meet any of the provisions of this chapter or is in violation of any other ordinances or regulation of the City relating to the use by Uplicant for which the permit is applied for or issued. 3. The applicant does not currently have in effect an insurance policy in the minimum amount as specified in this chapter. 4. The permit was procured by fraud or misrepresentation of fact or was issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied to the City. 5. The abutting property owner or legal representative withdraws consent in writing for a sidewalk vending unit. 6. Health Department authorization for the sidewalk food or beverage vending unit is cancelled. 7. A sidewalk vending unit is not used within ninety(90)days of its issuance. 8. The applicant's use is creating a health or safety hazard or constitutes a public nuisance. A-.D. For permits issued for construction and,propgIly development, the following shall also apply. 1. Streets/Storm Drains. The applicant shall continuously keep the streets and storm drain system free from all debris attributed to the work performed under the respective building, grading, or fill permit. If this is violated, the director of publie we �s er-designate may.,without advance notice and by posting the work site, suspend or revoke a permit issued.No new permit will be issued or the suspension lifted until the conditions of this section have been met. Where the director determines that no immediate action has taken place to remedy the conditions or to obtain pff compliance with the conditions of this section is abetit te a , and the director of publie determines in his or her judgment that it is in the best interest of the city that immediate action should be taken,he the director can order the work done by city forces or other forces. The cost thereof shall be deducted from the indemnity fund at the actual cost plus fifteen(15)percent. 22 Street Use Permits 2. Permit Not Obtained. Any work which is commenced or performed prior to obtaining the permit required by this chapter shall be immediately suspended and shall not recommence until the requirements of this chapter have been fully satisfied. 3. Stop Work Order. In addition to any remedy provided for in this chapter, the director may issue a stop work order whenever a continuing violation of this section will materially impair the director's ability to secure compliance, or when a continuing violation threatens the health or safety of the public. See. 6.07.190 - Appeals. Upon denial of issuance or renewal, or revocation, suspension or restriction of a permit, notice of such action shall be delivered, in writing, to the applicant by personal service or certified mail at the address specified by the licensee in the application. Any person aggrieved by the action of the director on a permit may within ten (10) days after notice of said action appeal to the hearing examiner by filing with the hearing examiner a written notice of the appeal, clearly stating the grounds on which the appeal is based. The appeal before the hearing examiner will be processed and heard pursuant to Chapter 2.32 of the Kent City Code. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final and conclusive unless appealed to the superior court within twenty-one(21) days of the date of the hearing examiner's decision. If appeal is taken as herein prescribed, a suspension or revocation of a permit shall be stayed, except for a health, fire, or other public safety violation,pending final action by the hearing examiner. a pefmit is required by this ehapter-is eewAneneed or-per-fefmed prior-to Obtaining pennit, the basie pefmit fee shall be doubled. The pa5qneat for-sueb double fee shal exeeutien of the work er- from any other- penalties whieh may be pr-evided fer- in See. 6.07.120. Permit obtained. Off*, A,efk •`•high-is eewiffienccQ-vr per-fefmed prior- te ebtaifAng the pefmit required by this shapter- shall be iFFAnediately fully safisfie 23 Street Use Permits See. 6.07.140. Step work or-der-. The dir-eeter- may issue a step wer-k er-def b Whenever-a ela4ien ef d:iis ehapter-will materially impair-the dir-eeter-'s abi IAY Sec. 6.07.200. Administrative policies. The director may establish administrative policies deemed appropriate to implement the provisions of this chapter. Sec. 6.07.4-50:210. Violation; penalties. A. Civil. Any violation of any provision of this chapter constitutes a civil violation under Kent City Cede ehapte- Ch. 1.04 KCC for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and abatement may be required and/or otherwise enforced as provided therein. B. Criminal. In addition or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this chapter or by law, any person violating the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed the sum of one thousand ($1,000) dollars or imprisonment for a period not to exceed ninety(90) days, or both such fine or imprisonment. SECTION -Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. -Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR 24 Street Use Permits ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 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\L.AMORDMANO VENDOA.OAD 25 Street Use Permits ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 15 of the Kent City Code establishing a new zoning district entitled "Multifamily Residential Townhouse" allowing for low to medium density where home ownership is encouraged consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and further providing for related amendments to the zoning code related to multifamily residential townhouse development. WHEREAS, the policies of the Kent Comprehensive Plan seek to expand affordable home ownership opportunities through revisions to the City's zoning and development standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to expand home ownership and affordable housing by the creation of zoning districts where townhouse condominiums are principally permitted uses; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on June 28, 1999, and votes to recommend to the City Council that a new townhouse zone be created; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 15.02.525 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1 Townhouse Zoning Sec. 15.02.525. Townhouse. Taya,49use means aii a4a6h@d " o "*""' f"'"" a a imits Townhouse means a multifamily residential dwelling unit which is attached to other dwelling units along one or both sides and which occupies the building area from ground level to the roof with no dwelling units located above or below. SECTION 2. Chapter 15.03.010 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended by adding a new zoning district entitled"Multifamily Residential Townhouse' as follows: Sec. 15.03.010. Establishment and designation of districts. The various districts established by this title and into which the city is divided are designated as follows: A-1 Agricultural District The stated goal of the city is to preserve prime agricultural land in the Green River Valley as a nonrenewable resource. The agriculture zone shall actively encourage the concentration of agricultural uses in areas where incompatibility with urban uses will be minimal to aid in the implementation of those goals. Further, such classification of prime agricultural land thus recognizes and encourages farming activity as a viable sector of the local economy. SR-1 Residential Agricultural District The purpose of the SR-1 zone is to provide for areas allowing low density single-family residential development. SR-1 zoning shall be applied to those areas identified in the comprehensive plan for low density development, because of environmental constraints or the lack of urban services. AG Agricultural General District The purpose of the AG zone is to provide appropriate locations for agriculturally related industrial uses in or near areas designated for long term agricultural use. Such areas may contain prime farmland soils which may be currently or potentially used for agricultural production. 2 Townhouse Zoning SR-2 Single-Family Residential District SR-3 Single-Family Residential District SR-4.5 Single-Family Residential District SR-6 Single-Family Residential District SR-8 Single-Family Residential District It is the purpose of the single-family residential districts to stabilize and preserve single- family residential neighborhoods, as designated in the comprehensive plan. It is further the purpose to provide a range of densities and minimum lot sizes in order to promote diversity and recognize a variety of residential environments. MR-D Duplex Multifamily Residential District It is the purpose of the MR-D district to provide for a limited increase in population density and allow for a greater variety of housing types by allowing duplex dwelling units and higher density single-family detached residential development. MR-T12 Multifamily Residential Townhouse District MR-T16 Multifamily Residential Townhouse District It is the purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low to medium densitv multifamilv residential development where home ownership is encouraged consistent with the comprehensive plan. MR-G Low Density Multifamily Residential District It is the purpose of the MR-G district to provide locations for low to medium density multi-family residential development and higher density single-family residential development, as designated in the comprehensive plan. MR-M Medium Density Multifamily Residential District It is the purpose of the MR-M district to provide for locations for medium density multi- family residential development and higher density single-family residential development, as designated in the comprehensive plan. MR-H High Density Multifamily Residential District It is the purpose of the MR-H district to provide for locations for high density residential districts suitable for urban living. 