Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 02/20/2001 i i City of Kent CityCouncil Meeting � Agenda KENT W A S H I N G T O N i Mayor Jim White Councilmembers Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly Tom Brotherton Judy Woods Tim Clark Rico Yingling February 20, 2001 Office of the City Clerk I ' SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING KEN TT February 20, 2001 WASHINGTON 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 - Scout Troop 417 2 . ROLL CALL 3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Kent Arts Commission Re-Grant Presentation B. Presentation of Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS None 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR r A. Minutes - Approval B. Bills - Approval C. Excused Absence for Councilmember Yingling - Approve D. Emerald Ridge Final Plat - Approve E. Office Supply Contract - Approve F. South King County Regional Water Association Agreement - Authorize G. City of Tukwila, 180th Street Project - Authorize H. Millennium Art Project - Accept I . King County Arts Commission Performance Network Grant - Accept and Amend Budget J. 2001 Washington State Arts Commission Operational Support Grant - Accept and Amend Budget K. 2001 King County Arts Commission Sustained Support Grant - Accept and Amend Budget L. Fee in Lieu of Funds - Accept and Amend Budgets M. Hill Industrial Park Building 80C Bill of Sale - Accept N. Rodenhauser Sewer Extension Bill of Sale - Accept O. Surplus of 72nd Avenue Signal Shop - Authorize P. Linda Heights Park Renovation Project - Accept as Complete f- � • � UM � �"b� erg ce , �� o�fi Pf(5 t Ub a rc� (> (dontinued next page) R SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 7 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Downtown Zoning Map and Text Amendments Changing DLM to DCE - Ordinance B. 2000 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments 8 . BIDS A. Corrections Facility and Annex Modifications and Additions B. Kent Springs Well 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION None 13 . ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk' s Office and the Kent Library. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City 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 r-- PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) KENT ARTS COMMISSION RE-GRANT PRESENTATION B) PRESENTATION OF MILITARY OUTSTANDING VOLUNTEER SERVICE MEDAL CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action: Councilmember CO��✓ moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through Discussion y`— Action 6A. Anvroval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of February 6 , 2001 . 6B. Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through January 16 and paid on January 16; as well as payment of bills received January 31 and paid on January 31 after auditing by the Operations Committee on February 6, 2001 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 1/16101 507058-507248 $ 943 , 110 .71 1/16/01 507249-507670 1 , 785 , 290 . 10 $2 , 728 ,400 . 81 Date Check Numbers Amount 1/31/01 507671-507914 $ 934 , 799 . 69 1/31/01 507915-508536 2 , 854 , 065 .41 $3 , 788, 865 . 10 Approval of checks issued for payroll of January 1 through January 15 and paid on January 19, 2001 : Date Check Numbers Amount r 1/19/01 Checks 249229-249580 $ 320, 755 . 77 1/19101 Advices 105853-106741 1 , 192 , 741 . 07 $1, 513 ,496 . 84 Kent, Washington February 6, 2001 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Councilmembers present : Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods and Yingling. Others present : Chief Administrative Officer McFall , City Attorney Lubovich, Police Chief Crawford, Deputy Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Martin, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Planning Manager Satterstrom, Finance Director Miller, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Hodgson and Employee Services Director Viseth. Approximately 30 people were at the meeting. Councilmember Amodt was excused from the meeting. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Orr added Consent Calendar Item 6H. Martin Plys requested that the Public Market and the Constitution be added to the agenda. There was no objection and they were added as Continued Communications Item 11A. Ted Kogita requested that the golf course be added to the agenda. There was no objection and it was added as Continued Communications Item 11B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced that Cami Janson, Benefits Specialist in the Employee Services Department, has been selected as February Employee of the Month. He noted that she played an' integral role in improving the daily operations of the division, and that she is an important member of the Wellness Committee . Introduction of Appointees. The Mayor introduced Mr. Bill Boyce, who is a new member of the Disability Advisory Board. Chamber of Commerce Volunteer of the Month. Barbara Ivanov, Executive Director, and Lynn Dissinger, President of the Chamber of Commerce, announced that Katherin Johnson has been chosen as their Volunteer of the Month. Ivanov explained that Johnson has been an outstanding volunteer and lead on a team addressing day care and child care, as well as a liaison between businesses and human services in Kent . Johnson ex- pressed thanks to the Chamber and said it ' s a pleasure 1 Kent City Council Minutes February 6 , 2001 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS to serve. Dissinger and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Hodgson also commended Ms . Johnson. Help the Homeless Day. Mayor White read a proclama- tion noting that the number of homeless families with children has increased significantly over the past decade and that homelessness is an increasing problem affecting not only the very poor, but also working and middle class Americans . He proclaimed February 28, 2001, as Help the Homeless Day in the City of Kent and encouraged citizens to recognize and support its observance. John Casey and Nancy Kincaid of HOME accepted the proclamation and thanked the City for their support . Katherin Johnson noted that employees of the City of Kent will be making up packs for the homeless . CONSENT CALENDAR ORR MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through G. Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Apvroval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of January 16, 2001 . SEWER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) Del Webb Interceptor Relief Sewer. ACCEPTANCE of the Del Webb Interceptor Relief Sewer Pump Station contract as complete and release of retainage to Tri State Construction upon standard releases from the State and, release of any liens, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract amount was $2 , 032, 380 . 15 . The final construction cost was $1, 442 , 424 . 45 . (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) Amendment to Mill Creek belief System Amredment between the City of Kent and King County. This amendment would allow Kent to construct some of the westerly portion of ^•� the Metro interceptor sewer which was to be constructed by the County along the S . 277th Corridor, east of Auburn 2 Kent City Council Minutes February 6, 2001 SEWER Way North. The Public Works Committee has recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the Amendment to the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement between the City of Kent and King County, upon the City Attorney and Public Works Director concurring with the language therein. CLARK MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to sign the Amendment to the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement upon concurrence by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director of the language therein. Epperly seconded. Clark pointed out that sewer work will bring S . 277th to a close in May. His motion then carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B) Interlocal Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Service between the City of Kent and City of Auburn. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Kent/Auburn Interlocal Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Service, as recommended by the Public �. Works Committee. By this agreement, Kent will provide sanitary sewer service to an area that lies within Auburn' s potential annexation area. CLARK MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to sign the Kent/Auburn Interlocal Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Service upon concurrence by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director of the language therein. Epperly seconded and the motion carried. SOLID WASTE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7C) Solid Waste, Recycling anal Yard Waste Ordinances and Contracts, Second Reading. This constitutes the second reading of ordinances and contracts relating to solid waste, recyclable materials, and yard waste collection, disposal, and processing. The City currently contracts with Waste Management of Washington, Inc . and Kent- Meridian Disposal for this service. These contracts are due to expire March 31, 2001 . The City has concluded negotiations for new 10-year contracts . Amendments are recommended in order to be consistent with the provisions of the new franchise contracts. 3 Kent City Council Minutes February 6, 2001 SOLID WASTE The City Attorney distributed copies of Appendix "B" , "C" and "D" and noted that the additions are noted in bold print. He explained that the commercial and residential rates are set forth in these schedules, which is the one significant change which has been made since the first reading of these ordinances and agree- ments . He stated that the second substantive change is a ten-year franchise in exchange for a release to any claims to territory from the past or up to this point . He emphasized that the territories which are currently serviced by the existing haulers will continue to be serviced by those haulers even in areas which are annexed in the future. Conservation Specialist Robyn Bartelt noted for Brotherton that the haulers will send customers a schedule of pick up days for the year. CLARK MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3541 amending Chapter 7 . 03 of the Kent City Code relating to solid waste, recyclable materials, and yard waste collection, dis- posal, and processing. Woods seconded and the motion '1 carried. CLARK MOVED to adopt Ordipance No. 3542 authorizing franchise contracts with Waste Management of Washington, Inc . and Kent-Meridian Disposal for solid waste, re- cyclable materials, and yard waste collection, disposal, and processing and authorizing the Mayor to finalize and execute the same. Epperly seconded and the motion carried. STREET VACATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5A) Alley Vacation Between 1st and 2nd Avenues and Smith and Temperance Streets (S7V-2P00-3) . Resolution No. 1581 established February 6, 2001, as the public hearing date for the application by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, to vacate an alleyway lying between Temperance and Smith Streets . Staff recommends approval with conditions . Planning Manager Satterstrom pointed out the location and explained that the Sound Transit Parking garage will sit directly over the alleyway. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments -1 from the audience and ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. 4 Kent City Council Minutes February 6, 2001 STREET VACATION BROTHERTON MOVED to approve the staff ' s recommendation of approval with conditions of the application to vacate an alleyway lying between Temperance and Smith Streets, as referenced in Resolution No. 1581, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon compliance with the conditions of approval . Woods seconded and the motion carried. TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) WSDOT Grant 2000 Traffic Safety Near Schools Program. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the WSDOT Grant Agreement for the 2000 Traffic Safety Near Schools Program, to direct staff to accept the grant and to establish a budget for same, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) S. 196th/200th Corridor - West Lea, Kina County Riaht of Way Transfer. AUTHORIZATION for the Public Works Director to transfer property and right of way to King County as related to their portion of the 196th/200th Street Corridor project, as recommended by the Public Works Committee . Under an interlocal agreement, the City has been the lead agency for the County in acquiring the right of way and mitigation site to construct the S . 200th Street Improvements project from Orillia Road to the Green River. The project is now complete . PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM GE) IDC Industrial Property Donation. ACCEPTANCE of the property donation from IDC Industrial and authorization to enter into an agreement with IDC Enterprises to ensure all permitting requirements for the wetland mitigation have been executed, as recommended by the Parks Director. IDC wishes to donate land while performing the necessary �. wetland mitigation requirements . 5 Kent City Council Minutes February 6, 2001 PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11B) Golf Course. Ted Kogita, 25227 Reith Road, said the Council should ask when the golf course will make a profit . PUBLIC MARKET (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11A-1) Public Market. Martin Plys, 3004 S . 256, voiced concern about the Public Market investing taxpayer dollars, about an audit being done, and about whether the Market will accept food stamps . Mayor White noted that the audit was done by the State Auditor at Plys ' request . COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) (ADDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT ORR) Council Absence. APPROVAL of an excused absence from tonight ' s meeting for Councilmember Amodt, who is unable to attend. "1 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE (BIDS - ITEM 8A) City Hall Data Center HVAC Replacement. The bid opening held on January 19, 2001, for the Kent City Hall Data Center air conditioning unit resulted in three bids . SEAAIRE, Inc . was the lowest bidder at $43 , 578 . 00 . WOODS MOVED to enter into an agreement with into an agreement with SEAAIRE, Inc. to purchase and replace the City Hall Data Center air conditioning unit in the amount of $43 , 578 , plus Washington State Sales Tax. Orr seconded and the motion carried. CONSTITUTION (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11A-2) Constitution. Plys said that if he chooses not to stand when the flag is presented or put his hand on his heart when the Pledge of Allegiance is recited, it does not mean that he is not an American. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through December 15 and paid on December 15 6 Kent City Council Minutes February 6, 2001 FINANCE after auditing by the Operations Committee on January 16, 2001 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 12/15/00 505698-505959 $ 747, 885 . 69 12/15/00 505960-506422 1 , 873 , 762 . 07 $2 , 621, 647 . 76 Approval of payment of the bills received through December 29 and paid on December 29 after auditing by the Operations Committee on January 16, 2001 . Annroval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 12/29/00 506423-506601 $ 966, 909 . 35 12/29/00 506602-507057 2 , 970 , 763 .42 $3 , 937, 672 . 77 (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) LID Bond Underwriter Contract. APPROVAL of the selection of Banc of America Securities LLC as the City' s local improvement district bond underwriter and to proceed with the issuance of LID 351 special assessment bonds, as recommended by the Operations Committee at their January 16, 2001 meeting. Banc of America will proceed with bonds for LID 351 (272nd Corridor Project) for $5, 367, 217 with proceeds due in the next few months . REPORTS Operations Committee. - Yingling noted that the February 20 meeting has been cancelled and that the next meeting will be held on March 6 . He added that all future Operations Committee meetings will start at 4 : 00 p.m. Public Safety Committee. Epperly noted that the next meeting will be held at 5 : 00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 13 . 7 Kent City Council Minutes February 6, 2001 REPORTS Public Works . Clark noted that, due to the holiday, the next meeting will be held at 5 : 00 p.m. on February 27th. Planning Committee. Brotherton announced a special meeting on February 27th at 4 : 00 p.m. to consider the urban separator issue. He added that the next regular meeting will be held at 4 : 00 p.m. on March 5th when they will discuss accessory structures. Parks Committee. Woods noted that the Committee will meet at 4 : 00 p.m. on February 13th. Administrative Reports. McFall noted that commuter rail service commenced this week and that the reports have been excellent . He also reminded Councilmembers of an executive session of approximately 20 minutes to discuss negotiations for land acquisition and pending litiga- tion. He added that he anticipates action after the executive session. EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed to executive session at 7 : 33 p.m. and reconvened at 7 : 50 p.m. Land Acquisition. WOODS MOVED to authorize the Mayor to sign a Purchase and Sale Agreement in substantially the same form as provided, with Ventis Capital, LLC, and King County, whereby Ventis Capital, LLC would deed to the City approximately 1 .34 acres of real property in exchange for King County issuing to Ventis Capital, LLC, 32 Development Credits . Epperly seconded and the motion carried. Initiative 722 . YINGLING MOVED to authorize the City to proceed as a name party in the consolidated I-722 lawsuit currently pending in the Thurston County Superior Court . Woods seconded and the motion carried. Pending Litigation. EPPERLY MOVED to approve the filing of and to authorize the City to proceed with the matter of Kent v. Duncan to recover costs and to obtain injunctive relief relating to the disclosure of public ^, 8 Kent City Council Minutes February 6, 2001 EXECUTIVE SESSION documents and ratifying and confirming all prior actions taken relating to the same . Woods seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT ORR MOVED to adjourn at 7 : 52 p.m. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Brenda Jacob , CMC City Clerk 9 Kent City Council Meetinc Date February 2G , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: EXCUSED ABSENCE FOR COUNCILMEMBER YINGLING - APPROVE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of an excused absence from tonight ' s meeting for Councilmember Rico Yingling, who is unable to attend. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6C MEMORANDUM TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: RICO YINGLING, COUNCIL MEMBER DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2001 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE I would like to request an excused absence from the February 20, 2001 City Council meeting. I will be unable to attend. Thank you for your consideration. RY:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: EMERALD RIDGE FINAL PLAT (FSU-98-16/KIVA 2003728) - APPROVE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the Emerald Ridge Final Subdivision with conditions and authorization for the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. This final plat application was submitted by M.J. F. Holdings, Inc . dba Dream Craft Homes for the Emerald Ridge Final Subdivision. The Hearing Examiner issued the Findings with conditions on the preliminary plat on January 6, 1999 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo with conditions and map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S, UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: r-- ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D Nwa- KENT W A N I No-roN MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY, DEVELOPMENT` ` February 9, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES" Fred N.Satterstrom,-AICP` TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL Manager ` FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM,PLANNING MANAGER Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Ave.S." MEETING Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: FEBRUARY 20,2001 Location Address., 400 West Gowe SUBJECT: EMERALD RIDGE FINAL SUBDIVISIONKent,WA:98032 #FSU-98-16(KIVA#2003728) Phone:253-856-5454`' Fax:253-856-6454 On January 6, 1999, the Hearing Examiner issued Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation with conditions on the Emerald Ridge Final Subdivision #FSU- 98-16 (Kiva #2003728), a 3.81 acre, 20-lot single family residential lots. The property is located at SE 248h Street and 102nd Avenue SE. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Emerald Ridge Final Subdivision #FSU-98-16 (Kiva #2003728) with the attached conditions and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. FNS/mjp/S:\Permit\Planuongplats\2000\2003728fsu9816cc.doc Enclosure EMERALD RIDGE #SU-98-16 CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL ON JANUARY 6, 2000, THE HEARINGS EXAMINER APPROVED EMERALD RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The owner/subdivider shall implement all mitigation measures required in the mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for the proposed Emerald Ridge preliminary subdivision,File#ENV-97-13. B. PRIOR TO RECORDING THE SUBDMSION: 1. The Owner/Subdivider shall receive approval for engineering drawings from the Department of Public Works, and either construct or bond for the following: a. A gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The sewer system shall be extended from the existing City sanitary sewer system and shall be sized to serve all off-site properties within the same service area. In addition, the sanitary sewer system shall be extended across the entire subdivision as deeded to serve adjacent properties. '1 The septic system, if any, serving existing homes within the proposed subdivision shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health Department Regulations. b. A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots. The existing well, if any, shall be abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Ecology. C. Detailed Drainage Plan and Treatment Plans meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and as required by the Revised DNS for#ENV-97-13. d. A Detailed Grading Plan for the entire subdivision which includes provisions for utilities, roadways, retention/detention ponds, stormwater treatment facilities, and a building footpad for each lot. These plans shall be designed to eliminate the need for processing several individual Grading Permits upon application for Building Permits; phasing of grading on a lot-by-lot basis will not be considered. --1 F Hearings Examiner Conditions of Approval Emerald Ridge #SU-98-16 KIVA#2003728 e. A Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire subdivision which reflects the Detailed Grading Plan discussed above, and the Planning Department approved Tree Plan. f. Street Improvement Plans for Southeast 2480' Street, designed in conformance with the requirements for a Residential Collector Arterial Street augmented with Bike Lanes as described in the City of Kent Construction Standards and by the requirements of the Revised DNS for ENV 97-13. The total minimum width of asphalt pavement specified by the above- referenced DNS shall be designed and constructed-to provide a minimum 20 year service life. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide the Department of Public Works with a Pavement Analysis Report to determine the adequacy of the existing asphalt pavement, and the minimum depth for an asphalt overlay required to provide a 20-year service Iife for the existing pavement. The Pavement Analysis Report shall be consistent with Part H and Part III of the AASHTO GUIDE FOR DESIGN OF PAVEMENT SECTIONS,published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1986 edition, or latest revision, and the Pavement Analysis Report shall provide all of the necessary information required by this pavement design guide. g. Pedestrian Walkway Improvement Plans for a 6-foot wide separated asphalt walkway on the north side of Southeast 248`t', from the east end of the new 10-foot sidewalk easterly to the intersection of 104l' Avenue Southeast; and from the west end of the sidewalk constructed along Southeast 248°i Street to the east boundary of the Lang Subdivision; completing any sections not improved by that Developer. The plans for this walkway improvement shall be consistent with the requirements in the Revised DNS for ENV 97-13. h. Pedestrian Walkway Improvement Plans that continue the walkway plans approved for the Lang Subdivision to the sidewalks constructed for this subdivision along the same alignment. i. Street Improvement Plans for the subdivision street terminating with a cul- de-sac at its north terminus. The Street Improvement Plans for this subdivision street shall be designed in conformance to the requirements ,•-. for a Residential Street as described in the City of Kent Construction Standards, including but not limited to: cement combined curbs & gutters and 5-foot wide cement sidewalks on both sides of the street; at least 32- Page 2 of 5 Hearings Examiner Conditions of Approval Emerald Ridge #SU-98-16 KNA#2003728 feet of asphalt pavement; a City-approved street Iighting system; public stormwater drainage, detention, and treatment facilities; curb returns with radii of 35-feet at the intersection of the subdivision street and Southeast 248th Street; and a 45-foot radius to the face of curb for the cul-de-sac. a. These Street Improvement Plans will include provisions for new driveways onto the subdivision street for the houses constructed at 10204 and 10230 Southeast 248`h Street, and closure of the existing driveways from these houses onto Southeast 248a' Street, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. b. These Street Improvement Plans shall also include the construction of new asphalt driveways to both houses described above at approved locations onto the subdivision street. c. These Street Improvement Plans shall also include the construction of the entire curb return, and the abutting sidewalk for that curb return, at the southeast comer on the new public intersection; form its point of tangency on the subdivision street to its point of fangency on SE 248"' Street. d. The curb returns and accompanying sidewalks along the curb returns for this development shall be consistent with the South 212`h Street HOV style curb returns. j. Street Light Plans for Southeast 248`h Street and the subdivision street meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure for Street Lighting Requirements. Street Light Plans and associated photometric calculations shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Washington. This brochure is available from the Transportation Section of the Public Works Department. 2. The Owner / Subdivider shall submit and receive approval for a Detailed Tree Plan from the Planning Department. Grading Plans cannot be approved by the Department of Public Works without an approved Detailed Tree Plan. 3. The Owner / Subdivider shall place the following Restriction on the face of the recorded plat: AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, RESIDENCES CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS OF THIS SUBDMSION MUST PROVIDE ROOF Page 3 of 5 Hearings Examiner Conditions of Approval Emerald Ridge #SU-98-16 KIVA#2003728 DOWNSPOUT INFILTRATION TRENCH (PERFORATED STUBOUT) SYSTEMS PER DETAILS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED STORMWATER PLANS. 4. The Owner / Subdivider shall place the following Restriction on the face of the recorded plat: RESTRICTION: DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO LOT 20 SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED FROM SOUTHEAST 248TH STREET. 5. The Owner/Subdivider shall dedicate, or deed, all necessary public rights-of-way for the required improvements and provide all public and private easements necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the required improvements. a. The right-of-way for the new subdivision street will include the area necessary to construct the curb return, 10-foot sidewalk,and will include the 3-foot wide utility strip behind the back of sidewalk at the northeast corner of the new intersection with Southeast 248`h Street.This will require either the relocation of the proposed entrance,or the acquisition of off-site right-of-way to accomplish this requirement. b. The minimum easements for water and sewer are 15-feet unless the depth of these utilities requires a greater depth. 6. Prior to release of any construction bonds, the Department of Public Works inust approve As-Built Drainage, As-Build Water, As-Built Sanitary, and As-Built Street Plans for the entire site prepared by a professional land surveyor licensed by the State of Washington in conformance to the requirements of Appendix "E" of the City of Kent Construction Standards. 7. A fee-in-lieu of park dedication shall be paid by the owner/subdivider in conformance with KCC 12.04.490. B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN THE EMERALD RIDGE SUBDIVISION (SU 98-16). THE OWNER / SUBDIVIDER SHALL: 1. Record the Plat. 2. Construct all of the improvements required above. Page 4 of 5 Hearings Examiner Conditions of Approval Emerald Ridge ^� #SU-98-16 KIVA#2003728 3. Receive approval of the required As-built Drawings for Water, Sewer, Street, and Stormwater Facilities. 4. Pay the financial obligation required by the Environmental Mitigation Agreement required for the South 272"d/South 277 h Street Corridor in full, if the property is not included in the LID for said corridor. 5. The owner/subdivider shall submit a Detailed Tree Plan for the general site, for the roadway, and for all individual lots showing all trees six inches in diameter or greater, and their relationship to any proposed structures. This plan must be approved by the Kent Planning and Public Works Departments prior to approval and construction of the final roadway design and prior to the-issuance of a development permit or any grade and fill permit for any lot. No trees of six inch caliper or greater shall be removed from any lot except through the approved tree plan. Page 5 of 5 EQUIPMENT dr METHODOLOGY TOPCON TOTAL STATION k HP 48 DATA _ COLLECTOR. EMERALD RIDGE DED IN VOLUME IS$ CLOSED AND/OR BALANCED FIELD TRAVERSE FINAL SUBDIVISION F KING COUNTY, AND ELECTRONIC DATA COLLECTION. 4FSU-98-161KIVA#2003728 The Positional Uncertainty for any physical point on this Survey relative to any other Physical point on this survey, including lead- in courses, is less than 0.07 feet + gOppm" dKlare this plat to h.ntry.and do hereby rid T'!nVlg not shown :_r.'P r Ridge publir" purposes not :, poses. Also the right ' tO' �'' 1'1 LOB I Concrete won Is -.hrwn therein in S89'17'31 E 300.90' \ Brossie w/ X' iu!a, and further, the -- e 1- 1hrmseNes, 129.33' 72. Ili title from the f0' Private gg,57 �. R"+friction per r! vw Nc. 4733106 I. .:h• of Kent. ift ''� Drainage >r I itT Well �, AA• Easesen W Easement W r ,e �•,Inblishmenl, - from Plot Lot 10 •'! l public This - ^, ^. Lot 8 1O0•R '1 un- 1,gs ..I Ihn public -- I 'io>, 1r5a5.34 5o FT I .0 8 w72.3t so FT f E, i 6006 Q 0 FT h, need to hold v �J 'A• e dh Ih! ' - desires ' Lot 11 �S �> � � 70A.93 so FT Jb, ad 'b 14".1 ;P.•1I:. - S)S9 � y�IC �n�°� rnlagte 7 31-0E(R)"113.91• 8. 5 FT 10'Pfivate D Easement Lot 12 SB9'1T39'E 89.50' 5700:00°50 FT $ —- S89'17'07'E 116.03' / 4y Lot 6 57a9.17 50 FT C .c 9 + �, /569'17'39'E 113.70' 1 NOTES: _ - Lot 13 I 4i P4 1. PRIOR TO THE 7867.52 30 FT TO CONDITIONS 0 it 9I = �RASSH�ARE OF RI SBS*17'39*E 135.53' I3 €4 1 -I Lot 5 8 OF THE SOUTH 2' 5746.55 SO FT COST SHALL BE 1 2001. 115.00, uO,i -' 19 PEAK HOUR TI 4 BE ADJUSTED FOF ,Pvlrlir: in and -' Lot 14 $ XI o ISSUANCE. r--?icned and '� ,�' ' o uu) _ 7451.62 SO FT Lot 4 0 2. AT A TED ON 10' Prlvat 135.44' y I N CDIVSRUCEO ON Drainage 5749.97 50 FT ROOF DOWNSPOUT Easement Ti 115.0o' STUBOUn SYSTEM' STORMWATER FIAT and iR Lot 15 s o s� RESTRICTI 8123.10 59 FT Lot 3 R f35.34' ' Y I lU �I 5749.97 50 FT PERMITTED FROM •.+-clip Thal w � � 115.00' tEGAI DESCRIPTtO owledged � roe A in IV 1 -"III Oct -- - Pabllc �I•ainage CI53 to - LOT 30 OF R.O. OROM P! n9es rind Q�Q I 135.31' :u SI Lot 2 8 IKNGECCOUNTTY wA 1, ;t"d that '1 S g 1 'gl 5749.95 SO FT 5i EXCEPT THE SOUI 1.'rrrt" ^nl rind 20' Private I Lot 16 0 115.00' LEGEND I if - lid Drainage 6763.37 SO FT ,$ q E e kwit- 136.23' TWPrIvitte 0 Plot Monumr Drainage �. • /4 Reber A.,8I Easementlot 1 - DRY 5749.9e 50 FT 10 Private g Lot 17 g - -- E01 vils tat I BJ59.3 90 FT 61 25' 125' �O Sttrve 11 Arc.not 335.14' 1se9 17 39 E 315.0o 12714V AI SUMNER, 10 Puget Lot 16 g I NOT 253-826-0300 F SoundM.85 50 FT Fec. N 135.06' w IN No. SURVEYOR'S UERTIFICATI 1102?LOML PLAT THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESEN Lot 19 g I W MY DIRECTION R4 CONFORMANCE ^ SURVEY RECORDING ACT. gi.ale AnMe ;•' 6750.61 SO FT V W nm1viL 89'17'39'E 134.97' �i �,��✓1' •y�e Jf cut I I b Nf • Lot 20 a%+ 'n" �I I 10171.39 SO FT 1 45 ticQ 1t Deeded to the eerettlme 109.90, I�City of Kent for 44LA < or....... b1 - c __ i1 !�� If N r. 20017a120000a4 uIt r�q •�Sl 0f $ SB9'17'11'E 184.04. _+ JOB No. 2f100075FP Kent City Council Meetinc Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calenda- 1 . SUBJECT: OFFICE SUPPLY CONTRACT - APPROVE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their February 6, 2001 meeting, authorization for the Mayor to sign a three-year contract with Boise Cascade Corporation for the City' s office supply and furniture needs . Customer Service began the bid process in November, reviewed presentations, completed site visits and then selected Boise Cascade to provide office supplies and furniture . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memos from Finance Director Miller and Customer Service Manager Vetsch 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E • 4400 KENT WASHINGTON DATE: January 31,2000 FINANCE May Miller TO: Mayor White and City C�o-un4cillmembers Director \ \1',"�""`� Phone:253-856-5260 FROM: May Miller `(\n� Fax:253-856-6255 SUBJECT: Office Supply and Furniture Contract 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Authorization is requested to have the Mayor sign a three year contract with Boise Cascade Corporation for the city's office supply and furniture needs. The city annually budgets approximately$150,000 to$175,000 for office supplies and furniture and the city saves money by bidding this type of items. The new contract also has language to help the city use the latest technology in ordering, charging, delivering, and even, if necessary, returning items in the most efficient way. The attached memo from Tom Vetsch,Customer Service Manager,outlines the process,objectives, and analysis used to select the vendor. We believe this contract offers the opportunity to partner and leverage the expertise of Boise Cascade and the City of Kent in providing goods and services to our city departments. I recommend your approval of Boise Cascade as our office supply and furniture supplier. Attachment February 6, 2001 TO: Mayor, City Council and Operations Committee FROM: Tom Vetsch, Customer Services/Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: Request Council Approve for the Mayor to Sign Office Supply & Furniture Contract RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City of Kent sign a contract with Boise Cascade Corporation for a period of 3 years commencing on the date of execution. Upon mutual written consent, the Contract may be extended for additional 1-year periods. During extension periods, all terms and conditions of the existing Contract shall remain in effect except those amended for the extension period. The total duration of the Contract, including any additional periods, shall not exceed five (5) years. We believe this contract offers the opportunity to partner and leverage the expertise and services of both the City of Kent and Boise Cascade in meeting our City Supply and Furniture needs. BACKGROUND: Office supply purchases annually is approximately between 150,000 to 175,000 dollars. The purpose of the Request for Proposal is to provide a method of supplying expendable r-. office supplies at the lowest price to all City of Kent departments by delivery. These goals and objectives are achieved in the following ways: 1. City employees shall be able to purchase office supplies from the contract vendor by placing orders by fax, telephone, and the Internet directly to the vendors on-line ordering system. 2. Contract pricing for the majorities of the items purchased in bulk by City departments for Office Supply needs. 3. Effective use of inter-local agreements with other governmental agencies and other types of purchasing agreements with the City of Kent. 4. To use an electronic on-line ordering system in selecting a local vendor that can provide office products at the most reasonable price, while maintaining the high level of service and quality products. 5. The primary objective is to lessen the administrative cost of procuring office supplies by consolidating individual orders and reducing the number of transactions per department. 6. Finance Purchasing Unit vision is to chose the latest technology to enhance our current "business practices", while providing a high-level of customer service to various city departments. T Page 2 PROCESS: Purchasing Department recently advertised for Office Supply & Furniture services by use of a Request for Proposal Process. Notice was given November 6, 2001 to submit proposals to the Purchasing Department for an Office Supply and Service Contract agreement for the City of Kent. Three companies submitted proposals: (1) Boise Cascade (2) Office Depot (3) Staples. Boise Cascade and Office Depot of Kent met the RFP criteria. Presentation & Interviews were set up with Boise Cascade and Office Depot as part of the selection process in December 2001. January site visits were completed at Boise Cascade and Office Depot locations here in the City of Kent. Pricing evaluations were completed on a majority of high volume items ordered by City departments over the past year. Boise Cascade offered a best pricing and discount than its competitor Office Depot. Overall evaluation process identified the Boise Cascade Corporation offer the high degree of both products and services than its competitor. Detailed information is available as part of the RFP evaluation process in the Finance Purchasing Department. Boise Cascade is currently using the JD Edwards Financial System that the City of Kent will be converting to in the coming year. This is an extra advantage in meeting our common on line and accounting objectives. Vendor must have been used a City of Kent Business License and have on filed with the City the following: A statement of non-discrimination in employment opportunities, Vendors Federal Tax Identification Number, Non Collusion Certificate as part of Request for Proposal requirements. Any such statements or tax information is not on file, such material shall be provided upon request, using the City's form. Page 3 OBJECTIVE AND ANALISIS: ➢ Pricing criteria and discount levels submitted as part of the RFP process. ➢ Review delivery qualifications and service level standards. ➢ New technology to streamline ordering, receiving, and accounting process. ➢ Review alternatives and Interlocal agreements with RFP companies. ➢ Comparison of the competitiveness of the State of Washington contracts. ➢ Pricing of special items and recycling products for the City of Kent. ➢ MSDS in the handling of products for hazardous substances. ➢ Catalog Pricing and discount ordering. ➢ Sales executive assigned to City of Kent Account. ➢ Electronic ordering and alternative back up plans. ➢ Internet improvements and Security requirements for the City Systems. ➢ Business review and reporting of product volumes and price savings. ➢ City account requirements, billing and electronic payments. ➢ Future Procurement and Purchasing Card Systems. ➢ City Business License and Location. ➢ Company vision and technology capacity. ^ PROCEDURE: ➢ Office & Furniture RFP Developed by Purchasing Department. ➢ Specification and Service Standards Completed. ➢ Purchasing Committee formed. ➢ Evaluation Criteria development and comparison completed. (3 firms submitted). ➢ Interview and Presentations with Boise Cascade & Office Depot. ➢ Tour of Facilities/Products/and Delivery Services. ➢ Reference Questions/Checks completed on both firms. ➢ Impact of decisions, budget, facility, staff and services completed. ➢ Final recommendation drafted. ➢ Recommendation to Operations. ➢ Council Approval. ➢ Mayor Contract Signing. ➢ Start of Contract. Detailed information of the Office & Furniture RFP process is maintained as part of the Purchasing criteria of the City of Kent Finance Department. We believe this contact offers the opportunity to partner and leverage the expertise of Boise Cascade and the City of Kent in providing goods and services to our City Departments. Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SOUTH KING COUNTY REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the .Public Works Director and also, that the Public Works Director be authorized as the Association' s representative with the alternate being the Water Superintendent . 3 . EXHIBITS: Agreement and Public Works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS.: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F �^ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director Phone:253-856-5500 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASNiNOTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: February S, 2001 To: Public Works Co ittee From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Regarding: South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement The attached RWA Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) was modified and approved by the RWA Board of Directors on December 19, 2000. The previous agreement, as it existed, was unclear that a signatory utility needed to be a current member of the Regional Water Association to receive the benefits of the JOA. In addition, there was some confusion regarding the procedure for withdrawal from the Agreement and what happened when a member withdrew from the Association. The December 19, 2000 Joint Operating Agreement has been reviewed to address these issues. We are requesting Committee's recommendation to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. Further, we are requesting that the Committee reconfirm the Public Works Director as the City's representative on RWA and that the Water Superintendent be confirmed as the alternate. MOTION: Recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director and also, authorize that the representative is the Public Works Director with the alternate being the Water r^ Superintendent. MP2087 SOUTH KING COUNTY REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT -1 December 19, 2000 WHEREAS, an adequate and safe water supply for South King County Regional Water Association(SKCRWA) and its members is vital to both existing citizens and in implementing the long-term comprehensive plans of SKCRWA members; and WHEREAS, the State and SKCRWA prepared a Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) for South King County; and WHEREAS, projects that provide for the coordinated and cooperative use and operation of supply, transmission, storage, treatment, and pumping facilities to minimise cost, provide for improvea ;eater quality, protect the environment, provide for emergency needs, and maximize the best use of the resource is in the best interest of the citizens of the region; WHEREAS, the current and near-term water needs of the local governments and SKCRWA require steps to establish a cooperative subregional water supply system; and WHEREAS, the SKCRWA is committed to cooperate toward regional solutions for both emergency and long range water supply needs: and WHEREAS, the SKCRWA signatory members developed a Joint Operating Agreement in '1 1995 and revised the Joint Operating Agreement in 1996 and now want to further revise the Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, the SKCRWA signatory members of this Joint Operating Agreement (JOA), agree as follows: 1. GENERAL A. The Signatory Members acknowledge the requirement to incorporate land use planning as defined by the Growth Management Act with water supply planning; and B. The Signatory Members recognize the benefits of developing a subregional water supply system that will allow the optimum use of surface and groundwater.to better manage and protect the area's water resources; and C. The Signatory Members will hold an Annual Meeting about September 30th to review the status of this JOA and any Amendments as well as other problems of mutual concern. The specific date, time, and location of the meeting will be set by mutual agreement. "1 December 19,2000 1 D. Merger shall mean when two signatory members merge or when a signatory member and a non-signatory member merge. E. Termination — This agreement shall cease to be binding on or to any signatory member that is not in good standing or whenever a merger occurs. 2. INTENT A. The general intent is to create a method for the Signatory Members to cooperatively use certain existing facilities and construct new facilities needed to develop a subregional water system. The Signatory Members may mutually agree by Interlocal Agreement to produce additional water and distribute it within the Subregional Service Area, with or without change to their retail service area. B. The JOA provides a framework for joint development of specific projects that may include two or more Participants. Each facility, project, and/or intertie shall be developed under a separate Interlocal Agreement (IA) consistent with this JOA subject to approval by appropriate affected city council and/or water district boards. The specific intent of this JOA is to make provisions for a standardized form to create or expand cooperative agreements to meet the public water supply needs for both emergency and long-term use, and to establish a basis for agreement between Participants for financing, ownership, construction, and operation of mutually beneficial projects required to achieve cooperative objectives. These projects may include common facilities with other Agencies outside the SKCRWA planning area. Interlocal Agreements (IA) negotiated under the provisions of this JOA shall speak for them selves and should reference the version of the JOA, which is in place at the time that the agreement is reached. It is the intent of the Signatory Members that any Interlocal Agreements negotiated under the JOA would survive the withdrawal of a Signatory Member from the JOA or from the South King County Regional Water Association. It is further the specific intent of this JOA to preserve Signatory Members' existing water rights and protect the established or planned interest and needs of each Signatory Member with respect to sources of water. Suggested content for an Interlocal Agreement is shown in Exhibit A. C. It is the desire of the Signatory Members that this JOA be incorporated into the South King County CWSP at the next update. D. The term "Participant" as used in this JOA shall mean all the signatories of an IA consistent with and implemented subsequent to this JOA. December 19,2000 2 E. The term"Signatory Members" as used in this JOA shall mean a member, in good "1 standing, of the South King County Regional Water Association who has signed this JOA. Good standing includes but is not limited to being current on all dues to the SKCRWA. 