3 Townhouse Zoning MHP Mobile Home Park Combining District The MHP combining district is designed to provide proper locations for mobile home parks. Mobile home parks may be located in any multi-family residential when MHP combining district regulations and development plans are approved for that location. PUD Planned Unit Development District The intent of the PUD is to create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design, and protect and enhance natural and community features. The process is provided to encourage unique developments which may combine a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. By using flexibility in the application of development standards, this process will promote developments that will benefit citizens that live and work within the city. NCC Neighborhood Convenience Commercial District It is the purpose of the NCC district to provide small nodal areas for retail and personal service activities convenient to residential areas and to provide ready access to everyday convenience goods for the residents of such neighborhoods. NCC districts shall be located in areas designated for neighborhood services in the comprehensive plan. CC Community Commercial District The purpose of the CC district is to provide areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. This district shall only apply to such commercial districts as designated in the city comprehensive plan. It is also the purpose of this district to provide opportunities for mixed use development within the designated mixed use overlay boundary, as designated by the comprehensive plan. i DC Downtown Commercial District It is the purpose of the DC district to provide a place and create environmental conditions which will encourage the location of dense and varied retail, office, residential, civic and recreational activities which will benefit and contribute to the vitality of a central downtown location, to recognize and preserve the historic pattern of development in the area and to implement the land use goals and policies in the 1989 downtown plan, the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and the Downtown Action Plan. In the DC area, permitted 4 Townhouse Zoning uses should be primarily pedestrian oriented and able to take advantage of on-street and structured off-street parking lots. DCE Downtown Commercial Enterprise District The purpose of this district is to encourage and promote higher density development and a variety and mixture of compatible retail, commercial,residential, civic, recreational,and service activities in the downtown area, to enhance the pedestrian-oriented character of the downtown, and to implement the goals and policies of the 1989 downtown plan, the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and the Downtown Strategic Action Plan. DLM Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing District It is the purpose of this zoning district to provide for light industrial land uses which may coexist with retail, business, residential and service land uses in the downtown area. This district is intended to provide areas for those light manufacturing activities that desire to conduct business in proximity to a variety of land uses such as is possible only in the downtown community. CM-1 Commercial Manufacturing-1 District It is the purpose of the CM-1 district to provide locations for those types of developments which combine some characteristics of both retail establishments and industrial operations, heavy commercial uses and wholesale uses. CM-2 Commercial Manufacturing-2 District It is the purpose of the CM-2 district to provide locations for those types of developments which combine some characteristics of both retail establishments and small-scale, light industrial operations,heavy commercial and wholesale uses, and specialty manufacturing. GC General Commercial District The purpose and intent of the general commercial district is to provide for the location of commercial areas developed along certain major thoroughfares; to provide use incentives and development standards which will encourage the redevelopment and upgrading of such areas; to provide for a range of trade, service, entertainment and recreation land uses which occur adjacent to major traffic arterials and residential uses; and to provide areas for development which are automobile oriented and designed for convenience, safety and 5 Townhouse Zoning the reduction of the visual blight of uncontrolled advertising signs, traffic control devices and utility equipment. It is also the purpose of this district to provide opportunities for mixed use development within the designated mixed use overlay boundary, as designated by the comprehensive plan. O Office District It is the purpose of the O district to provide for areas appropriate for professional and administrative offices. It is intended that such districts shall buffer residential districts and the development standards are such that office uses should be compatible with residential districts. It is also the purpose of this district to provide opportunities for mixed use development within the designated mixed use overlay, as designated in the comprehensive plan. MA Industrial Agricultural District It is the purpose of the MA zone to identify lands which are transitional in nature and which have a combination of agricultural and warehouse/distribution characteristics. MA lands may be converted in the future to more intensive industrial zones at such time as adjoining properties become more intensively developed and urban services such as water, sewer, and improved street access become available. M1, Ml-C Industrial Park District The purpose of the M-1 district is to provide an environment exclusively for and conducive to the development and protection of a broad range of industrial, office, and business park activities, including modern, large scale administrative facilities, research institutions and specialized manufacturing organizations, all of a non-nuisance type, as designated in the comprehensive plan. This district is intended to provide areas for those industrial activities that desire to conduct business in an atmosphere of prestige location in which environmental amenities are protected through a high level of development standards. It is also the purpose of this zone to allow certain limited commercial land uses that provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. Such uses are allowed in the MI district, through the application of the "C" suffix, at centralized, nodal locations where major arterials intersect. 6 Townhouse Zoning M2 Limited Industrial District The purpose of the M2 district is to provide areas suitable for a broad range of industrial and warehouse/distribution activities. The permitted uses are similar to those of the industrial park district, except that non-industrial uses, particularly office and retail, are restricted, in accordance with the manufacturing/industrial center designation in the comprehensive plan. Development standards are aimed at maintaining an efficient and desirable industrial area. M3 General Industrial District The purpose of the M3 district is to provide areas suitable for the broadest range of industrial activities,and to specify those industrial activities having unusual or potentially deleterious operational characteristics, where special attention must be paid to location and site development. Light industrial uses which require restrictive standards on the part of adjoining uses and non-industrial uses are discouraged from locating in this district, in accordance with the manufacturing/industrial center designation in the comprehensive plan. GWC Gateway Commercial District It is the purpose of the gateway commercial district to provide retail commercial uses appropriate along major vehicular corridors while encouraging appropriate and unified development among the properties within the district. It is designed to create unique, unified and recognizable streetscapes while ensuring land use compatibility and the exclusion of inappropriate uses. It is also intended to promote flexibility in appropriate areas of site design and to encourage mixed use developments. The gateway commercial district recognizes the significance of the automobile while simultaneously minimizing its dominance in commercially developed areas and avoiding unsightly highway strip commercial development. The gateway commercial development standards promote land uses which minimize physical and visual impacts normally associated with highway commercial developments. Landscaping, parking and sign standards have all been enhanced as compared to the current commercial and industrial zoning districts. These standards will promote a viable, unique and recognizable commercial area along East 7 Townhouse Zoning Valley Highway. Moreover, the gateway commercial district will encourage the development of commercial uses capable of benefiting and ensuring the long term enhancement of properties throughout the study area. SU Special Use Combining District It is the purpose of the SU district to provide for special controls for certain uses which do not clearly fit into other districts, which may be due to technological and social changes, or which are of such unique character as to warrant special attention in the interest of the city's optimum development and the preservation and enhancement of its environmental quality. A special use combining district is imposed on an existing zoning district, permitting the special use as well as uses permitted by the underlying zone. The combining district becomes void if substantial construction has not begun within a one- year period, and the district reverts to its original zoning designation. It is the intent of the special use combining regulations to provide the city with adequate procedures for controlling and reviewing such uses and to discourage application for speculative rezoning. SECTION 3. Chapter 15.04 is hereby amended by adding a new section, Section 15.04.035 entitled "Multifamily residential townhouse district — MR-7 as follows: Sec. 15.04.035. Multifamily residential townhouse districts—MR-T. It is the purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low to medium density multifamily residential development where home ownership is encouraged consistent with the comprehensive plan. A Districts established by maximum permitted density. The following multifamily residential townhouse districts and their densities are established. (1) MR-T12: Twelve (12) townhouse dwelling units per acre. (2) MR-T16 Sixteen (16) townhouse dwelling units per acre. B. Required existing zoning to rezone. The following zoning is required to be in existence on the entire property to be rezoned at the time of application for a 8 Townhouse Zoning rezone to an MR-T zone: SR-8, MRD,MRG, MRM,MRH, O, O-MU,NCC, CC, GC, DC or DCE. C. Principally permitted uses. 1. One single family dwelling per lot. 2. One modular home per lot. 3. Duplexes. 4. Multifamily townhouse units. 5. Mobile home parks (subject to footnote #13). 6. Group homes class 1-A. 7. Group homes class 1-B. 8. Home day care. 9. Day care center. 10. Crop and tree farming. D. Special uses. 1. Churches (subject to footnote#4). E. Accessory uses. 1. Rooming and boarding of not more than three (3) persons. 2. Accessory buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use. 3. Accessory dwelling units (subject to footnote #10). 4. Home occupations (subject to footnote #11). 5. Storage buildings and storage of recreational vehicles (subject to footnote #16). 6. Offices incidental to a principally permitted use. F. Conditional uses. 1. Group homes classes 1-C, 11-A, 11-B, and 11-C. 2. Drive-in churches, welfare facilities, retirement homes, convalescent homes and other welfare facilities whether public or private, and facilities for rehabilitation or correction. 3. Transportation and transit facilities. 9 Townhouse Zoning 4. Railway and bus depots, taxi stands. 5. Utility and transportation facilities, electrical substations, pumping or regulating devices for the transmission of water, gas, steam, petroleum, etc. 6. Public facilities: firehouses, police stations, libraries, and administrative offices of governmental agencies, primary and secondary schools, vocational schools and colleges. 7. Open spaces uses including cemeteries, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, and other recreational facilities, including buildings or structures associated therewith. 8. Private clubs, fraternal lodges, etc. G. Development standards. 1. Maximum density (units per SF: 8.71 dus/ac acre) MF: MR-T12 12.0 dus/ac MR-T 16 16.0 dus/ac 2. Minimum lot area SF: 4,000 sq. ft. Duplex: 8,000 sq. ft. MF: 8,500 for first 2 units, then 3,500 sq. ft. per each additional unit i 3. Minimum lot width SF: 40 ft. Duplex: 80 ft. MF: 80 ft. 4. Maximum site coverage SF: 55% (subject to footnote 45) Duplex: 40% (subject to footnote #5) MF: 45% (subject to footnote 45) 5. Minimum yard requirements SF: Same as MR-G Duplex: Same as MR-G MF: Same as MR-G 6. Height limitation SF: 2.5 stories/30 ft. Duplex: 2 stories/30 ft. MF: 3 stories/30 ft. 10 Townhouse Zoning 7. Maximum impervious surface SF: 75% (subject to footnote #19) Duplex: 70% (subject to footnote #19) MF: 70% (subject to footnote #19) 8. Zero lot line Provisions of 15.08.300, .310, .330 shall apply. 9. Multifamily design review Yes. See section 15.09.047. H. Signs. Same as for MR-G zone. I. Offstreet parking. Same as for MR-G zone. J. Landscaping. Same as for MR-G zone. K. Additional standards. All multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T zone shall be condominiums only. A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded pursuant to Ch. 64.32 RCW prior to approval of development permit by the City. SECTION4. Section 15.09.050 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended by adding a new subsection(F) as follows: See. 15.09.050. Amendments. This title may be amended by the city council by I changing the boundaries of zoning districts (rezones which change the official zoning map) or by changing any other provisions thereof(text amendments which add, delete or otherwise modify the text of this title)whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require such amendment, by following the procedures of this section. A. Initiation. An amendment may be initiated as follows: 1. Amendments to the text of this title and official zoning map amendments may be initiated by resolution of intention by the city council. Text amendments are heard by the Land Use and Planning Board and city council; zoning map amendments are heard by the hearing examiner. In the case of area-wide zoning or rezoning, both text amendments and y zoning map amendments may be heard by the Land Use and Planning 11 Townhouse Zoning Board and city council in accordance with Ch. 12.01 KCC. 2. Amendments to the text of this title may be initiated by resolution of intention by the Land Use and Planning Board. 3. Official zoning map amendments (rezones), including the application of the "C" suffix, may be initiated by application of one (1) or more owners, or their agents, of the property affected by the proposed amendment, which shall be made on a form prescribed by the planning department and filed with the planning department. The application shall be submitted in the manner required for Process IV applications. The hearing examiner shall consider the application in an open record pre-decision hearing in accordance with Ch. 2.32 and Ch. 12.01 KCC. B. Public hearing. The hearing examiner shall hold an open record pre-decision hearing on any proposed amendment, and shall give notice thereof in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. C. Standards and criteria for granting a request for rezone. The following standards and criteria shall be used by the hearing examiner and city council to evaluate a request for rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the city council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria and subject to the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. J. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city. 12 Townhouse Zoning D. Rezoning to MI-C The hearing examiner and the city council shall use the standards and criteria provided in subsection (C). of this section to evaluate a request for rezone to MI-C. In addition, the hearing examiner and city council shall evaluate a request for M 1-C on the basis of the following standards and criteria. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the city council determines the request is consistent with these standards and criteria and subject to the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. 1. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or contiguous to major arterial intersections identified on the comprehensive plan map as being appropriate locations for commercial type land uses. 2. Rezoning to M1-C shall not be speculative in nature, but shall be based on generalized development plans and uses. E. Rezone to mixed use overlay. The hearing examiner and the city council shall use the standards and criteria provided in subsection (C). of this section to evaluate a request for expanding the boundaries of the mixed use overlay boundary which is located in the GC, CC, and O zoning districts. In addition,the hearing examiner and city council shall evaluate a request for expanding the mixed use overlay on the basis of the following standards and criteria. Such an amendment shall only be ranted if the city council determines the request is consistent with these i g tY q standards and criteria and subject to the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. 1. The proposed rezone is contiguous to an existing mixed use overlay area, or is at least one (1) acre in size. 2. The proposed area is located within close proximity to existing residential uses and existing commercial uses which would support residential use. 3. The proposed area is located in close proximity to transit stops, parks, and community facilities. F. Rezoning to MR-T. The hearing examiner and the city council shall use the standards and criteria provided in subsection (C). of this section to evaluate a request for rezone to MR-T. In addition, the hearing examiner and city council 13 Townhouse Zoning shall evaluate a request for MR-T on the basis of the following standards and criteria. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the city council determines the request is consistent with these standards and criteria and subject to the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC. 1. The proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development minimizes the disruption to single family residential neighborhoods. -F-G. Recommendation of hearing examiner. Following the public hearing provided for in this section, the hearing examiner shall make a report of findings and recommendations with respect to the proposed amendment and shall forward such to the city council, which shall have the final authority to act on the amendment. Q.H. City council action/appeal. 1. The city council shall, at a regular public meeting, consider the recommendation and issue a final decision. The decision of the city council is appealable to the King County Superior Court within twenty- one (21) calendar days from the issuance of a notice of decision and in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 12.01 KCC and Ch. 36.70c4Q RCW. 2. If the application for an amendment is denied by the city council, the application shall not be eligible for resubmittal for one (1)year from date of the denial, unless specifically stated to be without prejudice. A new application affecting the same property may be submitted if, in the opinion of the hearing examiner, circumstances affecting the application have changed substantially. SECTION S. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 14 Townhouse Zoning SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after the date of 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 51999. 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 TiviI\Ordinmceltownhousewning.doc 15 Townhouse Zoning Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KENT MEMORIAL PARK LIGHT POLE REPLACEMENT - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the Kent Memorial Park Light Pole Replacement and Installation Project contract completed by Golf Landscaping Inc . The Kent Memorial Park Light Pole Replacement and Installation Project which was contracted with Golf Landscaping has been inspected and accepted by the project manager. 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter of acceptance from Project Manager 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 60 CITY OF OT Jim White, Mayor June 17, 1999 Fred Leenstra Golf Landscaping, Inc. PO Box 1908 Milton, WA 98354-1908 RE: Kent Memorial Park Light Pole Replacement Dear Mr. Leenstra: I made a final inspection of the light pole replacement at Kent Memorial Park and found that it is completed to my satisfaction. This letter serves as final acceptance of the project. The one-year warranty period will be in effect through June 17, 2000. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (253) 856-5112. Sincerely, Lori M. Flemm, Superintendent Parks Planning and Development C: John M. Hodgson, Director Parks and Recreation Teri Petrole, Contract Compliance Officer LMFrb 221)dth AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253(859-3300 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: RUSSELL ROAD PARK BLEACHER PURCHASE - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete of the Russell Road Bleacher Purchase and Installation Project contract completed by Aluminum Bleachers . The Russell Road Bleacher Purchase and Installation Project which was contracted with Outdoor Aluminum has been inspected and accepted by the project manager. 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter of acceptance from Project Manager 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6P i CITY OF Jiro White, Mayor May 27, 1999 Brad Martin Outdoor Aluminum PO Box 118 Geneva, Alabama 36340 RE: Russell Road Park Bleachers and Installation Dear Mr. Martin: I made a final inspection of the bleachers and found that all of the punch list items were completed to my satisfaction. This letter serves as final acceptance of the project. The one-year warranty period will be in effect through May 27, 2000. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (253) 856-5112. Sincerely, I"'�M •4v� Lori M. Flemm, S erintendent Parks Planning and Development C: John M. Hodgson, Director Parks and Recreation Teri Petrole, Contract Compliance Officer LMF/jb 220 1ih.AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.WASHINGTON 98n3'_•5595!TELEPHONE 12531 859-33nu Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PS51 TWO-LOT SHORT PLAT BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for the PS 51 2-Lot Short Plat submitted by Michael and Sonja Russell for continuous operation and maintenance of 136 feet of sanitary sewer, 310 feet of street improvements and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at S. 222nd St and 94th Avenue South. 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6Q Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KENT ARTS COMMISSION - CONFIRMATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment of Mr. Don Jensen to serve as a member of the Kent Arts Commission. Mr. Jensen is a Kent resident and is an art teacher at Kent Junior High. Additionally, he is a practicing artist . He holds a Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Fine Arts, Bachelor of Arts in Education from Western Washington University and an Associate of Arts from Green River Community College . Mr. Jensen will replace Walter Hazen, who resigned, and his term will continue until 10/31/99 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6R MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCILMENIBERS FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR DATE: AUGUST 10, 1999 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION I have recently appointed Mr. Don Jensen to serve as a member of the Kent Arts Commission. Mr. Jensen is a Kent resident and is an art teacher at Kent Junior High. Additionally, he is a practicing artist. He holds a Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Fine Arts, Bachelor of Arts in Education from Western Washington University and an Associate of Arts from Green River Community College. Mr. Jensen will replace Walter Hazen, who resigned, and his term will continue unti110/31/99. I submit this for your confirmation cc: John Hodgson, Parks Director Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: 125, 000 GALLON WATER TANK SEISMIC UPGRADES & PAINTING - ACCEPTANCE 2 . SUMbLkRY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept as complete the 125, 000 Gallon Water Tank Seismic Upgrades & Painting contract and release of retainage to Fraser, Inc. upon standard releases from the State and release of any liens . The original contract amount was $216, 636 . 99 . The final construction cost was $217, 766 .43 . Adequate funds exist within the project budget to cover the overrun. 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6S Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - RESOLUTION 2 . SUNNARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Public Safety Committee, adoption of Resolution No. supporting programs and/or policies that will enhance the safety of domestic violence survivors (including children) and attempt to hold abusers accountable. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6T RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, supporting and implementing programs and/or policies that will enhance the safety of domestic violence survivors (including children) and attempt to hold abusers accountable. WHEREAS, the City of Kent has endorsed and encouraged programs that continue to send the message that domestic violence will not be tolerated in this jurisdiction; and -� WHEREAS, in addition to the community services and current legislation provided on the issue of domestic violence, the City's domestic violence survivors need a specific location where they can obtain information regarding safety, intervention, and criminal proceedings as well as other support services; and WHEREAS, at least one-third of all criminal cases prosecuted in the City of Kent are misdemeanor domestic violence cases; and WHEREAS, the survivors of domestic violence and the children involved are often unable to get into a shelter and transitional housing and are often forced to return to their abusive environment; and WHEREAS, fifty percent of domestic violence cases also involve cases of child abuse; and 1 Domestic Violence WHEREAS, a task force committee has been established to streamline a better coordinated response to domestic violence among city and community agencies as well as investigate additional funding sources; and WHEREAS, the issue of education and prevention of domestic violence is an immediate issue because in order to help stop the cycle, the cycle and dynamics need to be identified by children, adults, and community agencies; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The survivors of domestic violence (including children) who are citizens of Kent, deserve and have been in need of a policy mandated by the City that specifically states this City will not tolerate domestic violence. The City continues to endorse and promote programs such as the Domestic Abuse Women's Network and the Family Violence Unit illustrating that domestic violence is not tolerated in our jurisdiction. The City makes strong domestic violence statements in the City policy manual specifically regarding code of conduct especially in professions that involve law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and emergency personnel. SECTION 2. The City supports programs that provide shelter, emergency services, and counseling through D.A.W.N. The City created a Family Violence Unit to provide services as well as information regarding the criminal justice system for survivors. A. The City encourages grant monies to be spent on additional housing as well as education (shelters are full the majority of the time and no preventative education is offered in schools). The City endorses the acquisition of grant monies obtained by the police department specifically for the use of temporary housing arrangements. 