3. SUBREGIONAL SERVICE AREA AND FACILITIES A. "Subregional Service Area " shall mean the Signatory Members' Designated Water Service Areas identified in the CWSP or as approved by amendments to the CWSP or as identified in a Signatory Member's approved Comprehensive Water Plan. B. "Subregional Facilities" shall mean: (a) that portion of the Participants' sources, interties, transmission, and storage systems required to supply water to the service areas of the Participants or new facilities as defined by a separate IA pursuant to this JOA. (b) those designated capacities within a Participant system as specifically defined in an appropriate IA. C. "Facility Ownership". Ownership of the physical facilities that exist on the date of this JOA shall remain with the individual Signatory Members. Unless otherwise 1 agreed to within a specific IA, ownership and operational responsibilities of new facilities shall be based generally on location in designated service areas, with capacity rights defined by appropriate IA. 4. WATER SUPPLY - CAPACITY RIGHTS A. Capacity Riots - Participants may purchase capacity by IA. Any changes in these capacity rights shall be recognized by an IA, approved by the appropriate affected city councils and/or water district boards. B. Additional JOA Participants - Other agencies may purchase capacity rights in subregional facilities subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.C. Other agencies who become Signatory Members of the SKCRWA and become Participants in future projects undertaken under this JOA and future IAs will be assessed past costs associated with development of this JOA as specified in Exhibit B. Deoember19,2000 3 �^ C. WholesalingWater- a) A Signatory Member may wholesale water through lease or otherwise, delivered through subregional facilities to areas outside of the Signatory Member's Service Area, so long as the other Signatory Members' capacity rights are not negatively impacted. Signatory Members of the SKCRWA agree that, where feasible and mutually beneficial, they will coordinate planning and development of water resources. b) Signatory Members further agree that prior to entering into any agreement to deliver long term water supply or construct joint facilities with a non-Signatory Member agency, they will first make a good faith effort to offer such supplies and/or capacities to Signatory Members (provide the right of first refusal). Such offers shall be made on a cost of service basis as established by separate IA. Signatory Members shall have 60 days to respond. c) Signatory Members agree that when entering into any agreement to deliver long term water supply or construct joint facilities with a non-Signatory Member agency in accordance with this JOA, they will include and collect for . remittance to the SKCRWA a fee for reimbursement of the costs for development of the JOA as specified in Exhibit B. d) Regular meetings of the SKCRWA shall be the forum for making Signatory Members aware of discussions regarding water sales and joint projects, however all offers of participation or requests for participation shall be in writing with copies to other Signatory Members. D. Conservation - All Participants will develop and implement a conservation plan that is consistent with State guidelines. Additional or supplemental conservation requirements beyond basic programs may be included in a specific Interlocal Agreement. E. Curtailment - In general, curtailment for delivery of "firm water" shall be on a uniform percentage basis for both wholesale and retail customers and curtailment for delivery of "interruptible water" shall be on a "last in first out" basis as determined by the date of formal agreement. Specific curtailment requirements and provisions shall be included in Interlocal Agreements implemented under this JOA. F. Quality - An objective of the Signatory Members is to maintain the quality of the water in the subregional facilities at or above the quality required by the State drinking water standards. The purchasing Participant will be responsible for ensuring water quality blending analyses and other water quality issues are resolved to their own satisfaction. The Signatory Members may meet periodically to ensure that water quality and operational issues are addressed, and that needed December 19,2000 4 information is exchanged in a timely fashion. The written results of these meetings will be circulated in a timely manner to all members and participants and reviewed at the annual meeting. G. Additional Facilities - Projected needs will be identified by the Participants based on the Participant's designated service areas. As five or more years may be needed to bring major new source capacity capabilities on line, five-year and ten-year forecasts are required, and must be updated whenever a Participant becomes aware of any significant.change in their forecast demand. These will be discussed jointly as they arise, and reviewed at the annual meeting. H. Financing - Each Project IA will include pertinent details of financing for that project. Financial participation in existing and additional facilities will be based on each Participant's projected need for each facility, as designated capacity rights. I. Cost of Service Charge - The Signatory Members and Participants will establish wholesale water sales charges for both emergency and long-tens supply that include: (1) capital cost, (2) fixed operating cost, and (3) a variable operating cost based on quantity of water delivered based on actual costs of providing the service. Fixed and variable operating and maintenance costs payments will be made monthly per meter and use rates. Projected annual rate adjustments and documentation shall be provided at the annual meeting. Any rate increase will be ..� effective beginning January 1,of the following year. (1) The Rates and Charges for the capital, operation, and maintenance of the system shall be based on the following: (a) Capital Cost - Those construction related costs incurred for Capacity Rights. Capital Costs for facilities contracted solely for a specific project (described in an IA) are allocated based on designated capacity to be purchased. Capital costs shall include the debt service for each Participant. Such debt service shall be defined as the actual debt service on debt issued for the Participant's proportionate share of capacity rights, or if no debt is issued for the Participant's costs by the financing Participant, the amortized value at the interest rate of the most recent revenue bond issued by the financing Participant over 20 years. However, should all capital costs be paid in full by any Participant purchasing capacity rights prior to the time of the financing Participant incurring the costs, no interest charges shall be assigned to the Participant purchasing capacity rights. December 1 9,2000 5 Capital Costs associated with a supplying Participant's construction of their internal water system facilities may be included in the fixed and variable operating costs as appropriate, using cost of service principles, in the same manner as those costs are included in the supplying Participant's customer rate base. (b) Fixed Operating Cost - The cost of labor, supervision, supplies, utilities, services, taxes, insurance, and all other costs required to operate and maintain the system other than those items included under Variable Operating Cost. The operating cost will include an allocation for renewal and replacement. (c) Variable Qpemting_Cost - Those costs directly proportionate to the volume of water produced, including chemicals, electric power, and other costs required to meet customer and system needs not included in(a) and(b) above. (2) Accounting Subregional facilities accounting shall be documented in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices acceptable to the Participants. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE. LEGAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS A. Each Signatory Member shall designate in writing their representative responsible for coordination and implementation of the JOA and the subsequent IAs. The designated individuals will be the primary contact for all project approvals and communication and shall prepare and publish a schedule and plan to facilitate the planning, design and day-by-day operation of facilities associated with the subsequent IAs. B. Signatory Members in good standing may propose Amendments to this JOA at any time. Signatory Members in good standing shall vote on proposed Amendments at the Annual Meeting. A quorum of Signatory Members present shall approve any Amendments to this JOA prior to their submittal to Signatory Members city councils and/or utility district boards for approval. A Special Meeting of the Signatory Members may be called for the purpose of amending this JOA by two thirds of the Signatory Members in good standing. C. A Signatory Member may withdraw from this JOA by providing 120 days notice.to other Signatory Members. Notice shall be provided to each Signatory Member in writing and shall include the reason for withdrawal. D=mber 19,2000 6 D. Any Signatory Member that withdraws from the SKCRWA also withdraws from this JOA. E. This JOA shall remain in full force unless terminated in writing by mutual agreement of all Signatory Members in good standing. Termination of the JOA or withdrawal by any signatory member shall not affect any Interlocal Agreements negotiated under a JOA. F. A Signatory Member who merges with any Agency which is not a Signatory Member of this JOA must withdraw from the JOA. The merged agency would then be allowed to reapply for Signatory Membership in the JOA as the merged Agency. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the SKCRWA members hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their proper Officers on the day of 199_ By: Title: City of Algona Date: Attest: By: Approved As To Form: By: By: Title: City of Auburn Date: Attest: By: December 19,2000 7 �^ Approved As To Form By: By: Title: City of Black Diamond Date: Attest: By: Approved As To Form: By: By: Title: City of Kent Date: Attest: By: Approved As To Form: By: By: Title: Lakehaven Utility District Date: Attest: By: o«=xr19,2000 8 Approved As To Form: By: By: Title: Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Date: Attest: By: Approved As To Form: By: By: Title: King County Water District #111 Date: Attest: By: Approved As To Form: By: By: Title: City of Pacific Date: Attest: By: Approved As To Form: Dwember 19,2000 9 By: By: Title: Date: Attest: By: Approved As To Form By. By: Title: Date: Attest: By: Approved As To Form: By: December 19,2000 10 South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement Exhibit A Check List for Interlocal Agreements 1. Project Title 2. General • List of Utilities to be parties to the Interlocal Agreement(IA)and approval of the appropriate city councils and/or water district boards. • Consistency with the Joint Operating Agreement(JOA). Description of need for the project. • Listing of potential wholesale customers for the water in accordance with Section 4.0 of the JOA. • Recognition of assessment of costs associated with development of JOA in accordance with Section 4.13 of the JOA. • Recognition of right of first refusal to excess capacity of Signatory Members of the South King County Regional Water Association(SKCRWA) in accordance with Section 4.0 of the JOA. • Recognition that capacity and water rights are available to meet the needs of the IA. 3. Description of Project • Include a drawing(or description)which identifies all the facilities to be considered within the IA. Included within the description should be all jointly or solely owned facilities that are to be operated or paid for by a party to the IA. • Description of long term ownership of the facility. • Identification of the party responsible for operation and/or maintenance of the facility. Identification of the party responsible for payment for the design and construction of the facility. 4. Project Costs,Financing, Capacity Rights • Description of all project costs and the allocation to each party. • Definition of capacity rights for all facilities. • Definition of cost sharing for long-term maintenance for each facility. • Definition of method of reimbursement for moneys expended(if required). • Description of any applicable latecomer fees or hook-up charges. • Description of requirements for record keeping and monitoring of costs. 5. Project Design and Construction Management • Definition of overall project management responsibilities. • Definition of design and construction management responsibilities for individual facilities. • Description of basic periodic meeting schedule for review of project progress. "1 December 19,2000 1 10A Exhibit A—2000 6. Conditions of Service • Limitations to source sharing or delivery of water(if any). • Design criteria for the project facilities. • Minimum and maximum flow rates and pressures. • Items specifically excluded from the project. 7. Term of Duration of the Agreement • Discussion of the length of time the agreement is in effect as well as the method to terminate the agreement and succeeding agencies' obligations. 8. Amendments • Method by which the agreement could be amended. 9. Hold Harmless,Liability Language,etc. ,r Decembcr 19,2000 2 JOA Exhibit A-2000 South King County Regional Water Association "1 Joint Operating Agreement Exhibit B Computation of Charges Initial Computation based on 8 shares. $ 16,652 Cost to develop JOA (from Covington and WD 111). 8 $ 2,081 Initial "charge"for a share. Cost to the three participants of IA2. Covington and Auburn, three share $ 6,244 WD 111, two shares= $ 4,163 Final Computation based on 12 shares. $ 16,652 12 $ 1,388 Ultimate use charge Algona and Black Diamond, one share= $ 1,388 WD 111, two shares= $ 2.775 Auburn, Kent, Covington WD, Lakehven UD, Or Soos Creek W&SD, three shares= $ 4,163 Reimbersement for Development and initial use(to Covington, WD 111,and Auburn) $ 16,652 Cost for development. Covington WD 111 Auburn $ 8,326 $ 8,326 $ - development cost $ 6,244 $ 4,163 $ 6,244 use charge IA2 $ 2,081 $ 4,163 $ (6,244) $ 2,081 $ 4,163 $ - recovery charge IA2 (Auburn) $ 6,244 $ 4,163 $ 6,244 $ 4,163 S 2,775 $ 4,163 ultimate use charge $ 2,081 $ 1,388 $ 2,081 remaining reimb. $ 463 $ 463 $ 463 recovery charge IA3 (Algona) ..� $ 1,619 $ 925 $ 1,619 remaining reimb. JOA E#hibft B Fees-2000 December 19,2000 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 20C3 Category Consent Ca'_endar 1 . SUBJECT: CITY OF TUKWILA, 180TH STREET PROJECT - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, and subject to review by the Public Works Director and City Attorney, authorization to convey by quit claim deed an open space piece of property to Tukwila for their 180th Street project and to accept conveyance by Tukwila of property adjacent to the Springbook Creek Trail . 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL, IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director Phone:253-856-5500 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASMINOTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98M2-5895 Date: February 5, 2001 To: Public Works Cornipittee OP From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Regarding: City of Tukwila South 180' Street Project r"1 Tukwila has requested that we quit claim deed to them an open space piece of property for accessing this development. (See attached map) We feel this contribution will assist in getting the project implemented. In turn, they will deed back to us property adjacent to the Springbrook Creek trail. We are requesting the Committee's recommendation to move forward on this for Council action. MOTION: Recommend Council authorization subject to review by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney, to quit claim deed to Tuk.,vila, the open space property as referred to in the attached map for the 180`h Street project. MP2088 T. 23N . R . 4E. W. M 0 < 00 CITY OF RENTON © ~ Y ~ w V U O 25+37e ) PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT 75.00 L r .� - - — _ — _. _.` _ - - , J r 1 I r r F N I R S 88Z2'1 - E IN 3- BRASS DISC 25 - P 22+171 (50.00 RT) 0 PROPOSED �a+ ZOO' EASEMENT (SO. RT) (B4 43' RT) / comm. PROPOSED BLOC ACCESS EASEMENT 14 1 , 4+ 1 e 0 g (178' RT) 1$ u Z U m R 1C 2 O 02 cm7 • 2 yC N CITY OF KENT FOR PARCEL 16 SEE S 6 UP RAILAOAO 1,692 7 6NST RAu10Ao 3 2+6 6 OTr OF RENTON a2S 737 43 18 9 2ELMAA RENTp1 LLC 76Zt75 1A PSAF OEvfl.OPMENT PARTNERS LP w372 LEGEND 13 Q.ACIER PARR COMPANY IID.660 3.232 16 FLY AWAY,NG 33t 361 33a,36t T 1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP MUMMERS PARCEL NO. MANE TOTAL AREA R LT. REMAINOER ITT. EASEMENT OWNERSHIPS ALL AREAS SHOWN IN SOUARE FEET PROPER''LIMES Mo 6m/00 e,A 6n5/W OLP 6/25/00 CCw 6/23/00 CLP 6/23/W s+�r tr N�r.e�.M. n�>U®lam�.f[m14Me•lJw� fee a I i I �I I III NW 1/4 NW 1/4 I NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SEC. 36 I SEC. 36 �I II CITY OF i o III TUKWILA o I I � < 11 Z II I n a = I II ------------ ----- I ' II I II I Il I II I II 1 'I O I 11 I II • 4 II I II 1 I I I I 11 --- I II _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I } 1 11 I I � BEGINNING OF PLAN b I STA. 10+00.00 P.O.T. I 'I I I II I II II 15 II II l i^ 11 I I I II 16 I SW 1/4 NW 1/4 I SE 1/4 NW 1/4 SEC. 36 I SEC. 36 I I _ MATCH LINE 6 �o am/m aaA 6m/o! ar 6/7!/60 =w 6/n/m ��i.4.111®11!}yam /i>rr Q4Qi4�.114Ci14401V1 it 1fl Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: MILLENNIUM ART PROJECT - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to execute an agreement with artist Laura Haddad for the Millennium Art Project in the amount of $73 , 000 . 00, as recommended by the Parks. Director. The artist was chosen by public review and jury and approved by the Arts Commission. The art project will be displayed at the Kent Commons Recreation Center. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from City Art Coordinator 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $73 , 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: City Art Plan budget, part approved by Council 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: / ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H Kent City Council Meeting i" Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KING COUNTY ARTS COMMISSION PERFORMANCE NETWORK GRANT - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the $5, 000 . 00 King County Arts Commission Performance Network Grant and amend the Kent Arts Commission Budget . Funds will be used to support artistic fees for two performances in the "Spotlight Series. " 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter of award from King County Arts Commission 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $5 , 000, 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: King County Arts Commission 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I MEMORANDUM PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES TO: Parks Committee FROM: Brenda Abney, Cultural Programs Coordinator RE: Millinnium Art Project DATE: February 6, 2001 The Millennium Art Project public review was conducted at Kent Commons on January 5. The three art finalists displayed their ideas for new artwork to be placed at the entrance of Kent Commons. Over 100 people viewed the display and 60 people cast ballots for the People's Choice. The jury for the �- project met on January 9, to review the proposals including budgetary information, timeline and specifics about each from the artists. Laura Haddad's project was chosen by the jury and was the favorite according to the People's Choice Ballot. On January 23, the Kent Arts Commission approved the People's Choice - Laura Haddad, and recommended entering into an agreement for $73,000.00 as approved in the Five Year Art Plan. King Counn OfRce of Cultural Resources Arts Commission Landmarks and Heritage Program Public Art Program 506 Second Avenue.Room 200 Seattle.WA+3104-2307 - (206)296-7380 (206)296-8629 FAX (206)296-7380 VTDD September 29,2000 Ronda Simons Kent Arts Commission 220 4`" Av enue S Kent, NVA 98032 Dear iv, Si S�V, � F Thank you for your participation as a presenting organization during the 2000-2001 King County Performance Network. We're pleased to announce that this season's allocation to Kent Arts Commission will be $5,000. nclosed you will find two copies of a contract for services to be provided; please sign and return both copies by Monday, October 23. A complete copy will be returned to you for your files afte7 being routed through King County offices. Also enclosed, please find an invoice and an evaluation form. Your payment will be processed upon receipt of an invoice and documentation regarding performance schedule, location and budget. Upon completion of your Performance Network events. please complete and submit the enclosed evaluation form, as well as a final budget for your performances, a final report of program accomplishments, and any available programs. brochures or flyers. If you have any questions or need additional information. I can be reached at 206-296-8677 or lara.holman @metrokc.gov. Thanks again for your participation in the Performance Network- we look forward to your shows! Sincerel--. Lara Holman Program Coordinator King County Arts Commission Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: 2001 WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION OPERATIONAL SUPPORT GRANT - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the $6, 000 . 00 King County Arts Commission Operational Support Grant and amend the Kent Arts Commission budget. Funds will be used to support the production of the 15th Annual Kent Canterbury Faire. 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter of award from Washington State Arts Commission 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff,, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $6, 000 . 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Washington State Arts Commission 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: r ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J Rri§TAre p. O .i STATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION 234 E 8th Ave., PO Box 42675 • Olympia, Washington 98504-2675 • (360)753-3860 • FAX(360)586-5351 August 18,2000 John Hodgson Director of Parks & Recreation City of Kent Arts Commission 220 Fourth Ave South Kent WA 98032- Re: FY2001 Organizational Support Program (OSP)—Contract#2001082 Dear Mr.Hodgson: The Washington State Arts Commission is pleased to inform you that your Organizational Support application has been recommended for$6,000.00 in funding, in this first year of a two-year grant cycle. The competition for funding was very tight. We received 114 applications submitted on the April 7, 2000 deadline. Requests for support totaled S941,850. The Commission approved$384,862 to 90 arts organizations. Award amounts for'next year(FY2002)will be prorated based on increases(or decreases) in funds from the next state biennial budget and federal funds from the National Endowment for the Arts. Carefully review your contract packet. On Attachment "A".Scope of Work are contract requirements. Providing credits to the Washington State Arts Commission(and for federal funds,the National - Endowment for the Arts) is also required by this contract.Be sure to review Attachment"B".Payment Schedule; grant payments will be made in the month and under the terms as described here. Sign and date the contract and voucher- do not separate or remove pages from the stapled contract packet. Return the full packet on or before September 15, 2000,to the Awards Program. A countersigned contract will be mailed to you after our Executive Director has signed it. The grant contract requires a Final Report"no later than 45 days"following the contract ending date (WAC 30-14-110 for Awards). Any future grants are contingent on receipt of a complete Final Report by the Awards Program. A report form will be sent shortly. If you disagree with the Commission's funding recommendation,you may request a review under the Appeals procedure-Awards and contracts,described in WAC 30-08-070.An appeal must be filed in writing by September 15,2000. Refer to the buff colored page following this letter for details. Staff is available at(360)753-3858 if you have questions. If you provided a mailer and postage for the return of your work sample(s),they will be sent after September 15,2000. Sincerely, jAds ry ManPer P ogram Enclosures Appears Procedure-WAC 30.0&070;Awards Progrmn Contract,!mole Voucher;WSAC Logo Stick,NE!Logo Slick((fyou revivefederalAndr) Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: 2001 KING COUNTY ARTS COMMISSION SUSTAINED SUPPORT GRANT - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the $12, 000 . 00 King County Arts Commission Performance Network Grant and amend the Kent Arts Commission budget . Funds will be used to support programs such as Kent Kid' s Arts Day, Kent Summer Concert Series, Spotlight Series and Spring Into Art Performances. 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter of award from King County Arts Commission 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $12 , 000 . 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: King County Arts Commission 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6K MKin County of Cultural Resources Arts Commission Landmarks and Heritage Program Public Art Program 506 Second Atrnue,Room 200 Seattle,IVA 98104-2307 (206)296-7580 (206)296-8629 FAX (206)296-7580 VITDD January 31,2001 Ronda Simons Kent Arts Commission 220 Fourth Avenue Kent,WA 98032-5895 Dear Ms. Simons: Congratulations on your 2001 Sustained Support award; this award is the second allocation in the two-year Sustained Support program. This letter and the enclosed documents will help to facilitate the contracting, invoicing and payment process for your 2001,award. Last year, in 2000, Kent Arts Commission received $12,000 in Sustained Support;your award'in 2001 will again be$12,000. Sustained Support funds are allocated through a Contract for Services. Funded organizations may contract for one or more services occurring during the 2001 calendar year between January and September. Contracted services must occur in King County and directly benefit King County residents. Upon completion of the service and submission of invoice documentation,organizations will be reimbursed in the amount of the award. In order to expedite year-end fiscal accounting, all services,contracting and invoicing must be completed by October 1, 2001.Please note that this is an earlier deadline for invoices than in the post; Sustained Support services and invoicing in 2001 must be completed prior to the start of King County's budget process in October. Enclosed are: • Contract Information Request Form: complete and return by March 30, 2001. • 2001 Award Checklist: for your reference. • Legal Obligations for All Award Recipients: for your reference. • Logo Sheet: to be used in program and promotional materials as required(also available electronically). • About King County Arts Commission: for your reference. • King County Council Brochure: for your reference(to help identify council districts and councilmembers,as well as familiarize you with King County's geographic and legislative composition). • Info on 2002-2003 Sustained Support Program: for your reference(application deadline is October 8, 2001). Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information regarding your award or the Sustained Support program. I can be reached at 206-296-8677 or lara.holman @ metrokc.gov. Sincerely, ara Holman �- Program Coordinator King County Arts Commission Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: FEE IN LIEU OF FUNDS - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGETS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the fee in lieu of funds in the amount of $101, 906 . 89 and amend the budgets as listed below: Clark Lake Mordhorst Property Acquisition: $28, 875 .27 272nd St . Neighborhood Park Acquisition: $33 , 446 . 19 Turnkey Park Land Acquisition $ 8 , 700 . 00 E. Hill Youth Sports Complex $11, 700 .43 Acquisition/Development Morrill Meadows Park Development $19, 185 . 00 The City of Kent received a total of $101, 906 . 89 from ten subdivisions who voluntarily paid their fee-in-lieu-of, dedicating park land 'to mitigate the development- of single family homes . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Supt . Of Parks Planning and Development 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6L CITY OF KENT PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES MEMORANDUM TO: Parks Committee FROM: Lori Flemm, Parks Planning & Development Supt. RE: Fee in Lieu of Funds DATE: February 6, 2001 In 2000, the City of Kent received a total of$101,906.89 from ten subdivisons who voluntarily paid their fees by fee-in-lieu-of, dedicating park land to mitigate the development of single family homes. The City has five years from the date of deposit to spend these funds for park acquisition, development, or open space. Funds are used for a park close to the subdivision. Clark Lake Land Acquisition: Rhododendron Estates $13,498.00 Chancellor Park $ 6,827.27 Ludford $ 5,000.00 �Ludford $ 3,550.00 272na St. Neighborhood Park Acquisition: Erin Glade $22,121.19 Pat's Place $11,325.00 Turnkey park Land Acquisition/Development Schneider $ 8,700.00 East Hill Youth Sports Complex Land Acquisition/Development: Country Club Village II $11,700.43 Morrill Meadows Park Development: Hazelwood Meadows $14,010.00 Sylvia $ 5,175.00 3 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: HILL INDUSTRIAL PARK BUILDING 80C BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, authorization to accept the Bill of Sale for Hill Industrial Park Building 80-C submitted by Hill Family L.L.C. for continuous operation and maintenance of 30 feet of watermain improvements and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at 18220 Both P1 S . 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, .Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL, IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6M ,4 jig aw Al OT SW&I ST pf Mg. MA.... PROJECT LOCATION A 9W4 3 ST I An AT Lo nton Cit imit sit, J N J51" .................. ci ............................ z ............................... .............................................. as 8 ISO ST a LACIER ....... "4R 9097 a 190 OT —----- ........................... a 190 ST ........................... 92 ST A, a 194 ST 'UP GF-W iELT S 196 ST ...................... ......... 8200ST tt !!S j ...1u I I ............ Iq ,. ............ ............. S 202 U .... Q all at HOEING N.......... ....... ........................................ 4 to it t t t �=T AEROSPACE M.P. 8 2�q§j.' , ............... STATIoM 76--,, ........ ........... f %....... 6 208 ST 920 II ........................ .............. . .......... ............ A/T J ...... 82 .......... .......... bt 06 8 216 ST -J, Z ............... ....... HILL INDUSTRIAL PARK BUILDING 80—C . . .................. to .... ....... L ............... EN RIVER Kent City Council Meeting !- Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: RODENHAUSER SEWER EXTENSION BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, authorization to accept the Bill of Sale for Rodenhauser Sewer Extension submitted by Darrel Rodenhauser for continuous operation and maintenance of 197 feet of sanitary sewer and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at 27251 121st Avenue SE. 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL, IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6N r0A PL -j� 234 PI JR.HIC ........... 2 5ST 'A I��- I �`� e. a ob 229 AT • SE235 Is, 2 SE236 ST SE235ST 622 .—J 05PL .......... 2-3j PL > 4; .......... OL CA 2378T SA.2-1 7 ST 032 non C,�-i : : m '�o ................. :. .............. :::::l' aZaimt FiI SE 240 ST R. POST OPTICZ t rl r-- MAIIis TIILLE-Z�My .......... 113 @1 S m mwti m cc Z: &W ar cl PP SB 244 AT m1 a 8E2445T _ftB 244 CT Ln p pin ow 86746 PI, r-I a V�EL (PM'Ml Ln m_AS 246 PL _ ,- AZMAT 1= mrAT 14 EtZMENTARY 91247 PL m ......... SAM III RIDE S 247 CT Fz qR2dggT 4 8 247 FL tv 0 422 249 pJAm MRTlx w 6V SORTUN ELIM424TART I So 8 2 ..........I.......... " QVAQ...... CAN ...... 2S2 PL 1252-S M. S3 AT 251 CT IS C4 n= 1;K.c. 2 JAI 1 cr. IS ....... clo— XDFT ............. 8332S471 wt 25 r — , . �l 01 AMEX 1A SMOOL m �o D"" 2 Rim m an SO 2ES P ........... 236 'ARK S RIDE* I.......... . . ........ ses,r 04 -al 7, L $2 259 ST 2%BAI ............ -lu ....... py ra N- k 256 E ST 25 ST JL SE2609 RAINER VZV` -4:A ....... A �i,"m Om dt...?N.8- 61 T ME 261a! L=4MI%xy 4 ................... C .4 ev A, 26t 4c? PL S SEQUOIA ( — _263 JR.2300 64 165 w A 2I 2MVL . Ll4ki ........... ............ SE26 1 26685 E 79 TUDOR MOVARE F. SE26e 2.1 3266 -J�Zlpo, It 26 ............. ............... A I — i4 — N IR ............ 7 fsli5 ST PROJECT LOCATION ei T1 9B2718:l0 7 1�tu 728T 102 s 2 4 ST 4 E2 7 7 . ............ ....... 27 m .............. 03 276 ST 6 ST PINZ TREE !6 p, RI 8827 276 ST 27 RMGZ !:,: PM! TYIMM 1; SE277 lw 279 217 m 8Ivry '112 . .............. t 279 .................... SE�8 RODENHAUSER SEWER EXTENSION 8El;Z.V4_S Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SURPLUS OF 72ND AVENUE SIGNAL SHOP - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to declare the Signal Shops building on 72nd Avenue South as surplus and to authorize the Public Works Director to dispose of the same. l-' 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 60 JA z 0 1 Tj A a A/ aw 41 r 4 VAMEY........... f 4el: SWA3 IT it n SPOAkE A to VYAMFJU A. ............ ............ ........ ................. py ...........................A" 1� ................. Ew 0 ............. 06 9 GLACIER 62 iSl C 19 T Jc ktqAs—. F. A...........................m ELT PROJECT LOCATION ST 292 ST 819 ST a 196 aT S 196$T .................. ....... .......................... C, .................. $2008 to ism fi 202 ST ............. 4.1 ci -Z 2.02 ............ ........ ...................... ....... BOEING $&44 ........................................ ............ 22jk, -;AEROSPACE 10} Iplf 8206 ................ a Mill E- .............. ........... 8207 P -12-u�ST B208 ........................... ......................... H 1 NOS' S 2. n,%%T I t...... -41 .98 ................. S213B lj 8 216 ST ............. ..................... .......... as . .............................. 4, S220 ST�22 ......... ................ 72nd Avenue South signal Shops Bldg. .......... Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LINDA HEIGHTS PARK RENOVATION PROJECT - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Linda Heights Park Renovation Project as complete and authorize release of retainage funds to Fuji Industries, Inc . The project was inspected and accepted by the Project Manager on November 6, 2000 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Final acceptance letter from Project Manager 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6P r� 'ARKS,RECREATION& November 6, 2000 OMMUNITY SERVICES John Hodgson Director Rich Osaka Phone:253-856-6050 5100 Fax:253-856- Fuji Industries, Inc. PO Box 1847 220 Fourth-Ave.S. Milton, WA 98354-1847 Kent,WA 98032-5895 RE: Linda Heights Park Renovation, PR-99-04 Dear Rich: I made a final inspection of the Linda Heights Park Renovation Project and found that the project has been completed to my satisfaction. This letter serves as final acceptance of the public works project. I have not yet received as-built plans from you. Therefore, I accept the Linda Heights Park Renovation Project complete as of November 6, 2000, provided that you give me the as-built drawings by December 29, 2000. The one-year warranty period on parts and labor will remain in effect through November 6, 2001. Please make sure that all necessary State documents have been completed and filed. Thank you for a job well done! If you have any questions, please call me at (253) 856-5114. Sincerely, Perry brooks, Project Manager Parks Planning and Development C: John M. Hodgson, Director Parks, Recreation & Community Services Lori M. Flemm, Parks Planning and Development Pam Baum, Parks Accountant PJB/jb '� •�' � Kent City Council Meeting Date _ February 20, 2001 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: Dc NG MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS CHANGING DL. DCE - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The proposed ordinance rezones the Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing (DLM) zoning district to Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) . The Land Use and Planning Board held a hearing on January 22 , 2001 and made a recommendation to rezone all properties, which are presently zoned DLM to DCE in the downtown area. This ordinance implements the first of several recommendations of the Downtown Action Plan and Commuter Rail Station Area Study. This ordinance also makes minor technical amendments to the zoning code to change the reference from Planning Director to Planning Manager. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance r` 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board and Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember W rDdb seconds adoption of Ordinance No. 3 5 43, to eliminate the Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing (DLM) zoning district; to rezone all existing properties that are presently zoning DLM to Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) ; and to make other related amendments to Title 15 of the Kent City Code. DISCUSSION: (y10 ACTION: � v Council Agenda Item No. 7A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer 440 • PLANNING SERVICES \047KENT Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP, Manager WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 FEBRUARY 13,2001 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP, SENIOR PLANNER RE: AREA-WIDE ZONING CHANGE FROM DLM TO DICE, #CPZ-2000-6 (KIVA #2004622) Following their January 22, 2001 public hearing, the Land Use and Planning Board recommended rezoning downtown properties located in DLM,Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing,to DCE, !^ Downtown Commercial Enterprise. In effect,this would eliminate the DLM zoning district in the City of Kent and would facilitate the mix of uses that were envisioned for this area in the Downtown Kent Action Plan and Commuter Rail Station Area Study. There are some uses that will be made nonconforming by this zoning change. These uses include cold storage warehousing at the southwest comer of the intersection of James Street and Railroad Avenue, and a multi-tenant building at the northeast corner of the intersection of Smith Street and I" Avenue North that appears to have been used in the most recent past for sales/service/installation of overhead doors, installation/servicing/collection/cleaning of pay phones,restoration of copiers, and manufacture of drums. Nonconforming uses are not favored by law and Kent City Code. However, when authorized by the planning manager, legal nonconforming uses may be changed to uses of a like or more restrictive nature, or in some cases extended throughout those parts of a building which were manifestly designed or arranged for such uses prior to becoming nonconforming. Once discontinued or abandoned for a period of 6 months or if changed to a permitted use,the nonconforming uses may not be resumed. Staff will be available at the February 20`h City Council meeting to answer questions regarding this proposal. CA:\\EARTH FS\SDATA\Pemtit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2000\2004622-2000-6cc.DOC PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Manager 4^4�� Phone:253-856-5454 K ENT Fax: 253-856-6454 WASHINCTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing January 22, 2001 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair, Terry Zimmerman at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,January 22, 2001 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT PRESENT Terry Zimmerman, Chair Mike H.Martin,Deputy Chief Admin Officer Sharon Woodford,Vice Chair Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Mgr. Brad Bell Charlene Anderson,AICP Steve Dowell Eileen Harris,Planner Ron Harmon Bill Osborne, Planner Jon Johnson Kim Adams-Pratt,Asst. City Attorney David Malik Pamela Mottram,Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES David Malik MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to approve the minutes of November 27, 2000. Motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA Planning Manager Fred N. Satterstrom introduced Eileen Hams in her new position as long-range planner and introduced Bill Osborne as a new long range planner. Mr. Satterstrom introduced Kim Adams-Pratt as the new Assistant City Attorney to represent the Land Use and Planning Board on items of a quasi-legal nature. Mr. Satterstrom introduced Mike Martin as the new Deputy Chief Administrative Officer in charge of both Community Development and Public Works functions. COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager Fred N. Satterstrom stated that City Council has forwarded the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the Planning Committee for discussion at their February 5, 2001 meeting. He stated that City Council would consider at their February 6, 2001 meeting the Planning Committee recommendation on CPA- 2000-1 Urban Separator Amendment. #CPZ-2000-6 DLM TO DCE OUVA#2004622) Senior Planner, Charlene Anderson stated that staff is recommending a change of zoning whereby the (DLM) Downtown Limited Manufacturing zoning district would be eliminated and replaced with (DCE) Downtown Commercial Enterprise, currently existing in the vicinity. Ms. Anderson stated that the north boundary of the DLM district is James Street, to the south is Temperance Street(north of Smith Street), with Railroad Avenue forming the east side boundary. She stated that the Regional Justice Center forms the end of the boundary on the west side. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes January 22,2001 Page 2 Ms. Anderson stated that the uses included in the DLM district are the Regional Justice Center, Kent Commons and the Kent Commuter Rail Station. She stated that there are some remnant DLM uses that still exist in the northeast corner of the district. These uses are comprised of a cold storage facility and the "105 Building" which is a multi-tenant use involving some manufacturing,warehousing and a printshop. Ms. Anderson stated that those uses would become nonconforming with this change in zoning. Ms. Anderson stated that the Borden plant is located in the center of the DLM district and although the staff report states that the City of Kent has purchased this site,the purchase transaction has not closed yet. She stated that the Borden property would become nonconforming if it remained in its current location. Ms. Anderson stated that once the city has purchased the Borden property,they envision it becoming a mixed-use community. Ms. Anderson stated that this mixed-use designation is identified in the Downtown Strategic Action Plan as well as in the Commuter Rail Station Area Study. Ms. Anderson stated that the Regional Justice Center and Kent Commons would not experience a change in status as they are allowed in either the DCE or DLM district. Ms. Anderson referred to her staff report regarding some of the consequences of being nonconforming. She stated that expansion of those uses could occur by a conditional use permit. However, if those uses are discontinued for a period of six months or if they change to a permitted use and wish to revert to their former use, it would not be allowed. Terry Zimmerman declared the Public Hearing open. Jerald A. Klein, 823 Joshua Green Building, Seattle, WA 98101-2236 stated that he represents Leo Brutsche who owns a number of parcels in the area although none within the DLM zone. He stated that the DLM and DCE zone replaced a zone allowing manufacturing in the downtown area. Mr. Klein asked the Board to consider the consequences of creating nonconforming uses by changing the zoning from DLM to DCE by citing examples. Mr. Klein stated that he recommends that the Board consider a zoning district that would expand allowable uses achieved by merging the DLM and DCE zoning districts so as not to create nonconforming uses. Mr.Klein stated that providing a broader zoning district would allow the market to dictate what type of facilities would best serve the community rather then permitting City Council to decide what is best for the property owner. Mr. Klein further recommended merging the GC with the DLM and DCE zone. Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion CARRIED. In response to Mr. Malik, Mr. Satterstrom stated that there are limitations on parking but no height or setback limitations in the DCE zone. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the DCE zone is flexible in terms of use and development. He stated that when development standards were set aside,the city adopted a design review process whereby development over $100,000 would undergo a thorough design review. Mr. Satterstrom stated that through the design review process, the developer and the city would collaborate on criteria intended for the downtown area. Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to approve #CPA-2000-6 DLM to DCE as recommended by staff. Motion CARRIED unanimously. AJOURNMENT Terry Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, F tN4!.�ta2tterstrom,AICP,Planning Manager ec I\NYIUSR\PLA NNING\PMOTPRAM\LSERDATALLUPBVM[MITPSW 10122=.dm STAFF REPORT KENT January 22, 2001 WASHIHoToH ., .. ...,,.....� :.tee. COMMUNITY. TO: TERRY ZIMMERMAN, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT. &PLANNING BOARD : FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP, SENIOR PLANNER PLANNING SERVICES : #CPZ-2000-6 DLM TO DCE =red N.Satterstrom;-AICP. Manager ' Introduction Mailing Address 220 Fourth Ave;S. On October 26, 2000, Mayor White requested that staff begin to implement the Kent,WA 98032=5895 recommendations of the Commuter Rail Station Area Study. Included in the study was a x ` recommendation to change the DLM, Downtown Limited Manufacturing zoning district 400 West Gow e Location Address: to DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise. The Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Kent,WA 98032 Integrated Environmental Impact Statement(the "Plan") also envisions redevelopment of the North Core District into a vibrant, pedestrian-connected, mixed-use downtown Phone:253-856-5454 ,; community. The proposed zoning change would facilitate this redevelopment. Fax:253-856-6454 At their November 6, 2000 meeting, the City Council Planning Committee voiced their support for pursuing the zoning map amendment. At their January 8,2001 workshop, the Land Use and Planning Board scheduled a public hearing for this issue on January 22, 2001. Background: The Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Integrated Environmental Impact Statement was adopted by the City Council on April 7, 1998 via Ordinance No. 3398. The Plan refines the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan's vision of Kent as an Urban Center to include a redevelopment strategy with an integrated set of civic actions. The Plan is a subarea plan, a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and a Planned Action that addresses the probable significant environmental impacts of the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail related to the specific recommended actions contained in the Plan. It evaluates the significant adverse impacts and reasonable r „ mitigation measures associated with the development proposed in the Plan. The Plan encourages a wide mix of commercial, residential, and public uses, including s redevelopment of those properties lying within the DLM zoning district. The DLM district was created in the early 1990's during a previous zoning analysis of downtown. It maintained the conformity of industrial land uses located east and west of Fourth Avenue. However,the City recently purchased the Borden site,other industrial uses have relocated or been replaced, and the commuter rail station begins operation in Kent in February 2001. These events provide an impetus for the proposed zoning change to DCE to facilitate the mix of commercial, residential, office and public uses that are envisioned by both the Downtown Strategic Action Plan and the Commuter Rail Station Area Study. Discussion: The proposed zoning change from DLM to DCE will allow the mix of uses that were envisioned for this area in the Downtown Kent Action Plan and Commuter Rail Station Area Study. The status of the Regional Justice Center, Kent Commons, and Commuter Rail Station is unchanged by the proposed zoning amendment. However, there exist a couple of uses in the subject area that will be made nonconforming by the zoning change. LUPB 1/22/01 CPZ-2000-6 DLM to DCE Page 2 These uses include cold storage warehousing at the southwest comer of the intersection of James Street and Railroad Avenue, and a multi-tenant building at the northeast corner of the intersection of Smith Street and I'Avenue North that appears to have been used in the most recent past for sales/service/installation of overhead doors, installation/servicing/collection/cleaning of pay phones, restoration of copiers, and manufacture of drums. Kent City Code Section 15.08.1OO(C) provides the relevant code information for nonconforming uses. Expansion of nonconforming uses is allowed via a Conditional Use Permit [15.O8.100(C)(2)]. When authorized by the planning director, nonconforming uses may be changed to uses of a like or more restrictive nature [15.O8.100(C)(3)] or in some cases extended throughout those parts of a building which were manifestly designed or arranged for such uses prior to becoming nonconforming [15.O8.10O(C)(4)]. However, once discontinued or abandoned for a period of six (6)months or if changed to a permitted use,the nonconforming uses may not be resumed. Recommendation Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed area-wide zoning change from DLM to DCE. CA\pm: S:\Pemtit\Plan\ZONECODEAMENDV000\2004622-2000-6c.doc Enc: Area Map cc: Mike H.Martin,Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,Planning Manager Charlene Anderson,AICP,Senior Planner LVU C1 R ' Q a o 0 8�d �o ODE] Q o DMl M AV= 0 O 0 =P ° D• � ' 2f P d ❑ Z C .p ° ° a o00 0 0 o Qo ❑ °a o0 0 0 v o a OA 0 00 0 � ao o p 9°Q0 0 ° °o a C7 ❑ 0 � 6 �p c Z CP 'a g0 OQCl 0 o a o Q O l e°P• o-a ° ca (� g v o a°°oo ' o6 OQ0 °i--� a d 4J od0a0� s I �. 