2 Domestic Violence B. The City encourages developing curriculum throughout all grades including undergraduate as well as graduate programs, law schools, and training across all medical professions. C. The City supports and encourages specific mandated training especially in the areas of criminal justice system (police, judges, prosecutors, advocates, corrections personnel) as well as in the area of civil law—specifically family law courts. D. The City Council encourages fines imposed on criminal domestic violence offenses be redistributed back to survivors in order to assist in meeting housing and/or other service demands. E. The City supports the possibility of changes in WorkFirst accommodations for DV victims. (In order to get benefits, a survivor must meet certain conditions which can inherently affect and make known their whereabouts to an abuser. Shelters often will not provide space to survivors in the same city where the survivor is employed). F. The City would support legislation that would allow survivors to attend civil and/or criminal hearings without being penalized or discriminated against by their employers because of their court appearance, as well as changes in the Landlord Tenant Act that would allow survivors to be released from rental or lease agreements if a No Contact Order was in place. SECTION 3. The City supports the continuation of increased communication with Division of Children and Family Services (Child Protection Services) as it relates to domestic violence and the need to work in partnership to help identify and address the impacts both short and long term to children. The city supports legislation that promotes the safety of victims and children which is the first priority listed in Child Protective Services' mission statement. The City will consider endorsing legislation that promotes either additional criminal charges when a child witnesses an incident of domestic violence and/or stiffer penalties at sentencing because the violation was witnessed by a child. 3 Domestic Violence SECTION 4. The City Council hereby supports and endorses the mission statement of the Kent Domestic Violence Task Force. Mission Statement. To create a coordinated, comprehensive, and community response to domestic violence with the consistent message that domestic violence is a crime and will not be tolerated. The Domestic Violence Task Force promotes victim safety, community awareness, abuser accountability through education, prevention, intervention, and treatment. SECTION S. The City Council shares a vision with the Kent Domestic Violence Task Force to develop a curriculum and endorse legislation that mandates training for all appropriate professionals regarding the issue of domestic violence. SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by 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 4 Domestic Violence APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 11999. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P:\Civi I\Resolution\fv.res..doc 5 Domestic Violence Kent City Council Meeting Date: August 17, 1998 Bids 1 . SUBJECT: Linda Heights Park Renovation Project 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for the Linda Heights Park Renovation Project was held August 13, 1999 . Due to time constraints, the bid information is not included in the Council packets . The Parks and Recreation Director will make a recommendation to award at the August 17, 1999 . 3 . EXHIBITS: The bid tab will be faxed on August 13, 1999 . 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: YES NO X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Engineer' s Estimate $228, 611 SOURCE OF FUNDS: CIP funds 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the Linda Heights Park Renovation Project be awarded to Fuji Industries, Inc. for $214,900, plus WSST. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 1 BID TABULATION FORM KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT, WASHINGTON PROJECT: Linda Heights Park Renovation LOCATION: 3404 S. 2481h Kent, WA BIDS DUE: 8/13/99 BIDS OPENED: 10:15a.m. BIDDER: ADDENDUM I ADDENDUM 1. Fuji Industries, Inc. $214,900.00 N/A N/A Milton, WA 2. Golf Landscaping Inc. $217,000.00 " Milton, WA 3. Southworth & Sons, Inc. <, $236,228.00 Enumclaw, WA 4. Pacific Earthworks, Inc. ifMonroe, WA $242,000.00 5. OHNO Construction Co. $257,700.00 " Seattle, WA 6. Buckley Nursery Co., Inc. $257,777.00 " Buckley, WA 7. BBWT Construction $266,275.00 is cc Tacoma, WA 8. Shawnee Construction $303,738.00 if " (Non- res onsive 9. Precision Earthworks, Inc. $314,750.00 Is " Lynnwood, WA 10. It 11 11. 66 if 12. If {f 13. °L As 14. " 15. ' ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: $228,611.00 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 17 , 1999 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: LINDA HEIGHTS PARK RENOVATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for the Linda Heights Park Renovation Project was held on August 13 , 1999 . Due to time constraints, bid information is not included. The Parks and Recreation Director will make a recommendation as to award. 3 . EXHIBITS: Provided by fax 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to authorize entering an agreement with for $ plus Washington State Sales Tax, for the Linda Heights Park Renovation Project . DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 8A ,.- REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PARKS COMMITTEE F. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS T OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES July 20, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Judy Woods, Sandy Amodt, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Tom Vetsch, Sue Viseth, Chris Hills, Brent McFall, Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order by Chair Judy Woods at 3:29PM. Approval of Minutes of July 6, 1999 Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of July 6, 1999. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0. Approval of Combined Check-Detail Vouchers Dated 7/15/99 Customer Service Manager Tom Vetsch presented the vouchers dated July 15, 1999. Tim Clark moved to approve the vouchers. The motion was seconded by Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0. Worker Compensation Third Party Administrator Contract Risk Manager Chris Hills said the Worker Compensation Third Party Administrator Contract is an eighteen month contract that would carry for the remainder of 1999 and all of next year. An RFP selection process included interviews with three top firms that presented proposals. Johnston & Culberson, Inc. was chosen to provide services for the City. Johnston & Culberson had the best municipal experience of the three firms that delivered presentations. A review of the City's Worker Compensation program will emphasize evaluating historical injury data, developing a comprehensive loss control plan, and sharing the plan with department directors, managers, supervisors, and staff. Sandy Amodt moved that the operations Committee recommend to the Council authorization for the mayor to sign a contract, already approved by the City Attorney, with Johnston & Culberson, Inc., to provide Worker Compensation Third-party Administration Services for the City of Kent. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 3:36PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES July 19, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tim Clark, Tom Brotherton, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Don Wickstrom, Ed White, Katherin Johnson, Carolyn Sundvall, Joe Mitchell, Gary Gill, Pat Fitzpatrick, John Hodgson, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: John Hermans, Chris Buchmann, Janice Buchmann, Bob Elston, Vicky Elston, Margaret Smith, Karen Brown, James Brown, Corinne Swain The meeting was held at Fire Station#75, 15635 S.E. 272"1 Street. It was called to order by Chair Tim Clark at 7:OOPM. Approval of Minutes of June 21, 1999 Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved to approve the minutes of June 21, 1999. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Rico Yingling and carried 3-0. Parking Issues on 150th Pl. SE Chair Tim Clark explained that at a previous Public Works/Planning Committee meeting the parking issues in the Lake Meridian neighborhood were addressed with an ordinance subsequently passed by the Kent City Council resulting in No Parking signs being posted on 150th Pl. SE. Before passing the ordinance, input was received from a variety of city officials including those in the Police, Parks, and Public Works Departments in trying to resolve the issue of the increased vehicle usage in the greater Lake Meridian area and its overflow onto 150th Pl. SE. The Committee also took public input and tried to notify the residents of the area. Councilmember Tom Brotherton made an effort to talk to a number of people in the community and got feedback before the Committee proceeded with the decision to post the No Parking signs. Mr. Clark read a letter from Jim Boyer who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Boyer stated that he would like to see the No Parking sign removed from in front of his home and parking allowed as prior to the change. He said that if that cannot happen, he would like to have a parking sticker so he can park in front of his home. He gave the Seward Park area in Seattle is an example of where sticker parking had been used. Mr. Boyer further stated that after talking to his neighbors on SE 2715t and the south end of 150th, he discovered that they seem to be in favor of retaining the parking signs on their section of the road. He thus asked the City to not remove the neighbors' sighs,just the one in front of his home and any other home that desired to have the signs removed. Mr. Clark moved to make the letter part of the public record. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and carried 3-0. Mr. Clark said that city streets are the responsibility of the City because they are public right-of- ways. As a public right-of-way, adjacent property owners do not own the parking on the street immediately in front of their houses. The City has an active Parks and Recreation program and quite a number of events take place in the park. That has created some of the demand for parking and has put more stress on the neighborhood. When there is heavy use of park facilities, it's more likely there will be abusive situations because there's more people, more mixes, and more potential for problems. When the Public Works team held the public meeting for residents of the area, it was pointed out that there were a number of options available. One option that is appealing is a residential sticker because Public Works/Planning Committee, 7/19/99 2 it is very direct and personal and seems to be exclusive to those that are not taking care of the neighborhood and being responsible citizens. That option has the inherent problem of enforcement. _ Mr. Clark commented that nothing makes citizens angrier than to have a perception that a problem's been solved and then to not have follow-up enforcement. He said it's not impossible to have residential stickers, but that normal expectation is to have the law enforced when there is a lawbreaker. However, the police force is already dealing with a large number of fulltime issues, and parking calls get placed low on a priority list. The Public Works/Planning Committee is aware of the problem and the need to address it,but the question is what would be an appropriate action that would work. Mr. Clark opened the meeting for audience participation. Jim Brown, 14920 SE 270th, questioned why the parking issue was started in the first place. He said some people may be having serious problems, but he had not been that inconvenienced. The problem was obvious and garbage an eyesore, but cleanup did take place the next day by the Parks Department. The current inconvenience for family, friends, and visitors during the No Parking hours is much worse and has created a much bigger problem than the parking on the hot days. Mr. Brown said he wants to be law-abiding and so does not park when it says No Parking. The signs are right in front of his house and it is uncomfortable for him and his family. He has four children and eight grandchildren so its quite a mob when they come to visit, and the No Parking is really an inconvenience. He said he would prefer to have either some sort of permit parking or to just do away with the signs. Some signs could indicate Residential Parking Only. John Herman, 14914 SE 275th Pl, offered a solution to the problem. He suggested the City should -- look on the north side on 152°d for additional parking where there is already a traffic light and all that would be needed is to build a ramp and knock out some of the trees. If money were a problem, the lot could just be graded and graveled. The only problem would be an overflow ditch from Lake Meridian, which hadn't been cleaned out in years and has a broken pipe that's never been repaired. The pipe could be repaired at the trail and a connection made from Lake Meridian Park to the trail going up Soos Creek. In the meantime, the residents could be given a permit to park in the street in front of their homes with the area used the way it is while the new parking is being constructed. Corrine Swain, 27033 150th Pl. SE, asked how the No Parking ordinance got passed and how everyone was notified. Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said the first notification was hand delivered and when no one was home it was stuffed in the mailbox. The postman didn't accept that and the notices got thrown away. There was a public meeting after that. Ms. Swain asked how many people were at that public meeting. Mr. Wickstrom replied that about six people were there. Ms. Swain said she doesn't like the No Parking, but would go along with residential permits. Her family is in the same boat as Jim Brown's as they have no place to park when they come for visits. On the 4th of July, the No Parking was until 8:OOPM, but the fireworks were at 10:00PM. The neighborhood was jam packed. Ms. Swain said that the Parks Department does not clean the neighborhood, but in fact, she does the cleaning most of the time, and people really leave a mess. On top of that, there is a drugs problem and she would like more done about that rather than the parking, but so far there has been nothing done. Tom Brotherton asked if the trash problem was less a problem than the No Parking signs. Ms. Swain said it was for her family. She feels like they are being punished and also that her property value has gone down with the signs stuck out in front as they are. There are signs about every 20 feet and it looks ridiculous. Mr. Brotherton asked if the No Parking restriction would be more tolerable if the hours were adjusted. Ms. Swain said that in her Public Works/Planning Committee,7/19/99 3 particular end of the neighborhood everyone is retired and at home all the time so it wouldn't make that much difference. She asked that meeting notices be mailed next time. Rico Yingling commented that Jim Brown said that he had actually had less of a problem the way it was before the No Parking signs went up. Ms. Swain said it had been less a problem for her too. She didn't like the blocking of her driveway but most of the time that happened just on event days such as the 40, of July. Janice Buchmann, 14905 SE 271"Pl., said there had been people jumping over the fence on her property to get to the park and last summer the Parks Department took care of that by planting more shrubbery. She agreed that parking should be by permit. She said there is a flow of people on the street between the park and the apartments who don't really belong there. Even though the street is a public right of way, it gives the residents a lot of concern. Ms. Buchmann said she has backed out of her driveway in the morning and awakened a couple of guys sleeping there. She said she realizes parking is a low priority as far as the Police Department and asked if there was something the residents could do if the signs continue to stay, such as taking pictures and turning people in. John Hermans responded to the issue about drugs in the neighborhood. He said five sensor spotlights had been installed on the houses on the corner to help with the drug problem. Twice he had called the police and asked them to come without sirens and lights flashing. Twice they came with all the lights blazing and the sirens going, so he asked them to make a silent approach the next time they came. -- Tom Brotherton stated that a number of people obviously don't like the way things are now. The Committee has a petition with 15 names on it. However, the petition didn't say they don't like the signs, it said they weren't notified of a meeting, and they wanted a review of the policy and a meeting held in the evening. He asked where the rest of the people were. Ed White, Transportation Engineering Manager, said that notices were sent out to approximately 25 houses. Karen Brown, 14920 S 2701h Pl, said it was extremely difficult to sit up in front of everybody and felt intimidated. She thought a lot of people did not show up because they would be intimidated also by the process. She said the notice for this meeting wasn't received until Saturday and then it said Occupant on it. Her family received two notices and they both said Occupant. If her husband hadn't looked at the return address, it would have been thrown into the trash. "Occupant"mail is junk mail. When people receive notices on Saturday for a Monday night meeting, they may already have other commitments. Those signs have presented a lot of problems, and to the residents it just sounds like somebody has come in and bullied the neighborhood. Ms. Brown said she does not want parking permits, but they are better than the No Parking signs. If parking permits are not allowed, then get rid of the signs because they're not doing any good. After 8:00 o'clock people park there because they know the signs allow it, but they also park there at 