'e m0 O 40 b ° Cpe o •� Z 0000000 00 b [d+en I Q 00�0 13 -❑ I v l0� LJ' oea C Q °0 4°o4�°dp p°D DO °ao p ❑% Cram if ca D q �oO VE. ❑a o o o � . cbW poa c� ° 00 ao n13 d�aoo� � C • � flR AVE Z 0.0 too 0 dtf Zo .C°ao a o o°°a� d� °°0° r, 0 0 'j op a i`�� �0 0 a D Qm� q Ck a o aU � Eam a g WAYU Ll o ° OoodQOoQ� O pQOpO°O 0 Q flR o ° Oo STD o .� a c P \� 4 o� gao0 oa°oaa c .. Z o �° a °00 000 o D19 op o mC Z o a 0 ooPOb�U odoao� a 0opl I�1 ° d g p °0 ppoop oaooa 0o Q Do 0 o0dc .o •_ [ate ° �. ° 0 0 O O d 0 OoG a D. n R1, nnnn' ., Planning Committee, 11/6/00 Page 3 the area along the bottom of the West Hill is lower and wetter than the area close to the river. In1982, the City wanted to designate agricultural areas on the west side of the Green River that had the potential to be farmed even if they weren't productive. In those days there was no distinction of wetlands and there still are no regulations against farmers who want to drain wetlands to grow crops, as they can do what they want with water on their lands. There is an argument of whether those areas,judged to be potentially productive in 1982, are still potentially productive agricultural lands now. If the Council does not have any concerns about the existing agricultural lands, staff would look at the establishment of a PDR/TDR Program as the state law suggests. Judy Woods said she would like to see a map that indicated what lands had been designated agricultural and where the sensitive wetland areas were. Tim Clark said he would like to know whether there was a sense of continuity between present agricultural lands and the wetland areas. Fred Satterstrom said he had the maps on the PDR and could bring the wetland overlay maps to the next meeting. Chair Tom Brotherton opened the meeting for public discussion. Gary Young, 11624 SE 51h, Suite 200, Bellevue, 98005, a homebuilder in the Kent area, said it was his observation that there are cases where properties have transitioned in use. One example would be the municipal golf course,which is zoned and designated in the Comprehensive Plan as agricultural but in its present use wouldn't be correctly categorized as being productive or potentially productive agricultural land since it's been effectively developed for golf course use. !� Other properties, in the Kent PUD for example,have been designated both as single family and agricultural as part of the Master Plan PUD. They are shown on the Comprehensive Plan as being in the agricultural designation but now are properties that are not productive and don't have the potential to be productive unless they were entirely regraded with soil brought back. Mr.Young stated that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan review process is to annually revisit the status of the properties in the City,because the City,under the Growth Management Act, is mandated to ensure that potential housing land be provided and other lands kept in open space or wetland uses. He asked that the City look at its policy and consider the provision that in the cases where land is clearly not productive or is not potentially productive through permitted use,that the City amend the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent. Fred Satterstrom said additional information on purchased and mapped agricultural areas would be brought to the next meeting with a look at sensitive areas as well. Tom Brotherton asked Mr. Satterstrom to bring a definition of"potential". Downtown Zoning—Changing DLM to DCE Charlene Anderson said a memo was received from Mayor White asking staff to add to their work program one of the implementation measures outlined in the Commuter Rail Station Area Study. That recommendation was to change the DLM zoning to DCE. Part of the Borden property is in DLM zoning, which is used mainly to allow manufacturing uses in the downtown area. The DCE zoning allows more retail use, which would be more compatible with the downtown area. The issue was brought before Committee to explain the change in the work program and to make sure there would be no definite concerns about adding the item. Judy Woods and Tom Brotherton stated they were happy the change was being made. Planning Committee, 11/6/00 Page 4 Fred Satterstrom commented that the area under discussion was the only DLM in the City. If it i was changed to DCE, there would be no need for a DLM district and it would be repealed. Most of the uses in the DLM are fairly new outside of the Borden property and include the Kent Commons and the Regional Justice Center. He said a proposal would be brought back before the full Council within two or three months. ± Buildable Lands Fred Satterstrom introduced Michael Hubner, employed by Suburban Cities Association to work on the Buildable Lands Program which keeps track of how well King County jurisdictions use their land for commercial, industrial, and residential development. The Kent Planning Department Office is the host agency for the SCA's Buildable Planner's position, and Mr. Hubner has worked there for over a year compiling information and working with cities to coordinate legal requirements under King County. Michael Hubner said the Buildable Lands amendment was added to the Growth Management Act in 1997 and had three major purposes: 1.)To determine whether urban densities were being achieved within urban growth areas; 2.)To provide a measurement of the degree of consistency between comprehensive plans and the development that has actually occurred within each jurisdiction since adoption; and 3.)As a follow-up to the data collection and analysis, identifying and implementing reasonable measures to ensure that the location and density of growth in the future are consistent with planning goals. Within King County the implementation of buildable lands began in early 1999. Initial efforts focused primarily on gathering data on recently approved development within each jurisdiction. However, the Buildable Lands effort will continue throughout this year and into next year to encompassan updated inventory of land that has been identified as being suitable for development, and a follow-up analysis will determine for each jurisdiction and the county urban growth area, as a whole,whether the capacity of those lands for development is adequate to accommodate the immediate targets under the CPPs. The collection of data on single family building permits indicates that urban densities are being achieved in the City of Kent. The general measure for those is an average of four dwelling units per acre. However, under Buildable Lands, the plats will probably be the preferred measure of future single family densities. The outcome of the plats analysis is also fairly positive for the City of Kent with upwards of 85% of what would be allowable under the zoning prevailing within each plat actually being achieved by those plats in terns of density. The overall average of five dwelling units per acre is well above the standard. There's been a lot of discussion throughout the county about residential targets in terms of annual production of housing, and the data allows the tracking of that. While its not a Buildable Lands measure,the rate of housing production within Kent has been ahead of that which would be needed to meet the 20 year housing target mandated in the Countywide Planning Policies. Tom Brotherton asked how long it would be until the 20 year goals were achieved at the current rate of development, as it looks like the City is developing at almost twice the rate needed. Mr. Hubner said Kent needs to average 454 for the remainder of the planning period and has been averaging in the range of 819 units annually. Some permits were inherited that had been issued under King County prior to the annexations,but at the current rate of development, it would r ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 15 of the Kent City Code to eliminate the Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing (DLM) zoning district and to replace it with the Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE)zoning district, which currently exists in the vicinity; to rezone all existing properties which are presently zoned DLM to DCE in the downtown area; and other related amendments. WHEREAS,on October 26, 2000,Mayor White requested that staff begin to implement the recommendations of the Commuter Rail Station Area Study, which included a recommendation to change the Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing (DLM) zoning district to a Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Integrated Environmental Impact Statement, adopted by Ordinance No. 3398 on April 7, 1998, also envisions redevelopment of the North Core District,which includes those properties in the DLM zoning district, into a vibrant, pedestrian-connected, mixed-use downtown community; and 1 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) WHEREAS, within the DLM zoning district, the City has closed the purchase and sale of the Borden site for the purpose of redevelopment for mixed use, other industrial uses have either relocated or been replaced by nonindustrial uses, and the commuter rail station has begun operation in the City of Kent in February, 2000, which is consistent with and would enhance mixed development and uses; and WHEREAS, these events provide an impetus for the proposed zoning change to DCE to facilitate this redevelopment; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2000, notification of the proposed change was sent to the State of Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development,with copies to other state agencies pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3), and the required 60-day notification reriod has expired; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Land Use and Planning -^ Board on January 22, 2001,to discuss staff recommendation that the DLM zoning district be eliminated and that all properties within downtown that are currently zoned DLM be rezoned to DCE, and after hearing public comment, the Board recommended approval of these zoning amendments; and WHEREAS, in order to eliminate the DLM zoning district, revisions are needed to Title 15 of the Kent City Code; and WHEREAS, other technical amendments are needed to Title 15 of the Kent City Code to change the reference from planning director to planning manager; NOW THEREFORE, 2 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) �i THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 15.03.010 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Establishment and Designation of Districts,"is hereby amended by repealing that portion relating to the Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing District(DLM) as follows: 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: eeeiEist with retail,business,r-esidepAial and sen,iee land uses in the dewrAewn area. T�jq di t..: • is inteaded to pr-evide areas f..these light manufaetur-ifig etiyities that desire to een.l t businessr �'t ♦e et of land uses ,e a ..Bible e1.. :.. •l,e .. a �., SECTION 1. Section 15.04.020 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Residential Land Uses," is hereby amended to read as follows: 3 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) Sec.15.04.020. Residential Land Uses. zoning Districts Key P a Principally Permitted Uses S a Special Uses T, C a Conditional Uses A a Accessory Uses o Ett N t, -0 E � o W o a c C3 Of E EE 0 m Ie �cUr Ur 21y 33 Z EU 0C q� CDac Qo 4 w m o = y c? s a (1 w � 4 Y F g y E G 4 y h y y Z U C O U U (7 O Cr One singlsfamiy dwelling par lot P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Alt) A(1) A(1) All) One duple per lot P One modular home per lot P P P P P P P P P P P P P Duplexes P P P P P Multuamiy townhouse units P P P P P P CIS) P P P(2) %2) C f20) (20) (151 (19) (19) Multifamily dwellings P P P P(2) P(a) P P P(2) P(2) C C(S) (15) Multifamily dwellings for senior citizens P(2) P P P(3) P(2) Mobile homes and manufactured home P Mobile home parks P P P P P P P (17) (13) (17) (13) (13) (13) Group homes class I•A P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C C C P Group hones class 1•e P P P P P P P P P P C C C C P Group horses less I.0 C C C C P P P P P P C C C C P Group hones CIUS I" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes;class 148 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group halls class&Z C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class III C C C C C C C C C Rebuildlaccessory, uses for existing P16) NO p(6) P(6) P(6) P(6) P(s) P(6) P(6) P(6) Pl6) P(6) P(6) PI6) P(6) dwellings Transitional housing P(7) %71 Guest cottages and houses A(6) As) A(a) A(e) Rooming and boarding of not more than A I A A A A A A A A A A three persons Farm worker accommodations A A(9) A A(9) 117) 117) Accessory uses and buildings A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A customarily appurtenant to a permitted 116) use Accessory dwelling units A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (to) (10) (10) (10) (10) 110) (10) (10) 110) (10) (101 (111) (10) (101 (10) Accessory IMng quasars A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (141 (1e1 (141 (10 f1N 11e) (1e) (14) (14) (14) (14) (1e) (1e) (1e) (14) Home occupation A A A A A A A A A A A A A 1111 1111 1111 1111 (11) 1111 1111 f11) 111) (11) Itt) 111) 1111 Service buildings A Storage buildings all storage of A A A A A A A A A I A A A A A recreational vehicles 116) (16) (is) (16) (16) (16) (16) (16) 116) (16) 116) (16) (16) Drive•in churches; weitan facilities: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Drivein churches, retirement homes, (12) convalescent homes and other welfare facilities whether privately or publicly operated, facilities for rehabilitation or correction,stc 4 SECTION 3. Section 15.04.040 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Manufacturing Land Uses,"is hereby amended to read as follows: 5 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) Sec.15.O4.O4O Manufacturing Land Uses. 2oning District Key P=Principally Permitted Uses S=Special Uses C=Conditional Uses A=Accessory Uses g .12 3 $ Ja n He 0 Y t y Y T N 1OAa gg++ tr W C c: E C ¢ i ifi Q� I I E I I i & FEE '.4 3� 91 3r n t c 8 10 G s �O - y (n C C N tO _ •� C N N tO in co z U C3 g CCC '—F= CD v. Q Q N N y N rn N Z U O U U 0 0 0 Manufacturing,processing,blending and P P P P P P P P(2) packaging of food and beverage products (27.) (27) (27) (27) (27) (27) (27) (27) C(I) Manufacturing,processing,blending and R P P P P P P P(2) packaging of drugs, Pharmaceuticals, C(1) toiletries and cosmetics. Manufacturing,processing,bending and R P P P P P P P(2) packaging of dairy products and C(1) byproduct. Industrial Uumky and Dyeing(including P P P P P P(2) linen supply and diaper services) Printing,publishing and allied industries P P P P C P P P P P(2) (25) C(1) Chemicals and related products mfg. IC(4)cNl q<)co) Contractor shops and storage P P C P P( C(l) Custom arts and craft products mfg. A P I P P P P(2) C(1) Computers, office machines and P(3) P(3) P(2) equipment Mfg. Manufacturing and assembly of FJOMC21 P(3) P(3) P P P P P(2) equipment.; Appliances, lighting, radio, C(t) TV communications, equipment end components Fabricated metal products mig.;Custom P P P P P P P(2) sheet metal mfg.,containers,hand tools; C(1) hosting equipment, screw products, extrusion;coating;and plating Manufacturing and assembly of P(3) P(3) P P P P P(2) Electronic and electrical devices; and (29) Pill (29) (29) automotive,aerospace,missile, airframe and similar products, Hazardous substance land uses A(7)A(7) A(9)A(9)A(9)A(9)A(S) A A A A(9)A(7) A A A A C(a) C(6) (11) (11) (11) Cie) (15) (15) (15) (16) C C C C C C C (12)1(12) (12) (ice) (16)IL I) Offices incidental and necessary to the A A A A A P P P P P P conduct of a Principally permitted use Warehousing and distribution facilities P P P P P P P (26) (N) (291 (2e) C(1) Rail-Truck Transfer Us*$ C C C P P (1T)I 1 1 (21) (21) (22) (14) Outdoor Storage(including truck,heavy P P A A A A A P equipment and contractor storage yards as allowed by Development Standards Sections t5.e4.190 a 13.04.210) uiniwarehouses set-storage C P P C P (23) 6 Section 15.04.040 continued I Key P=Principally Permitted Uses Special Uses 'Conditional Uses Accessory Uses iN E5 yyyy .s B 3yy yy g r .� o a w y '� g 12 C-)o E E ur �' 3+ Y n t 3! E O H A y Q Q N fi! 'T t9 aP 0 H H C7 [2 a V (J LJ W e- N V' O U N t7 0 W y W CD 0 W ti � g z U cg) U CD O 2 2 2 M C� Manufacturing of Soaps,detergents,and C P other basic cleaning and cleansing C(f) preparations Manufacturing of Plastics and synthetic C P resins C(1) Manufacturing of Synthetic and natural C P fiber and cloth C(1) Manufacturing of Plywood, composition C P wallboard, and similar structural wood C(1) products Manufacturing of Nonmetallic mineral C P products such as abrasives, asbestos, CO) chalk,pumics and putty Manufacturing of Nast resisting or C P structural clay products (brick, tlfa, or C(1) ipe)or porcelain Products •.nufaduring of Machinery end heavy C P Achine tool equipment for general C(1) industry and mining, agricultural, construction or service industriesI I _ Manufacturing, processing, assembling, P P P P P P(2) and packaging of articles, Products, or (Kl (u) (32) C(1) merchandise made from previously prepared natural or synthetic materials Manufacturing, processing, treating, P P P P assembling and packaging of articles, (30) products, or merchandise from C(1) previously prepared ferrous, nonferrous or alloyed metals. Complexes which include a combination P P P of uses, including a mixture of office, storage,and light manufacturing uses. Accessory uses and buildings A A A A A AAA AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A customarily appurtenant to a permitted (71) (10) (10) (13) (13) (10) (10) I10) use 7 SECTION 4. Section 15.04.060 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Transportation, Public and Utilities Land Uses," is hereby amended to read as follows: 8 Downtown Commercial Limited ..� Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) Sec.15.04.060. Transportation,Public and Utilities Land Uses. Zoningistricu Principally Permitted Uses S=Special Uses C=Conditional Uses A=Accessory Uses .12 N a YI s 5 0 o e o CX c eci Y oci K c g m m q� Oq� i] O E is iD m `� E tr K E E c c m m O `g 3L cy a �, ,2+ a c a E o M M E s ca �` '—S� b E 'E E m E 'E E 'E 'H' �' O U V U W rL > > U m N c ti ri g ri g�� 'zs `sue aci E 2 — c E E Ngv � 1 C fn C c O N_ tD J _ a E C O O q� N C Q Q C to CD C? IT,n a? N r F- C) CL Z U U �U G a y LU N W W y W 2 Z U G C U U O O - 2 2 CD Commercial parking lop or structures C C Transportation and transit facilities C C C C C C C C C & C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Pill C Railway and bus depots,tod stands 4 C C Utility and transportation fie ties: C C C C C C C C C li C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C EUclrial substations,pumping or regulating devices for the transmission of water,gas,steam,petroleum,etc. Public facilities.Firehouses,police C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P C C C C C C C C C C C stations,libraries and administrative ces of governmental agencies,primary secondary schools,vocational .cnools and colleges. Accessory uses and buildings A A A A A A A A A A A A I A I A I A A A A A A A- A A A A A A A(21 - - customarily appurtenant to a permitted use 9 SECTIONS. Section 15.04.070 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Wholesale and Retail Land Uses,"is hereby amended to read as follows: 10 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) Sec.15.04.0'70. Wholesale and Retail Land Uses. Zoning Districts =Principally Permitted Uses Special Uses Conditional Uses A=Accessory Uses 80 T. ti N q C C 0 g E 0 g 'per E y O `� 5 o 0 .52 9Ti 0 - O ]E ur c g z 01 v1 0 r' 4 � v r 4 •'`° U i a 5 .M C 0 E 5 eEi ¢ 2 K C E ¢ Z' = m c i E E E m A E V H c Q a. �` E = �' a. �. 3 m L`ra a Eo E 0 E m 5 E Oct E E a E E E E p y E U E �g'r ti r} �i� w E aci 0 '.4 d .4 n $ '20 C E E H ig h c 3 i� 0 c c in g' c 0 0 .4r E c c Ea y cor Co 0 m 1,. S d E 30 Q cv rn Y 14 °p o H H q. f x a U U p w N c c G7 U C7 oG X lY tY X K 0Y Cr x z 0 o o chi chi cC-)7 Bakeries and Confectioneries P P P P P(2) Wholesale bakery P P P Bulk retail P P P P(1) P(1) Recycling centers C P Retail sales of lumber,tools and other P P P P building materials,including preassembled products Hardware,paint,file and wallpaper(retail) P Pill) P C P P I I P(2) Farm equipmerd p P General merchandise:Dry goods,variety P P(11) P C P P P(2) and department stores(retail) and convenience stores(retail) P P Pill) P C P P S(12) P(4) S(12) P(2) mobile,akcrak,motorcycle,boat and p P P .—eadonal vehicles sales(retail) Automotive,sircrak,motorcycle and marine P P P P(13)P(13) P(5) P(2) accessories(retail) (13) Gasoline service stations Ism S(6) SW S(6) Se) S(6) S(6) S(61 S(6) C Apparel and accessories(retail) P P(11) P C P P A(6) P(2) Furniture,home furnishing(retail) P 1pol)l P I C I I P P I I I P(2) Eating and drinking establishments(no P P P(11) P P P P P (151 P P P(5) P(2) drive-through) Eating and drinking establishments(with S(6) C(7) P S(6) P (2,3 drive-through) 1 Eating facilities for employees A A A A Planned Devebpmend Retail Sales (14) Miscellaneous retail:Drugs,antiques, P P P(11) P C P P (15) A(6) P(2) books,sporting goods,jewelry,gods),photo supplies,video rental,computer supplies, etc. Liquor store P P P(11) P C P P P P(2) Farm supplies,hay,grain,lead,fencing,etc. P C P P (Mail) Nurseries,green houses,garden supplies, p p p tools,etc. Pat shops(Mail and grooming) C P P P(2) Computers and electronics(retail) P C P P P P(2) Hotels and motels P(11) P C P P P P Complexes which include combinations of P P P uses,including a mixture of office,light manufacturing,storage and commercial uses Outdoor Storage(Including truck,heavy P P A A A A A P ment and contractor storage yards as ad by Developmerlt Standards Sections ,090 S 15.04110) Accessory uses and buildings customarily A A A(9) A I A I A A A A FW7 A A A 16) (16) 17) 17) A16) 16) (16 1 A I A A A A A(1a) appurtenant to a permitted use rc�wnw.,.vusa.rm.am 11 SECTION 6. Section 15.04.090 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Service ^, Land Uses,"is hereby amended to read as follows: 12 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) Sec.15.04.090. Service Land Uses. ZoningDistricts Key =Principally Permitted Uses =Special Uses =Conditional Uses a A=Accessory UsesMn o o yy yr a 3 a 9 r ELg o R A C 73 a 4 a a E �+ a O N tj 3 '� e p E _ Fi d ow 32 eci aci x v v m o d fe ia 'm�3 Je ;a a O E :S . r X1 `� L, m o d d E E 1O E S ci o a U E E g a - m E a. E aci ?' yy O o U E .� ro 5 o O_ C7 E E 1O E E m m O Eo UT, U c a 0- 0 9 U Le C IL lL {L tL a a l� E el x £ C G ; _¢ a A O r > P M a g� $ 8 EE E —L° 'S� m S c c C y C C (A C C N f0 O 'd C S O C > > C C rn rn in ,n in in x z o o O U cc c v E m c7 H H x o. U U w N O ' 5 c C-? O U Finance,insurance,real estate services P P(1) P P P P P P P P(2) P(3) (12) Personal services:Laundry;dry cleaning; P P P(121 P P P C P(10 (10)P(2) P(3) barber;salons;shoe repair;launderettes I 1 (10) Mortuaries P(12) P P C P(3) Home day are P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Day are center C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Business services,duplicating and blue (12) P P P P P P P P(2) P(3) printing,travel agencies and employment agencies Building maintenance and pest control P P P P P P(2) ndoor Storage(including truck,heavy P P A A A A A P qulpment and contractor storage yards as allowed by Development Standards Sections 15.04.190&15.04.210) Rental and leasing services for cars, P P P P P P(2) trucks,trailers,furniture and tools Auto repair and washing services C P P P P C(5) (including bodywork) Repair services:Watch,N;electrical; P (12) P P P P P P(2) P(3) electronic;upholstery Professional services:Medial;clinics P P P P P P P P(2) P(3) and other health care related services Heavy Equipment and Truck Repair P P P C P Contract Construction Service Offices: P P (16)P(16) P(17 (17)P(2) P P(3) Building construction;plumbing;paving (17) and landscaping Educational Services:vocational;trade; P P P P P P P P(2) P(3) art;music;dancing;barber and beauty Churches S(4) S(4) S(4) S(4) S(4) S(4) S(4) S(4) S(4) S(4) S(4) S(4) I S(4) S(4) S(4) I I S(4) S(4) S(4) I S(4) S(4) Administrative and professional offices- P (12 P P C P P P P P P(2) P(3) general Municipal uses and buildings (13)P(13) P P (13)P(13)P(13)P(13)P(13 (13)P(13)P(2) (13)P(13 (13) Research,development and testing P P P P P P(2) (14 Planned Development Retail Sales C(6) Accessory uses and buildings A A A(7) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (15 customarily appurtenant toapermitted (18) (18) (19) (19) (18) (18) (18) ) use Boarding kennels and breeding C C C stablishments deterinary clinics and veterinary hospitals C P(8) P(9) P(9) P(8) C (11 Administrative or executive offices which P P P P P are part of a predominant Industrial operation. Offices Incidental and necessary to the A A A A A conduct of a principally permitted use 13 SECTION 7. Section 15.04.110 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Cultural, Entertainment, and Recreation Land Uses,"is hereby amended to read as follows: 14 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) Sec. 15.04.110. Cultural,Entertainment and Recreation Land Uses. Zoning Distri 1 Ancipally Permitted Uses S=Special Uses t C=Conditional Uses 5 A=AccessoryUses o g . o i3 J O5 r o c L5 = iu d d Y m i g 'gL'� '`Cj O E Ti _Ti jo a u a .4, a E r Cc a F e 3 4Zs O }y2 S m o ' q y y (� in � N tD J 2 2 Z O N = C C7 6 Q '7 N e!f 4 rQ °9 4 f 7 F- C7 2 C U U O tL N CD c E U CD U 6 C0 w ZO CO Cr W Z U O O U U O O -M 0 Performing and cultural arts uses, P(3) P A P P P P PM such as art galleries and studios Historic and monument sites P P Public assembly(indoor):sports P P P P P(2) P(2) P(2) P(I) fadiities;arenas;auditoriums and exhibition hags,bowling alleys,dart Cis) playing f ldaties,skating rinks, community dubs;athletic dubs; recreation centers;theaters (excluding school facilities) Public assembly(outdoor): P P Fairgrounds and amusement parks; is courts;athletic fields;miniature ao•cart tracks;d6ve3n theaters; am. Open space use:Cemeteries.parks, C C C C C C C C C C C c C C C C P(s) P(s) MR C (1) C C C C C C C playgrounds,goll courses and other C C C C C recreation facilities,including buildings or structures associated therewith. Employee recreation areas A A A A Private clubs,fraternal lodges,etc. C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C (5) C C C c C C (5) C C Recreational vehicle parks C P Accessory uses and buildings A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A(4) customarily appurtenant to a permitted use Recreational buildings in MHP A r!LI.YMl��l1.µ11f� 15 SECTION 8. Section 15.04.130 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Resource Land Uses,"is hereby amended to read as follows: 16 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) See.15.04.130. Resource Land Uses. Zoning Districts P a Principally Permitted Uses S=Special Uses C a Conditional Uses A=Accessory Uses b q sin AD q� ,?L. a c W e •c p�gi `—n . m �' ¢ d `� E ¢ > > m E E 'c g E 5 'per i7 d A2 F < a r E ` 2' 4' a E € 2 E o i] C7 E .E m E E E E & w E U o U E a �` >ti _aci E li lLL p� 9t li LLp� .rs� ti- E O S c c E pl U a a per` c m v s oco m a a N v,,cx cc 4 '4 °P �= �- C7 x a U V p w fv V� '� vS U 0 U 4 < W foi n CO y y N 2 U U O U U 0 O Agricultural uses(including wholesale P P I P P nurseries and greenhouses) Crop and tree fanning P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P -P P P Storage,manufacturing,processing and P P conversion of agricultural products(not including slaughtering or meat packing) Accessory uses and buildings A A A(t) A I A I A A A A A A A A I A A A A A I A A A A A A A A A A A customarily appurtenant to a permitted lw-aeide stands A(3)AQ) A(3) I I Alt) !:'CwIOr.Irw,SKlf.Iw 17 SECTION 9. Section 15.04.190 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Commercial and Industrial Zone Development Standards,"is hereby amended to read as follows: 18 Downtown Commercial Limited ^� Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) Sec. 15.04.190. Commercial and industrial zone development standards. ZONING DISTRICTS .n o 9 v 17 N w U E E E m 5 E U U c - 'S E `° C ) as ? y R N y 3 z U w N O SE g U U U 2 U U C U U U O G7 Minimum lot area:square feet or acres,as noted 10.000 10,000 5,D10 5,010 40 140 1 ,1101) 10,000 10,000 10,000 Isere 1 acre 10.000 20,000 15,000 10,000 "It sgft sqft sqft a" sqft I sgIt sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft 111 Maximum site coverage:percent of site 40% 40% t00% 100% IaX SOX 1 40% 30% 50% 60% 60% 65% 75% 40% Minimum yard requirements:feet Front yard 15ft 15ft (2) (3) M 15ft 15ft 20ft 25ft 30 ft IS) (5) (67) 17) 15ft (4) Side yard (6) (9) 12) (31 Ik 110) 11D) (10) (10) (11) 112) (1z) (13) 114) 5ft (15) (16) _de yard on flanking street of a comer lot (17) (17) (17) (181 15ft (tear yard 20ft 20ft (2) (3) I31 09) Its) (19) 119) 120) (20) (21) (21) 5ft (2) (22) Yards,transitional conditions (23) (23) (24) (25) Additional setbacks (26) (29) (29) (m (26) Height limitation:in storieslnol to exceed in fast 2 stryl 3 stryl 4 atryl (32) (32) 2 stry 2 stry 2 stry 3 stryl 2 stryl 2 atryl 2 stryl 2 atryl 2 stryl 3 stryl 35 it 40 ft 60 ft 35 ft 35 It 35 ft 40 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 40 it (30) (31) 130) (30) (30) 133) (35) (35) (35) (37) (361 (34) Landscaping The landscaping requirements of Ch.15.07 KCC shall apply. (52) (52) Outdoor storage (39) (39) 110) (w) (w) IQ) (43) (43) 144) (w) (59) 41) 1 (41) 1 (51) Signs The sign regulations of Ch.15.06 KCC shall apply (50) Vehicle drive-through,drive-in and service bays 146) Loading areas (17) 147) 147) (47) (46) 145) (49) 151) Off-street parking The off-street parking requirements of Ch.15.05 KCC shall apply. (57) (57) (57) (57) (58) (bs) (58) (57) Additional standards I501 (36) (311 (31) (3H 150) (50) (36) 1361 (50) (50) (50) 1M154 (sD1 (501 150) (601 (50) (50) (56) (531 (53)(34) (54)(55) (5r5) (56) (56) 19 SECTION 10. Section 15.06.050 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Regulations for Specific Districts," is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15.06.050. Regulations for specific districts. In all districts the planning direetofmanaeer shall have the option to waive sign type requirements in unique and special cases where due to building design or other special circumstance the development is unable to conform to stated standards. A. Signs permitted in residential districts. 1. Identification signs for single-family dwellings and duplexes. One (1) identification sign shall be permitted for each occupancy. The sign shall not exceed an area of three (3) square feet, shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet above the surface of the street, shall be attached directly to a building, fence, standard or mailbox, and shall be unlighted or provided with indirect illumination. Home occupations shall not be allowed additional sign area. 2. Identification signs for multifamily dwellings. One (1) identification sign shall be permitted for each development,except that multiple-family dwellings with more �-•, than one (1) street frontage may be allowed an additional sign for each street frontage of such lot. Each sign shall not exceed an area of twenty-five(25)square feet, may be a wall or freestanding sign, shall be unlighted or indirectly lighted, and shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet above the ground if freestanding. 3. Farm product identification signs . No permit is required, but such signs may not be located in the public right-of-way. B. Signs permitted in neighborhood convenience commercial, community commercial, general commercial and commercial manufacturing districts. The aggregate sign area for any lot shall not exceed one and one-half(1 1/2) feet for each foot of street frontage. Aggregate sign area for comer lots shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of street frontage. The permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area. 20 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) 1. Identification signs for occupancies. Each business establishment may have one(1) freestanding sign for each street frontage if not located in a shopping center, and three (3) additional signs. a. Freestanding sign. The freestanding sign shall not exceed a height of thirty(30) feet. The maximum sign area permitted is two hundred(200) square feet for the total of all faces.No one(1) face shall exceed one hundred(100) square feet. The sign may be illuminated. b. Additional signs. Three (3) additional signs shall be permitted subject to the following restrictions: (1) The total area of all signs, graphics or other advertising shall not be more than ten(10)percent of the building facade to which they are attached or on which they are displayed. (2) On properties where a pole sign cannot be erected due to setback requirements or building placement, a projecting sign maybe allowed in lieu of the permitted freestanding sign. The projecting sign may not exceed fifteen (15) square feet in outside dimension. 2. Identification signs for shopping centers. One (1) freestanding identification sign, which may list the names of the occupants of the shopping center, shall be permitted for each street frontage of each shopping center. The maximum sign area permitted for a freestanding sign is two hundred(200) square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed one hundred (100) square feet. A freestanding sign shall not exceed a height of thirty(30) feet, and may be illuminated. 3. Automobile service station signs. The aggregate sign area for any comer lot shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of lot frontage, and the aggregate sign area for any interior lot shall not exceed one and one-half(1 1/2) square feet for each foot of lot frontage; and the permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area. 21 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) a. Freestanding signs. One (1) freestanding lighted double-faced identification sign,not exceeding two hundred(200) square feet for the total of all faces, with no such face exceeding one hundred(100) square feet, is permitted. Such sign shall not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet. If on a comer lot, two (2) monument signs not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet per sign for the total of all faces are permitted. Such monument signs shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet. Freestanding signs shall be lighted during business hours only. b. Additional signs. Three (3) additional signs shall be permitted subject to the following restrictions: the total area of all signs, graphics or other advertising shall not be more than ten (10) percent of the building facade to which they are attached or on which they are displayed. C. Fuel price signs. Fuel price signs shall be included in the aggregate sign area. 4. Farm product identification signs. No permit is required, but such signs may not be located in the public right-of-way. C. Signs permitted in downtown commercial and downtown commercial enterprise districts. The aggregate sign area for any lot shall not exceed one and one-half(1 1/2) square feet for each foot of street frontage. The aggregate sign area for comer lots shall not exceed one (1) foot for each foot of street frontage. The permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area. 1. Identification signs for multitenant buildings. a. Wall sign. Each multitenant building may have one (1) identification wall sign for the building's identification for each street frontage. The sign shall not exceed a total of five (5)percent of the facade to which it is attached. The sign shall not name or advertise the individual tenants of the building. Aggregate sign area shall apply. A multitenant building will have the option of the sign described in this subsection (a) or the identification sign described in subsection (C)(1)(b) of this section. b. Freestanding sign. Each building may have one (1) freestanding sign on each street frontage. The sign may not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. The 22 Downtown Commercial Limited ry Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) maximum sign area permitted for the freestanding sign is one hundred(100) square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed fifty(50) square feet. Multitenant freestanding signs shall not name or advertise the individual tenants of the building. 2. Identification signs for occupancies. Each occupant of a multitenant building shall be permitted two (2) wall signs. Such signs shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the facade of the individual business unit. Aggregate sign area shall not apply. 3. Identification signs for single-tenant buildings. a. Each building may have one (1) freestanding sign for each street frontage. The sign may not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet. The maximum sign area permitted for the freestanding sign is one hundred (100) square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed fifty(50) square feet. b. Three(3)additional signs shall be permitted. All signs are subject to the aggregate sign area allowed. The total area of all signs, graphics or other types of signs shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the facade to which they are attached or on which they are displayed. D. Signs permitted in office districts. 1. Generally. One(1) freestanding double-faced identification sign shall be permitted for each lot. The sign shall not exceed a maximum area of fifty(50) square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed twenty-five (25) square feet. A freestanding sign shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet and shall be unlighted or provided with indirect illumination. 2. Identification signs for buildings. One (1) identification sign shall be permitted for each principal building. The sign shall not exceed an area of five(5)percent of the facade to which it is attached, shall be attached flat against the building, shall not project above the eave of the roof or the top of the parapet, and shall be unlighted or provided with indirect illumination. Such signs shall not advertise or name individual tenants of the building. 3. Identification signs for occupancies. Signs not exceeding a total of five (5)percent of the facade of the business unit to which they are attached shall be permitted r 23 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) for each occupancy in a multitenant building when the occupancy has outside frontage. E. Signs permitted in industrial districts. 1. Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area for lots in the MA and M1 districts shall not exceed one-half(1/2) square foot for each foot of street frontage. The aggregate sign area for lots in the M2 and DLN4 districts shall not exceed three-fourths (3/4) square foot for each foot of street frontage. The aggregate sign area for lots in the M3 district shall not exceed one(1) square foot for each foot of street frontage. In no case shall the aggregate sign area exceed one-half(1/2) square foot for each foot of street frontage on a corner lot. The permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area. a. Identification signs for buildings. One(1) identification sign shall be permitted for each lot on each street frontage, which may be a freestanding sign or a wall sign. The maximum sign area permitted for a freestanding sign is two hundred(200) square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed one hundred (100) square feet. If the sign is a wall sign its size shall not exceed twenty(20) percent of the building facade. A freestanding sign shall not exceed a height of twenty (20) feet. The sign may be illuminated. b. Identification signs for occupancies. One (1) identification sign shall be permitted for each occupancy on each street frontage and shall be a wall sign. The maximum size of the sign shall be ten (10)percent of the building facade. This sign may be illuminated. If the identification sign permitted under subsection(E)(1)(a) of this section is a wall sign, an additional wall sign may be permitted on a building facade not facing a street frontage. 2. Farm product identification signs. No permit is required,but the sign may not be located in the public right-of-way. F. Signs permitted in planned unit developments, special use combining districts and mobile home park districts and for conditional uses. All signs in planned unit developments, special use combining districts and mobile home parks and for conditional uses shall be incorporated as part of the developmental plan and approved with the 24 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) !' developmental plan. Subsequent changes which conform to the adopted signing program may be granted by the planning dir-eete man er. G. Signs permitted in shopping centers. The aggregate sign area for each occupant of a shopping center shall not exceed twenty(20)percent of the front facade of the unit. Wall signs are permitted on each exterior wall of the individual business unit. A minimum of thirty(30) square feet shall be permitted for any occupancy. No combination of signs shall exceed ten(10) percent of the facade to which they are attached. If there is an attached canopy or overhang, a ten(10) square foot sign may be attached to the canopy or overhang in addition to the other permitted signs. Such sign shall be at least eight (8) feet above any pedestrian walkway. H. Signs permitted in GWC zoning district. 1. Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area for any lot shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of street frontage. Aggregate sign area for comer lots shall not exceed three-fourths (3/4) square foot for each foot of street frontage. The r permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area. a. Identification signs for occupancies. Each business establishment may have one(1) freestanding sign per street frontage, if not located in a shopping center, and one (1) wall sign per street frontage. (1) Freestanding signs. Freestanding signs shall not exceed a height of fifteen(15) feet. The maximum sign area permitted is one hundred(100) square feet for the total of all faces. No one(1) face shall exceed fifty(50) square feet. The sign may be illuminated. Freestanding signs shall not rotate. (2) Wall signs. One (1) wall sign per street frontage shall be permitted. The total area of all signage, graphics or other advertising shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the building facade to which it is attached. b. Identification signs for shopping centers. One(1) freestanding or one(1)wall shopping center identification sign shall be permitted for each street frontage of the shopping center. The maximum sign area permitted for a freestanding sign is one 25 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) hundred(100)square feet.No one(1) face shall exceed fifty(50) square feet. Freestanding signs shall be limited to fifteen (15) feet in height. The sign may be illuminated. Freestanding signs shall not rotate. One (1) wall sign shall be permitted per occupancy, except that anchor tenants (business establishments with a store frontage of at least one hundred(100) feet in length) shall be allowed two (2)wall signs. The aggregate wall sign area shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the building fagade to which the signs are attached. SECTION 11. Section 15.07.060(H) of the Kent City Code, entitled "Downtown Commercial Enterprise, DCE. Downtown Limited Manufacturing,DLM," is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15.07.060. Regulations for specific districts. Landscaping regulations for specific zoning districts are as follows: H. Downtown commercial enterprise,DCE. 1. The perimeter of properties abutting a residential district shall be landscaped to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet. 2. A minimum of three (3) feet of landscaping to screen off-street parking areas, placement of which shall be determined through the downtown design review process outlined in KCC 15.09.046. 3. Street trees in accordance with the official tree plan shall be planted. 26 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown ^ Commercial Enterprise(DCE) SECTION 12 All real property currently located within the DLM zoning district shall be rezoned to DCE. In accordance with Section 15.03.020 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Official zoning map,"the City of Kent zoning map is hereby amended to reflect that all real property currently designated in the DLM zoning district is rezoned to DCE, and the DLM zoning district is hereby eliminated, as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 13. —Severability. If any one or more section, 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 14. -Effective Dade. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five(5)days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 27 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 2001. APPROVED: day of , 2001. PUBLISHED: day of , 2001. 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 \SPA\USR\LAWUBUCciano.dm \DwmwnComUmM. fta u&-Zo g.dm 28 Downtown Commercial Limited Manufacturing(DLM)to Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE) CD q�0 v ° oO c:P0 D° to yC'� q 0 O N_+ ° Q�e i IP 6 FC3 I o �N 0 1D v CID N p d w 4 00 0 a N O Q°tl0 � � eQ � ❑.� 4--� °° Da � 04 p°q [fag 40 oQ _ o Mptio c tl o000 d0 QO 0 q3 m r G oc9doo n a 0 ° ° ep aQ o 00 dp Q rU C7 N C1cwo 0° c °C3 4 [� Q m e a ❑ � tl dod � o❑`Q Q. ��°d9Jc ° o C) � ad°° a° o �1 0 ❑[� o U a ° n 0 0�_ °o ap L_10 G 0 a q°O tl 00 o u lJ �� coo ° o ° ° ❑ 0 4 P� a OD ❑ ❑ cSLIU © S1 tl p ad 0LQ3CP3 p 0 o 0 CD� O O a tl CD ��Oao m p �° p4 tl Q a Q Oood4Q❑ K NNEBECK N 0 ado dgprOc Q Q S] o0 0 (7170 0 ��^ n (7 a ° O p O la � 0 Co �0° U CO 0 00 opera p tl D Z q DlI P p°, o flpaoc (a o T 60m o a � Wll� q -, 1p oo doo O'D c5 mnLl O Col] II p 0 a w .,a 1.1109 Cm DodoO � n_ n - v �* i'mn � I z v o � ➢Z v m00 `D EXHIBIT Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category. Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: 2000 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS (CPA-2002 (A-G) /CPZ-2000- (1-5) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On January 16, 2001, the City Council sent the annual 2000 Comprehensive Plan amendments to the City Council Planning Committee for review. By ordinance, amend- ments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan are processed collectively once every year. Applications for seven (7) plan amendments were received by September 1, 2000; two were withdrawn. The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on November 27, 2000 . The Planning Committee considered the amendments on February 5, 2001 and their recommendations are outlined in the staff memo included with the agenda packet . 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo dated 2/13/00; Planning Committee minutes dated 2/5/01; Council minutes dated 1/16/01; staff report dated 11/27/00; and minutes of the LUPB dated 11/27/00 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use & Planning Board (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: I/ Councilmember &10 moves, Councilmember GV"70G seconds to approve/ the Planning Committee ' s recommendation on the proposed 2000 annual comprehensive plan and zoning amendments including tabling Kentview Pod H until an agricultural Lands policy update is completed, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance (s) . DISCUSSION: Pn — �U IJW-f/✓ ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7B COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 440 Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer • PLANNING SERVICES K E N T Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Manager W""1 M G o M Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 FEBRUARY 13,2001 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP, SENIOR PLANNER RE: YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN&ZONING AMENDMENTS #CPA-2000-2(A-G)/#CPZ-2000-(1-5) At their February 5, 2001 meeting, the Planning Committee considered the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments for 2000. The Land Use and Planning Board had held the public hearing on November 27, 2000. On January 16, 2001 the City Council had referred the Board recommendations to the Planning Committee for further discussion. The City received seven (7)applications for amendments to the comprehensive plan. Five of the requests involve changes to both the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map. One request, the Gray Amendment, was withdrawn prior to the public hearing with the Land Use and Planning Board. Another request, the Ranniger Amendment, was withdrawn prior to the Planning Committee meeting. Furthermore, Kentview Pod H was amended by the applicant to request SR4.5 zoning rather than SR-6 zoning. The City Council Planning Committee made the following recommendations: Proposal A— Kentview Pod H#CPA-2000-2(A)/#CPZ-2000-1 —Table until Agricultural Lands Study is completed Proposal B— Nguyen #CPA-2000-2(B)/#CPZ-2000-2 — Approve land use designation of Commercial and zoning designation of CC, Community Commercial Proposal C— Coblentz #CPA-2000-2(C)/#CPZ-2000.3 — Approve land use designation of Low Density Multifamily and zoning designation of SR-8 Single Family Residential 8 dwelling units per acre Proposal D— Gray#CPA-2000-2(D)/#CPZ-20004—Withdrawn Proposal E- Ranniger#CPA-2000-2(E)/#CPZ-2000-5—Withdrawn Proposal F— Kent and Federal Way School Districts#CPA-2000-2(F)—Approve Capital Facilities Plans Proposal G— City of Kent Capital Facilities Plan #CPA2000-2(G) — Approve Capital Facilities Plan Amendment Staff will be available at the City Council meeting to answer questions. CA:\\EA RTH_FS\S DATA\Pemri t\Plan\CompPlanAmdments\2000\2003192-205-207-223-225.226cc.DOC PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 2001 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Brotherton, Judy Woods, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Charlene Anderson, Mike Martin, Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Lloyd F. Weller, Betty Coblentz,Mike Coblentz, Gavin Miles, Geraldine Miles, Rita Bailie, Carl Bloom, Ken Koss, Alan Stuckey,Bob Nelson,Huy H.Nguyen,Barbara Clasen, Donald Clasen,Dan Moberly, Joe Miles, Don Shaffer, Louise Lee, Eric Wells, Gary Young The meeting was called to order by Chair Tom Brotherton at 4:03 PM. Approval of Minutes of January 8,2001 Committee Member Judy Woods moved to approve the minutes of January 8, 2001. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Senior Planner Charlene Anderson said seven Comp Plan Amendments had been received. Two applications were withdrawn, and out of the five left, three were comp plan and zoning code amendments and two were capital facilities plan amendments. Ms. Anderson described the amendments: ■ Proposal A: Kentview Pod H is a mixture of AG and SR-3 zoning. The proposal is for SR- 4.5 which is a revision from the original application of a proposed 6 units per acre, along with a similar comp plan designation. Staff and the Land Use and Planning Board both recommend denial of the request pending a study of the Agricultural Lands and the Kentview project. The Agricultural Lands Policy will go to a Land Use and Planning Board workshop in March with a hearing in April. Ms. Anderson made reference to a letter Polygon had distributed to Committee members at that day's meeting detailing their proposal, and mentioned that a copy of a site plan was attached to the letter. Ms. Anderson said a comp plan and zoning amendment were not related to the site plan itself. ■ Proposal B, the Nguyen comp plan amendment, is for property located off of Kent-Kangley Road in Low Density Multi Family and MRG zoning. The lot has an existing house that would be used for a beauty salon. Staff and the Board recommend approval of the amendment. ■ Proposal C: the Coblentz property is a mixture of CM-1 (Commercial Manufacturing 1) located along SR167, and some SR-6 zoning in the back. The proposal is to designate the area multi family, and the Board and staff recommend that the Comp Plan be Low Density Multi Family and the zoning SR-8. SR-8 zoning would allow an amendment in the future for either multi family zoning or townhouse zoning MRT. Planning Committee,2/5/01 2 ■ Proposal F, Capital Facilities Plans: the Board typically holds a public hearing but doesn't make a recommendation on Capital Facilities Plans, leaving the flexibility of a decision up to the City Council. Each year the Kent and Federal Way School Districts have to submit a Capital Facilities Plan designating what their current inventory is, what the projected enrollment is, and what the construction needs are so impact fees can be established. • Proposal G: the Capital Facilities Plan for the City of Kent was included in the budget that was passed in December,but the actual official approval is not completed until a public hearing process is done with the Board and the Plan is then passed on to the Council. Judy Woods moved to approve Proposals B, F, and G. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Tim Clark remarked that staff's presentation had pointed out advantages in regards to the Coblentz property of adopting the designation of Low Density Multi Family on the Comp Plan map and Single Family 8 units per acre (or SR-8) on the zone map. Tom Brotherton said he was in favor of preserving the townhouse option. Mr. Clark moved approval of the land use designation to Low Density Multi Family and Single Family SR-8 on the zoning map for the Coblentz property. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Tom Brotherton said the Land Use and Planning Board had unanimously recommended denial of the Pod H request and staff had concurred with the recommendation. Tim Clark moved to recommend denial of the Pod H recommendation. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods. In further discussion, Tim Clark said that lack of available land space for the school district, particularly on the valley floor, had been a problem for some time. Although Polygon has made every effort to accommodate the City's Master Plan in that particular area by establishing housing that would meet a variety of needs with a combination of apartments, condominiums, single family residences, and townhouses, the lovely planned community still adds 700 units of housing and presents the problem of dealing with a variety of needs such as access to shopping and the establishment of a public school to service that size of community. Polygon has a valid complaint in that the school district did not move forward aggressively, and after renovating the land, Polygon is trying to get some return on their money. However, if the request is approved, it would put a stress on the infrastructure on the valley floor to which there is no solution. Judy Woods stated that she values what Polygon has contributed to the community, and the City has had a very good working relationship with theta. She noted, however, that she didn't feel comfortable going ahead until the Agricultural Lands Policy had been examined and the Land Use and Planning Board had made a recommendation on that policy. The Land Use and Planning Board voted strongly to deny the Pod H request after spending a lot of time in public hearing on the issue. Ms. Wood stated she was troubled that the City had given a fill permit for the land prior to working out all the details as to whether the school district would want to use the property or to see what other kinds of uses there might be for the property. Planning Committee,2/5/01 3 Tom Brotherton pointed out that Polygon had been very responsive to the neighbor's complaints about visual pollution, had reduced the number of lots and eliminated access onto Frager Road, and had put in berms and plantings around the periphery of the development to minimize the impact. Mr. Brotherton said he would favor the amendment except for the AG Lands Policy. Eric Wells, Polygon Northwest Company, summarized the letter he had earlier presented to the Committee which outlined the conditions that had changed since the initial application went before the Land Use and Planning Board and was subsequently denied. The site, which has split zoning, is unique and unlike any other land in the City of Kent that has straight agricultural zoning. It is inside an approved PUD and Master Planned Community,which also makes it a unique piece rather than just AG land. The City did grant the fill and grade permit under the intention that Council had approved the site for development,whether for a school site or something else. Since there are less than 8 acres of buildable land and because of the geometry, it does not appear that the land would be suitable for a school site,however Polygon would continue to work with the school district if the school district should decide the site would work. Nevertheless, if the school district goes away, Polygon doesn't want to be penalized by having to go back through the process and thus incur additional time delays. A whole building season could be lost. Polygon proposes to move forward with an additional buffer of almost an acre of land,which combined with the BMX Park(given to the Parks Committee last month),provides almost 1'/4 acres along Frager Road and preserves the recreational corridor there. The different changes over the last month has allowed Polygon's request to be a little different application than what originally went before the Board,but with lowering the density,providing buffers, meeting with "1 the neighbors, the school district's having taken a position that the site may not fit a school facility, and providing additional parks along the Green River,Polygon had hoped this would be an application that would receive the Committee's and Council's support at this time rather than to have additional delays. Mr. Wells said that because of the uniqueness of the property and it's being in a Master Plan and having split zoning, it did not really fit in with the AG Policy and wasn't productive AG land. City Attorney Roger Lubovich commented that a modified presentation at the Committee level was a problem as the concept or information was a new addition to what was presented to the Land Use &Planning Board. Acting on the new information would be inappropriate without going back to a hearing process so other people would have an opportunity to discuss it. The Committee could change its recommendations based on the existing information,but not if information was added after the hearing and other people had not had an opportunity to discuss the new options. Eric Wells said Polygon had listened to the input from the public hearing process and modified the Pod H plan according to that input. Tom Brotherton stated that the description and parameters of the land had not changed,but Polygon's had adapted their proposal to better fit the concerns of the neighbors and the environent of the land by adding buffers, reducing the density, and changing the access so it didn't come out on Frager Road. The original request was to rezone the land so they could build houses and that is still the same concept. Fred Satterstrom said the Land Use and Planning Board did not consider a specific site plan, and the question is whether or not the property would ^ Planning Committee,2/5/01 4 be an agricultural piece of land or a residential piece of land. The site plan is a.conceptual drawing and useful information but not necessarily relevant to a policy level decision because it's not about a contract rezone. There would be no requirement that Polygon build pursuant to the site plan. The proposal changed in terms of density after the Land Use and Planning Board had reviewed the matter, listened to public testimony and then forwarded their recommendation to committee. Polygon has modified their proposal downward to a lesser density from SR-6 to SR-4.5, and may also be representing a viewpoint of the school district that could be different from what the Land Use and Planning Board had considered. Tom Brotherton asked if the Pod H application could be tabled until after the Agricultural Policy discussion. Roger Lubovich said a recommendation could be made to the Council to table the matter without remanding it back to the Land Use & Planning Board. Tim Clark retracted his former motion. He moved to table the Pod H application until there was further information on the AG Land. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Urban Separator Framework Policy Judy Woods moved to reconsider the January 18,2001 Planning Committee recommendation on Urban Separator Framework Policy,#CPA-2000-1. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary Kent, Washington January 16, 2001 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Councilmembers present : Amodt, Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods and Yingling. others present : Chief Administrative Officer McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Deputy Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Martin, Public Works Director Wickstrom, and Planning Manager Satterstrom. Approximately 50 people were at the meeting. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mayor White added a proclamation as Public Communica- tions Item 4B. 2000 P rehennive plain Amendments. BROTHERTON MOVED to send the 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Other Business Item 7B) to the Planning Committee. Woods seconded and the motion carried. It was noted that changes have occurred and that the matter may be discussed at the next Planning Committee meeting on February 5th, or a special meeting may be held. Mayor White explained that notices would be mailed and the --� meeting date would be broadcast on the government TV channel . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Mayor's State of the City Address. Mayor White gave his annual State of the City address, noting that Kent is in excellent financial condition and continues in its role as a leading city in the county and state. He said the process of redevelopment of the downtown will soon begin, that transportation will be emphasized, including neighborhood traffic control, the Shopper Shuttle, side- walk improvements and commuter rail service, and that the agreements necessary to allow initial construction of the second supply pipeline project are close to being finalized. Mayor White stated that public safety continues to be one of the highest priorities, and noted that a number of staff have taken intense emergency management ' training. He noted that Riverbend Golf Complex is now profitable and that the park system has been expanded with construction of the new Morrell Meadows and Chestnut Ridge parks. He added that the proRig)Cigciu* D� �C� ( (-Z�o fLb 01 2001 1 CITY OF KEW PLANNING SERVICES • \11,47KEN T WAS H IN O T ON MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCILME ERS N FROM: MAYOR JIM WHIT? DATE: JANUARY 9,2000 SUBJECT: YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING AMENDMENTS #CPA-2000-2 (A-G)AND#CPZ-2000-(1-5) It is my pleasure to forward to the City Council the Land Use and Planning Board's recommended Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments for 2000. These recommendations are presented to you as per RCW 35A.63.070, 071 and 072. The City received seven (7) applications for amendments to the comprehensive plan. Five of these requests involve changes to the Land Use Plan Map, although one request was withdrawn prior to the public hearing. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments have been reviewed concurrently with corresponding changes to the Kent zoning map,where applicable. The Land Use and Planning Board considered the applications at a public hearing on November 27, 2000 and is recommending the following Comprehensive Plan text and map changes and corresponding zoning map changes (see attached maps): Proposal A— [Kentview Pod H #CPA-2000-2(A)/#CPZ-2000-11 Change in the Land Use Plan Map from Agricultural and Single Family Residential 3 units per acre to Single Family Residential 6 units per acre and corresponding change of the zoning map to SR-6, Single' Family Residential 6.05 units per acre for property located at 21800 Frager Road/22002 Riverview Boulevard. The Land Use and Planning Board is recommending DENIAL. Proposal B - [Nguyen #CPA-2000-2(B)/#CPZ-2000-21 Change in the Land ^� Use Plan Map from Low Density Multifamily to Commercial and corresponding change of the zoning map to CC, Community Commercial for property located at 12819 Kent Kangley Road. The Land Use and Planning Board is recommending APPROVAL. Proposal C - [Coblentz #CPA-2000-2(C)/#CPZ-2000-31 Change in the Land Use Plan Map from Industrial and Single Family Residential 6 units per acre to Low Density Multifamily and corresponding change of the zoning map to MR-G, Low Density Multifamily Residential, 16 units per acre for property located at South 222"d Street and 88`h Avenue South. The Land Use and Planning Board is recommending APPROVAL of the change in the Land Use Plan Map, with the zoning changed to SR-8, Single Family Residential 8 units per acre. Proposal D- [Gray #CPA-2000-2(D)/#CPZ-20004] This proposal was WITHDRAWN by the applicant prior to the public hearing. Proposal E - [Ranniger #CPA-2000-2(E)/#CPZ-2000-51 Change in the Land Use Plan Map from Single Family Residential 6 units per acre to Commercial or Mixed Use Restricted and corresponding change of the zoning map to O, Professional and Office for properties located at both the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection of 132"d Avenue SE and SE 256`h Street. The Land Use and Planning Board is recommending DENIAL. Proposal F - [Kent and Federal Way School Districts #CPA-2000-2(F)1 Updated Capital Facilities Plans to include a change in proposed impact fees in the Federal Way School District to $2,710 for single family and S830 for multifamily units. The Land Use and Planning Board held the public hearing on this issue and is forwarding the updated plans to the City Council without recommendation, allowing the City Council full flexibility in the adoption of budgetary matters. Proposal G - [City of Kent Capital Facilities Plan #CPA-2000-2(G)l Update the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect a 6-year plan for capital facilities projects. The Land Use and Planning Board held the public hearing on this issue and is forwarding the updated plan to the City Council without recommendation, allowing the City Council full flexibility in the adoption of budgetary matters. Staff will be available at the January 16, 2001 City Council meeting to discuss the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendations and to answer questions. no p fA = Q p V O U aN �„ � asp �o a p x p � Z E c O 7 �d Y C O 17 CDC IN � _ m 3 Y v ? m a_ � a It � 1LI Y Y � Z .:. .: :. ,. :' !. ....................... CAI ■ .'�. io 1'. r �/—Oftw i� an y y 0 ` Z O V O. r 16 w > o .� c y c m N O d W m •o e� o so u N c� m im c c Q Co to .+ z _ dOp a° m c c m U. CNEr a° m' 9 3 ,A A o t� > �C C) oC z <IIt� . Z � Z Y .'r•.............. f, :. t. .�• ..{{ .i ire\.•,II :./.� 1 / r: it �.' i .,�a�\. -�-L� ./��`- ��i-�` •�`'\ f G///���rrr �'�L�p/ 's..�y •.Qua On �. ar •'1R-�5.��1. .fie,: r. . .n ./� ��\d r II 1 ', ON as a�`�� ��" -. ._. {� p •. 1 / Jt ,•- r ^. „j�`�j.,�� -yJ�•��l�r ��`. III r1��C�Y.l�•- �: i \V�/ • I , CD W O +��' io C O V N !O m E .0 O O � 'C coa J o m N cn O o� Z` a6 Z O d C� m a U Y w N c -� O •• ,� c • °o � N E � z 0 3 3 Y � m a � a do 11 z o Z IZ .3 Z Y �._ ...LL .,.... • .ter r / / r �1" an N M W j 9 w o W D m y c N N �' e y rN.' V C G N (� m N w = N C >' N O 9 +� X C, 11 ' a `c •7 N p Z o 'T. S Y N C`t In m A. z � � 111 •:... � � � Y ...........- ': :. AOL- 40 1 ,_,: f v : .................. ........................................: :.. �, 1 - - do do IWO �MA �; �� � �.y. - ';. ten _' � rB i crl�� its ,� �PAU _IRMilmna _- i _O � _-._: FM Tiff lip MINOR OR gig �qq F rado t x �G i is / i�I I--, .Dr -MA c Mom- IIAW It �Y_ Y - Fa 1 it i 1 •' �� _:Shy I ,:: _ i . LLJ FA ho ,z/ �i ;; ..■DI► L�iIQ� rr�❑ 191 sit -l-iwol se, ` � �� � � ,wpgo, L' F d �INN �,140 E�� 'I ✓ t t?+ G Ir goo ail �� { ■Dfj ►i � ! n Ed PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Manager Phone:253-856-5454 0 Fax: 253-856-6454 KENT w.s H I.a r o N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES (253) 856-5454 STAFF REPORT November 27, 2000 TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD FROM: DIANA C. NELSON, AICP, PLANNER SUBJECT: YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS NOVEMBER 27, 1999 HEARING • #CPA-2000-2(AN CPZ-2000-1 KENTVIEW POD H AMENDMENT • #CPA-2000-2(BU CPZ-2000-2 NGUYEN AMENDMENT • #CPA-2000-2(C)/CPZ-2000-3 COBLENTZ AMENDMENT ♦ #CPA-2000-2(Dy CPZ-2000-4 . GRAY AMENDMENT • #CPA-2000-2(E)/CPZ-2000-5 RANNIGER AMENDMENT • #CPA-2000-2(F)/KENT and FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICTS CIP • #CPA-2000-2(G)/CITY OF KENT CIP INTRODUCTION In April 1995, the Kent City Council adopted the Kent Comprehensive Plan, which was prepared and adopted under the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires that comprehensive plans combine land use, transportation, capital facilities, and other elements in a way that is both internally consistent and consistent with plans from other jurisdictions in the region. The GMA also requires that a city's development regulations implement and be consistent with the plan. The GMA establishes procedures for the amendment of plans, and stipulates that plans can only be amended once a year unless an emergency is declared which requires immediate action. Pursuant to the provisions in the GMA, the City Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance #3237) outlining procedures for the amendment of the City's plan. These procedures are now outlined in Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code. The City's procedures establish September 1 of each calendar year as the deadline for applications to be submitted to the Planning Department for proposed amendments to the plan. YEAR 2000 AMENDMENTS As of September 1 of this year, the Planning Department received seven (7) applications for amendments to the comprehensive plan. Five (5) applications were initiated by private property LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 owners and involve changes to the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map. The remaining two items are sponsored by the Kent and Federal Way School Districts and the City of Kent to update the Comprehensive Plan text to reflect changes to their capital facilities plans. The proposed amendments are summarized below: 1. #CPA-2000-2(A)/CPZ-2000-1 I ENTVIEW POD H AMENDMENT - a request to change the land use map designation from Agricultural and (SF-3) Single Family, 3 units per acre to (SF-6), Single Family, 6 units per acre and amend the Zoning Map designation from (A-1), Agricultural, 1 unit per acre and (SR-3) Single Family Residential, 3.63 units per acre to (SR-6) Single Family Residential, 6.05 units per acre. The property is located at 22002 Riverview Boulevard/21800 Frager Rd. 2. #CPA-2000-2(B)/CPZ-2000-2 NGUYEN AMENDMENT- a request to change the land use map designation from Low Density Multifamily to Commercial and amend the Zoning Map designation from(MR-G) Low Density Multifamily Residential, 16 units per acre to (CC), Community Commercial. The property is located at 12819 Kent Kangley Rd. 3. #CPA-2000-2(C)/CPZ-2000-3 COBLENTZ AMENDMENT -a request to change the land use map designation from Industrial and ($17-6) Single Family, 6 units per acre to Low Density Multifamily and amend the Zoning Map designation from (CM-1) Commercial Manufacturing and (SR-6) Single Family Residential, 6.05 units per acre to (MR-G) Low Density Multifamily Residential, 16 units per acre. The property is located at South 222nd Street and 88th Avenue South. 4. #CPA-2000-2(D)/CPZ-2000-4 GRAY AMENDMENT— a request to change the land use map designation from Agricultural to (SF-6) Single Family, 6 units per acre and amend the Zoning Map designation from (Al) Agricultural, 1 unit per acre to (SR-6) Single Family Residential, 6.05 units per acre. The property is located at the Northwest comer of South 216th Street and 46th Avenue South. 5. #CPA-2000-2(E) CPZ-2000-5 RANNIGER AMENDMENT -a request to change the land use map designation from (SF-6) Single Family, 6 units per acre to Commercial or Mixed Use Restricted and amend the Zoning Map designation from (SR-4.5), Single Family Residential, 4.53 units per acre and (SR-6), Single Family Residential, 6.05 units per acre to (0), Professional and Office. The property is located at the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection of 132nd Avenue Southeast and Southeast 256th Street. 6. #CPA-2000-2(F) KENT & FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES 2000 PLAN — a request to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect proposed changes to impact fees, resulting from new student population generated by new single family and multifamily residential development. 7. #CPA-2000-2(G) CITY OF KENT FINANCE DEPT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT— a request to amend projects, cost and revenue summaries of the Capital Facilities Element in the 1995 Comprehensive plan as required under the Growth Management Act(GMA). It should be noted that any proposed changes to the Land Use Plan Map are reviewed concurrently with corresponding amendments to the zoning map. LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 3 YEAR 2000 HEARING PROCESS At the November 27, 2000 public hearing, staff will be presenting all of the above items, numbered #CPA-2000-2(A-G). This memorandum will present information about each of these proposed amendments. Maps have been prepared, and are attached, for each area that will be affected by the proposed changes to the Land Use Plan Map and zoning map. Each proposed amendment will be analyzed and staffs recommendation will be noted. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Section 12.02.050 of the Kent City Code outlines the standards of review, which must be used by staff and the City Council in analyzing any proposed comprehensive plan amendments. Proposed amendments are to be examined based on the following criteria: 1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare; 2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an amendment to the plan; and 3. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation,'and capital facilities elements of the plan. The proposed plan amendments have been analyzed based on these criteria. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Proposal A - #CPA-2000-2(A)/CPZ-2000-1 Kentview Pod H Amendment: Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning for property located at 21800 Frager Road/22002 Riverview Boulevard Applicant: Polygon Northwest Company Existing Plan Designation: Agricultural and Proposed Plan Designation: SF-3, Single Family SF-6, Single Family 3 units/acre 6 units/acre Existing Zoning: Al,Agricultural Proposed Zoning: 1 unit/acre and SR-6, Single Family Residential SR-3, Single Family 6.05 units/acre Residential 3.63 units/acre Background The subject property is a 22.5acre parcel, composed of three tax lots, which were formerly designated as Tracts H, K and L of the Kentview Planned Unit Development (PUD). The site currently has dual zoning and land use designations. The western portion of the site is zoned --� SR-3 Single Family Residential, 3.63 units per acre with a Land Use Designation of SF-3 Single Family Residential. The central and eastern portions of the property, approximately 15 acres, are zoned Al, Agricultural, 1 unit per acre, with a Land Use Designation of Agricultural. The LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 4 residential density associated with these three tracts was transferred to another area of the PUD and this area was set aside for development as a school and a park site as well as for placement of the sewer lift station. The site was offered for sale to the school district and the Kent Parks Department, but neither has chosen to purchase the property to date. The applicant is discussing donating an acre in one comer of the subject property to the city for a BMX bike park. There is an inventoried wetland located on the site. The wetlands in this area are being enhanced with additional wetland plants and are to be used for stormwater detention for the Kentview PUD. A recently constructed sewer lift station is located in the northeast corner of Pod H. The site slopes gently down from lower slopes of the west hill to the valley floor near the Green River. The site was filled as part of the PUD development. Prior to filling of the site, it was predominately composed of Briscot silt loam , Puyallup fine sand loam and Woodinville silt loam, all of which are classified as Class 11 agricultural soils. On the eastern portion of the parcel, in the area that is already zoned SR-3 for residential use, there was some inclusion of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, which has a Class VI agricultural capability rating, The western leg of this site fronts on the recently constructed Riverview Boulevard. Primary i access to this site will be from Riverview Boulevard. Frager Road is designated as a scenic byway, and no direct vehicular access to the site will be approved from the eastern side of the site. Emergency access might be approved if the fire department requires an additional access to the PUD. However, a gate, bollards or other access management technique would be required to limit non-emergency traffic on the road to pedestrians and cyclists. The site is located within the Valley Floor area of the city, and will take its primary access from the 42"d Avenue South Corridor. The 42nd Avenue South Corridor is classified as a Residential Collector Arterial Streetdupon the City's Master Plan of Roadways. The current average daily traffic (ADT) along the 42 Avenue South Corridor is unknown. The proposed level of density will add up to an estimated 13,500 daily and 135 PM peak hour trips,to the local street system and will cause significant and/or additional congestion at several surrounding intersections. j i Analysis I I Prior to inclusion in the Kentview PUD, the subject property would have been permitted to be developed with approximately 42 single family dwelling!,units, approximately 15 units on the land zoned Al and approximately 27 units on the land zoned SR-3. During the development of the PUD, the development rights for these allowed residential units were transferred within the PUD to allow increased density in other areas of the development. The site was designated on the PUD map as a school or park site. The applicant filled the property as part of the PUD 1 development, but without having a purchaser for the site or a specific development project 1 planned for the site. The applicant states that the site is no longer useable for agricultural purposes and the school district does not want the site. Therefore, unless this rezone is granted, they are being denied economically viable use of their property. The applicant is requesting a land use designation and zoning classification that could allow the development of approximately 94 more dwelling units on this property beyond the approximately 42 units already permitted as part of the PUD project. Although the applicant offered to sell the property to the Kent School District and the Kent Parks Department, neither party has actually purchased the property or entered into an agreement to do so. LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 5 In addition to the PUD issues regarding this property, is the question of the appropriate pattern and intensity of development on or near agricultural lands. The City has not yet undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of the development of agricultural lands and/or the preservation of open space within the city limits. Prior to the fill activity by the applicant, the property was composed of soils that are among the best agricultural soils found in King County and the site is located adjacent to properties currently under active agricultural production. Development of property adjacent to agricultural lands can have wide-ranging impacts on the continuing economic viability of those farms. The land use element of the comprehensive plan has several goals and policies relating directly to the protection of agricultural land and regulation of adjacent development including: Goal LU-27 - Ensure the conservation and enhancement ojproductive agricultural land via regulation, acquisition, or other methods. Policy LU-27.2 -Discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to agricultural lands. Policy LU-27.3 - Mitigate development in order to minimize impacts on viable agricultural lands. Rezoning individual parcels without an inclusive city strategy for the appropriate future use of agricultural land and properties bordering agricultural land and/or the development of criteria by which individual requests to rezone agricultural property can be evaluated, will allow development of these lands to occur in a piece-meal manner that may not be in the City's best interests. The City is currently working on an update of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. An .� analysis of the present and futures uses of agricultural lands in relation to the city's land use pattern, growth needs and land availability will be an integral element of this update. Examination of the appropriate use of the subject property and the surrounding area is already planned as part of the comprehensive plan update process. It may be premature to change the land use designation and zoning classification at this time, before a widespread and thorough analysis of this entire area can be completed. Recommendation: Staff recommends DENIAL of this request. Proposal B - #CPA-2000-2(B)/CPZ-2000-2 Nguyen Amendment: Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at 12819 Kent-Kangley Road Applicant: Huy and Long Khanh Thi Nguyen Consultant: DBM Consulting Engineers Existing Plan Designation: Low Density Multifamily Proposed Plan Designation: Commercial Existing Zoning: MRG,LowDensilyMuWarrilyResidenlial Proposed Zoning: 16 units/acre CC, Community Commercial LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 6 �^ Background The subject property consists of one tax parcel with an area of approximately .35 acres configured in a triangular shape with public roads on two sides. The site is located on the south side of Kent-Kangley Road, west of 128" Place SE. The property is currently zoned Low Density Multifamily Residential, 16 units per acre, and the land use designation is Low Density Multifamily. A vacant single-family residence currently occupies the site. Properties north and east of the site are zoned Community Commercial with a land use designation of Commercial and are developed with the Meridian Plaza shopping center, Value Village, and office buildings. The property west of the subject property is zoned Professional and Office with a land use designation of Commercial. This property is vacant and for sale. Directly south of the site, the area is zoned MR-G with a land use designation of Low Density Multifamily and is developed with a series of single family detached residences. Continuing south from the single-family residences, is the Springwood apartment complex. Adjacent to and directly east of the Springwood Apartments complex, a new Safeway store with a gas station and several other retail buildings or pads are currently in the process of obtaining building permits. There are significant wetlands, with associated streams, located south and west of the Nguyen property. However, there appear to be no known sensitive areas located on the subject property. The lot is basically flat. Primary and current access to the property is from 128"' Place SE. Future access from Kent- Kangley Road .is very unlikely because it is designated as State Highway 516 and additional �- access points would further impede traffic flow. Neither public street is currently improved to its full design standard. Both streets will require improvement and/or widening in conjunction with continued development in the area. The current average daily traffic (ADT) along Kent Kangley Road / SR 516 is approximately 29,500 vehicles. It is not known the precise number of estimated daily and PM Peak Hour Trips that will be added to the local street system as a result of the proposed rezone and subsequent development. These impacts will be determined at the time of redevelopment. A similar request to change the land use designation to Commercial and the zoning to Community Commercial was made in 1998 under file number CPA-98-2 (F). That request was denied due to concerns regarding vehicular trip generation and safety. However, in September and October of 2000, the Washington Department of Transportation constructed road improvements on Highway 516 (Kent-Kangley Road) at the intersection of 128"' Place SE. These improvements include a meridian barrier between the eastbound and westbound lanes with a channeled left turn stacking lane for westbound traffic to turn onto 128"' Place SE. This meridian configuration allows a right turn entrance onto 128'h Place SE. from the eastbound lanes of Kent-Kangley Road, a restricted left turn access from the westbound lanes to 12e Place and allows a right turn exit from 128th Place into the eastbound lanes of Kent-Kangley Road. Left tums from 128 ' Place SE. into the westbound lanes of Kent-Kangley Road will not be permitted. Analysis This site is located in an area under transition. New development and increased retail and other commercial activity in the area immediately surrounding the subject property is changing the r nature of the neighborhood and will continue to do so. The demand for additional commercial LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 7 space may eventually result in the conversion of all of the single-family dwellings along 128t, Place SE. to commercial property. The land use element of the comprehensive plan has several goals and policies relating directly to the development of existing commercial areas including: Goal LU-12 - Promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen existing commercial districts, to minimize costs associated with extension of facilities, and to allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one another. Policy LU-12.3 - Develop regulatory incentives to encourage inftll development in existing commercial areas. Regulatory incentives may include urban, mixed-use zoning and higher- density zones, planned unit developments, transfer of density credits, and streamlined permit processes. Amending the land use designation and zoning to allow commercial use of this site will result in a minor expansion of the existing commercial area around the intersection of 132nd Ave. SE. and Kent-Kangley Road. Although commercial development will result in some increase to the number of vehicle tips to the site, the recent traffic improvements including the addition of meridian barriers to Kent-Kangley Road greatly reduces the accident potential associated with gaining vehicular access to the subject property. Recommendation Staff recommends APPROVAL of this request. Proposal C - #CPA-2000-2(C)/CPZ-2000-3 Coblentz Amendment: Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at South 222"d Street and 88 h Avenue South Applicant: DBM Consulting Engineers Existing Plan Designation: Industrial and SF-6, Proposed Plan Designation: Single Family, 6 units/acre Low Density Multifamily Existing Zoning: CM1,C TnwdalN{anuliacksirgand Proposed Zoning: SR-6, Single Family Residential, MR-G Low Density Multifamily 6.05 unitsiacre Residential, 16 units/acre Backaround The subject site consists of four (4) tax parcels and covers an area of approximately 12.58 acres. The site has land use designations of Industrial and SF-6, Single Family Residential, six (6) units per acre. Approximately 3.5 acres of the subject property is zoned Commercial Manufacturing-1 and approximately 9.08 acres is zoned SR-6, Single Family Residential, 6.05 units per acre. The Coblentz site is located on at the base of the east hill, adjacent to State Route 167, just north of where the highway crosses over Central Avenue. The applicant is requesting a change from land use designations of SF-6, Single Family Residential, six (6) units LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 8 �.per acre and Industrial to Low Density Multifamily in order to develop the site with a multifamily residential development. One single-family residence and an accessory building currently occupy the site. A significant amount of the property is encumbered with slopes exceeding 25%. Development of the eastern portion of this property will be limited due to the severe slope hazard. There are no inventoried wetlands located on the subject property. The area to the south is zoned MRG and is currently under development with the Silver Springs apartment complex containing 251 units. Single family detached zoning and land use designations are located north and east of the site. The slopes on the eastern third of the property provide a separation between the Coblentz site and adjacent properties on the hill above. State Route 167 provides a barrier on the west side of the subject property. There are several other single-family dwellings in the area zoned SR-6 to the north. Two of these properties also have split land use designations of Industrial and Commercial Manufacturing -1, in addition to the residential designations. The land use designation and zoning of a portion of this site was changed by Ordinance No. 3331 under application number CPA-96-3 (A) in 1997. This area was changed from a land use and zoning designation of Single Family Residential 6 to Industrial land use and Commercial Manufacturing 1 zoning. A change was approved because of the difficulty in marketing the property for single family development in this location due to freeway noise. The applicant is now requesting a change to MRG, Low Density Multifamily zoning for the same reason. The applicants have submitted a Noise Report prepared by Environalysis for review in support of this request. 