7:30PM. The signs don't stop those people, but they do stop her family from parking because they want to abide by the law. Tom Brotherton said he would like to try to figure out what the consensus of the neighborhood is because of conflicting statements from residents, and not enough data is available now. Some people have a problem with the signs or the hours. Maybe the hours could be adjusted from 12 noon to midnight to make the most people happy. City staff has advised against parking permits because there would be a lot of cost involved for a very short period of time. If parking permits were allowed, then everybody would want them and the neighborhood would become a very elite sort of community. At this point, none of the ideas are working well, so the best thing would be to get rid of the signs and then try to do something else. A solution is needed that will solve the problems in the Public Works/Planning Committee, 7/19/99 4 neighborhood and if the signs there now are not good, they can be taken out or adjusted. Mr. Brotherton said he was in favor of adjusting the signs since he had heard several people suggest that the hours were not just right and adjusting the hours would make it easier for people. But a number of people have said they need help with the parking issue, and taking the signs out is just giving up on that. Margaret Smith, 26927 150`h PI SE, said she was in favor of the permits. She also suggested that if the signs were to be taken down, an alternative sign that said"Residential Parking Only"might be an experiment to see what kind of impact it would have. That might deter some of the parking problem and the residents could probably live with the inconvenience of some people parking there. On this last 4`h of July, friends came over for the holiday and had to park in the neighbor's yard. A van was used to shuttle 18 people because they had to park quite a distance away from the lake. It was an inconvenience. Ms. Smith said her home backs up to the cul de sac where the entrance to the boat ramp and boat parking is. The area is commonly used as a turnaround for Fire and Emergency vehicles. Nearly every night there is somebody parked there up against the rockery where they can't be seen. The signs say No Parking, and there hasn't been any parking during the day or during events, but at night activities go on back there. She suggested that patrolmen going past the park should swing in there on a regular basis. Tim Clark said he understood the inconvenience problem for family and friends, but a lot of complaints had been received because of strangers parking on the streets and if the signs are taken down, then there will be the problem once again of the neighborhood getting flooded with strangers on hot days as well as the intermixing of the people that have friends coming to visit. If the signs are left up at least the strangers can be kept out. Mr. Clark asked John Hodgson, Parks and Recreation Director, about the original sign put up to prevent people from using the area as overflow parking. Mr. Hodgson said the sign was still there and says "No Parking Access". He said Residential Parking Only signs could be put up but they are not enforceable so would be informational only. They may deter some people but won't deter everybody, and the Police can't respond to anything that's not enforceable. Rico Yingling asked if by non-enforceable Mr. Hodgson meant that there was no basis in law to have that type of ordinance. Pat Fitzpatrick, Assistant City Attorney, responded that the problem was that there was no way for an officer to know a vehicle was nonresidential without running a registration check and determining what a last known address was, which is rarely accurate with the Department of Licensing. It would be very difficult to determine what vehicles belonged to the residents there. Because of the time involved and the risk that it wouldn't be accurate information, it becomes an impossible task. The signs could be put up, but they are not enforceable. The result would probably be that it would deter some people and open up parking spaces for more of the people that it wouldn't deter. Without an indication that there is a substantial fine involved, people would be willing to soak up $20 for a parking ticket to park their cars close enough to the lake for a day. John Hodgson commented that the property Mr. Hermans mentioned as suitable for additional parking across the street on 152"d is owned by King County. It is not known what King County's intentions are for that area. One of the concerns about adding parking is the lot would fill up and people would look for the next closest place to walk from. On very hot days people park in the Fire Station lot and are willing to walk that far. Even though the City doesn't own the land in question, staff can pursue it, but that may not solve this neighborhood's problem. Mr. Hermans disagreed with the Parks Department that the area he proposed for a parking lot was in King County and stated it is inside the area annexed to the City of Kent. Tim Clark said the County still owns the land, as Public Works/Planning Committee,7/19/99 5 ownership was not given to the City. Mr. Hermans responded that the City should make a deal with the County. John Hodgson commented that the Soos Creek Trail is in the city limits but it's one piece of property that the County had elected to keep. The County wanted to keep all their trails so the trails are still under County ownership. It's a potential for an extension of their trail. Rico Yingling said he would be in favor of additional parking but it would be a longer term solution and the neighborhood needs something shorter term. Jim Brown asked for an answer to his question about how the issue got started in the first place and how many complaints had been received. Tom Brotherton responded that one or two people had said there was a problem and that something should be done about it. The Parks Department was asked to look at the situation and see how much parking was available. There were complaints of several natures. People were bringing boats in and leaving their boat trailers parked there and the road was filling up so emergency vehicles couldn't get through. A hearing was scheduled and a notice sent out to the neighborhood. Mr. Brown responded that there had already been comment on how inadequate that notice was, and the representation received in the first meeting didn't really take into consideration most of the people's opinions. He questioned if it would be unreasonable to ask that someone from the City of Kent contact each resident of the 25 homes in the area. A questionnaire could be sent to the houses or someone could actually knock on doors to make contact with the people. He felt what was needed was a general consensus of what ought to be done. Rico Yingling agreed that the process utilized to determine action wasn't as fully thought out or pursued as it should have been, but at least a couple of problems had been improved: the boats going ,» into the area and the access to the back of homeowners' property from the park. He thanked John Hodgson and the Public Works Department for the work that was done to improve those areas. He said it was possible the No Parking signs had been put up too quickly without proper concern for the whole neighborhood as opposed to just a couple of people who were interested in getting something done. Obviously, the different homeowners in the neighborhood have different perspectives on how serious the problem is and a better process is needed for determining the more permanent action that should be taken. For traffic or speeding problems, 60% of a neighborhood has to agree to the action taken by the City in order for the City to take that action. That kind of process may be useful with parking signs and parking type problems. He stated that one of the reasons action was taken so quickly was because the hot summer months were coming and people were concerned that they were going to be inundated with traffic for much of the summer. Mr. Yingling said he wouldn't be against pulling the signs out and starting over again. The signs could be kept up for now and staff could find out what the neighborhood wants, or the signs could be taken down right away and staff could then find out what the neighborhood wants. ' John Hodgson requested that staff be given guidelines for what questions to ask in talking to the residents. He said if permits are not acceptable, they should not be given as an option. Tim Clark stated that he would not vote for permits. The reason was the inability to enforce them. In a place like Seattle that has a much larger commercial base, meter maids can patrol areas and there isn't the difficulty of changing police routes to handle areas that have residential parking permits. Kent does not have the base for that or the employees and/or the conceivable overtime it would take for enforcement. The issue is about abuse of the public right-of-way and how to protect neighborhoods ^' from people that don't live there. People who are not respectful of others' property are not respectful of the law either. No Parking signs can be enforced. If the signs are taken down and "Residential Parking Only" allowed, people that are law abiding will abide by it, but others won't. Mr. Clark said he feels a responsibility to the people that are closer to Public Works/Planning Committee,7/19/99 