88"' Avenue South is classified as a Residential Collector Street. This development is within an r- area which is characterized by streets with narrow traffic lanes, and narrow or no shoulders, and has been identified as having substandard pedestrian facilities. The 88'h Avenue South / South 2241" Street / South 228`" Street Corridor is currently not improved to its design standard, and would require improvement / widening in conjunction with development subsequent to this rezone. The current average daily traffic (ADT) along South 228d, Street is approximately 8,300 vehicles. This development will add an estimated 20,000 daily and 198 PM peak hour trips to the local street system. The proposed South 224"' Street / South 228`" Street Corridor is currently planned to include a bridge across SR 167 that will connect South 224" Street with 880' Avenue South — or a new street constructed in lieu of keeping the 88`" Avenue South / Frontage Street in place - in the general vicinity of the southwest comer of these combined parcels. The precise alignment of this section of the South 224'" Street / South 228'h Street Corridor has not been determined at this time, so the potential impacts to the subject parcels as a result of this corridor project cannot be determined at this time. A viable long-term driveway access connection to either the corridor or to 88'" Avenue South from the subject parcels cannot be guaranteed by the city because of the uncertainties associated with the future design of the South 224t' /South 228t' Street Corridor. Analysis The applicant's request for MRG zoning would allow 201 multifamily units to be developed on the subject property. The current maximum residential density of this site would allow approximately 54 single family dwellings, but the topography of the site, slope setbacks, a minimum lot size of 5,700 square feet, dedication of public roads and the lack of clustering provisions in the zoning code would probably effectively reduce the number of potential LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 9 dwellings by half or greater. Improvements to the existing street system will be required for any type of development proposed for this site. Noise from SR 167 has some impact on the site. However, other residential development, including existing and proposed new dwellings, is located along the SR 167 corridor. The east leg of the proposed 228" Corridor Project is planned to cross over SR 167 and connect to the east hill in this location. Although the exact specifics of the project design and location have not yet been determined, this project is included in the City of Kent 2001-2006 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as S. 228' Street Corridor (SR 515), Phase III (841" to Benson). The construction and operation of another major arterial/ state highway in such close proximity to the site would have considerable further impacts on the subject property. Noise mitigation would likely be a component of any type of development in this location. The subject property is located between existing multifamily-zoned property to the south and single family-zoned areas to the north and east. The land use and housing elements of the comprehensive plan have several goals and policies relating directly to providing a variety of housing types and densities including: Goal LU-9 - Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities throughout the city and Potential Annexation Area. Goal LU-10 - Revise development regulations to encourage more single-family development and more flexibility and innovation in terms of building and site design. Goal H-4 - Expand home ownership opportunities for all income groups via land use regulations,financial strategies, and the removal of barriers to lending. Policy H4.1 - Revise zoning and development standards to facilitate small lot sues, manufactured housing on single-family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, and other options which increase the supply of affordable home ownership opportunities. The City wishes to increase home ownership opportunities and promote more single-family residential development at all levels of affordability. The City recently created a residential multi-family townhouse zone that is intended to be an infill and transition area between multi- family and single-family zones and to help provide more affordable home ownership options. This two-story condominium-type of development is appropriate to the area and would act as a buffer and transition area between the single-family residential zones to the north and east and the four-story apartment development to the south. The townhouse zone allows clustering of units which would avoid disturbing that portion of the site with steep slopes while permitting the developer to maximize the allowed density of 12 or 16 units per acre, as appropriate to the site. The comprehensive plan land use designation of Low Density Multifamily applies to both the MRG, low density multifamily residential and MRT, multifamily residential townhouse, zones. However, a rezone to the MRT zone can only be requested if the entire subject property is already in SR-8, Single Family or one of several multi family or commercial zones. Approval of the LDMF land use designation and SR-8 zoning would allow the applicant to request a rezone to MR-T12, MR-T16 or MRG. Further information relating to the placement and impacts associated with the east leg of the 2281" Street Corridor are likely to considerably affect which zone is considered most appropriate in this location in the future. Recommendation LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 10 Staff recommends APPROVAL of SR-8 zoning and Low density Multi Family land use designation, which would allow the applicant to apply for a rezone upon approval of the comprehensive plan map amendment. Proposal D - #CPA-2000-2(D)/CPZ-2000-4 Gray Amendment: A change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at Northwest corner of South 216'" Street and 46'" Avenue South Applicant: W.E. Ruth Corporation Existing Plan Designation: Agricultural Proposed Plan Designation: SF-6, Single Family 6 units/acre Existing Zoning: Al,Agricultural Proposed Zoning: 1 unit/acre SR-6, Single Family Residential 6.05 units/acre Background The subject property consists of two parcels that are approximately 9.24 acres in size. The site is located on the north side of South 216t' Street east of 42"d Avenue South. The area north, east and directly south of the subject property is zoned Al, Agricultural and has a land use designation of Agricultural. This zoning allows agricultural related uses and development of detached single family residences at a density of one unit per acre. The area to the southwest is zoned Single Family Residential - 3 units/acre (SR-3) with a land use designation of Single Family - 3 units/acre (SF-3). The SeaTac city limits are less than 1,000 feet to the west of the site. The subject property is currently vacant. City of Kent inventoried wetlands surround the subject property. A small drainage ditch bisects the site. The property is generally flat and located in the vicinity of the Green River on the valley floor. The site is composed entirely of Briscot silt loam which is classified as Class 11 agricultural soil. A commercial sod and chip operation is located east of the Gray property. The Kentview PUD, which contains approximately 681 units, is located just south of the subject property on an area that is zoned Al and Single Family Residential 3. Sanitary sewer service has recently been extended into this area. Primary access to the subject property will be from South 216d' Street, which is classified as a residential street in this location. 42"d Avenue South is classified as a Residential Collector Arterial Street. This development is within an area which is characterized by streets with narrow traffic lanes, and narrow or no shoulders, and has been identified as having substandard pedestrian facilities. In addition, this proposal abuts South 216t'Street,which in turn connects to Frager Road, a designated scenic corridor which per city code is not supposed to cant' new additional traffic. South 216"' Street is currently not improved to its design standard, and will require significant improvements to support development subsequent to a SR-6 'rezone and continued growth in the area. Some improvements to the street system in the vicinity of this proposed amendment are under construction as conditions of approval of the Kentview development. The current average daily traffic (ADT) along South 216' Street is unknown. This development will add an estimated 720 daily and 72 PM peak hour trips to the local street r system. LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 11 Analysis The applicant is requesting a land use designation and zoning classification that potentially could allow over a 600% increase in density; the development of 55 dwelling units on property that currently would permit only 9 units. The site does not abut any residential zone and granting this rezone would create a "spot zone" of higher density single family residential in the middle of agricultural zoning, adjacent to potentially incompatible uses. The property contains soils that are among the best agricultural soils found in King County; there are no Class I soils mapped in King County. The site has been in cultivation as recently as last summer. The land use element of the comprehensive plan has several goals and policies relating directly to the protection of agricultural land and regulating adjacent development including: Goal LU-27 - Ensure the conservation and enhancement of productive agricultural land via regulation, acquisition, or other methods. Policy LU-27.2 -Discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to agricultural lands. Policy LU-27.3 - Mitigate development in order to minimize impacts on viable agricultural lands. The City has not yet undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of either the development of agricultural lands and/or the preservation of open space within the city limits. Rezoning individual parcels without an inclusive city strategy for the appropriate future use of agricultural land and/or the development of criteria by which individual requests to rezone agricultural property can be evaluated, will allow development of these lands to occur in a piece- meal manner that may not be in the City's best interests. The City is currently working on an update of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. An analysis of the present and futures uses of agricultural lands in relation to the city's land use pattern, growth needs and land availability will be an integral element of this update. Examination of the appropriate use of the subject property is already planned as part of the comprehensive plan update process. It is premature to change the land use designation and zoning classification at this time, before a widespread and thorough analysis of the agricultural area can be completed Recommendation: Staff recommends DENIAL of this request. Proposal E - #CPA-2000-2(E)/CPZ-2000-5 Ranniger Amendment: A change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for the property located at 13133 SE 25e Street, the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection of 132nd Avenue SE and SE 256d' Street. Applicant: Dan and Debrah Ranniger Existing Plan Designation: SF-6, Single Family Proposed Plan Designation: 6 units/acre ConrneraalorMixed Use Restricted Existing Zoning: SR-4.5, Single Family Residerild Proposed Zoning: .1 4.53 units/acre and O, Professional and Office SR-6,Single Fan*Resider ft 6.05 unitstacre LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 12 Background The application site consists of a total of five tax parcels and covers an area of approximately 4.15 acres. The site is located on diagonally opposite comers of the intersection of 132"d Avenue SE and SE 256'" Street. The three parcels on the southwest corner of the intersection, approximately 2.6 acres, are zoned SR-6, Single Family Residential, 6.05 units per acre. The two parcels, approximately 1.55 acres, on the northeast corner are zoned SR-4.5, Single Family Residential, 4.53 units per acre. Both areas have a land use designation of Single Family Residential 6 units/acre. The applicants request a land use designation and a zoning of Professional and Office in order to market and develop the site with offices. The city does not have a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Professional and Office, however, the office zone can be located in either the Commercial or Mixed Use Restricted land use designations. There are four existing single family detached residences located on the property, two on each corner. The subject property is partially flat with some rolling terrain. Inventoried wetlands and associated streams are located near the site on both the southeast and northwest comers of the intersection. No inventoried wetlands are located on the site. A recently completed single family detached subdivision, Bayberry Crest, is located west of the SW comer of this site. The area surrounding the subject property is residential in nature. All of the zoning and all of the land uses, except the cemetery to the east, in the vicinity of this site are residential. There is no commercial or office zoning or existing developments abutting or near the subject property. Existing commercial developments are located less than a mile away, north of the site at the ,�. intersection of 132nd Avenue SE and SE 240'h Street and south of the site at the intersection of 132nd Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road. Existing office zoning is located approximately one mile south of the site on south side of Kent-Kangley Road, west of the shopping center, and 1 % to 1 Yz mile west of the site along SE 256 th Street and in several locations along 104'" Avenue SE. Primary access to the site would come from either or both SE 256"' Street and IlVd Avenue SE. Both streets are classified as Minor Arterials. Neither public street is currently improved to its design standard, and both will require improvement and widening in conjunction with continued development in the area. A project to improve traffic flow on SE 256"' Street is currently under construction with major work planned for the intersection at 132nd Avenue SE. The city has contracted to construct interim improvements to Southeast 256" Street along the frontages for four of the five parcels applying for a Rezone. The City also has a 132nd Avenue Southeast interim street improvement planned between Southeast 240`" Street and Southeast 256'h Street in the City's 2001 to 2006 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), an improvement that has frontage along one of the five parcels being rezoned. The current average daily traffic (ADT) along Southeast 256t" Street is approximately 15,700 vehicles and along 132"d Avenue Southeast is approximately 17,600. The proposed rezone and subsequent development these five parcels has the potential to add an estimated 600 to 830 daily and 77 PM peak hour trips to the local street system, which will cause significant and/or additional congestion at a number of surrounding intersections. Analysis Although traffic volume and noise are a concern for single-family residential development, the vast majority of development along both 132nd Avenue SE. and SE. 256"' Street is existing LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 13 residential subdivisions with the back yards of homes abutting these streets. Most subdivisions within the city abut at least one arterial street. City development patterns do not support the conversion of residentially zoned property in the middle of a single-family neighborhood to an office zone based solely on traffic concerns. In fact, a rezone of this property to office zoning would generate a significant amount of additional traffic on both of these arterials, beyond that which would be created by single family development, thereby intensifying the traffic impacts on the residential uses already existing in the neighborhood. The land use element of the comprehensive plan has several goals and policies relating directly to the development of existing commercial areas including: Goal LU-12 - Promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen existing commercial districts, to minimize costs associated with extension of facilities, and to allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one another. Policy LU-12.3 - Develop regulatory incentives to encourage infill development in existing commercial areas. Regulatory incentives may include urban, mixed-use zoning and higher- density zones, planned unit developments, transfer of density credits, and streamlined permit processes. The "office zone" allows a variety of office and service uses, most of which are also permitted in the Community Commercial (CC) zone. The subject property is located between existing commercial areas, which are not built out to maximum capacity, within less than a mile to the north and to the south of the site. Uses that are permitted in the office zone, but not currently allowed in the CC zone are few, and include mortuaries, business services, travel and employment agencies, medical and dental clinics, educational services, construction offices and research and development facilities. The applicant wishes to develop the subject property as a medical/dental office complex because he feels that there is a lack of office space on the East Hill where the majority of his clients live. However, undeveloped property with existing office zoning is located approximately one mile south as well as 1-2 miles west of the site. Along 104°i Ave. SE., several vacant parcels, with existing office zoning, are for sale. Further, at least two developed medical/dental office complexes have available space advertised for rent or lease. There also are other methods to generate additional office availability other than creating an additional commercial node in the middle of a residential area. The addition of offices uses, including medical and dental clinics, to the Community Commercial zone, via a zoning code amendment, would allow for more office availability in the City, in locations that are more compatible with the City's desired development patterns. Recommendation: Staff recommends DENIAL of this request. Proposal F - #CPA-2000-2(F) Kent and Federal Way School District CIP Amendment: Update of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes to Federal Way School District and Kent School District Capital Facilities Plans. Applicant: Kent& Federal Way School Districts ,� LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 14 The applicants' request to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect proposed changes to impact frees resulting from new student population generated by new single family and multifamily residential development. Continuing growth and development in the City of Kent create additional demand and need for school facilities. The Growth Management Act requires that new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. Thus, on December 19, 1995 the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3260 establishing a school impact fee program as authorized by the Growth Management Act and RCW 82.02.050. Kent City Code Chapter 12.13.070 requires that the Kent and Federal Way School Districts submit Capital Facilities Plans to the City of Kent on an annual basis for City Council review for the purpose of establishing the impact fee. The Capital Facilities Plans of the School Districts shall be reviewed in conjunction with any update of the Capital Facilities Plan element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The impact fees proposed by the 2000 Kent and Federal Way School Districts Capital Facilities Plans are as follows: Kent School District Single Family 1999 Impact Fee $3,782 2000 Proposed Impact Fee (No Change) Multifamily 1999 Impact Fee $2,329 2000 Proposed Impact Fee (No Change) Federal Way School District Single Family 1999 Impact Fee $2,384 2000 Proposed Impact Fee 2,710 Multifamily 1999 Impact Fee $ 786 2000 Proposed Impact Fee 830 Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the updates to the Kent and Federal Way School Districts Capital Facilities Plans and proposed impact fees. Proposal G - #CPA-2000-2(G) City of Kent Capital Facilities Plan Amendment: Update of the Capital Facilities Element Applicant: City of Kent Finance Department The Capital Facilities Element in the comprehensive plan, which was adopted in 1995, contains a great deal of information relating to inventories of existing capital facilities, estimated costs of anticipated future facilities, and projected revenues to fund these facilities. These components of the Capital Facilities Element are all required under the Growth Management Act (GMA). �- The Growth Management Act requires that the Capital Facilities Element be updated to reflect LUPB Public Hearing 11/27/00 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 15 the growth of the city in order to maintain concurrency with the Land Use and Transportation elements. In conjunction with the annual budget process for the City of Kent, the Finance Department has proposed amendments to the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan to identify a six-year plan for capital facilities projects, including costs and revenue sources. The Capital Facilities Plan results from requests by City departments for projects in their areas of responsibility in conformance with the Growth Management Act, adopted goals and policies of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, departmental plans and City Council Target Issues and Strategic Action Plan. The plan provides capital for transportation, utilities, public safety, parks and general government facilities. Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the updates to the 2001 —2006 Capital Facilities Plan, as prepared by the Finance Department. CONCLUSION In summary, the staff recommendations for the seven proposed plan amendments are as follows: Proposal A- DENIAL of the request for Single "Family- 6 units/acre (SF-6) land use designation and Single Family Residential - 6 units/acre (SR-6)zoning. Proposal B - APPROVAL of the amendment of land use designation to Commercial on the comprehensive plan map and to Community Commercial (CC) on the zoning map. Proposal C - APPROVAL of the amendment of land use designation to Low Density Multifamily on the comprehensive plan map and Single Family, 8 units/acre (SR- 8) on the zoning map. Proposal D - DENIAL of the request for Single Family- 6 units/acre (SF-6) land use designation and Single Family Residential - 6 units/acre (SR-6)zoning. Proposal E - DENIAL of the request for Commercial or Mixed Use Restricted land use designation and Professional and Office (0) zoning. Proposal F - APPROVAL of the update of the Capital Facilities Plan for the Kent and Federal Way School Districts. Proposal G - APPROVAL of the update of the Capital Facilities Element as prepared by the City of Kent Finance Department. If you have any questions prior to the November 27`" public hearing, please contact Diana Nelson at (253) 856-5437. ONlpm S:IPermitlPlan%REPORTSl20MCPA-2000.2(A-G)11-27-OOrptdoc PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Manager Phone: 253-356-5454 \Zr, K E N T Fax: 253-356.6454 w s TO. Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent. WA 93032-5S9,� LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing November 27, 2000 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Jon Johnson at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 27, 2000 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEINIBERS PRESENT Jon Johnson, Chair Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Mgr. Ron Harmon. Vice Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Sr. Planner Brad Bell Diana Nelson, AICP, Planner Steve Dowell Pat Fitzpatrick, Asst. City Attorney David Malik Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary Sharon Woodford Terry Zimmerman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Terry Zimmerman MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to approve the minutes of the October 16 and 23 meetins. Motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom stated that the Board's recommendation for CPA-2000-1 Urban Separators would be brought before the City Council at their December 12 meeting. CPA-2000-2(A)/CPZ-2000-1 KENTVIEW POD H AMENDMENT Planner, Diana Nelson stated that the property is located at 21800 Frager Road and 22002 Riverview Boulevard. She stated that the existing plan designation for the property is Agricultural for approximately 15 acres of the parcel and (SF-3) Single Family, 3 units per acre on the westem portion of the property comprised of approximately 7.5 acres. Ms. Nelson stated that the existing zoning is (A-1) Agricultural, 1 unit per acre and (SR-3) Single Family Residential, 3.63 units per acre. Ms. Nelson stated that the proposed plan designation is (SF-6) Single Family, 6 units per acre for all of the parcel and the proposed zoning is (SR-6) Single Family Residential, 6.05 units per acre. The subject property is a 22.5 acre parcel composed of three tax lots that were formerly designated as tracts H, K and L of the Kenrview Planned Unit Development(PUD). Ms. Nelson stated that the subject property was set aside for development as a school and park site, as well as the placement of a sewer lift station. She stated that the wetlands in this area are being enhanced with additional plants that are used for storm water retention for the Kentview PUD. Ms. Nelson stated that the western leg of the site fronts on the recently constructed Riverview Boulevard within the PUD and primary access to this site would be from Riverview Boulevard. Ms. Nelson stated that Frager Road is designated as a scenic byway and no direct vehicular access to the site will be approved from the eastern side of the site. She stated that primary access to the property is from the 42nd Avenue south corridor and the proposed level of density will add up to approximately 1350 additional daily and 135 p.m. '� '�,, ,'.'1 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 2"1, 2000 Page 2 peak hour trips to the local street system. Ms. Nelson noted an error in the staff report that says "1_.500" and should be corrected to read 1350 daily trips. Ms. Nelson stated that during the development of the Kentview PUD, the development rights for residential density on this 22.5 acre parcel of property (approximately 42 units based on the zoning), were transferred within the PUD to allow increased density in other areas of this development. Ms. Nelson stated that the applicant is requesting a land use designation and zoning classification that would allow the development of approximately 94 additional dwelling units on this property. She stated that the City of Kent has not yet adequately studied the appropriate pattern and intensity of development on or near agricultural lands. Ms. Nelson stated that the City of Kent is in the process of updating their comprehensive plan. She stated that an analysis of present and future uses of agricultural lands concerning the City's land use pattern and growth needs would be a part of this study. She stated that the land use element of the comprehensive plan currently has several goals and policies directly relating to the protection of agricultural lands and the regulation of adjacent development. These include Land Use Goal 27 which states "ensure the conservation and enhancement of productive agricultural land via regulation, acquisition and other methods". Ms. Nelson stated that Policy LU-27.2 under that goal states "Discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to agricultural lands" and Policy LU-27.3 states "Mitigate development in order to minimize impacts on viable agricultural lands". Ms. Nelson stated that this property before the fill activity by the applicant was composed of soils that were the best agricultural soils found in King County. This property is adjacent to currently cultivated property. Therefore, the development on this property can have impacts on continued economic viability both on adjacent and surrounding lands. Ms. Nelson stated that Planning Services staff is currently reviewing the agricultural lands. Staff feels that it is premature at this time to change the zoning and land use designation. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL. Ms. Nelson stated in response to Ms. Zinunetman that the additional 42 units were allocated and built elsewhere within the PUD. Ms. Nelson stated that land has been cultivated with row crops in several fields north of this property. Ms. Nelson stated that through discussions with the Kent School District and the City of Kent Parks Department. she was informed that the school district was offered approximately 13.5 acres of land to be set aside for an intended school site. Ms.Nelson stated that the developer is creating a one acre BMX Park to be given to the City of Kent. Ms. Nelson stated that she was not aware of any specific conditions or requirements of approval that would mandate the applicant to sell, donate or otherwise develop the land. Ms. Nelson stated that this property has been filled with gravel and other types of material, so that this soil can no longer be considered as Class 2 Agricultural soils. Ms. Nelson stated that the City of Kent issued a permit for the fill as part of the PUT)with the understanding that this property was set aside for development as a park or school. Chair Jon Johnson declared the Public Hearing open. John Green, 21839 Framer Rd., Kent, OVA 98032 stated that the Cruz Johnson Farm is located directly north of the property requesting a rezone. He stated that this farm has been a productive farm for many years, producing the best sweet com in the valley as well as producing other vegetables which they offer for sale through a road side stand. Mr. Green stated that his neighborhood contacted the Project Manager, Mr. Gary Young of Polygon three years ago to inquire about the proposed plans for the Riverview development. He stated that after this call,he Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 3 hosted two community meetings at his home inviting Polygon to meet with the neighbors to look at their maps and plans. Mr. Green stated that throughout the duration of developing this PUD, this particular area in question has been shown as A-1 zoned, a future school site, to be offered to the city or alternatively for a park or recreational use such as a baseball or soccer field. Mr. Green stated that when asked, Polygon repeatedl} stated that this property would not be rezoned for residential use. Mr. Green stated that his community believes that playground or park usage fits in better with the City of Kent and King County's commitment to retain the west side of the river as a greenbelt and for agricultural usage. He stated that he would like the Board to deny this rezoning request. Jacque Davis, 4815 S. 216th, Kent, WA stated that she resides north of the property requesting a rezone. She would like this property preserved for agricultural, greenbelt areas and recreational land uses. Ms. Davis submitted a copy of City of Kent Ordinance No. 2489 for the record as Exhibit #5 encouraging the preservation of agricultural lands. Ms. Davis submitted copies of King County's Ordinance No's. 6853, 6946 and 6650 for the record as Exhibit #6 in support of preserving this land for agricultural purposes. Ms. Davis stated that she and her neighbors have complied with the A-1 zoning requirements by preserving their properties with pasture lands, gardens, orchards and evergreen tree areas. She stated that the residents have constructed their driveways and load-bearing roads with packed gravel rather than asphalt so that the roadways would be permeable. Ms. Davis stated that approval of this rezone would erode the agricultural environment of the area and she encouraged the Board to deny the rezone request. Steve Hansen, 21847 Frager Road, Kent, WA stated that there is a large demand for the produce generated by the Cruz Johnson Farm. The broad variety of produce grown in this area provides economic activity and is irreplaceable. He encouraged the Board to retain the agricultural zoning and deny the applicant's request for a rezone. Brian Nicholson, 21831 Frager Road, Kent, WA stated that he supports the City's recommendations to carry out further research on development and long range planning. He stated that the applicant's desire to change the zoning of this section of property is occurring too soon. Mr. Nicholson stated that the extent of impact to the surrounding agricultural lands, traffic and the Valley would not be realized until the Kentview PUD is complete and all homes are occupied. Mr. Nicholson supported staff s recommendation to deny the rezone request. Gary Young, Polygon Northwest Company, 11624 SE 5th St., Suite 200, Bellevue, WA stated that the Pod H property was purposely set-aside specifically for a school facility development or park use. He stated that both the Kent School District and the City of Kent Parks Department declined to purchase this property. Mr. Young stated that Polygon has invested in the installation of a lift station facility constructed on the eastern comer of the property with a gravel access road, which is an extension of the main access to Pod H from within the community. He stated that this road runs along the northern boundary of Pod H and separates this property from the Dela Cruz Farm property. Mr. Young stated that Polygon placed gravel fill on this property under permits issued by the City of Kent with the intention of developing Pod H. The fill altered this property so that it is no longer productive farmland. He stated that Polygon has invested funds to provide for roads and other infrastructure to this property and feels committed to recover their cost and provide additional low-density single family housing on this property. Mr. Young stated that single family housing would be the most compatible use adjacent to the agricultural land area. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27. 2000 Page 4 Mr. Young emphasized that the King County area has seen phenomenal lob formation without providing housing to meet those needs. He stated that development of this property would provide the opportunity to integrate both the needs for housing and at the same time develop a nice community. Mr. Young stated that there would not be access to Frager Road from the Pod H development. However. if the City of Kent Public Works or Fire Departments desired a fire access road, this could be created usm_ restrictive measures so that only the Fire Department could gain access to this property from Frager Road. Mr. Young stated that Polygon would like to complete development of Pod H in concert with the development underway, rather than wait several vears to work through policy changes. He asked the Board to consider all the factors presented. Mr. Young, in response to Ms. Zimmerman, stated that it was Polygon's intent to recover their cost through the sale of Pod H to either the school district or the City of Kent. Mr. Young, in response to Mr. Harmon, stated that the original master plan for build-out of the PUD indicates 680 units: approximately half of these units are constructed. He stated that he could not determine if Polygon would reach their 680-unit goal at final build-out based on a number of requirement restrictions. Mr. Young stated that Pod H has the potential build-out for ninety homes but believes that this figure would decrease due to wetland constraints, the construction of the BMX Bike Park and the lift station. Kimberly Voss, 22274 Russell Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she resides on the west side of the river, across from Pod H. She stated that she has a small orchard and favors retaining the agricultural zoning of this area. She voiced her support of staffs recommendation to deny this rezone request. Dan Moberly, 12033 SE 256th, Kent,WA 98031 stated that he is the Superintendent for Business Services for the Kent School District. He stated that he supports staff's recommendation to deny this rezone request. Mr. Moberly stated that Mr. Young approached the Kent School District in 1997 and 1999 after the school district bond failed. He stated that failure of the bond placed the school in a position where they were unable to consider appraisal of the land nor negotiations towards purchase of the property. Mr. Moberly stated that he believes that Polygon behaved in the best interest of the school district with the fill used on this site. Mr. Moberly voiced concern over the number of students generated with the initial development of 685 units. He stated that the addition of 94 units on Pod H could create concerns as to where these students would be housed as time goes on. Mr. Moberly voiced his concern that this property might not be developable as a school site due to the existing wetlands and based on the endangered species act. However,he stated that the School District would like the option in the future to be able to consider this property for a school site. Eric Wells, 11624 SE 5th Street, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA submitted a letter dated November 27, 2000 and signed by Gary Young for the record as Exhibit#7. He stated that he worked with the City of Kent Parks Department in an attempt to reach an agreement with the City to purchase Pod H for a park. Mr. Wells stated that concurrently, the results of the I-695 proposal left the City without available funds for purchasing the land. Mr. Wells reiterated many of Gary Young's concerns. He stated that one concern included mitigating the financial impacts encountered through the infrastructure that Polygon has already provided on this site. He stated that neither the School district nor the City of Kent Parks Department is purchasing this land. He stated that as there is the potential that Polygon may not be able to reach their original build-out estimate of 680 units, it would be feasible to transfer the building of some of those units to Pod H. Mr. Wells reiterated that constructing single family homes on Pod H would allow for viable use of the land with the least impact for the area. He stated that 100 acres has been preserved within the PUD as open space and cannot be developed. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 5 Mr. Wells spoke about the road improvements relevant to the PUD on 42nd Avenue, 212th and 216th with a traffic signal being installed at 42nd Avenue and 212th to mitigate some of the traffic impacts in the area. He stated that a pedestrian bridge has been installed to provide a pedestrian link to the recreational corridors. Mr. Wells stated that sewer, water and all the dry utilities are installed to the site. Debbie Nicholson, 21831 Frager Road, Kent,WA voiced her concern over the traffic that will be generated %vith the development of Kentview. She stated that the existing road system is deficient for the homes that Kentview is already going to place in this PUD let alone adding additional homes. Ms. Nelson spoke to Polygon's economic arguments on recouping their costs on Pod H. Ms. Nelson questioned how much of the residential value of the land should be assumed by the School District, provided they purchased the land. She stated that Polygon has already used a portion of this land if not all of the value of this property for residential purposes. Ms. Nelson said that although Mr. Young stated that Polygon is asking for the lowest single family density, they are actually requesting the second highest single family density of(SR-6) 6.05 units per acre. She stated that none of the adjacent properties has a density of 6 units per acre but rather have densities of one or three units per acre as well as single family residential zones of A-1, SR-I, SR-2 and SR-3. Ms. Nelson stated that if the Board were to recommend approval, staff is recommending that the Board choose one of the lower density zones for this area to retain the character of the surrounding area along Frager Road. Mr. Bell asked Diana to clarify her statement where she indicated that the School District and the City of Kent would purchase the property if the price were low enough. She stated that the correct interpretation should have been that either the School District or the City of Kent would be interested in investigating the property if the price is right. In response to Mr. Dowell, Diana stated that there are still productive farms in the valley and they are generally smaller than they used to be. Mr. Dowell indicated that the Board's recommendation could have a far-reaching affect on the future of those agriculturally zoned areas. Diana concurred with Mr. Dowell. She stated that any decisions dealing with agricultural zoned properties and properties adjacent to agricultural zoned property need to have a comprehensive city strategy so as not to create a ripple affect. Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion Carried. Sharon Woodford stated that she would like the agricultural lands to remain and said that if homes are built on this property it could lead to the disappearance of much of the Valley's agricultural lands in the future. Therefore, until the City has a set policy on agricultural lands, she voiced her concurrence with staff s recommendation to deny this request. Steve Dowell concurred with Ms. Woodford and voiced his support of staff s recommendation to deny this request. Terry Zimmerman stated that Polygon's build-out would not be affected as a result of leaving Pod H alone. She stated that the school district would be interested in the land should money become available and the same could be said for the City of Kent in their search for funding sources for future park development. Ms. Zimmerman stated that the neighbors have objected strongly. She stated that the neighbors want the land left the way it is as they value their life styles and the farming land is a benefit to the community. She said that the City of Kent needs to formulate an agricultural policy. Ms. Zimmerman agreed with staffs ,1 recommendation to deny this request. Ron Harmon concurred that the City of Kent needs to set a policy before deciding to apply spot zoning. He stated that he takes exception with the City of Kent for issuing a fill permit to fill agricultural with disregard to LU-27.2 and 3. Mr. Harmon stated that alternative land use options need to remain open and voiced support of staff s recommendation to deny this application. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November-". 2000 Paee 6 Brad Bell stated that although Polygon met some of the LU-27 policy requirements. in his opinion. they did not meet the requirements of LU-27.3 to "mitigate development in order to minimize impacts on viable agricultural lands." Mr. Bell voiced support of staffs recommendation to deny this request. David Malik stated that traffic impacts on the two lane 42nd Avenue will become severe with the addition of the current PUD of 650 houses, let alone the development of additional houses on the Pod H properr. He reiterated concurrence with the other Board members statements and voiced support of staff s recommendation to deny this request. Jon Johnson stated that he concurs with the Board members to support staff s recommendation of DENIAL. Ron Harmon MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to accept staff s recommendation to DENY the application request for CPA-2000-2A/CPZ-2000-1 Kenrview Pod H Amendment. Motion CARRIED. CPA-2000-2BlCPZ-2000-2 NGUYEN AMENDMENT Diana Nelson stated that this property is located at 12819 Kent Kangley Road. The existing plan designation is Low-Density Multifamily and the proposed plan designation is commercial. The existing zoning is MR-G Lov.-Density Multifamily Residential, 16 units per acre. Ms. Nelson stated that the proposed zoning is CC. Community Commercial. She stated that the property is one tax parcel of.35 acres configured in a triangular shape with public roads on two sides. A vacant single family residence currently occupies the site. Nis. Nelson stated that properties north and east of the site are zoned Community Commercial and developed with the Meridian Plaza Shopping Center. Value Village and office buildings. She stated that vacant propem, west of the subject property is zoned Professional and Office. Ms. Nelson stated that property directly south of the site is zoned MR-G and developed with a series of single family detached residences. She stated that the Springwood Apartment complex is beyond these residences, and directly east of the apartment complex a new Safeway store, gas station and several retail buildings are in the process of obtaining building permits. %Is. Nelson stated that there are no known sensitive areas located on the subject property. She stated that primary and current access from the property is 128th Place Southeast with future access from Kent Kangley Road being unlikely as it is a state highway and further access points would impede traffic flow. Ms. Nelson stated that a similar request to change the land use designation to commercial was submitted in 1998 and denied due to concerns regarding vehicular trip generation and safety. Ms. Nelson stated that in September and October 2000, the Washington Department of Transportation constructed road improvements on Kent Kangley at the intersection of 128th. The improvements included a meridian barrier between the east and west bound lanes with a channel left turn lane for westbound traffic to rum onto 128th. Ms. Nelson stated that the new road configuration allows: a right turn onto 128th from the eastbound lanes of Kent Kangley, a restricted left turn access from the westbound lanes to 128th Place, and a right turn exit from 128th into the eastbound lanes of Kent Kangley. Ms. Nelson stated that left turns from 128th into the westbound lanes of Kent Kangley are no longer permitted. Ms. Nelson stated that the site is located in an area of transition. Development and increased retail and commercial activity in the area surrounding the subject property are changing the nature of the neighborhood. She stated that the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan has several goals and policies directly relating to the development of existing commercial areas including: r- Goal LU-12 - 'Promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen existing commercial districts, to minimize costs associated with the extension of facilities, and allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one another"and Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 7 Policy LU 12.3 "Develop regulatory incentives to encourage infill development in existing commercial areas... " and these regulatory incentives "ma}, include urban, mixed-use zoning and higher density zones, planned unit developments, transfer of density credits, and streamlined permit processes. " Ms. Nelson stated that amending the land use designation and zoning to allow commercial use of this site would result in a minor expansion of the existing commercial area around the intersection of 132nd Ave. SE and Kent-Kangley Road. She stated that though the commercial development will result in some increase to the number of vehicle trips to the site, the recent traffic improvements including the addition of meridian barriers to Kent-Kangley Road greatly reduces the accident potential associated with gaining vehicular access to the subject property. Ms. Nelson stated that staff recommends APPROVAL of this request. , Gary Gill, City of Kent Engineer stated that the primary work completed by the State Department of Transportation is to preclude the high accident problems that the city was encountering along the Kent- Kangley corridor both east and west of 132nd Avenue Southeast. Mr. Gill stated that the channelization, which restricts turning movements, was designed to address the types of accidents, which were occurring most frequently. He stated that the City felt that it would be appropriate to allow this property to develop as a commercial zone as the type of turning movements you would see from this establishment would be precluded, specifically the left turns out and the protected left turns in. Chair Jon Johnson declared the Public Hearing open. Roberta Marta, DBM Consulting Engineers, 502 16th Street NE, Suite 312,Auburn, WA stated that she represents the applicant Huy Nguyen who is requesting a change from Multifamily to Commercial in order to accommodate a beauty salon. She stated that commercial, office and professional surround the subject ruperty. Ms. Marta stated that the site configuration is too small for a multifamily development consisting of 3.5 acres. She stated that a commercial zone would be entirely compatible from a zoning and planning perspective. Ms. Marta stated that the applicant intends to use the vacant single family structure on the site for his proposed salon. She stated that traffic improvements to Kent Kangley include curb cuts,right in and right out only, a landscape island and access will remain off 128th Avenue. Huy Nguyen, 24020 129th Court SE, Kent, WA 98031 as the applicant stated that he would encourage the Board to consider approval of his request to develop this site for use as a beauty salon as a means to support his family. Larry Flanary, 27021 128th Place Southeast, Kent, WA stated that he resides in the third house, south of the site. Mr. Flanary stated that he did not oppose Mr. Nguyen's request to develop his property for use as a commercial beauty salon. He voiced concern that if the subject property is zoned commercial that this could potentially lead to a commercial rezoning of his and the other residential properties south of the site. Mr. Flanary stated that he would not like to see his one-half acre lot rezoned as it would devalue the property and make the potential for future sales and financing difficult if commercially zoned. He stated that the way the topography of his property lies, the wetlands reach far into his property decreasing the ability to use half of his property. Dana Mower, DBM Consulting Engineers, 502 16 St. Northeast, Suite 312, Auburn, WA stated that this area is in transition and there is Office zoning to the west and Commercial zoning surrounding the property to the east and south. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 ` Page 8 Mr. Mower stated that Mr. Nguyen's property is the only site requesting a commercial rezone with residential properties existing south of the site, which includes Mr. Flanary's property. Mr. Mower stated that Mr. Nguyen's property consists of one third of an acre and combined with the residential properties to the south total two acres. He stated that the geography of the land indicates that it would be difficult to develop those residential sites in a multifamily configuration. He stated that the residents would be able to retain their current zoning at this time and perhaps convert to commercial in the future. Ron Harmon MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion Carried. Board member, Brad Bell stated that DBM Consulting Engineers are clients of his to whom he provides consulting services. He stated that he has never spoken with them regarding these issues and does not provide them with land use consulting services. Mr. Bell stated that he does not believe that his business relationship with DBM constitutes a conflict of interest but would be willing to remove himself from voting on this rezone request if anyone objected to his participation. There were no objections from the Board. Ron Harmon MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation for APPRot;9L of CPA-2000-2B/CPZ-2000-2 Nguyen Amendment application. Motion Carried. CPA-2000-2C/CPZ-2000-3 COBLENTZ AMENDMENT Diana Nelson stated that this property is located at south 222nd Street and 88th Avenue South. She stated that the site consists of four tax parcels covering an area of approximately 12.58 acres. She stated that approximately 3.5 acres of the subject property is currently zoned Commercial Manufacturing 1 (CM 1) with a land use designation of industrial. Approximately 9.08 acres is zoned SR-6, Single Family Residential, 6.05 r units per acre with a plan designation of SF-6. Ms. Nelson stated that the applicants are requesting a proposed plan designation of Low-Density Multifamily and zonins of MR-G, Low Density Multifamily Residential, 16 units per acre. This site is located at the base of East Hill, adjacent to State Route 167, north of where the highway crosses over Central Avenue. Ms. Nelson stated that there is a single-family residence and an accessory building currently occupying the site. She stated that a significant portion of the property is encumbered with slopes exceeding 25%. Ms. Nelson stated that development of this eastern portion of the property would be severely limited due to the severe slope hazard. Ms. Nelson stated that the area to the south of this property is currently zoned MR-G and is under development with the Silver Springs Apartment complex containing 251 units. She stated that single family detached zoning and land use designations are located north and east of the site with SF-6 north and east. Ms. Nelson stated that State Route 167 provides a barrier to the west of the property and the slopes on the eastern one-third of the property provide a separator between this site and the adjacent properties on the hill above. She stated that several single family dwellings are in the area, zoned'SR-6 to the north with two of these properties having split land use designations of Industrial with CM-1 zoning in addition to the residential designation. Ms. Nelson stated that the land use designations and zoning on a portion of the subject site were changed in 1997 to Industrial and CM-1. This change occurred because of difficulty marketing the property for single family development due to the freeway noise. Ms. Nelson stated that the applicant is now requesting a change to MR-G, Low Density Multifamily for the same reason. She stated that the average daily traffic along South 228th is approximately 8300 vehicles. Ms. Nelson stated that this development would add approximately 2,000 additional daily vehicles and 198 p.m. peak hour trips to the local street system. Ms. Nelson stated that the proposed South 228th Corridor project will include a bridge across SR 167 to connect in the general vicinity of the southwest corner of the parcel. She stated that the precise alignment of Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 9 '-1 this corridor has not been determined so that the potential impacts to the subject property, because of the corridor project, cannot be determined at this time. She stated that the east leg of the proposed 228th Corridor is planned to cross over SR-167 and connect to the East Hill somewhere in this location. Ms. Nelson stated that noise from SR-167 has some impact on the site. However, other residential development exists along this corridor. Ms. Nelson stated that the applicant's request for this zoning would allow 201 multifamily units to be de%eioped on the property based on zoning alone. She stated that the current maximum residential density of this site would allow approximately 54 single-family dwellings. However, the topography, slope setbacks, the minimum lot size of 5700 square feet, dedication of public roads and the lack of clustering provisions for single family development in the zoning code would effectively reduce this number by at least half. Ms. Nelson stated that the City wishes to increase home ownership opportunities and promote single family residential development at all levels of affordability. She stated that the City has recently created a Multifamily Townhouse zone that is intended to be in fill and transition between multifamily and single family zones and help to provide more affordable home ownership options. Ms. Nelson stated that two-story condominium development in this area would act as a buffer and a transition area between the single-family zones to the north and east and the four-story apartment complex development to the south. She stated that the Townhouse zone allows clustering which would maximize the density of 12 or 16 units per acre while preserving the area with steep slopes. Ms. Nelson stated that the comprehensive plan designation of Low Density Multifamily applies both to MR- G, the zone the applicant is requesting, and MR-T, the zone that staff is recommending. Approval of the Low Density Multifamily Land Use Designation and SR-8 zoning would allow the applicant to request a rezone to MR-T 12, 16 or MRG, particularly when there is further information regarding the location of the corridor. Ms. Nelson stated that staff recommends APPROVAL of SR-8 zoning and Low Density Multifamily land use designation which would then allow the applicant to later apply for a rezone upon approval of this comp plan amendment request. Ms. Nelson clarified for Ms. Woodford that staff is recommending a rezone of the applicant's property to SR- 8 without contingencies to change the zoning to MR-T at this time. Ms. Nelson stated that although staff could tie the SR-8 zone to the MR-T zone, they do not specifically recommend taking this action in light of the fact that the corridor is going to have major impacts on this property. Ms.Nelson stated that staff believes it would be more appropriate to let the City Council make the ultimate decision on the applicant's rezone request, when the City may have additional information in respect to the corridor impacts. Ms. Nelson stated that by leaving the zoning options open with the applicant's request and staff's recommendation for a land use designation of Low Density Multifamily, the applicant would have the option to request MR-T 12, MR-T 16 or MRG zoning at a future date. She stated that as staff gathers further information from Public Works over the next few months, staffs recommendation on specific zoning might change based on where the corridor is placed in conjunction with the subject property. Gary Gill stated that the 228th Street Corridor Project is included in the City of Kent 2001-2006 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. Mr. Gill spoke about the current plans for construction of the corridor as well as the studies underway to analyze potential traffic impacts in the area of the proposed corridor that could substantially affect the subject property. Jon Johnson declared the Public Hearing open. Dana Mower, 502 16th St. Northeast, Suite 312, Auburn, WA 98002 submitted a copy of his summary dated November 27, 2000 for the record as Exhibit#8. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27. 2000 Page 10 Mr. Mower stated that if the subject property is rezoned MR-G, this would limit structure heights to 35 feet. He stated that if the property is rezoned MR-T, with a townhouse configuration, the structure would be limited to two stories. Mr. Mower stated that the Coblentz's property meets the criteria for development as low density multifamily as outlined in the 1990 Growth Management Act's urban growth policy. He stated that the urban growth policy encourages development in urban areas where adequate public utilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Mr. Mower stated that water, sewer, storm drainage and road system infrastructures are in place and available to this site with the capability of supporting a high-densir development. He stated that employment opportunities exist in close proximity. Mr. Mower stated that there is a shortage of high quality affordable housing in Kent. He stated that this proposal meets the Growth Management Act's Policy#4 to "encourage the availability of affordable housing for all economic segments of the population of the State. Promote a variety of residential densities and l:ottsit:g types, encourage preservation of existing housing stock. " Mr. Mower stated that this proposal meets buffering criteria as indicated in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Mower stated that the top of the bluff reaches approximately 225 feet above sea level and that the highest area of the site to be developed is about 125 feet. He stated that there is approximately a 300 to 400 foot horizontal separation between the single-family development to the east and the project. Mr. Mower stated that the City owns the five-acre site to the north and it is developed with a well. Mr. Mower stated that the most significant health, safety and welfare concern with this site is the elevated noise levels. He stated that Mr. Carl Bloom; an environmental analyst metered noise levels on site, which indicated levels substantially above the Washington Department of Transportation's (WDOT) minimum requirements for single family residential ownership. Mr. Mower stated that WDOT has indicated that they would only approve of commercial, multifamily or retail type of development on this site. Mr. Mower clarified with Ms. Woodford that as the developer for this site he intends to develop this properr as MR-G with no intention to reapply for a MR-T Town home zoning with the Board's concurrence. Greg Heath, 2214 Tacoma Road, Puyallup, WA stated that he owns Heath and Associates, a traffic- engineering firm in Puyallup, which serves the Puget Sound area. Mr. Heath stated that under existing zoning, the subject site could accommodate approximately 35,000 square feet of industrial development and approximately 72 single-family units. He stated that based on this type of development, he calculated that about 1000 daily trips and 100 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips would be generated. Mr. Heath indicated that if this site were developed with a 175-unit apartment complex,that peak hour trips would increase to 112. Ken Koss, 600 108th Avenue NTE, #600, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that he develops multifamily projects with the intent of building, managing and holding the developments as long term investments. Mr. Koss stated that when his company came to Kent they completed a ten-year feasibility study from 1995 to 2005, which indicated the need for additional 1191 multifamily housing units. Mr. Koss stated that his company hired the firm Hopson and Ferini who generate a quarterly housing need assessment of the Seattle Metropolitan area. He stated that Hopson and Ferini's report indicated that an additional 300 multifamily units would be needed from second quarter 2000 to the second quarter of 2001. Mr. Koss stated that his analysis supports a rezone to multifamily for the subject site. Betty Coblentz, 22320 88th Avenue South,Kent,WA 98031 stated that she owns the subject site and is a r ' real estate agent by profession. She stated that a residential group home sits north of the property, then two residences. Ms. Coblentz stated that she represents the two neighbors north of the site; Wahlers and Longstroms. Ms. Coblentz submitted a letter from the Longstroms for the record as Exhibit#9. She stated that the neighbors support development of the subject site and are requesting that their properties blend into the rezone as well. She stated that marketing the Longstrom and Wahler's residences for resale has been impossible due to the high noise volume. Ms. Coblentz stated that a property appraiser indicated that the Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 11 e-.., neighboring residences would not sell residential due to the noise levels and was unable to attach a dollar value to those properties. Ms. Coblentz stated that she inquired if WDOT would erect sound barriers at the time the 228th Street Corridor was constructed. She stated that WDOT indicated that it is not cost affective to build sound barriers for only three houses. She stated that the City approved a rezone for the front portion of our site to Industrial Commercial in 1997, with the back portion of the site remaining residential. Ms. Coblentz stated that this rezone discouraged development of residential or commercial on this site as it meant that egress and ingress to the residential area would have to run through the Industrial portion of the site. In response to Ms. Zimmerman, Ms. Coblentz stated that people would rent apartments rather then purchase a town home in this area even with high noise levels. She stated that because apartment dwellers typicall} move more frequently than homeowners do,the effects of high noise levels would not be a deterrent. Carl Bloom, 422 30th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98122 stated that he owns Environmental Analysis, an air quality noise consulting firm. Mr. Bloom stated that he measured existing noise levels on the Coblentz property over a 24-hour period, comparing those levels to existing noise regulations and criteria of other cities. Mr. Bloom stated that results of his study indicated that multifamily housing such as apartment complexes would best suit this site and is compatible with noise levels allowed in commercially zoned properties. Mr. Bloom stated that according to the WDOT, elevated noise levels affect the Coblentz property and would not be compatible for residential development. He stated that Housing and Urban Development (HUD) analvzes noise levels over a 24 hour period and adds a penalty of ten decibels to night time hours. Mr. Bloom stated that HUD typically would not lend money to develop properties with day/night noise levels higher than 75 decibels. Mr. Bloom stated that HUD would lend money for properties, which exhibit noise levels between 65 and 75 decibels when architectural enhancements are included in the development to reduce interior noise levels in those developments. Mr. Bloom stated that some special enhancements could include enhanced windows or using masonry or concrete panel facings. Mr. Bloom stated that the Coblentz property shows day/night levels of 76 decibels. Mr. Bloom stated that if WDOT were to identify noise levels along the 228th Street Corridor, they would be required to mitigate noise impacts most likely with sound barrier walls. Ron Harmon MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion CARRIED. Steve Dowell voiced concern over traffic impact and trip generation increases to 228th and Central Avenue based on development of the Coblentz property, including the currently developed MR-H properties, and the multifamily development(currently under construction on the MR-G property)next to the Coblentz site. In response to Mr. Dowell, Mr. Gill stated that Kent's traffic engineers estimate that development of the Coblentz property would generate an increase of approximately 80 peak hour trips. He stated that based on an estimated final build-out of 1,000 units combining the Coblentz property and surrounding properties, this could generate 600 peak hour vehicular trips in the area. Mr. Gill stated that currently 228th Street, East of Central Avenue handles approximately 8,300 daily vehicular trips. He stated that based on this statistic, he estimates additional 1,500 total daily trips and 80 peak hour trips could be generated. Mr. Gill stated that 228th Street is a collector arterial roadway and that the estimated trips would not over tax that classification of road. He stated that 228th could easily accommodate over 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles a day on a road of that classification. Terry Zimmerman stated that it seems that there are ways to mitigate noise levels for apartment complexes as well as ways to construct the 228th Street corridor,bridge and columns that would not impact development on Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 12 the Coblentz property. She stated that Kent needs more apartments and housing for low income families and voiced her support of staffs recommendation to approve the zoning change. Brad Bell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to adopt staff s recommendation to APPROVE CPA- 2000-2(C)/CPZ-2000-3 Coblentz Amendment with SR-8 zoning and Low Density Multi Family land use designation. Motion CARRIED. Chair Johnson stated that the Board needs to reconsider their previous vote concerning the Coblentz Amendment. City Attorney, Arthur Patrick Fitzpatrick recommended tabling the Coblentz Amendment until the end of the Public Hearing Session and then revisit the motion. Steve Dowell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to table the Coblentz Motion until the end of the Hearing. Motion CARRIED. #CPA-2000-2(E)/CPZ-2000-5 RanniEer Amendment Ms. Nelson stated that the Ranniger property is located at the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection of 132nd Avenue Southeast and Southeast 256th. The existing plan designations is SF-6, Single Family, six units per acre and the proposed plan designation is Commercial or Mixed Use Restricted. The existing zoning is SR 4.5, Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre for the two parcels on the northeast comer and SR-6, Single Family Residential, 6.05 units per acre for the three parcels in the southwest comer. Ms. Nelson stated that the proposed zoning is Professional and Office. She stated that the total area is approximately 4.15 acres and located on diagonally opposite comers of the intersection. Ms. Nelson stated that there are four existing single family detached residences located on the property with two on each comer. She stated that there are no inventoried wetlands on the site. Ms. Nelson stated that the area surrounding the subject property is residential in nature as all the zoning and land uses in the vicinity are residential. Ms. Nelson stated that there are no abutting commercial or office zoning or existing developments on or near the subject property. She stated that existing commercial developments are located less than one mile away both north of the site at the intersection of 132nd Avenue and Southeast 240th and south of the site at the intersection of 132nd Avenue and Kent Kangley Road. Ms. Nelson stated that existing office zoning is located approximately one mile to the south on the south side of Kent Kangley west of the shopping center and 1.25 to 1.5 miles west of the site along southeast 256th Street in several locations along 104th Avenue Southeast. Ms. Nelson stated that primary access to the site would come from either or both Southeast 256th and 132nd Avenue Southeast. She stated that both streets are classified as minor arterials. She stated that neither public street is improved to its design standard. Ms. Nelson stated that a project to improve traffic flow on Southeast 256th is currently under construction with major work planned for the intersection at 132nd Avenue. She stated that current average daily traffic along Southeast 256th is approximately 15,700 vehicles and along 132nd Avenue Southeast approximately 17,600 vehicles. Ms. Nelson stated that the proposed rezone has a potential to add an estimated 600 to 830 daily vehicle trips and 77 p.m.peak hour trips to the local street system. Ms. Nelson stated that the vast majority of development along both 132nd and Southeast 256th is residential subdivisions with the backyards abutting these streets. She stated that most subdivisions within the city abut at least one arterial street. Ms. Nelson stated that city development patterns do not support the conversion of residentially zoned property in the middle of a single-family neighborhood to an office zone based solely on traffic concerns. Ms. Nelson stated that a rezone of this property would effectively generate a significant amount of additional traffic on both of these arterials beyond that which would be created by single family development. She stated that the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan has several goals and policies relating to the Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 13 development of existing commercial areas rather than creating new ones. Ms. Nelson stated that these goals include: Goal LU-12 to 'Promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen existing commercial districts, to minimize costs associated ivith extension of facilities, and to allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one another. " and Police LU-12.3 "Develop regulatory incentives to encourage inf l/ development in existing commercial areas. Regulator), incentives may include urban, mixed-use zoning and higher density zones, planned unit developments, transfer of density credits, and streamlined permit processes. " Ms. Nelson stated that the office zone allows a variety of office and service uses most of which are also permitted in the Community Commercial (CC) zone. She stated that the subject property is located benveen two existing commercial areas which are not built out to maximum capacity. Ms. Nelson stated undeveloped property with existing office zoning is located to the south as well as one to two miles west of the site. She stated that along 104th Avenue several vacant parcels with existing office zoning are for sale. Ms. Nelson stated that in addition, at least two developed medical dental offices/complexes have available space advertised for rent or lease. Ms. Nelson stated that other methods are available to generate additional office availability other than creating an additional commercial node in the middle of a residential area. She stated that the addition of the office uses such as medical/dental clinics to the Community Commercial zone by a zoning code amendment would allow for more office availability in locations more compatible with the City's desired development patterns. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL of this request. Jon Johnson declared the Public Heating open. Jerry Klein, 823 Joshua Green Building, Seattle, WA 98101-2236 stated that he is the attorney representing Leo Brutsche who is the owner of the properties on the southwest comer of this intersection. He stated that Mr. Brutsche strongly supports the application for a rezone amendment. Mr. Klein stated that the applicant, Mr. Ranniger is in the same position as Mr. Brutsche who has lived in this area for a long time. He stated that Mr. Ranniger has been a physician in the East Hill area for 30 years and many people appreciate having access to his medical services in the community. Mr. Klein urged the Board to consider this information in their evaluation. Mr. Klein stated that the Kent Code Section 12.02.050 specifies three considerations in reviewing your consideration of the proposed amendment. • That the amendment will not result in development that will adversely effect the public health, safety or general welfare, and • That the amendment be based on new information from that which was available when the comp plan was adopted, and • That the amendment be consistent with the other goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Klein stated that he can not conceive of anything that would be more beneficial for the public health than a physician. He stated that the proposed amendment would not create any adverse environmental consequences on the property. Mr. Klein stated that with regard to new information, the entire Meridian, Soos Creek area was annexed in 1996 with substantial development following such as Bayberry Crest. He stated that the most profound change is the widening of 256th and 132nd,turning these roads into major arterials. Mr. Klein stated that the Soos Creek area is included within the Urban Growth Area. He stated that based on `^ the aforementioned facts,there has been a plethora of development since adoption of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Klein spoke about the consistency of the proposed amendment as it relates to the comprehensive plan. He stated that LU-13.4 &.5 speak about having neighborhood facilities available while maintaining convenient pedestrian oriented access to these facilities within the small neighborhood cornmunities. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 14 Mr. Klein stated that staff referred to land use Goal LU-12 that encourages infill development in commercial areas. He stated that he does not believe that this infill policy is applicable to this subject property and does not agree with staff s report that there is any problem with our zoning code or with our comprehensive plan. Mr. Klein stated that it is important to understand why medical facilities are not included within the NCC, Neighborhood Commercial Centers or the CC, Community Commercial Centers. Mr. Klein stated that the potential exists of having people with contagious diseases entering busy commercial areas, therefore, it makes sense to provide neighborhood facilities such as the medical facility Dr. Ranniger is proposing in less dense areas. Fred Ml endosa, 555 West Smith Street, Kent, WA stated that he represents Mr. Ranniger as his attorney. Mr. Mendosa reiterated that Mr. Ranninger has worked on the East Hill for thirty years as a family practitioner with one other doctor in his office. He stated that Mr. Ranninger needs to expand his practice and believes that East Hill could use two or three additional family practitioners as the burgeoning population grows. Mr. Mendosa stated that he could not expand his current location because of its zoning. He stated that Mr. Ranninger has opted to sell a portion of his property where his medical practice is located and seek a new location where he can expand his facility. Mr. Mendosa stated that a medical office is not permitted in the commercial zone. He stated that when staff s report states that there are a variety of uses that can be placed in a commercial setting, a medical office is not one of them. Mr. Mendosa stated that very little office space exists on East Hill that would be suitable for this medical office. Mr. Mendosa stated that the proposed site is not located in the middle of a major neighborhood. He stated that wetlands exist near the proposed site, Mr. Mendosa stated that the impending traffic improvements to 132nd and 256th would include channelization and curbing. It is going to be difficult for anybody who owns one of the single family residences on the proposed site, to apply for a permit that would allow them to build anything that would provide access to the property other then a right-in or right-out access. Mr. Mendosa stated that there are major bus routes moving both directions on 132nd and 256th that could provide access to a medical facility on the proposed site. Ted Dixon, 911 East Temperance Street, Kent, WA stated that a total of 6.1 square miles of city land is located east of the Benson Highway of which 68.8 acres is zoned"O". He stated that 25% of the"O" zoning is designated wetlands, 30% of the land is Sequoia Junior High School and 55% of the "0" zoning on East Hill is not buildable for office use. Mr. Nixon stated that "0" zoning was designed to be compatible with residential neighborhoods per the Zoning Code. He stated that the maximum site coverage for Office zoning is 30% compared to CC or NC zoning at 40% or Downtown Commercial zoning at 100%. Mr.Nixon spoke at length on setback and landscape requirements in the"0" zone. Mr. Nixon stated that the current separation distances between the two major intersections, in relation to the subject property, appear to be two miles. He stated that current planning suggests that those separation distances should be no more than a half-mile apart to maintain a village concept within walking distance from the residential areas. Mr. Nixon stated that the subject property should be developed in a manner compatible to the neighborhood. He stated that Dr. Ranniger is a valuable asset on East Hill and should be located in the heart of the community that he serves. Christopher Brown, 9688 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle,WA 98118 stated that he is a licensed engineer. He stated that if the subject property sites, located diagonally opposite each other on the intersection, are developed with single family residences, it could be difficult to gain access to these properties. Mr. Brown Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 15 stated that the development of the northeast quadrant would generate about 57 vehicular trips per day and approximately 134 vehicular trips in the southwest quadrant. Mr. Brown stated that the northeast quadrant would generate 6 peak hour trips and the southeast corner approximately 14-peak hour trips. He stated that rezoning the northeast quadrant for use as a medicabdental facility and the southwest quadrant for use as an office facility would increase the traffic volume by approximately 567 vehicular daily trips. Mr. Brown stated that his calculations closely align with staff s report of approximately 600 to 800 daily trips. Mr. Brown referred to Kent's Development Assistant Brochure Section 6.3, in elaborating upon minimum comer clearance standards as they relate to the subject properties and how to eliminate adverse traffic flow elements at signalized intersections that would impede traffic. Mr. Brown stated that there is no way to access at least three of the lots on the northwest quadrant if developed with single family other than right-in and right-out. He stated that the same condition exists on the southwest quadrant. Mr. Brown spoke at length on alternative design elements for access to the subject properties. He stated that the existing zoning and staffs proposal for the subject property creates an impossible land use development situation as well as creating the potential for traffic movement hazards. James Marso, 34815 Pacific Highway, Federal Way, WA stated that he is a real estate broker for ReMax Realty West representing Roy and Deanna Gitchel in the sale of their property located on the northeast comer of 256th and 132nd. Avenue Southeast. He stated that he marketed the property in various venues displaying a prominent sign identifying the zoning and development potential in the SR-4.5 zoning. Mr. Marso stated that every inquiry was met with resistance to the plan that we proposed. He stated that four months into the process, Dr. Dan Ranninger and his wife came along with a different concept for this particular intersection. Mr. Marso stated that if a developer were able to overcome all the mechanical details associated with locating driveways close to intersections, this intersection is still unsuitable as a residential neighborhood. He stated that there is daily vehicular travel at this intersection of 15,000 cars in one direction and 17,000 cars in another direction. He stated that the speed at which cars travel in this area typically exceed the 25 mile per hour speed limit posing safety risks to the children in the area. He stated that the volume of noise at 132nd and 256th would deter people from purchasing in this area. Mr. Marso stated that the development of a medical office would create an excellent buffer for the residential neighborhood surrounding it. He stated that this type of development presents an excellent and orderly transition for the community while recognizing the growth of the Kent area and the need for more office space on East Hill. He stated that he supports the applicant's request for a rezone. Dr. Ranninger, Kent, WA stated that he and his partner, Dr. Linda Geer, in contemplating the need for two additional partners, they estimated the need for twice the square footage as they currently have. He stated that the present plan drawn up by Mr. Nixon includes just 2200 square feet. Mr. Ranniger stated that he felt the lot at the intersection of 132nd and 256th would be a good location to construct his facility. He stated that in looking at the Gitchel's home,he determined that it would not be suitable for conversion to an office. Mr. Ranniger stated that he entered an earnest money agreement with Mr. Gitchel contingent upon approval of a 2200 square foot office. Mr. Ranniger stated that he did not intend to become embroiled in controversy. He stated that the addition of a medical facility on the subject property would be an amenity to the community. Mr. Ranniger stated that at the time he prepared his proposal to the City of Kent for a rezone request, he was informed that you could not spot rezone. He stated that he was told to include a bigger plan, which would add to the comprehensive plan. He stated that at the inception of this application, he was advised to include Mr. Brutsche's property as part of the application proposal, therefore encompassing parcels of land on two comers. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 i^ Page 16 Roy Gitchel, 18703 Southeast May Valley Road, #A, Issaquah, WA 98027 stated that he has resided on the property at the intersection of 132nd and 256th since 1979. He stated that his property has been reduced from 1.5 acres to less than Iacre due to the widening of 132nd and 256th. Mr. Gitchel stated that his property has deteriorated as a single-family residence and the zoning has changed from multiple units and apartments down to 4.5 units per acre. Mr. Gitchel stated that the only available access to his property is right-turn in and right-turn out. He stated that once the city completes its street improvements, a solid island would be constructed past the propem with no possibility of access to the property. Mr. Gitchel stated that Mr. Ranniger is the first person who has shown interest in his property since it was listed for sale in May. He voiced his support of the Ranninger's rezone request. Beverly Riedler, 13110 SE 258th Street, Kent, WA 98031 stated that her residence abuts the southwest corner of the Brutsche property. She stated that the Brutsche's are requesting a rezone to Commercial as they did two years ago, at which time their rezone request was denied. Ms. Riedler stated that traffic continues to increase and accessing 132nd Avenue from her community from 258th Avenue has become dangerous. She stated that the addition of a commercial development would increase traffic congestion and disrupt the quiet nature of their traditional neighborhood where she has resided for 12 years. She stated that the Bayberry Crest community located west of her neighborhood is quiet and would like to see that the nature of that community be maintained. Ms. Riedler spoke about her concerns with increased noise, pollution and water drainage run off if commercial development were to occur on the subject site. She stated that commercial business traffic would pose safety factors for children walking to and from Meridian Elementary School. Ms. Riedler stated that many of Dr. Ranniger's patients would be traveling from outlying areas to his facility as many HMO insurance plans dictate the preferred care provider that a patient can use. She stated that she could not see how Dr. Ranninger would increase his patient base by locating his medical office within this community. Ms. Riedler stated that commercial facilities are already easily accessible from their residential community without the need to add additional commercial development. Ms. Riedler submitted Letters signed by her neighbors,for the record as Exhibits #11 through #18. Lee Robertson, 13104 SE 258th, Kent, WA 98031 spoke of his concerns over traffic issues and the difficulties experienced by the residents in accessing 132nd Avenue from their respective neighborhoods. Mr. Robertson stated that Dr. Ranninger currently owns property at 116th and 240th where he could apply for a rezone for a medical office. He stated that medical facilities currently exist at 240th and 132nd Avenue. Mr. Robertson stated that commercial development does not guarantee what will end up in your community as eventually businesses may convert to other uses. He stated that he has resided in this community for 13 years and voiced his support to retain current zoning. Kathy Baskin, 25630 130th Avenue Southeast, Kent,WA submitted a letter she had addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board for the record as Exhibit #19 and a letter signed by Dana and Robert Cox and Shelley Lindsay for the record as Exhibit #20. She stated that she resides in Bayberry Crest. Ms. Baskin r., stated that although she does not believe it was Dr. Ranninger's intent to offend anyone, she is offended. Ms. Baskin stated that her community has been dismissed as insignificant and unsubstantial which is not true. She stated that she sat on a City of Kent School District committee to consider expanding their boundaries as the number of residential neighborhoods on East Hill have increased. Ms. Baskin stated that new schools have been constructed to accommodate the increase. She stated that this does not imply insignificance. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 17 Ms. Baskin stated that improvements to the roadway has been to increase it to a three lane road with a two- way left turn lane from I I6th to 132nd Avenue which includes a bike lane that accesses the Soos Creek Trail. Ms. Baskin stated that she is concerned for the safety and welfare of her children as well as all the children in her community specifically with the increase in traffic that would occur with a commercial development. She stated that the southwest comer of the subject property backs up to a storm water retention pond. She stated that the pond backs up to some of my neighbors and is located 20 feet from her deck. She voiced concern that if the subject property was developed as a commercial site, the water volume in the water retention pond could increase, thereby flooding their land decreasing property values. Ms. Baskin stated that a commercial business could not be contained in an 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. scenario, as the potential exists for alarm system activation 24 hours per day with the possibility of no response. This scenario exemplifies the fact that quality of life would be compromised and that stress levels could elevate for the residents living in the adjoining communities. She asked the Board to consider staff's recommendation to DENY this rezone request. Darrell Baskin, 25630 130tb Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98031 submitted a letter and map of the Bayberry Subdivision addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board for the record as Exhibit# 21. Mr. Baskin stated that he resides in Bayberry Crest and is the president of their homeowner's association. He stated that he represents their community in stating that a commercial development is not warranted, not needed and not desired by their community. He stated that the Bayberry Crest is an upscale community consisting of 48 homes ranging in value from $200,000. to $300,000 and this area needed to be retained solely as single family residential.. A commercial development would devalue these properties and affect quality of life. Mr. Baskin stated that he believed when the City of Kent planned the road improvements from 116th easterly just beyond 132nd, they did not consider the development of commercial office buildings nor a zoning change. He believes that a commercial project would be incompatible with the current roadway system. Mr. Baskin reiterated his concern over the storm water retention pond and how water run off from a potential commercial development could be an issue for mitigation. Mr. Baskin stated that he would urge the Board to retain this area as residential and voiced his support of staffs recommendation to DENY this request. Mike Wilcox, 25506 132nd Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 stated that his residence is north of the subiect property. He stated that he and his wife are raising 10 children and voiced concern that the quality of life would diminish with the development of a commercial center and that traffic would increase dramatically. Mr. Wilcox stated that his property is close to the northern boundary of the subject property and if commercial development is approved, their property could be devalued. He stated that a five-acre parcel of land exists north of our site. Mr. Wilcox said that he could foresee a developer purchasing the five acres, his land, and the subject corner property to develop a well-planned single family community. Mr. Wilcox voiced his support to DENY this application request.. Shelly Lindsay, 12927 SE 257th Street, Kent, WA 98031 submitted a letter from the Gisth Family as Exhibit#22, from the Greening Family as Exhibit# 23 and from the Teasley Family as Exhibit#24 for the record. Ms. Lindsay stated that road improvements which have occurred near the subject property did not take into consideration impacts to the area. If this property were rezoned to commercial, vehicular traffic would increase on a road system that already experiences high volumes of vehicular travel. The ambience of the residential community would be threatened. Noise levels would increase. Ms. Lindsay spoke on behalf of her neighbor who is an office manager for a thriving dental business in Kent on Central Avenue. She stated that none of the patients who use this dental service lives near that business. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 18 Ms. Lindsay emphasized that the success of a medical or dental practice does not depend on the proximity of its patients but the professional skill of those who practice there. Ms. Lindsay stated that she is a nurse and sensitive to the needs of office or medical personnel. She stated that a medical facility in their neighborhood would have negative impacts to the residents, reiterating some of the same concerns spoken of by her neighbors. Ms. Lindsay stated that their residence would suffer from decreased property values and the ability to sell their home. Ms. Lindsay urged the Board to protect the quality of their neighborhood and voiced her support to recommend DENIAL of the applicant's request for a rezone. Ken Teasley, 25716 130th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98031 stated that he has lived in Kent 16 years and resides in the Bayberry Crest community. He stated that his family made a sizeable investment when moving to Bayberry Crest and would like to see that this areas is maintained as residential only. Mr. Teasley stated that the any commercialization in this area is in direct conflict with the quality of life that they experience as a residential community. He stated that if the subject property were developed with fast food restaurants, providing all night drive through windows, he and other residents would be subjected to the noise and would no longer have the freedom to keep their windows open at night. Mr. Teasley asked the Board to consider staffs recommendation to DENY the applicant's request. Ron Harmon MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried. Sharon Woodford empathized with Mr. Gitchel's concern that his property would potentially be difficult to develop. She stated that it would not benefit the community to incorporate a medical facility on the subject property as the potential for disease exposure to the surrounding residents would increase and vehicular traffic would increase congestion in this area. Ms. Woodford stated that she is concerned about what would be proposed for the southwest comer of the subject property, as this property could be developed with something other than office. Ms. Nelson stated that the City of Kent's Professional and Office zone functions under two land use designations; Mixed Use Restricted with a Professional and Office zone as well as Commercial with a Professional Office zone. Ms. Nelson stated that if the land use designation was commercial, the potential exists to rezone the Professional and Office zone to Coramunity Commercial or General Commercial. Ms. Woodford voiced her support of staffs recommendation to DENY the applicant's request. Steve Dowell stated that he concurs with Ms. Woodford in recommending DENIAL of the applicant's request. Tern Zimmerman said that she is a former resident of this neighborhood stating that she was impressed with the high caliber of the Bayberry Crest Community. She stated that she would not support commercial development for this area. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she supports staffs recommendation to DENY the applicant's request. Ron Harmon stated that he supports staffs recommendation for DENIAL of the applicant's request. Brad Bell said that he resides by Lake Meridian and is familiar with the area. Mr. Bell acknowledged Dr. Ranniger's value to the community but voiced his concurrence with the residents in supporting staff s recommendation for DENIAL. David Malik stated that he supports staff s recommendation for DENIAL Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27. 2000 Page 19 Jon Johnson stated that it has been proven that single family development is compatible along major artenals and felt that the subject property could be designed to accommodate attractive single family parcels. Mr. Johnson stated that he supports staff s recommendation for DENIAL. Ron Harmon MOVED and Tent' Zimmerman SECONDED to support staff s recommendation to DENY - CPA-2000-2(E)/CPZ-2000-5 Ranniger Amendment. Motion CARRIED. CPA-2000-2(C)/CPZ-2000-3 COBLENTZ AMENDMENT Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that after careful consideration and consultation with another attorney, this amendment has already been heard and considered by the Board. He stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to allow for public testimony, which occurred. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the Legal department recommends if the Board wishes to reconsider their motion they will have to move to reopen the matter, then move to withdraw the prior decision and finally move to make a new decision. David Malik MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED to remove CPA-2000-2(C)/CPZ-2000-3 Coblentz Amendment from the table. Motion CARRIED. A motion to reconsider the Board's original action failed. The Board's previous motion STANDS as follows: Brad Bell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to adopt staff s recommendation to APPROVE CPA- 2000-2(C)/CPZ-2000-3 Coblentz Amendment with SR-8 zoning and Low Density Multi Family land use designation. Motion CARRIED. CPA-2000-2(F) KENT/FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPTTALFACIIIM PLAN AMENDMENT Senior Planner, Charlene Anderson stated that this plan requires a yearly update. She stated that the Federal Way School District is proposing an amendment to their school impact fees. Ms. Anderson stated that staff is recommending approval of the Kent and Federal Way School District's Capital Facilities Text Amendment. CPA-2000-2(G) CITY OF KENT CAPTI'AL FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT Charlene Anderson stated that this plan requires a yearly update. She stated that the capital facilities element goes into the city's annual budget and is approved for cost and revenue issues. Ms. Anderson stated that there were some changes from the November 8 Capital Facilities Plan for the City of Kent with the addition of some transportation and utilities projects. Ms. Anderson stated that staff is recommending APPROVAL of the City of Kent Capital Facilities Text Amendment. Jon Johnson declared the Public Hearing open. Fred High, Executive Director for Kent school district, Kent, WA stated that in deference to the late hour he would not present a summary but would answer any questions from the Board. Steve Dowell MOVED and Tent'Zimmerman SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion CARRIED. Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED to send CPA-2000-2(F) Kent/Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan Amendment and CPA-2000-2(G) City of Kent Capital Facilities Plan Amendment on to City Council without a recommendation. Motion CARRIED. Fred Satterstrom announced Diana Nelson's departure from the City of Kent to accept a principal planner --N position with the City of Lakewood and wished her well. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Johnson opened the meeting for nominations. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 27, 2000 Page 20 Brad Bell NOMINATED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to appoint Tem, Zimmerman to the position of Chair. Terry Zimmerman accepted. Ron Harmon NOMINATED and Brad Bell SECONDED a motion to appoint Sharon Woodford to the position of Vice Chair. Sharon Woodford accepted. AD.IOUP.NrN1ENT Tem,Zimmerman MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to adjourn the meeting. Motion CARRIED. Chair Jon Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, F d N. Satterstrom, AICP Secretary City of Kent, Washington 2001 - 2006 Preliminary Capital Facilities Plan 40 • KENT WASH IN G T O N November 21, 2000 2001 - 2006 Capital Improvement Program Sources of Funds Amounts in 000's Street Fund Revenue Bonds- 14% Drainage 4% Councilmanic Bond Proceeds 20% Utility Funds 16% Capital Improvement Fund Public Safety Bonds 11% 21% Grants Alternative Funding ' 7% Sources-Parks 5% Other Funding Sources 2% !I I Recommend 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Sources of Funds Capital Improvement Fund 3,111 2,735 2,672 2,885 2,794 2,770 16,967 Grants 2,275 438 1,400 595 4,355 1,242 10,305 Other Funding Sources 553 950 98 735 30 2,366 Alternative Funding Sources-Parks 2.645 633 1,512 1,240 1,228 536 7,794 Public Safety Bonds - 30,000 - - 30,000 Couneilmanic Bond Proceeds - 2,000 21,000 - 6.273 29,273 Street Fund 4,511 2,251 3,733 4,056 3,955 2,727 21,233 Revenue Bonds-Drainage 6,279 6,279 Utility Funds 5,658 3,931 3,854 3,623 3.712 3.435 24.213 Total Sources of Funds 18,753 42,938 13,269 39,678 16,779 17,013 148,430 1 cw combined CIP requests Ot.xls 11/21/00 2001 - 2006 Capital Improvement Program Projects Forecast Amounts in 000's Public Safety 29% r. & Community '`- Services >.:.. 16% Transportation 20/ow General Government 11% Utility Fund Projects 24% i Recommend 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Projects Transportation 4,511 2,151 3,633 7,406 8,645 3,002 29,348 Public Safety 490 4,550 26,550 8,550 550 3,523 44,213 Parks, Recreation 8 Community Services 6,886 3,431 4,357 3,145 2,947 2,828 23,594 General Govemment ' 1,508 3,175 1,175 4,475 1,225 4,525 16,083 Utility Fund Projects' 5,358 3,631 3,554 14,202 5,312 3,135 35,192 Total Projects 18,753 16,938 39,269 37,778 18,679 17,013 148,430 'Includes reallocation(from General Gov't-Facilities)of cost of Maintenance Facility funded with councilmanic bonds repaid from Street.CIP and Utility Fund operating transfers 2 Capital Improvement Program for Years 2001 -2006 Recommend 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Sources of Funds Capital Improvement Fund 1,716 1,445 1,445 1,495 1,495 1.495 9,091 CIP Fund-REET 2nd Otr 1,445 1,290 1,227 1,390 1,299 1,275 7,926 Youth/Teen 250 100 65 - - 415 Grants-Parks 2,275 438 1,400 395 300 867 5,675 Donations and Contributions 140 100 3 243 Other Funding Sources 13 750 30 30 823 Alternative Funding Sources-Parks 2,645 633 1,512 1,240 1,228 536 7,794 Public Safety Bonds - 30,000 - 30,000 Sewer Utility Fund 521 403 415 427 440 454 2,660 Drainage Utility Fund 3,962 1,886 1,184 1,562 1,625 1,070 11.289 Revenue Bonds-Drainage 6,279 6.279 Grants-Street - - - 200 4,055 375 4,630 LID&Mitigation Payments 100 - - - 735 835 Street Fund 4,511 2,251 3,733 4,056 3,955 2,727 21.233 Councilmanic Bond Proceeds - 2,000 21,000 6,273 29,273 Water Fund 1.175 1,642 2.255 1.634 1.647 1,911 10.264 Total Sources of Funds 18,753 42,938 13,269 39,678 16,779 17,013 148,430 Transportation Corridor Improvements 500 500 2,000 2,000 1,000 6,000 Arterials 1,361 - - 500 5,965 900 8,726 rsection&Signal Improvements 1,150 275 250 250 250 650 2.825 ,r Improvements 1.500 1,376 1,383 4,656 1.430 1,452• 11.797 Lai Transportation 4,511 2,151 3,633 7,406 8,646 3,002 29,348 Public Safety Fire&Life Safety Requests 395 475 475 475 475 475 2,770 Police 95 75 75 8,075 75 75 8,470 Public Safety Facilities 4,000 26,000 2.973 32.973 Total Public Safety 490 4,560 26,550 8,560 550 3,523 44,213 Parks,Recreation &Community Services 6,886 3,431 4,357 3,145 2,947 2,828 23,594 General Government General Government Facilities 337 350 350 3.650 400 3,700 8,787 Other General Government 1,171 2.825 825 825 825 825 7.296 Total General Government 1,508 3,175 1,175 4,475 1,225 4,526 16,083 Utility Fund Projects Sanitary Sewer 421 303 315 1,952 340 354 3,685 Stormwater Drainage 3,862 1,786 1.084 7.466 3,425 970 18,593 Water Projects 1,075 1,542 2,155 4,784 1,547 1,811 12,914 Total Utility Fund Projects 5,358 3,631 3,554 14,202 6,312 3,135 36,192 Total All Projects 18,753 16,938 39,269 37,778 18,679 17,013 148,430 3 nv combined CIP requests 01.7ds 11121= Transportation Capital Improvement Program for Years 2001 -2006 Recommend 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Sources of Funds Grants 200 4,055 375 4,630 LID&Mitigation Payments 100 735 835 Street Fund 4.411 2,151 3,633 3,956 3.855 2.627 20.633 Total Sources of Funds 4,511 2,151 3,633 4,156 8,645 3,002 26,098 Corridor Improvements 228th Corridor- West Corridor 500 500 2,000 2,000 1,000 6,000 Arterials Orillia Road Repair 100 - - - - - 100 212th Street Rehab 300 300 132nd Ave Improvements(240th-2441h) 250 250 Washington Avenue Widening 300 - 300 72nd Avenue(180th-188th) 111 - - - - - 111 72nd Avenue(196th-200th) 250 - 500 750 84th Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - 500 500 Pacific Hwy South HOV Lanes-Phase II 300 - 4,965 - 5,265 Military Road Improvements - 150 150 116th Ave Imp(256th-KK(SR516)) - 500 500 Central Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation 500 - 500 Intersection&Signal Improvements - James&Central Intersection Improve 200 - - 200 208th&98th Intersection Improvements 100 - - 100 WVH&277th Intersection Improvement - 250 250 Military&Reith Intersection Improvement-A 450 - - - 450 94th Ave @ Canyon Or Traffic Signal 400 - 400 1-5 &277th Intersection Improvement 275 275 Military Rd&277th Intersection Improve - - 650 650 116th&248th Signal - 250 - 250 120th&248th Street Improvement - 250 - - 250 Other Improvements Miscellaneous Asphalt Overlays 478 497 517 538 560 582 3.172 Slurry Seal Program 50 50 75 75 75 75 400 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Installation 300 300 300 300 300 300 1,800 Street Lighting Wiring Upgrades 60 - - - - 60 Traffic Signal Controller Cabinet Replacements 40 40 80 Neighborhood Traffic Control 75 75 75 75 75 75 450 Traffic Signal Energy Conservation 25 - 25 City Wide Guardrail&Safety Improvement 30 30 30 30 30 30 180 Bike Paths - 100 100 100 100 100 500 Commuter Shuttle Bus 45 45 45 45 45 45 270 Street Tree Maintenance Program 141 141 141 141 141 141 846 Street Striping Program 81 83 85 87 89 89 514 Pavement Rating Survey 15 15 15 15 15 15 90 Lincoln Avenue(Smith-James) 150 - - - - - 150 Freight Mobility Study 10 - - 10 Total Projects 4,511 2,151 3,633 4,156 8,645 3,002 26,098 .� 4 Parks,Recreation and Community Services Capital Improvement Program for Years 2001 -2006 Recommend 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Sources of Funds CIP-REET 2nd Otr 1,445 1,290 1.227 1,390 1,299 1.275 7,926 Capital Improvement Fund 118 120 120 120 120 120 716 Grants 2,275 438 1,400 395 300 867 5,675 Youth/Teen Fund 250 100 65 - - 415 Donations/Contributions 140 100 3 - 243 Other Funding Sources 13 750 30 - 30 823 Alternative Funding 2.645 633 1.512 1,240 1,228 536 7 794 Total Sources of Funds 6,886 3,431 4,357 3,145 2,947 2,828 23,594 Projects Risk Reduction&Safety Improvements 243 262 233 213 213 1,164 Light Pole Replacement 20 150 150 150 150 45 665 Emergency Park Repairs 25 30 30 35 35 155 Tennis/Basketball Court Re-surfacing 40 20 35 20 15 15 145 Trails/Parking Improvements 25 30 30 30 35 150 Service Club Ballfields 1,400 800 2,200 Restroom Renovation 25 30 30 30 35 150 Lake meridian Park Improvements 100 210 - 310 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation 15 15 20 20 25 95 Grant Matching Funds 50 105 65 110 25 355 Architect/Engineering&.Master Plans 10 25 30 30 35 35 165 Sign Replacement 10 10 - 10 10 151. 55 Downtown Sidewalk Replacement Enhancement 85 90 90 90 355 Golf Complex Projects 43 45 45 45 45 45 268 Soccer Field Renovation 800 300 1,100 Skate Park Development/Acquisition 400 400 Green River Disabled Fishing Access/Boeing Tr-. 300 300 Canterbury Park Development 238 238 Regional Trail System Planning 10 10 Lake Fenwick Park Development 75 75 Recreation Facility Feasibility Study 50 50 Botanical Garden 25 25 Mill Creek Trail Acquisition&Development 25 200 - 225 Big Blue Mobile Computer Lab - 65 - 65 Spnngwood Park Improvements 40 25 - 65 132nd Street Park Development - 750 - 750 Green River Corridor - 25 25 Demolition of Rental Houses - 25 - 25 East Hill Youth Sports Facility Development - 600 1.100 1,700 Uplands Playfield Improvements - 40 - 40 Seven Oaks Park Improvements - 35 - 35 West Fenwick Renovations - - 307 307 Kiwanis Tot Lot#1 Improvements - - 40 40 Tudor Square Renovations - - 30 30 Pine Tree Park Improvements - - 300 - 300 West Hill Park Development(Seattle Water) - - - 777 777 5 cw combined CIP requests 01.xts 11/21/00 Parks,Recreation and Community Services Capital Improvement Program for Years 2001 -2006 Recommend 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Clark Lake Development - 300 30 - - 330 228th Corridor Park/Trailhead(Russell Woods) 25 25 Town Square Park - 1,000 - 1,000 Interurban Trail - - 30 30 Riverwalk/Riverview Park Development - 12 550 562 S. 272nd St. Neighborhood Park Development - 400 260 660 Commons Playfield Renovations - - 1.040 1.040 Turnkey Park Renovations 63 - 63 Valley Floor Athletic Complex Acq.&D. 770 770 Clark Lake Land Acquisition 3,095 - - - - - 3,095 Grant Matching-Land Acquisition 75 100 100 100 100 100 575 BMX Property Donation 200 - - - 200 Panther Lake Neighborhood Park Acquisition - 350 - - 350 East Hill Youth Sports Complex 200 - - 200 Kent Memorial Park Acquisition 1.000 - - - 1.000 Turnkey Park Acquisition&Parking Lot Development - 250 325 575 3/4 to Pick-up 25 25 Earth Works/Mill Creek Park 14 14 Major Capital and Lifecycle Renovations 250 250 Outside Services 16 16 Total Projects 6,886 3,431 4,357 3,145 2,947 2,828 23,594 r 1 e 6 cw combined CIP requests 01.xls 11/21/00 General Government Facilities Capital Improvement Program for Years 2001 -2006 Recommend 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Sources of Funds Councilmanic Bond Proceeds 13,000 6.273 19.273 Voted Public Safety Bonds 30,000 30,000 CIP Revenues Required 337 350 350 400 400 400 2.237 Total Sources of Funds 337 30,350 350 13,400 400 6.673 51,510 Projects Emergency Facility Repairs 100 100 100 100 100 100 600 Miscellaneous Furniture 82 25 25 25 25 25 207 Sealcoat Parking Lots 40 50 50 50 50 50 290 HVAC Repairs and Controls Installation 40 40 Roof Repairs 75 75 Other Facility Repairs&Improvements 175 175 225 225 225 1,025 Campus Expansion and Renovation 3,300 3,300 New East Hill Maintenance Facility 13,000 13.000 Subtotal General Gov't Facilities 337 350 350 13,400 400 3,700 18,537 Public Safety Facilities Projects - Municipal Court Building 2,973 2,973 Police Headquarter Building 4,000 16,000 20,000 Other Public Safety Facility Improvements 10.000 10.000 Subtotal Public Safety Facilites 4,000 26,000 - 2,973 - 32,973 Total Projects 337 4,350 26,350 13,400 400 6,673 51,510 7 cw combined CIP requests WAS 11121= Other General Government Projects Capital Improvement Program for Years 2001-2006 Recommend 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Sources of Funds Capital Improvement Fund 771 425 425 425 425 425 2.896 From Utility&Street Funds 400 400 400 400 400 400 2,400 Councilmanic Bonds 2.000 8.000 10.000 Total Sources of Funds 1,171 2,825 825 8,825 825 825 15.296 Other General Government Projects Water Automated Meter Reading/Rate Study 30 30 Agricultural Land Preservation 50 50 Miscellaneous Projects 100 125 125 125 125 125 725 Various Department Equipment 221 221 Printing Press 70 70 Police and Fire Automation 8.000 Automation Projects 700 2,700 700 700 700 700 6.200 Total Other General Government Projects .1,171 2,825 825 8,825 825 825 15,296 t 8 -.o r^r^D�r•M CIP recuests 01.xis 11MIMO Public Safety Capital Improvement Program for Years 2001 -2006 Recommend 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2006 Total Sources of Funds CIP Revenues Required 490 550 550 550 550 550 3.240 Total Sources of Funds 490 550 550 550 550 550 3,240 Fire&Life Safety Fire Equipment Replacement Fund 300 400 400 400 400 400 2.300 Thermal Imaging Cameras 35 - - - - 35 Breathing Apparatus And Pass Alarm Replacemi 40 40 Hurst Tool Replacement 20 20 Other Fire&Life Safety Projects 75 75 75 75 75 375 Total Fire&Life Safety 395 475 475 475 475 475 2,770 Police CKCF Work Crew Van/Trailer/Equipment 50 50 CKCF Camera Upgrade/Renovations 12 12 LCD Projector for Classroom 20 20 Misc Police Projects 13 75 75 75 75 75 388 Total Police 95 75 75 75 75 75 470 'otal Public Safety Projects 490 550 550 550 550 550 3,240 r 9 !w combined CIP recuests 01.xls 1121/00 i Water, Sewer and Stormwater Drainage Capital Improvement Program for Years 2001 -2006 Recommend 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Sources of Funds Water Fund 702 1,542 2,155 1,534 1,547 1,811 9.291 Drainage Utility Fund 2,416 1,786 1,584 1,462 1,525 970 9,743 Revenue Bonds-Drainage 6,279 6,279 Sewer Utility Fund 57 303 315 327 340 354 1,696 Total Sources of Funds 3,175 3,631 4,054 9,602 3,412 3,135 27,009 Sanitary Sewer Remote Telemetry Upgrades-Phase 1 57 57 Engineering Remodel 73 73 Miscellaneous Sewer Lines 291 303 315 327 340 354 1,930 Total Sanitary Sewer 421 303 315 327 340 354 2,060 Stormwater Drainage Management Mill Creek Flood&Erosion Control Facility 320 320 256th Street Widening 910 910 Outfall Treatment 300 600 900 Soos Creek Basin Improvements 592 528 4,379 1,900 7,399 Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements 500 658 684 712 740 770 4,064 Military&Reith Intersection 100 100 94th Ave S&Canyon Dr Traffic Signal 250 250 WVH&277th Intersection 100 100 -� Military Rd&272nd Intersection 200, 200 Pacific Highway South HOV-Phase 1 500 500 Pacific Highway South HOV-Phase 11 785 785 72nd Avenue(196th-200th) 250 250 218th Street Bridge 300 300 1-5&277th Intersection Improvement 300 300 120th Ave&248th Street Improvement 250 250 Salmon Recovery 60 60 Engineering Remodel 73 73 Integrated Pest Management Plan 150 150 Remote Telemetry Upgrades-Phase 1 57 57 Total Stormwater Drainage 3,862 1,786 1,084 5,841 3,425 970 16,968 Water Projects East Hill Reservoir 1,050 1,300 2,350 Impoundment Project(124th-118th288th-304th) 300 1.200 1.200 1.450 4,150 Miscellaneous Water Improvements 297 309 521 334 347 361 2,169 Wellhead Protection Plan 250 250 Remote Telemetry Upgrades-Phase 1 172 172 Study-Feed System Evaluation,GWI,Groundwat 100 100 Water Conservation 100 100 Pump Station#3(Replacement) 75 75 3-Year Lrg Mir&Vault Replacement Program 33 33 34 100 Remote Site Security Vulnerability Study 50 50 Update of Kent's Water Comprehensive Plan 75 75 Engineering Remodel 73 73 Total Water 1,075 1,542 2,155 1,534 1,647 1,811 9,664 ,1 Total Utility Projects 5,358 3,631 3,554 7,702 5,312 3,135 28,692 ' 10 rw r mbined CIP reduests 01.As 1121/00 City of Kent Proposed Future Debt Issues 2001.2010 x000 2001 2002 2003 20w 2005 zoos 2x7 200e Tdal 3eneml Govemment Debt Clam Lake Land Bonds 3.0 3,000.000 3.000.000 Tech Plan 2 (510m/10yr) 10,000.000 2.000.000 8000000 East Mill Mamt Facility.25% 13.000.000 3,250.000 Campus Ekpansion/RenMbon 3.300.DOD 3.3x.000 Municipal Coun-proposed 2,973.000 2 973 Ox Subtotal Debt 5.000,000 11.250,000 6.273,000 22.523-Z voted Public Safety 30,000,000 30,000,ODO 30 OCO.CCC Debt Paid By Other Funds Service East Hill Maud Facility-75% 13,000.= 9.750,000 Soos Creek Basin Drainage Bonds 6,279.000 6.279,000 Subtotal Debt 16.029.000 16.029.000 Total Debt Principal 5.000,000 27,279,000 6.273,000 38.S52.CtC 11 c-mac—a C t'FC REV nl Mtbll III CITY OF KENT FUTURE BOND ISSUES October 31, 2000 Bondlssue Purpose 2000(3) 2001 2002 2003 2004 COUNCILMANIC(LTGO) Gen Gov't Parking Garage 4,000,000 Gen Gov't Performing Arts Center Land' 2.500.000 Gen Gov't Fac Bldg Remodel&Generators 2,580,000 Public Safety Police Headquarters Land 1,000,000 Public Safety Two Engine/Aid Fire Apparatus 1.140,000 Gen Gov't Clark Lake Land Bonds 3.0 3.000.000 Gen Gov't East Hill Maint Facility-75%Paid By Other Funds 13.000,000 Gen Gov't Tech Plan 2 ($10rTV10yr) 2,000,000 8.000,000 Sub-Total 11,220.000 0 5,000,000 0 21,000,000 VOTED Public Safety Public Safety Projects 30,000,000 Sub-Total 0 0 30,000,000 0 0 REVENUE Drainage Sods Creek Basin Drainage Bonds 6,279.000 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 6,279,000 CONTRACT Valley Comm City Portion of Valley Comm Iss 2,551,600 Sub-Total 2.551,600 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 13.771,600 0 35,000,000 0 27.279.000 "1 CITY OF KENT BOND CAPACITY le October 31,2000 1.5%of Less Future Bonded Debt Percent of Net Direct Percent of Assessed Assessed Counalmanic Councilmanic Remaining Capacity Remaining Capacity Valuation(1) Valuation Debt Debt Capacity Used Capacity(2) Used 12/31198 5,867,681,774 68,015.227 (43.173,969) 44,841,258 49.1% 57,806,258 34.3% 04/01/99 5,867,681,775 88.015.227 (42,792,172) 0 45,223,054 48.6% 58,188.054 33.9% 12/01/99 5,857,681,776 88,015,227 (61,960,630) 0 26,054,597 70.4% 39,019,597 55.7% 12/31/99 6,468,731.941 97,030,979 (60.337,630) 0 36.693,349 62.2% 49,073.349 49.4% 06/30/00 6,468,731.941 97,030.979 (60;019,175) 0 37.011,804 61.9% 49,391.804 49.1% 12/31/00 7.134,929,227 107,023,938 (70,247.002) 0 36.776,936 65.6% 48,556,936 54.6% •12131/01 7,384.651,750 110,769.776 (65,849,114) 0 44,920,663 59.4% 56,050,663 49.4% 12/31/02 7,643,114,561 114,646,718 (61,427,213) (5,000.000) 48,219.505 57.9% 58,669,505 48.8% 12/31/03 7,910,623.571 118.659,354 (56,775,828) (4,753.936) 57,129,589 51.9% 66,859,589 43.7% 12/31/04 8,187,495,396 122,812,431 (52,014,463) (25,494,793) 45,303,175 63.1% 60,528.175 50.7% (1)The forecast beyond 2000 assumes assessed valuation increases at 2.0 percent per yew due to estimated iMlation plus 1.5%for new construction. (2)Total is reduced by Enterprise Fund Debt Mat is supported by Golf and Drainage Funds. (3)Bond issue for 2000 was completed in October 2000. Not included with Future Counolmanic Debt included in Counalmanic Debt totals. *Amounts do not include debt issuance or bom insurance costs. 12 Long Term Debt Payments General Obligation Debt Service 7,000,000 i I 6,000.000 - J 5,000,000 4,000,000 - 3,000,000 - 2,000,000 - 1,000,000 - 0 Off` O�^j O�h OO^ Opq O`er O,'S O`i, O`r� O`p� O�� Otis Otis; � ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti "L 'L ^r 'L 'Y .w Existing■Future e Existing Issues Original Outstanding Issued Maturity Amount 12131100 • GO Refunding 1985.86,87 1992 2007 10,575,000 5,440,000 • GO Refunding 1978,89 1993 2004 2,765,000 1,130,000 • GO Parks!Street 1996 2016 5,595.000 4,885,000 GO Centennial 1996 2026 12.310.000 11,810,000 GO 1999 Bonds 1999 2019 21.205,000 12,035.000 GO 2000 Bonds 2000 2020 19,070,000 20,015,000 Future Issues Planned Estimated Issue Date Issue Amount Clark Lake Land Bonds 2002 3,000,000 Tech Plan 2(310m/10yr) 2002 2,000,000 Tech Plan 2(S10m110yr) 2004 8.000,000 East Hill Maint Facility 2004 13,000.000 Debt service payments include principal and interest and are net of contributions from the Street and Enterprise Funds. • Refunding projects were for Public Safety,Street and Parks projects. 13 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2000-2001 - 2005-2006 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Serving Unincorporated King County Kent, Covington, Auburn, Black Diamond, Renton, SeaTac, Washington APRIL 2000 i r KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 12033 SE 256t" Street Kent, Washington 98031-6643 (253) 373-7000 SIX-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2000-2001 - 2005-2006 April 2000 BOARD of DIRECTORS Bill Boyce Sandra Collins Scott Floyd Mike Jensen r— Linda Petersen ADMINISTRATION Barbara Grohe, Ph.D. Superintendent Daniel L. Moberly Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Fred H. High Executive Director of Finance Margaret A. Whitney Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources& Student Support Services Gwen Dupree Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education Janet Rowe Interim Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Education & Instructional Services Kent School District Six-Year Cap"Facilities Plan April yppp Kent School District No. 415 Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan 2000-2001 - 2005-2006 April 2000 For information on the Plan, please call the Finance & Planning Department at (253) 373-7295. Capital Facilities Plan Contributing Staff Gwenn Escher-Derdowski, Community Planning Administrator Joe Zimmer, Finance Department Clint Marsh, Director of Facilities Kathy Metzener& Karla Wilkerson, Facilities Department Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilitia Plan Apnt 20130 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 SIX-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TABLE of CONTENTS Section Page Number I Executive Summary 2 I I Six-Year Enrollment Projection 4 III Current District "Standard of Service" 8 I V Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools 12 V Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan 15 V I Relocatable Classrooms 18 V I I Projected Classroom Capacity 20 V I I I Finance Plan and Impact Fee Schedules 25 I X Appendixes 30 Kent School DaViet Six-Yew Capital Facilities Pan April 20M Poe 1 I Executive Summary This Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Kent School District (the "District") as the District's facilities planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act, King County Code K.C.C. 21A.43 and Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn and Black Diamond. This annual plan update was prepared using data available in the spring of 2000 for the 1999-2000 school year. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the Kent School District. This Plan is not intended to be the sole planning document for all of the District's needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic Long Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies, taking into account a longer or shorter time period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the District as may be required. Any such plan will be consistent with this Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan. The Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan has been adopted by Metropolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington and Auburn and included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. An impact fee implementing ordinance for the unincorporated areas was effective September 15, 1993. This Plan update has also been submitted to Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn, Black Diamond, SeaTac, and Renton. A financing plan is included in Section V I I I which demonstrates the District's ability to implement this Plan. This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District's "standard of service" in order to ascertain the District's current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs in the District. The Growth Management Act, King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the District to make adjustments to the standard of service based on specific needs of the District. Beginning in 1998, the District's standard provides for class size reduction for grades K - 3 from 26 to 22 students. The District's standard class size for grades 4 - 9 should not exceed 29 students, and class size for grades 10 - 12 should not exceed 31 students. (See section I I I for more specific information.) (continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Pin April, MW Page 2 r^ I Executive Summary (continued) The capacities of the schools in the District are calculated based on this standard of service and the existing inventory, which includes some relocatable classrooms. The District's 1999-2000 program capacity of permanent facilities is 24,761 which reflects program changes and the reduction of class size in grades K - 3. Relocatables provide additional transitional capacity until permanent facilities are completed. Kent School District is the fourth largest district in the state. The actual number of individual students per the October 1, 1999, head count was 26,346. Full Time Equivalent (FTE) enrollment for this same period was 25,059.70 (Kindergarten at .5 and excluding Early Childhood Education [ECE] and Running Start students). The District's standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of transitional facilities were among subjects studied by the Citizens' Concurrency Task Force. The Final Report of the Concurrency Task Force was approved by the Board of Directors on March 10, 1993. Findings and recommendations of the Concurrency Task Force are discussed further in Section I I I of this Plan. .-, In subsequent years, the current plan is to maintain surplus capacity consistent with today's surplus. This surplus is achieved primarily through the transitional use of relocatables as recommended by the Citizens' Concurrency Task Force. The Concurrency Task Force reaffirms that, as has been the practice and philosophy of the Kent School District, and also based on the most recent recommendation of the Citizens' Facilities Planning Committee, portables are NOT acceptable as permanent facilities. Portables, or, using the more accurate but interchangeable term, "relocatables" may be used as interim or transitional facilities: 1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school facilities. 2. To cover the gap between the time of demand for increased capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet that demand. 3. To meet unique program requirements. Use of relocatable and transitional capacity and specific recommendations by the Concurrency Task Force are further discussed in Section V I of this Plan. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, this Plan will be updated annually, with changes in the fee schedules adjusted accordingly. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 2000 Papa 3 I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection For capital facilities planning, growth projections are based on student yield from documented residential construction projected over the next six years. (See Table 2) The student generation factor, as defined on the next page, is the basis for the growth projections from new developments. King County live births and the District's relational percentage average were used to determine the number of kindergartners entering the system. (see Table 1) Based on the 1999 percentage, 8.57% of King County live births, together with proportional growth from new construction, is equivalent to the number of students projected to enter kindergarten in the district for the next six-year period. (see Table 2) Early Childhood Education students (formerly identified as "Preschool Special Education [SE] or handicapped") are calculated and reported separately on a .5 FTE basis. The first grade population is traditionally 7 - 8% larger than the kindergarten population due to growth and transfers to the District from private kindergartens. Near term projections assume some growth from new developments to be offset by current local economic conditions. With a few notable exceptions, the expectation is that enrollment increases will occur District-wide in the long term. District projections are based on historical growth patterns combined with continuing development of projects in the pipeline dependent on market and growth conditions. The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact to schools and monitor conditions to reflect adjustments in this assumption. The six-year enrollment projection anticipates significant enrollment growth from new development currently in some phase of planning or construction in the district. Information on new residential developments and the completion of these proposed developments in all jurisdictions may be considered in the District's future analysis of growth projections. Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments. The Kent School District serves six permitting jurisdictions: unincorporated King County, the cities of Covington, Kent and Auburn. The Lake Sawyer area has recently been annexed to the City of Black Diamond and the western portion of the district includes a small portion of the City of SeaTac. (Continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 2000 Pape 4 I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection (Continued) STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR "Student Factor" is defined by code as "the number derived by a school district to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit" based on district records of average actual student generated rates for developments completed within the last five years. Following these guidelines, the student generation factor for Kent School District is as follows: Single Family Elementary .515 Junior High .197 Senior High .180 Total .892 Multi-Family Elementary .279 Junior High .086 Senior High .063 Total A28 The student generation factor is based on a survey of 3,149 single family dwelling units and 2,998 multi-family dwelling units with no adjustment for occupancy. Please refer to Appendix E on Page 33 for details of the Student Generation Factor survey. The actual number of students in those residential developments was determined using the District's Education Logistics (EDULOG) Transportation System. In 3,149 single family dwelling units there were 1,622 elementary students, 621 junior high students, and 566 senior high students for a total of 2,809 students. In 2,998 multi-family dwelling units, there were 836 elementary students, 257 junior high students, and 189 senior high students, for a total of 1,282 students. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 2000 Pape 5 w r-C'J W 0) Go 0 rl 0 r- 0 co rl co N v Cc Lr) 0 m to co M 0. 0 to &n 0) MaV . I I OD r4 N r4 C%j N N N CN t4 CV Go CC) N a) v 07 (M r- U) N co cri co r� Cl) co 0) cn CD 0 0 v to r- Oj Ln co co r4 co 0 0 CV 0 0 M CD CD GotD CN - - - - - - Lei NC%4 CN C%j cm Go N N N NCN 00 IM -W to to 0 to ap P.- co C.) w m co v M w m 0 0 N m OD --zr w co N I-cr IV r-- r-- Of ct ct q q c� ci� ci� d� Of co n CD CF) CN (D 0)cm 04 C14 C4 LO (D CID -W C14 C14 00 -W N N (3) C14 lw %n co N co CY 0 m r- Ul) m Of (D 10 r to 0 1 0) 0 Of 0) Of (M 0) (M CD CO -W 0) CL r4 cli ci IV' r�C-4 00 C4 Lo in Lr) 0) V) V CO M U) OD t- V C) G r� r- o N CV w aj CO (D tp C%J 0 Q 0 0 0 0 m w M Of OD r� to -W got to Z UJ 17 1� 1: Ln 04 43D C14 W U. CO ge 0) Go co U.) m 0) Ln CD m (n m to m a) co cn M W V M v co 0 C) m 0) m r� (N C'� CL ui Ln U) T cit to C� Of aD Of C� c0 C:� to LO 0) vi Ncy C Lo Lo A m CD f� CO CM 0) t- 0) N M CD o) m I v rl cn 0 Ln C> CD V co V UJ -Nt CD cit 0 Im 0) m (M C* co r� P, Ln m c co CV) a; C-4 C%f 7 Z NN0 J 0 r L) C,4 rl 0 (D 0 co .0 CM Z m N N (7j 0 U'j 0 0) 0) OD M 0) m m w co rl- (0 ot w Ir. N 0) Nr- Ln v r� 0 Ln m Ln co CID r- -1 0 0) V V 0 0 M C14 N co 0 (D co kn 0) Go w 0 w 0 w r� N 0 cr; tr) r� W (D -W Ir cli C-4 Lq a CY 0 cl ui U) S C) co M r- m N 0 LO 0 0) to f� N 4m Q N CN -W co LO 0) 1-- co M 0) pll� act r"t ok pt fll� tR CR Lq Ivi Ir M N CV tL Z r4 cy; V,: cli Lu C%l r CY) OD to 40 M M M U) (D co co N N ui co CD 4D V co co P- I-- rl (D LO to Ln cn -W V cn N C4 Go 0 OD 0 Co cx c) co co c) co CD .w eq V m co Lq 0 OD 0 0 M a) N cq r` w to In v 1w le M0) MGo co r 3 -0� 9 L) co en CD C4 cq C� Ln "m v P, m r m co 0) N W m 0) cn C" cn u -w 0) co V CD CDP CO C6 .Q: to &q W, M CN V) cn cn V) -w C4 CD Go LZ M CD C�. V) a) IM can> E 0 3k (D CD p m y Ta ra A cc N cn IV Ln to rl co 0 O C%j > e e 10 4) cc V "a 10 la 10 cm 10 10 W" cc Ic KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 SIX -YEAR FTE ENROLLMENT PROJECTION At'r V.AI "P . R -. 0 _J .E .,::Ci T t O N 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 King County Live Births 21,972 21,817 21,573 21,646 22,212 22,780 23,350 ' Increase/Decrease -358 -155 -244 73 566 568 570 Kindergarten/Birth% 2 8.57% 8.52% 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% 2 Earty Childhood Education 0.5 58 59 59 60 61 62 63 Kindergarten FTE @ .5 942 929 949 974 989 1,038 1,044 Grade 1 1,989 2,053 1,963 2,027 2,070 2,126 2,210 Grade 2 2,078 1,975 2,095 2,027 2,082 2,150 2,189 Grade 3 2,111 2,077 2,018 2,162 2,084 2,164 2,215 Grade 4 2,222 2,082 2,116 2,082 2,218 2,165 2,228 Grade 5 2,037 2,179 2,086 2,145 2,100 2,260 2,190 Grade 6 2,119 2,056 2,230 2,160 2,209 2,189 2,332 Grade 7 2,081 2,170 2,113 2,322 2,337 2,318 2,396 Grade 8 2,015 2,020 2,143 2,117 2,409 2,357 2,434 Grade 9 2,102 2,188 2,159 2,320 2,379 2,623 2,664 Grade 10 2,045 2,254 2,353 2,321 2,492 2,555 2,634 Grade 11 1,782 1,866 2,085 2,176 2,145 2,302 2,295 Grade 12 1,537 1,411 1,625 1,814 1,892 1,864 1,936 Total FTE Enrollment 25,118 25,319 25,996 26,707 27,467 28,173 28,830 r :3 Yearly Increase 176 201 677 711 760 706 657 Yearly Increase % 0.72% 0.80% 2.67% 2.74% 2.85% 2.57% 2.33% Cumulative Increase 288 489 1,166 1,877 2,637 3,343 4,000 Full Time Equivalent(FTE) 25,118 25,319 25,996 26,707 27,467 28,173 28,830 Kindergarten projection based on King County actual live birth percentage and proportional growth from new construction. 2 Kindergarten FTE enrollment projection at.5 is calculated by using the District's pereeruage of King County live births 5 years earlier compared to actual kindergarten enrollment in the previous year.(ECE■Early Childhood Education) 3 Oct.99 P223 Headcount is 26,103. Oct.99 full student heedcwm knduding 116 Presehod 8 236 Running Stan-26,346. i l = R 0 a i-' P R 0 J E C ' 0 N S Adjustments for current economic factors , i. For facilities planning purposes,this six-year enrollment projection anticipates significant enrollment growth from new development cuff entty in some phase of planning or construction in the district. Kent school District Sot-Year Capital Facilities Pan Table 2 April, 2= Page 7 III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" In order to determine the capacity of the District's facilities, the King County Code refers to a "standard of service" that each school district must establish in order to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service identifies the program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students and programs of special need, and other factors determined by the District which would, in the District's judgment, best serve its student population. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. Relocatables included in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. (See Appendix A, 8 & C) The standard of service defined herein may continue to change in the future. Beginning in 1998, the District's standard class size for grades K - 3 was reduced from 26 to 22. Kent School District is continuing a long-term strategic planning process which may affect aspects of the District's "standard of service". Future changes to the standard of service will be reflected in future capital facilities plans. Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students Class size for grades K - 3 should not exceed 22 students. Class size for grades 4 - 6 should not exceed 29 students. Program capacity for regular education classrooms is calculated at an average of 25 students per classroom because there are four grade levels at K - 3 and fluctuations between primary and intermediate grade levels (i.e. Third / Fourth grade split classes, etc.). Students may be provided music instruction and physical education in a separate classroom or facility. Students may have scheduled time in a special computer lab. Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self- contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program. (eontintled) '1 Kent School District six-year capital Facilities Plan April, 2000 Pop a 1 1 1 Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued) Identified students will also be provided other educational opportunities in classrooms for programs designated as follows: English As a Second Language (ESL) Self-contained Special Education Programs Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance) Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title 1) Gifted Education Other Remediation Programs Learning Assisted Program (LAP) School Adjustment Programs for severely behavior-disordered students Hearing Impaired Mild, Moderate and Severe Developmental Disabilities Developmental Kindergarten Early Childhood Education (3-4 yr. old preschool handicapped students) Some of the above special programs require specialized classroom space, as well as music and physical education classrooms, computer labs, etc.; thus, the permanent capacity of some of the buildings housing these programs is reduced. Some students, for example, leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to receive instruction in these special programs and space must be allocated to serve these programs. Some newer buildings have been constructed to accommodate most of these programs; some older buildings have been modified, and in some circumstances, these modifications reduce the classroom capacity of the buildings. When programs change, program capacity fluctuates and is updated annually to reflect the change in program and capacity. Current Standards of Service for Secondary Students The standards of service outlined below reflect only those programs and educational opportunities provided to secondary students which directly affect the capacity of the school buildings. Class size for grades 7 - 9 should not exceed 29 students. Class size for grades 10 - 12 should not exceed 31 students. Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self- contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program. (continued) Kent School District six-year Capital Facilities Plan April, 2= Page 9 III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (contu,uea) Identified students will also be provided other education opportunities in classrooms for programs designated as follows: Computer Labs English As a Second Language (ESL) Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance) Preschool and Daycare Honors (Gifted) and Advanced Placement Programs Basic Skills Programs Traffic Safety Education JROTC - Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps Variety of Technical & Applied Programs (Vocational Education) i.e. Home & Family Life (Cooking, Sewing, Child Development, etc.) Business Education (Keyboarding, Accounting, Business Law, Sales & Marketing, etc.) Woods, Metals, Welding, Electronics, Manufacturing Technology, Auto Shop, Commercial Foods, Commercial Art, Drafting & Drawing, Electronics, Careers, etc. Many of these programs and others require specialized classroom space which can reduce the permanent capacity of the school buildings. In addition, an alternative home school assistance, choice and transition program is provided for students in grades 2-12 at Kent Learning Center. Space or Classroom Utilization As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have a work space during their planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of regular teaching stations. Based on the analysis of actual utilization of classrooms, the District has concluded that the standard utilization rate is 95% for elementary schools and 85% for secondary schools. In future, the District will continue close analysis of actual utilization. Kent School District Citizens' Concurrence Task Force The Kent School District Board of Directors appointed a Citizens' Concurrency Task Force, made up of a cross section of the community, to assist in defining the District's Standard of Service. To accomplish this task, the Task Force was directed to study Kent School District enrollment history and projections, demographics and planned new developments, land availability for new schools, facility capacities and plans, frequency of boundary changes, and portable (relocatable) vs. permanent facility issues. A meeting for public input was conducted and the Final Report of the Citizens' Concurrency Task Force was .� approved by the Board of Directors on March 10, 1993. (continued) Kant School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 2000 Pope 10 III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" cconunued) The Final Report of the Citizens' Concurrency Task Force included Findings and Recommendations and provision for the following long term goals: A. Seek to reduce classroom utilization rates to allow more flexibility on the building level. B. Seek to lower average class size from that established for the 1992-93 school year. C. Seek to minimize boundary changes. D. Ensure that new permanent facilities are designed to accommodate portables: 1) to resolve current quality concerns 2) to provide for sites for portables to meet increased demand. E. Pursue modernization of current permanent facilities to resolve current quality concerns and to provide for additional sites for portables to meet increased demand. F. Pursue modernization or replacement of current portables to resolve quality concerns. G. Ensure that new portables meet current concerns of quality. H. Ensure that all sites for portables be modernized and utilities be installed to meet quality concerns. I. The quality of facilities, when using relocatable facilities, is a major concern of citizens of the Kent School District. Use of relocatable and transitional capacity as well as more specific concerns and recommendations by the Task Force are further discussed in Section V 1 of this Plan. The Task Force also states that it has reviewed and accepted the explanation of methodology and the conclusions reached in the enrollment Forecasting System report and recommends that methodology not be changed without Board approval. Kern School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April. 2M Page 11 I V Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools Currently, the District has permanent program capacity to house 24,761 students based on the District's Standard of Service as set forth in Section I I I. Included in this Plan is an inventory of the District's schools by type, address and current capacity. (See Table 3 on Page 13) The program capacity is periodically updated for changes in programs. It also reflects the reduction in class size from 26 to 22 in grades K - 3 which was implemented in 1998. The class size reduction received voter approval in the Educational Programs and Operations Levy to continue through 2002. Since 1997, Kent Learning Center has served grades 2 through 12 with transition, choice and home school assistance programs. It is located in the former Grandview School in the western part of the District. This school was designed and is currently configured as an elementary school. Calculation of Elementary, Junior High and Senior High School capacities are set forth in Appendices A, B and C on pages 30 and 31. A map of existing schools is included on Page 14. Kent School Di &pd Shr.YoW Capibl F@cWjn Plan April, 2000. Pope 12 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS 7L:,apa Year SCHOOL opened ABR ADDRESS ctt� Carnage Crest Elementary 19W CC 18235-140th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 485 Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 26500 Timberlans Way SE. Covington 98042 461 Covington Elementary 1961 CO 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington 98042 542 Crestwood Elementary 1980 CW 25225-180th Avenue SE. Covington 98042 428 Daniel Elementary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98031 456 East Hill Elementary 1953 EH 905 S 240th Street. Kent 98031 413 Emerald Park 1999 EP 11800 SE 218th Street, Kent 98031 475 Fairwood Elementary 1989 FW IS=-14ath Avenue SE, Renton 98M 428 Glenridge Elementary 1996 GR 19405.120th Avenue SE,Renton 98M 461 Grass Lake Elementary 1971 GL 28700.191st Place SE, Kew 95042 447 Horizon Elementary 1990 HE 27641-144th Avenue SE, Kew 95042 418 Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 26915-1a6th Avenue SE. Covington 98042 423 Kent Elementary 1999 KE 24700-64th Avenue South, Kent 98032 486 Lake Youngs Elementary 1965 LY 196W-142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 594 Martin Sortun Elementary 1987 MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98031 475 Meadow Ridge Elementary 1904 MR 27710.108th Avenue SE.Kent 98031 447 Meridian Elementary 1930 ME 25621 -1401h Avenue SE. Kent 98042 556 Neely-O'Brien Elementary 1990 NO 6300 South 236th Street. Kent 98032 437 Panther lake Elementary 1938 Pl. 20831-108th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 380 Park Orchard Elementary 1983 PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kew 90031 494 Pine Tree Elementary 1967 PT 27825.118th Avenue SE. Kew 9=1 523 Ridgewood Elementary 1987 RW 18030-162nd Place SE, Ramon 98058 523 Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 31135 22ath Avenue SE,Kent 9a042 499 Scenic Hill Elementary 1900 SH 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98031 437 Soos Creek Elementary 1911 SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 456 Springbrook Elementary 1969 SS 20035.100th Avenue SE. Kent 95W1 423 Sunrise Elementary 1992 SR 223M-132nd Avenue SE, Kent 980112 532 Elementary TOTAL 12,679 Cedar Heights Junior High 1993 CH 19640 SE 272 Street,Covington 98042 971 Kent Junior High 1952 KJ 620 North Central Avenue, Kent 98032 810 Mattson Junior High 1981 MA 16400 SE 251 st Street. Covington 9t1042 815 Meeker Junior High 1970 MK 128W SE 192nd Street, Renton SO= 897 Meridian Junior High 1958 MJ 23480.120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 753 Northwood Junior High 1996 NW 17007 SE 184th Street, Renton 98058 959 Sequoia Junior High 1956 SJ 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98031 812 Junior High TOTAL 6.017 Kent-Meridian Senir High 1951 KM 10020 SE 256th Street, Kew 98031 1,391 Kantlake Senior High School 1997 KL 21401 SE 300th Street,Kew 98042 1 A35 Kentridge Senior High INS KR 12430$E 2081h Street. Kent 98031 1,311 Kentwood Senior High 1981 KW 25800-164th Avenue SE. Covington 98042 1,312 Senior High TOTAL 51649 Kent Looming Canter(Grandview)7 1965 LC 22420 Military Road, Des Moines 98198 416 �.-. DISTRICT TOTAL 24,761 Changes to capacity rMeot program changes and continued reduction in K-3 class site from 26 to 22. 2 Kant Looming Center serves grades 2-12. The building wan formerly known as Grandview Elementary. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facikim Plan Table 3 April,2000 Papa 13 6 2 c § �. 2 2 _ E ■ 2 E e 7 c � � � 22 � Y Cn 2 m > / 2# 0 (D 0 � 2 0 m o o � 41L; .o oco oq � � + z0. t' ae | ,¥ H � vi 09 • _: e a ■ e E ; s__. C NO cc' , jut ! , ' � ! �# � ! 6 6 , 2 , | ® I ®$ , u a� E 3__. .f !1 ! 2 2 2 /e � A~ 41111 ©__. Co f- -JLU R V � - 2 b ! � !