6 the park and are obviously more impacted. Lake Meridian is a wonderful park resource but it also attracts more people and that creates some of the current problems. The attempt earlier was to try and help protect property owners from some of the incursions they were facing, and clearly, the No Parking signs are very inconvenient for some. Mr. Clark did not object to canvassing the neighborhood more closely to get a bigger sense of community feeling, but said that he could not put down residential parking permits in the mix because they can't be enforced. Tom Brotherton agreed that permits did not seem to be a good idea on the advice of the Police who did not think it was a very viable option. Rico Yingling added that the other concern the Police had was that if this neighborhood was allowed permits, then other neighborhoods that were impacted by parking problems would also ask for permits, and if one neighborhood was allowed them, then others should be allowed them. That would cause more and more time to be used enforcing neighborhoods with special parking permits. Mr. Brotherton reminded the Committee that one of the problems was emergency vehicle access and suggested putting no parking signs on just one side of the street. Jim Brown suggested No Parking signs on sawhorses that could be removed after events. Tom Brotherton said that would be an option for special events when staff was there working, but it wouldn't be done every Saturday and Sunday when it was hot. Rico Yingling moved to ask the Parks Department or Public Works Department, whichever was more appropriate, to better canvas the neighborhood to determine the parking sign issue. Tim Clark recommended greater clarity in terms of whether residents want or don't want the current signs. Tom Brotherton listed options as No Parking signs, portable signs which could be erected during single day events, no parking on one side of the street, and no signs at all. Tim Clark reworded Mr. Yingling's motion to move to direct administration to have Public Works survey the neighborhood and specifically state input from the neighborhood in terms of whether they would choose to remove the current No Parking signs, and if that were to occur,whether to have signs to allow for single day event parking restrictions where staff would put in temporary signs, or whether No Parking signs should be added on one side only of the street. Tom Brotherton added one other option which was to adjust the time on the signs. He said some people objected to the time limit of 8:OOPM because of the fireworks which took place at 10 o'clock. Don Wickstrom added that, depending on the outcome, there could be certain cul de sacs or specific roads that might not want signs. The area could be surveyed by street to find out what the majority vote would be. Mr. Wickstrom said a procedure could be used for notifying property owners similar to when an LID is formed. There are a series of informal meetings and that process is used to get out notices that ask residents to respond within two weeks in writing, checking the"yes box"to indicate their wishes. That way there is a definitive survey and every house is included. Tim Clark modified the motion to include the addition that the survev be done in the LID form. Tom Brotherton asked for an amendment that from the current date the signs be covered and the police asked to not enforce them until the Committee has decided what further action to take. Mr. Clark stipulated that should be a separate motion and discussed later. Tom Brotherton seconded Mr. Yingling's motion. Rico Yingling asked if a time limit should be established. Mr. Clark said staff would move as fast as they could. Mr. Wickstrom reiterated that once the notice is sent out, residents would be given two weeks to respond, and then all notices received would be followed up with phone calls. Notices would be mailed to the individual property owner as shown in the Geographical Information System with the property owner's name on it. The people who signed the petition would be contacted. Mr. Public Works/Planning Committee, 7/19/99 7 ,- Yingling asked that a house call be made to an address if no response was received from the mailed letters. Mr. Clark added a friendly amendment to the motion to take the extra effort to make contact with all available residents by whatever means possible. The motion was voted on and passed 3-0. Tom Brotherton moved to cover the signs and cease enforcement of them until the issue is resolved. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling. Tim Clark stated that the longer the signs are in effect the more those breaking the law would be driven out. He said he would not be in favor of the motion. The motion was voted on and passed 2-1 with Tom Brotherton and Rico Yingling voting yes and Tim Clark voting no. Mr. Clark thanked the Lake Meridian neighborhood residents for coming and giving their input. He encouraged the Parks Department to pursue the parking space issue because of the severe lack of parking in the Lake Meridian Park area. Mr. Yingling seconded pursuing the longer term option of building more parking. 2000-2002 HOME Interlocal Agreement Katherin Johnson, Housing and Human Services Office Manager, and Carolyn Sundvall, Housing and Human Services Planner, presented the 2000-2002 HOME Interlocal Agreement with King County. The current three year agreement expires at the end of 1999. The agreement governs the City's participation with the County and other King County cities in the distribution of federal HOME funds. These funds are for projects which provide permanent affordable housing for low- income families and individuals. Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to the full Council to approve the 2000-2002 HOME Interlocal Agreement and to authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and carried 3-0. Community Development Block Grant Interlocal Agreement/Entitlement Katherin Johnson explained that the City had been notified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that it is not on the list for Entitlement because Entitlement status is based on a population of over 50,000 people and HUD does not consider annexations. HUD requires cities to sign an Agreement as a condition of receiving federal funds which are used to benefit low and moderate income people. The current three year Interlocal Cooperative Agreement with King County expires at the end of 1999. To continue participation in the King County Consortium and receive federal pass through dollars for the next three years, the City must sign a new ICA with King County. Rico Yingling asked what would be gained with Entitlement. Ms. Johnson listed more options, input into government, and economic development. She said Entitlement is a major benefit to a city. Rico Yingling moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend aproval of the 2000-2002 Community Development Block Grant Interlocal Agreement to the full Council for consideration at it August 3rd meeting, authorizing the Mayor to sign the Community Development Interlocal Agreement and the joint Agreement. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and carried 3-0. 1998 Miscellaneous Watermain Improvements —Accept as Complete Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said there were $9898 in cost overruns on the 1998 Miscellaneous Water Main Improvements project awarded to Kar-Vel Construction. The Overruns Public works/Planning Committee,7/19/99 8 were due to the need to raise the water main, which required additional material, the installation of an air-vac, and additional valves. Adequate funds exist within the project budget to cover the overruns. -- Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to the Council to accept as complete the 1998 Miscellaneous Watermain Improvement Contract. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and carried 3-0. 6 Year Transportation Improvement Plan Don Wickstrom described the two maps showing the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. One map detailed the completed 1999 projects. The other map delineated Year 2000 projects and Year 2001-2005 projects. Projects must be included in the Plan in order to receive grants. Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend setting a Public Hearing date for the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and carried 3-0. Street Vacation: SE 272"d Near 132"d Ave. SE Don Wickstrom said a valid petition was received from Kent Highlands L.L.C. to vacate a portion of SE 272"d near 132"d Avenue SE. A public hearing must be held according to state law. Rico Yingling moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to the Council adoption of a resolution setting a hearing date for the SE 272"d Street near 132"d Avenue Street Vacation. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and carried 3-0. Street Vacation: Hawley Road Don Wickstrom said a valid petition was received from Ronald L. Wagers to vacate a portion of Hawley Road. A public hearing must be held according to state law. Rico Yingling moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend to the Council to adopt a resolution setting a hearing date for the Hawley Road street vacation. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:32PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary i- REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. �-- EXECUTIVE SESSION