� �. Kerst SchooloWIM Six-Y_C"WFoc&bn Pion Pep# V The District's Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan At the time of preparation of this Plan in spring of 2000, the following projects are recently completed or under construction in the District: • Kent Elementary#27a is located at 24700 - 64`' Avenue S. near downtown Kent. The school opened in January 1999 and students, staff and programs moved from the old Kent Elementary to the new Kent Elementary at that time. The new school retained the original name "Kent Elementary" and boundary changes and new programs were implemented in the Fall of 1999. • Emerald Park Elementary#29 is at 11800 SE 215th Street. The school opened in the fall of 1999. Millennium Elementary#30 is under construction and scheduled to open in the fall of 2000. It is in the city of Kent at 11919 SE 2701" Street. • Construction funding for Elementary#31 and 32 will be presented for voter approval at a later date. The sites have not been determined. • Junior.High#8 is planned to fill future needs for grades 7 through 9. The Board authorized purchase of a site for this school at SE 2861' Street on the east side of 1241" Avenue SE. Timing of the opening of the school is under review and dependent on enrollment needs and voter approval. Other future facilities are listed in Table 4 and shown on the site map on page 17. Each of the elementary schools has capacity planned for approximately 540 students each, depending on placement of special programs. Junior high schools are planned for a program capacity of approximately 1,065 students and Kentlake Senior High (#4) has a current program capacity of 1,635. County and city planners, decision-makers and school districts are encouraged to consider safe walking conditions for all students when reviewing applications and design plans for new developments. This should include sidewalks for pedestrian safety, pull-outs and turn arounds for school buses. Included in this Plan is an inventory of projects by type, size, location or region, and estimated completion date. Also included in the inventory are sites identified by the District, which are potentially acceptable site alternatives in the future. (see Taus 4) The voter approved 1990 Bond Issue for $105.4 million included funding for the purchase of eleven sites for some of these and future schools, and the sites acquired to date are included in this Plan. Funding is secured for purchase of additional sites. Not all undeveloped properties meet school construction requirements and some property may be traded or sold to meet future facility needs. Based on voter approval of $130 million in construction funding in February 1994, Millennium Elementary #30 is the last one to be constructed which has received voter approval. A $97.5 million bond proposal for the construction of Junior High #8, ,- Elementary #31 and significant improvements to existing schools is pending voter approval at the time of preparation of this Plan in the spring of 2000. Kent School District Sa-Year capital Fecilit es Plan April, 2000. Pays 15 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Projects Planned, Under Construction, or Providing Additional Capacity Site Acquisitions included Projected Projected %for SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITET LOCATION Type Status Completion Program new Date Caoacrty I Growth ADpo~e I ADDI=e Ie ELEMENTARY (Numbers essigned to Atture schools may not correlate with number of existing schools.) Millennium Elementary(e 30) (Funded) 11919 SE 2701h St,Kent 98031 New c nouv len 20DO 485 50% Elementary>r 31 (Unfunded) To be determined ' New Planning 2004 540 75% Elementary M 32 (Unfunded)2 To be determined ' New Planning 2005 540 75% JUNIOR HIGH Junior High e 8 (Unfunded) SE 2861h St 8 124 Av SE,Kent New Planning 2003 1,065 75% SENIOR HIGH Kentlake Senior High opened in 1997 and continues to provide capacity. Additional (TEMPORARY FACILITIES Capacity Rekrcatables For placement as needed New Planning 2000+ zs.31 amh 100% SUPPORT FACILITIES Satellite Bus Facility (Unfunded)2 To be determined ' New Planning 7 N/A OTHER SITES ACQUIRED Land Use ype Juriadictpn Covington area (Near Mattson JH) SE 2519 164 SE, Covington 98042 Elementary City of Covington Covington area (Scarsaus) SE 290&158 SE, Kent 98042 Elementary King County Ham Lake arm (Pollard) 165M SE 240, Kam 90042 Ekenlentery King County Horsesfwe/Keevies Lake area(West) SE 332 d 204 SE, Kam 98042 Junior High King County Shady Lake area (Sowers,etc.) 17426 BE 192 Street, Ramon 9WW Elementary (ring County So.King Co.Activity Carter(Nike site) SE 167 d 170 SE, Remora 98M School or King County Support Fwfty Notes: ' Some sites are acquired but plac~has not been determined. 2 Unfunded facility needs are pending voter approval. Kent School District Sot-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 April,2000 Page 16 w 411 L)3 we X or � i. z < .::. �......� S. E • a:. be Xe.- LW3 � xY`,a K� �s<,°fy..�ta< "y�, !�7�s` s `I?• :'. • r •• y •. yA_w � 1 L . 0 ! � = EP So `>e11 V. -�E'- Ole JE Irvubws Paw IN v or c yy VM KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 ; Sites Acquired or Under Construction ,�`•�:r .� S = Senior High site ±f ••• "•yam • J = Junior High site f ! •- E = Elementary site 06+.+.. X = Support Facility site / eC � •V Map saxes: Kmg C Lx*PW Wnp i Corn w*Daebvfbw Dnislon �`:•••• SRe idenN CMM by Kart Schad District �• f , Kent School District Six-Year Csplal FaeY tin Plan Paps 17 V I Relocatable Classrooms Currently, the District utilizes 155 total relocatables. Of this total, 85 are utilized to house students in excess of permanent capacity, 65 are used for program purposes at school locations, and five for other purposes.(See Appendices A B C D) Based on enrollment projections and funded permanent facilities, the District anticipates the need to purchase some relocatables during the next six-year period. In the Final Report approved by the Board of Directors on March 10, 1993, the Kent School District Citizens' Concurrency Task Force reaffirmed that, as has been the practice and philosophy of the Kent School District, portables (or "relocatables") are NOT acceptable as permanent facilities. In addition to the Findings and Recommendations regarding portables listed in Section I I I, "Standard of Service," the Task Force also listed some specific concerns in regard to use of portables as interim or transitional capacity: I. The quality of facilities, when using relocatable facilities, is a major concern of citizens of the Kent School District. That the Kent School District should consider the following factors and priorities when using, purchasing and modernizing portables: A. HIGHEST CONCERNS 1. Adequate heat 2. Portable covered walkways, where practical 3. Adequate ventilation 4. Fire Safety B. MODERATE CONCERNS 1. Adequate air conditioning 2. Security 3. Intercoms / Communication 4. Restroom facilities 5. Storage facilities 6. Crowding / class size 7. Noise 8. Availability of equipment (i.e. projectors, etc.) 9. Lack of water (use bottled water/portable tanks for drain) (continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facifts Plan April pppp pop 18 V I Relocatable Classrooms (continued) For the purpose of clarification, the term "portables" and the more descriptively accurate term, "relocatables" are used interchangeably in this Plan as well as in the Concurrency Task Force Report. The reports also reference use of portables or relocatables as interim or transitional capacity/facilities. During the time period covered by this Plan, the District does not anticipate that all of the District's relocatables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During the useful life of some of the relocatables, the school-age population may decline in some communities and increase in others, and these relocatables provide the flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community. Although the Citizens' Concurrency Task Force has reaffirmed that portables are not acceptable as PERMANENT facilities, they did recommend that portables, or relocatables, may be used as interim or transitional facilities: 1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school facilities. 2. To cover the gap between the time of demand for increased capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet that demand. 3. To meet unique program requirements. Portables, or relocatables, currently in use will be evaluated resulting in some being improved and some replaced. Quality concerns will be among those addressed by the next Citizens' Facilities Planning Committee in review of capital facilities needs for the next bond issue. The Plan projects that the District will use relocatables to accommodate interim housing needs for the next six years and beyond. The use of relocatables, their impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle and operational costs, and the interrelationship between relocatables, emerging technologies and educational restructuring will continue to be be examined. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 2000 Page 19 V I I Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacities As stated in Section I V, the program capacity study is periodically updated for changes in special programs and reflects class size reduction in Grades K - 3. As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3 on Page 13, the program capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison charts. (See Tablas 5 6 5 A-s-C on papas 21-24) The first school day of October is set by OSPI as the enrollment count date for the year. Full Time Equivalent (FTE) student enrollment for October 1, 1999 was 25,059.70 with kindergarten students counted at .5 and excluding Early Childhood Education students (ECE - preschool special education) and College-only Running Start FTE's. (See ragas 5 s 5 A-e-C on pages 21.24) A headcount of all students enrolled on October 1, 1999 totals 26,346 which continues to rank Kent School District as the fourth largest district in the state of Washington. Based on the enrollment forecasts, current inventory and capacity, current standard of service, relocatable capacity, and future planned classroom space, the District anticipates having sufficient capacity to house students over the next six years. (See Tabb 5 and Tables 5 A-&C on Pages 21-24) This does not mean that some schools will not experience overcrowding. There will be significant need for new schools to accommodate growth within the District. Some schools, by design, may be opened with relocatables on site. Boundary changes, limited movement of relocatables, zoning changes, market conditions, and educational restructuring will all play a major role in addressing overcrowding and underutilization of facilities in different parts of the District. Kent School District Six-Year Capita Fackies Plan April. 2000 pap 20 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY TOTAL DISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR 1999-200D 200o-2001 1 2001-2002 2002-2003 1 2003-20D4 2oo4-2005 I 2oD5-2005 Actual P R O J E C T E 0 Permanent Program Capacity ' 23,820 24.761 25,246 25,246 25,246 26,311 26,851 New Permanent Construction ' Kent Elementary#27a 466 Kent Elementary replacement Emerald Park Elementary#29 475 Millennium Elementary#30 485 Junior High#8 (Unfunded)4 1,065 Elementary# 31 (Unfunded)" 540 Elementary#32 (Unfunded)" 540 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 24,761 25,246 25,246 25,246 26,311 26,851 27,391 Interim Relocatable Capacity i Elementary Relocalable Capacity Required 475 0 0 75 250 50 0 Junior High Relocatable Capacity Required 203 377 406 754 58 232 435 Senior High Relocatable Capacity Required 0 0 434 682 899 1,085 1.240 TotalReloeatable Capacity Required 3 678 377 840 1,511 1,207 1,367 1,675 TOTAL CAPACITY ' 25,439 F25,623 26,086 26,757 27,518 28,218 29,066 2 TOTAL FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 25,118 25,319 25,996 26,707 27,467 28,173 28,830 i DISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY 321 304 90 50 51 45 236 ' Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 FTE=Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment (ie. ECE Preschool Handicapped 3 12 day Kindergarten student= .5). 3 1999-2000 total classroom relocatable capacity is 1,821. 4 Unfunded facility needs are pending voter approval. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 Apnt,2000 Page 21 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL YEAR 1998.= 2ooa2ool I M-2t1o2 M-2= 1 =3.2iro4 =4-:: M0S2(= ActuN P R O J E C T E D EkmentaryPerrtwientProgmmCapocily 11,738 13,095 13.580 13,580 13,580 13,580 14,120 Kant Laaming Center-Special Program' 416 New Permanent ElemerftryConstruction Kent Elementary#27a 466 Replimmwivit for old Kam EMmamn Emerald Park Elementary#29 475 Millennium Elementary#30 485 Elementary#31 (Unfunded)' 540 Elementary#32 (Unfunded)' 540 Subtotal 13,095 13,580 13,580 13,580 13,580 14,120 14,660 Relocatable Capacity Required 2 475 0 0 75 250 50 0 TOTAL CAPACITY s 13,570 13,580 13,580 13,655 13,830 14,170 14,660 FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 9 13,5$6 13,410 13,518 13,637 13,813 14,154 14,471 SURPLUS (DEFICIT)CAPACITY 14 170 62 18 17 16 189 ' Kent Learning Center is a special program at Grandview School serving students in Grades 2 through 12. The school was designed and is currently configured as an elementary school. 2 Capacity is based on standard of service forprogram ca c and is updated P nY capacity P periodically to reflect program changes. s FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment or Projection (ECE & Kindergarten = .5) Unfunded facility "1 needs are pending voter approval. Kent School District Six-Year CapAW Facilaies Plan Table 5 A AP 1200p Paps 22 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL YEAR 1991;2000 2000-2W1 1 2oo1-= 1 2oo2-=3 1 2oo3-2004 M04.2005 I 2005-20M Actual P R O J E C T E D Junior High Permanent Program Capacity 6,017 6,017 6,017 6,017 6,017 7,082 7,082 New Permanent Junior High Construction Junior High#8 (Unfunded)' 1,065 Subtotal 6,017 6,017 6,017 6,017 7,082 7,082 7,082 Relocatable Capacity Required ' 203 377 406 754 58 232 435 TOTAL CAPACITY ' T 6,220 6,394 6,423 6,771 7,140 7,314 7,517 I 1 FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 2 6,198 6,378 6,415 6,759 7.125 7,298 7,494 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 22 16 8 12 15 16 23 i Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment/Projection Approximately 10 Junior High students are served part of the day at high schools for advanced placement. 3 Unfunded facility needs are pending voter approval. April 2000 Pape 23 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5B KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SENIOR HIGH' SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2t10p 2000.2001 1 2001-2002 2002-2003 1 200332004 2004.2005 1 2005-2006 AM* P R O J E C T E D Senior High Permanent Program Capecity 5,649 5,649 5,649 5,649 5,649 5,649 5,649 New Permanent Senior High ConsOuchsnn Subtotal 5,649 5,649 5,649 5,649 5,649 5,649 5,649 Relocatable Capacity Required 434 682 899 1,085 1,240 TOTAL CAPACITY ' 5,649 5,649 6,083 6,331 6,548 6,734 6,889 FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 5,364 5,531 6,063 6,311 6,529 6,721 6,865 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 285 118 20 20 19 13 24 ' Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes. Z FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment, excluding full time Running Start students. Approximately 10 Junior High students are served part of the day at high schools for advanced placement. Kent Schad District Sic-Year Caput Facilities Plan Table 5 C April2000 Page 24 ram, V I I I Finance Plan The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to finance improvements for the years 2000 - 2001 through 2005 - 2006. The financing components include secured and unsecured funding. The plan is based on voter approval of future bond issues, collection of impact fees under the State Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation fees paid pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act. Kent Elementary # 27a, replacement for the original Kent Elementary School, is the last school for which the District expects to receive state matching funds under the current state funding formula. For the Six-Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates from Kent School District Facilities Department. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 20DO Page 25 E & N N N M N N M N ry n y q Q a s N N N 40 b +:' ^ P. m N N Owl J " 25 ^ 25 25 25 2S 3 v ul N � M M N N r: h O a'?i Pl eel a N vi vi z g ,, U W `` LqS QZS H U 70 �d to N Z N N a Z N ° cc oLLI a o QQ QQ U )- N N YC M Z N to W to 04 9Y Qp py q O O N n! 9 N •r � Y C M ~ Y g ^' 6 N E N w sir N N » g b LU � R LU B A N 0 J U m O uj LL W Y R R R L K N 2 Z e W W 4 .... to V W N < O Z r ' W d U. N .G lu W m E4 • N N N N q W W KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS ' Student Generation Factors -Single Family Student Generation Factors - Multi-Family Elementary 0.515 Elementary 0.279 Junior High 0.197 Junior High 0.086 Senior High 0.180 Senior High 0.063 Total 0.892 Total 0.428 Projected Student Capacity per Facility SPI Square Footage per Student Elementary 540 Elementary 80 Junior High 1,065 Junior High 113.33 Senior High 1,650 Senior High 120 Required Site Acreage per Facility Average Site Cost/Acre Elementary (required) 11 Elementary $0 Junior High (required) 21 Junior High $0 Senior High (required) 27 Senior High $0 New Facility Construction Cost/Average• Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost Elementary $9,011,914 Elementary (M 25 $78,504 Junior High $21,696.026 Junior High 29 $78,504 Senior High $0 Senior High 31 $78,504 See average calculations on Pg.27a Temporary Facility Square Footage State Match Credit Elementary 86,212 Current State Match Percentage 0.00% Junior High 25.256 Previous State Match 55.64% Senior High 21,736 Total • 4% 133,204 Boeckh index Factor Current Boeckh Index $101.27 Permanent Facility Square Footage Elementary 1,410,811 Junior High 743,063 District Average Assessed Value Senior High 849,464 Single Family Residence $176,547 Total 96% 3,003,338 Total Facilities Square Footage District Average Assessed Value Elementary 1,497,023 Multi-Family Residence $56,029 Junior High 768,319 Senior High 871,200 Total 3,136,542 District Debt Service Tax Rate Current /$1000 Rate $2.32 Developer Provided Sites/Facilities r Value 0 General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Dwelling Units 0 Current Bond Buyer Index 5.94% Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Pion April 20M POW 27 For impact fee calculations, construction costs are based on the average costs of the last five elementary schools and the next elementary school, and the average costs of the last two junior high schools and the next junior high school. Elementary Schools Cost Average Sawyer Woods $6,463,054 Meadow Ride $6,996,325 Glenrid a $8,032,895 Kent Elements #27a $10,122,095 Emerald Park #29 $10,957,114 Millennium Elementary #30 $11,500,000 Average Cost of 6 elementary schools $9 011 914 Junior High Schools Cost Average Cedar Heights $14,488 028 Northwood $17,100,049 Junior High #8 $33,500,000 Average Cost of 3 junior high schools 1 1 $21,696,026 The impact fee calculations on pages 28 and 29 include a "District Adjustment" which is equal to the amount of increase that the impact fee formulas drive out for this year. The reasons for this adjustment include: 1) the district's long-term commitment to keep impact fee increases as minimal as possible, 2) the courts have not made a final determination on the validity of the voter approval of tax increases section of Initiative 695, 3) proposed Initiative 722 would require fee roll-backs and 4) the district's desire to avoid roll-backs and potential refunds under either of the above situations. Kent School District Six-Ynr Capital Fackies Plan April, 2000 Popp 270 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE '^ Site Acquisition Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre)/Facility Capacity)x Student Generation Factor Required She Acreage I Average She CosVAcre I Foofty Capsr:tty Student Factor A 1 (Elementary) 11 s0 540 0.515 SO.00 A 2 (Junior High) 21 $O 1,065 0.197 $0.00 A 3 (Senior High) 27 s0 1,650 0.180 SO.00 A—> S0.00 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Pentanent/Total Square Foot!Re Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacdy Student Factor Footage Raw B 1 (Elementary) S9,011,914 540 0.515 0.96 $8,250.91 B 2 (Junior High) $21.696.026 1,055 0.197 0.96 $3,852.73 B 3 (Senior High) s0 1,650 0.180 0.96 SO.00 0.892 B—> $12,103.63 Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Temporary/Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Coat FwAiq Capoclty Sludwd Factor Footage Ratio C 1 (Elementary) $78,504 25 0.515 0.04 $64.69 C 2 (Junior High) $78,504 29 0.197 0.04 $21.33 C 3 (Senior High) $78.504 31 0.180 0.04 $18.23 0.892 C—> $104.25 State Match Credit per Single Family Residence Formula: Boeckh Index x SPI Square Footage x District Notch rib x Student Factor I Boeokh Index SPI F District MNeh% Sluder Fact« D 1 (Elementary) $101.27 80 0 0.515 S0.00 D 2 (Junior High) $101.27 113.33 0 0.197 $0.00 D 3 (Senior High) $101.27 120 0 0.180 $0.00 D—> SO.00 Tax Credit per Single Family Residence Average Residential Assessed Value $176.547 Current Debt Service Tax Rate $2.32 Bond Buyer Index Interest Rate 5.94% Discount Period (10 Years) 10 TC—> $3.021.66 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility/Site Value Dwellt Unds 0 0 FC—> 0 Fee Recap A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence $0.00 B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence $12,103.63 C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence S104.25 Subtotal $12,207.89 D = State Match Crew per Residence $0.00 TC=Tax Credit per Residence S3.021.66 Subtotal $3,021.66 Total Unfunded Need $9,185.23 Developer Fee Obligation $4,593.11 FC=Facility Credit(if applicable) 0 District Adjustment (See Papa 27a for explanation) ($810.65 Net Fee Obligation per Single Family Residence $3.782.46 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2000 Page 28 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Multifamily Residence Unit Formula: ((Acres x Coat per Acre)/Facility C )x Student Generation Factor Required Si*Araaape I Average SiN C*WAcre I Facility Capacity Sludenl Factor A 1 (Elementary) 11 SO 540 0.279 $0.00 A 2 (Junior High) 21 SO 1,065 0.056 $0.00 A 3 (Senior High) 27 $0 1,650 0.063 $0.00 A—> $0.00 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Mufti-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Permanent!Total Square F Ratio) Consxuchon Cant Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Reho B 1 (Elementary) S9,011,914 540 0.279 0.96 $4.469.91 B 2 (Junior High) S21.6W.026 1,065 0.086 0.96 $1,681.90 B 3 (Senior High) SO 1,650 0.063 0.96 $0.00 0.428 B—> $6.151.81 Temporary Facility Cost per Multifamily Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Temporary!Total Square F Ratio) Facility Coal Faoilily Capacity Sludw Factor Footage Ratio C 1 (Elementary) 578,504 25 0.279 0.04 $35.04 C 2 (Junior High) $78,504 29 0.086 0.04 $9.31 C 3 (Senior High) $78.504 31 0.063 0.04 $6.38 0.428 C 550.74 State Match Credit per Mulli.Family Residence Unit Formula: Boeckh Index x SPI Square F x District Match% x Student Factor Bowkh I I I SPI Footage D'alrtel sMhh% Student Fa D t (Elementary) $101.27 80 0 0.279 $0.00 ^-. D 2 (Junior High) S101.27 113.33 0 0.086 $0.00 D 3 (Senior High) $101.27 120 0 0.063 S0.00 D—> S0.00 Tax Credit per Multi-Family Residence Unit Average Residential Assessed Value $56.029 Current Debt Service Tax Rate S2.32 Bond Buyer Index Annual Interest Rate 5.94% Discount Period (10 Years) 10 TC—> $959.44 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility/Site Value Dwell' Unas 0 0 FC—> 0 Fee Recap A - Site Acquisition per Multi-Family Unit S0.00 B - Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit $6.151.61 C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit $50.74 Subtotal $6,202.55 D = State Match Credit per MF Unit $0.00 TC=Tax Credit per MF Unit S959.44 Subtatal 5959.44 Total Unfunded Need S5,243.11 Developer Fee Obligation S2.621.55 FC a Facility Credit(a applicable) 0 District Adjustment (See Pape 27a lm wooneaon) ($292.06) NO Fee Obligation par Multi-F"Residence Unit L $2,329.49 Kent School District Sol-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 20M Page 29 I Appendixes Appendix A: Calculations of Capacities for Elementary Schools Appendix B: Calculations of Capacities for Junior High Schools Appendix C: Calculations of Capacities for Senior High Schools Appendix D: Use of Relocatables Appendix E: Student Generation Factor Survey Appendix F: Summary of Changes to 1999 Capital Facilities Plan Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan ApM.MW O^ a a A a 2 n yyyy� E `r �p mm pp �p qp "e A Iry n 1ff m N OI rl n N pQ n V tipp M O/ OI f'1 01 A f o 1!1 ep e e N N 1(1 1D N N m Yf f f m Ifl f Yf R V1 1f1 m p O O = W U u a n w E Z lbuj i tl LU 18pVp 8 �S m� pR B b° R .$ Q8 ry a LL Q a W co V ri w W x N S p C U o S H p • `> LL e e O m O O O O O O N O O Oui V a 6¢ cc Q EE • g V m Olci O (D n N O f N Z O a c J � o i V D E § s Q (n Y O e6 Y f f f t v f f Ifl 1'1 f N INff f v v O a _ 0 O FO C w Y W • _ eA e e p py 3 a « a r uj Y Q w V h a m v In N ry eo ry N m a w E N E Q C�C 8 W w Nn QQ QQ QQ v ttp� e O v �7S a e v v v v to vv in vv' 5S inNi �v ain ed 4 C r €O O O N O o n O n pl O n n p1 in O O m O m O W E N N N f (V ry N N N ry N N N y w V n u ' Z Si U. i OR �_ + � II LL � pm O y yU CD` U U U to yUJ W W 9 a J y 0 rr F So' g a I W Q Y uu S • b w U J L �+ S g u �[ > s i00 }e to Cc } Ei H W i e i E i $ J W i ! A U U fc.�� CZ CCC W W U. U' U' -s beJ p IL p C m to (A in y x 'A Y W y « w a � u m e Y n A � a r Vp1 _ !uQ LLI On1 w o e N t^O. E 7 Q a W n IY i W LL 8 N LC v 0 < U Z pA� of ri of pi ri e�i 8 yy? a OI A W A 8i O�1 A 3 1~l n N f. : W C a 4A .i W h "'LaO ry T O • s w c Q u V A O m • Y • N O V ' N W a ry m N O m $ : ^ m u � o d a E � G EbQ r N N U. O a O tl ID o n a uuj c uj o u) m@J90 o m ry o ry o L : Ln v Q a a S as Ci QQ Q a` CD CF Z D O n aUJ U SL S d m w 'm o m 'o m S v �o m e n v 7n ui U < W it r X a v z E c p �-" SIn o W -"� S a d Z 8 v act O z W a U d m a U W a N a W O O W d A d u x Q H ? N a a` U m A 40 to m Y) CDV Q y G U v CD v v b �j O x w W V N O O y 1D ja U O ay W N f yy W • m A A E O • r d Jf U o Jf U o C w u Q i ¢ i U ' O G A N U = rn U = w N •� � ~ C ' � •rj 'yq V z m w m N O C U N x D 0 q u N yf� N to m m N n OI a pE in W - m A 1� O iD A 1N TIl U O O�l N C o T> a € N m m Pf W R m N n N N N N �Ti N x ! m U �i O "• "• x N O V tl U s jj 2 r u a le leQ �. �e be c x W Z J y O J r Y • OAc — i O = a 4 L £ Mm :: m (I(�� 3 = =Y v�p S W e m I��l U 10 • N m E u 'j V g .� .Y 'IL Q Y W S 7 ' � C " ' J : Y i N O • e � J � � � a $A � U m cl Y 2 .$ N U Y m Y Y Y Y Y Y Z yy to W •) n x V Z ^ M a�8 S Y m c e Y in CY ID 9L G co \ I} . \ § ) § , m � en U) LU z CD .j cc x z LU LU 0 0 (n LU U) z LU CD z WO -E in co C, :, to CL CD D fj to § i % f cc 0 0 06 .0 CL w E V 0 cr- \ } cr ) n a a N A N lif t � b N NI A b N A O O1 A A b N � p N O O �p N N A P1 f'1 N N A fO f7 �O b o y O N O o N N O N N S n R � N O O S O O O O O O p 8 O O O G O O O C C o C O C O C O O C C G G 0 00 O O C O O C O O o 0 0 0 0 � N 0VO lV O � ' A UOW o coLL b N m G' C ' N 11 N o N N N N C r L. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p m io � �p po 8 Q ��pp f S p p ,�dnn yC; pQ� y V (7 g CO d N �O N n ♦ 'i aS t N uI N _ b ID m R n V 2 �'! e�•I, n �i n N InV wi n N n n 4 n N C W O O O O O G O G O O O O C o o o 0 o o 0 0 G p C W O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O G O o v y f �p �p y �Np �p �pp� l0 O^ OI N N ' IN�1 O o N NN pp� , (OV N N b N n N A N Ol b 0 nb, 1'I INO, f N 1�f1. N N Af N Q co A 01 O OI b N N 1'l A N C 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 c; O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p �p p y O f N f•V n b N p YNf •Ov wni N b n N �i N y N A A 0 N N b N A OI O m N .• Ol b O N b .•• ^ N b ' N ' ' {p O� N7 f'f b N N N N b b N C d ��pp ff N o pp�� yy�� Z N ^ N n f {D N A N N N f N b A O Ins! A IND• 9 N q N N f� O mm 1ti � � Ncc � n m S F— y w W — W E U o y y op CV -m W LL 1130- z 1� b b N N O N N f�'1 N ti A N O N 1ND O N N N h �V s X_ ~ L t _ 0 1p p p Q pp 8 pO fN N ONNb H S M 0 �Op Ol Eo W CL Dw d nj o Q Nan d (J z o 1y W ¢ $ N (n E ,y 2 C W U U U N 0 � N y N 2 a N � U � W � (,1 E � � � 2 (� � (7 `� W � Y � O O `G p Z aLry p w W W b C Y = m m § m F S o W 5 S N O T� (n O cc E y w < 0) aD a N E 0 G w L C O ri O G N r �C N O O S y ` O 0 m O Z > a W d � 3 N . E O LL CL 00 mWd c° ~ �$ cw Q E0 � aoo Y°!i mc °E oatLo w aa Q QoQm $Q �c un—� €>` o ad V) mW Y12 " 0LL mC Q w tm00 = 0 0 wIa � Wo � vam a m crcE 8 � w cj va E to no mwQE a° t E a •W u o 0 Ey E c mto U2QU ) ULLLLU- 220. 0) (nfn cc U) mo W yr )�� it n0 n ' ' O ^ O A m O W 1D S S O N $ ' ' O ' A S ♦ 0 W W u N C O Y Appendix F - Summary of Changes to April 1999 Capital Facilities Plan The Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") is updated annually based on previous Plans in effect since 1993. The primary changes from the April 1999 Plan are summarized here. Kent Elementary #27a opened in January, 1999 to replace the original Kent Elementary. The original Kent Elementary building is being leased out and its capacity is no longer included in the Plan. Emerald Park Elementary #29 opened in September, 1999. Millennium Elementary #30 is under construction and is scheduled to open in August, 2000. Changes to capacity continue to reflect reduction in class size for grades K - 3 as well as annual program changes. Changes in portables or transitional capacity reflect purchase, sale, surplus and/or movement of portables between facilities. Permanent facility costs have been adjusted to reflect averages of costs for schools built most recently. The district expects to receive no state matching funds for schools in this Plan and tax credit factors are updated annually. Unfunded facility needs are pending voter approval. Impact fee calculations include a "District Adjustment" which is equal to the amount of increase that the impact fee formulas drive out for this year. See page 27a for further explanation. Student enrollment forecast is updated annually. �1 Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors include: ITEM Gmderryw FROM TO Comments Student Generation Factor Ern 0.512 0.515 Updated in 1999 Pan Single Family (SF) Jr 0.188 0.197 sr 0.140 OAOO Tool 0.840 0.892 Student Generation Factor Elam 0.235 02M Updated in 1999 Pan Multi-Family (MF) Jr 0.000 0.095 sr 0.082 0.083 Total 0.377 0.428 State Match 55.64% 0% updated in 1999 Pan Boeckh Index(Cost per square foot) "am $10127 Per SPI Average Assessed Valuation SF SIC=4 $170,547 Per Puget Sound ESD AV-Average of Condominiums 3 Apts. MF $47,652 356,029 Per Puget Sand ESD Debt Service Tax Rate $227 S2.32 Per Klrp Casty Aeeesta r General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 5.11% 5.941E 11 ', -Rote Impact Fee-Single Family SF $3,7e2 $3,782 No otwge to fee Impact Fee-Multi-Family MF s2.329 $2 329 No dwW ro " Kent Schad Dobid S6c-Year capita FecOn Pion APPENDIX F Aprr 2000 Pape 34 f. al WayoFedehSc o District No . 210 RECEIVED 1 C�C�Q clr)' o= w_Nr 1 :/ J J/OU PLANNING DcP;,niM_?�T Capital Facilities Plan Buildingrfor the 21st Century FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN '1 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BOARD OF EDUCATION Audrey Germanis Linda Hendrickson Holly Isaman Ann Murphy Jim Storvick SUPERINTENDENT Thomas R.Murphy FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................ INTRODUCTION.................................................. iii-v SECTION 1 THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Introduction............................................................. 1 Inventory of Educational Facilities............................. 2 Inventory of Non-Instructional Facilities.................... 3 Needs Forecast-Existing Facilities.......................... 4 Needs Forecast -New Facilities.............................. 5 Six Year Finance Plan.............................................. 6 SECTION 2 MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Introduction............................................................. 7 Map- Elementary Boundaries.................... 8 Map-Junior High Boundaries.................... 9 Map- Senior High Boundaries................... 10 SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction............................................................. 11 Building Capacities................................................... 12-13 Portable Locations................................................... 14-15 Student Forecast...................................................... 16-18 Capacity Summaries................................................. 19-23 King County Impact Fee Calculations....................... 24-26 SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 1998/99 PLAN 27-29 ii FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INTRODUCTION ^1 In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act (SHB 2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991)), and under the School Impact Fee Ordinances of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective December 21, 1995 as amended, and the City of Kent Ordinance No. 3260 effective March 1996, Federal Way Public Schools has updated its 1998/99 Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2000. This Plan has been adopted by King County, the City of Kent and the City of Federal Way and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction by reference. This plan is also included in the Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Auburn and City of Des Moines have not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas within which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council four Urban Growth Area Line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the Federal Way planning area, which encompasses Federal Way Public Schools boundaries. King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to meet the region's need for housing, jobs, services, culture and recreation. This Plan's estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption. This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction, which requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs. The District may prepare interim plans consistent with Board policies. Additional plans will be consistent with the six year Capital Facilities Plan. iii FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INTRODUCTION (continued) On October 12, 1998 the Board of Education approved a recommendation to move to a Pre K-5 elementary, 6-8 middle school, and 9-12 high school grade configuration beginning in the fall of 2002 or as additional high school space allows. This grade configuration is believed to be more responsive to student needs. It will allow for smaller elementary enrollments with room for lower primary class sizes. The middle school allows two-year preparation for the WA State 7t6 grade test, matches the Federal Way Public Schools 8`s grade gateway test, and matches most western Washington districts. Middle schools are also thought to be a better way to address the needs of adolescence in a period of transition from elementary to school to high school. The four-year high school plan combines the 9-12 graduation credit system, allows two-year preparation from the 10`" grade test, and physically places the high school students together. Federal Way Public Schools must meet the needs of a growing student and community population. The District must be flexible with building,programs and staffing to meet the needs of the 21"Century, while being financially responsible and sensitive to the current tax rates. A flexible, cost effective and educationally beneficial approach that integrates academics and high tech/high skill preparation is needed. By extending the existing debt and creatively using new and existing facilities, the District can meet these complex needs with no increase in local tax rates. Federal Way citizens approved a bond proposal of$83 million on May 18, 1999. This bond will provide for a comprehensive high school ($44 million); a middle school ($17 million); expansion and improvement of existing schools ($9 million); replacement of Truman High School ($6 million) and other general improvements ($7 million). Additional planned improvements included in the bond proposal are: parking and pedestrian safety,playgrounds and sports fields, new classroom start-up and music equipment, information systems and networks and emergency communications. Federal Way Public Schools opened the Internet Academy in the 1996/97 school year. This program currently serves approximately 710 students,487 are full time students. Internet Academy has grown from about 60 students to the current 700 in three years. The forecast for growth in this program is to serve approximately 750 full time students by the year 2005. Internet Academy is currently operating out of leased space consisting of administrative areas and a computer lab area. Additionally, some tab sections are scheduled in the current high school facilities during non-school hours. There is an anticipated need of approximately 2000 square feet of additional space over the next two years. This capacity is not included in the analysis of instructional spaces. The facility needs are unique to a program of"distance learners". iv FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The Marketing Academy School operated in Federal Way for two years from 1997 to 1999. As the District evaluated this program, it was determined that the program was not meeting the needs of students in the most effective manner. The Marketing Academy School has not operated this year and there are no plans to start the program in the near future. Federal Way Public Academy opened in the 1999/00 school year in six portables on the Illahee Junior High site. The school served 120 seventh and eigth grade students this year and will serve 180—210 students in grades seven, eight and nine in the 2000/2001 school year. One additional single wide and one double wide portable will be moved to the site during the summer of 2000. v SECTION 1 THE CAPTIAL FACILITIES PLAN FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION I - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The State Growth Management Act requires that several pieces of information be gathered to determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing community. This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and expected future facility requirements for Federal Way Public Schools. This is followed by a Financial Plan which shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and update modernization needs listed. "1 1 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Adelaide 1635 SW 304th Street Federal Way 98023 Brigadoon 3601 SW 336th Street Federal Way 98023 Camelot 4041 S 298th Street Auburn 98001 Enterprise 35101 5th Avenue SW Federal Way 98023 Green Gables 32607 47th Avenue SW Federal Way 99023 Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308th Street Auburn 98001 Lake Grove 303 SW 308th Street Federal Way 98023 Lakeland 35675 32nd Avenue S Auburn 98001 Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Road Federal Way 98003 Meredith Hill 5830 S 300th Street Auburn 98001 Mirror Lake 625 S 314th Street Federal Way 98003 Nautilus 1000 S 289th Street Federal Way 98003 Olympic View 2626 SW 327th Street Federal Way 98023 Panther Lake 34424 1st Avenue S Federal Way 98003 Rainier View 3015 S 368th Street Federal Way 98003 Sherwood Forest 34600 12th Avenue SW Federal Way 98023 Silver Lake 1310 SW 325th Place Federal Way 99023 Star Lake 4014 S 270th Street Kent 98032 Sunnycrest 24629 42nd Avenue S Kent 98032 Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320th Street Federal Way 98023 !� Valhalla 27847 42nd Avenue S Auburn 98001 Wildwood 2405 S 300th Street Federal Way 98003 Woodmont 26454 16th Avenue S. Des Moines 98198 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Federal Way Public Academy 36001 1" Ave S Federal Way 98003 Illahee 36001 1st Avenue S Federal Way 98003 Kilo 4400 S 308th Street Auburn 98001 Lakota 1415 SW 314th Street Federal Way 98023 Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Road Federal Way 98003 Saghalie 33914 19th Avenue SW Federal Way 98023 Totem 26630 40th Avenue S Kent 98032 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Decatur 2800 SW 320th Street Federal Way 98023 Federal Way 30611 16th Avenue S Federal Way 98003 Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288th Street Auburn 98001 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS Merit School 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Harry S Truman High School 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 LEASED SPACE Internet Academy 32020 1"Ave S Federal Way 98003 2 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CURRENT INVENTORY NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES Developed Property Administrative Building 31405 18th Avenue S Federal Way 98003 MOT Site 1066 S 320th Street Federal Way 98003 Central Kitchen 1344 S 308th Street Federal Way 98003 Federal Way Memorial Field 1300 S 308th Street Federal Way 98003 Leased Space Community Resource Center 1928 S Sea Tac Mall Federal Way 98003 Security Offices 30819 14`h Ave S Federal Way 98003 Undeveloped Property Site# Location 91 27`h Avenue SW &Dash Point Road 23 SW 360th Street & 3rd Avenue SW 35 S 351st Street& 52nd Avenue S 40 E of loth Avenue SW Between SW 334th & SW 335th Streets 63 E of 47th Avenue SW &SW 314th Place 71 S 344th Street &46th Avenue S 72 36600 block of Pacific Highway S 84 3737 S 360th Street 85 16`h Ave S and S 364`h Way 96 S 308th Street & 14th Avenue S Notes: Not all undeveloped properties are large enough to meet school construction requirements. Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed to house students in the District. There is a pending sale on this property. 3 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS P99/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS Truman High School Modernization with expansion (1) Purchase and Relocate Interim Capacity (1) Portables Decatur High School, Federal Expansion (1) Way High School and Thomas Jefferson High School Various School Sites Parking Safety;Network (2) Upgrades; Automated Libraries; Elementary Playgrounds; High School Sports Fields; Emergency Communications. �-� Notes: (1) Anticipated source of funds is state matching funds, Impact Fees, future bond issues and/or non-voted debt issues. (2) Anticipated source of funds is future bond issues. 4 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NEEDS FORECAST -NEW FACILITIES NEW FACILITY LOCATION I ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS New Senior High School Site 85(1) (2) New Middle School Unknown (2) Notes: (1) Site 85 is the designation for the new senior high school This site, purchased in 2000 is located at 16`h Ave S and S 3641"Way (District maps will be updated to reflect location). (2)Anticipated source of funds is state matching funds,Impact Fees,future bond issues and/or non-voted debt issues. 5 r FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999100 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN / Six Year Finance Plan Secured Funding Sources 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Revenue: Impact Fees(1) S250,000 S462,706 S250,000 5962,706+I Land Sate Funds(2) S500,000 S750,000 S573,215 $500,000 S2,323.21 Bond Funds(3) S9,000,000 TOTAL I S9,750.0001 S1,212,706 5823,215 5500,00I SO SO 5]2.85,921;i Unsecured Funding Sources State Match Funds(5) $7,000,00 Bond or Levy Funds(3) S74,000,00 Land Fund Sales(6) S800,00 Impact Fees(4) S1,500,00 OTAL S8313001000 NEW SCHOOLS 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Cost j New Middle School S2,000,000 S31000,00 S12,000,00 S17,000,00Q- New Senior High School S1,700,000 S 10,400,000 S17,900,000 S10,800.000 S40,800,00 New Senior High School Site S3,200,000 S3,200,OOGI MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION Truman Senior High(Alternative) S500,0001 S3.500.000 S2,000,000 S6,000,00d Expansion Three High Schools S700,000 S6,800,000 S7,500,00d. Expansion Elementary Schools S100,000 S1,500,000 S1,600,00 TEMPORARY FACILITIES Portables(7) S362,245 S241,497 S603,74 OTHER Safety Improvements(8a) SI,400.0 51,600,000 S3,000,00 School Improvements(8b) S 1.800,0001 S1,300,000 S300,000 S600,000 S4,000,00 Facilities Department S250,000 S250,000 S250,000 S250,000 S250,000 S250,000 S1,500,00 TOTAL S9,912,2451 S23,850,000 S20,691,497 S13,750.000 S4,750,000 S12,250,00 585,203,74 NOTES: 1. These fees are currently being held in a King County,City of Federal Way and City or Kent impact fee account,and will be available for use by the District for system improvements. 2. These funds come from various sales of land and are set aside for estimated expenditures. 3. These funds will be used for future projects. 4. These are projected fees based upon known residential developments in the District over the next six years. 5. These funds are projected state matching funds. 6 These funds are projected land sale income. 7 These fees represent the cost of moving and siting existing portables and purchasing new portables. The District may choose to purchase new portables in the years shown. This estimate may also include the cost or purchasing these portables. Sa.These projects have been approved by the Board of Directors and cover most schools. These projects do not increase capacity. These projects inlcude parking and pedestrian safety improvements at 15 elementary schools. 8b.These projects have been approved by the Board of Directors and cover most schools. These projects do not increase capacity. These projects include:school networks,information and library systems;new classroom start up;elementary playgrounds and high school sports fields; music equipment;emergency communication. 6 '1 SECTION 2 MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 2 - MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Federal Way Public Schools (the District) has twenty-three elementary schools (grades K-6), seven junior high schools (grades 7-9), three senior high schools (grades 10-12) and two alternative schools (grades 7-12) for the 1999/00 school year. On April 20, 1996 the Federal Way Public Schools Board of Education adopted the boundaries for these schools. The following maps show the service area boundaries for each school for each grade level (Harm S. Truman High School, Merit School, Internet Academy and Federal Way Public Academy serve students from throughout the District). The identified boundaries are reviewed annually. Any change in grade configuration or adoption of programs which affect school populations may necessitate a change in school service areas. The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facilit}^ infrastructure is in place to handle new housing developments. In the case of most public facilities, new development has its major impact on the facilities immediately adjacent to that development. School Districts are different. If the District does not have permanent facilities available, interim measures must be taken until new facilities can be built or until boundaries can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding facilities. Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the District and is not taken lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on students who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district,not just one school. It is important to realize that a single housing development does not require the construction of a complete school facility. School districts are required to project growth throughout the district and build or adjust boundaries based on growth throughout the district, not just around a single development. 7 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOUNDARIES .._...............L........, FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 210 1 ` ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS `"`"� • •• —_• - cod.• / Cow• ■ 10 Adelaide C4 64 Illah" E-9 i T' 16 Bripadoon B-0 66 Kilo G4 r' i l S 28 Camelot G-5 62 Lakots 0.6 i 1: j r,Y 22 Enterprise 0-9 61 Sacajawas E-S 14 Green Gab[" A•7 70 Saghahe C-8 30 Lake Dellofl GA 65 Totem G-3 f�..,• 11 Lake Grow D-6 8 Merit F4 w..r. _• 33 Lakeland F•9 2 Mark Twain F.A �r x 29 Meredith Hill Hs SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 6 Miner Lake E4 3 5 Nautilus ES Cod.-• / I ( '• _ 15 Otympie View C•7 J•• j' ,y 31 Panther lake E-0 Be Decatur C4 - y 37 Rainier Ytew F•10 81- Federal Way E-5 41 Sherwood Forest 0.8 83 Thomas JeRerson G•4 •: : e '" L 24 Silwr Lake 0-7 8 Harry S.Truman F4 -eOa�'� s nfii .n• 26 Star Lake G-3 8 Merit F-6 ' - 2S Sunnycr"t G-2 I i �'• 13 Twin Lakes B-6 27 Valhalla G-4 Future School Sites— 7 Wildwood F4 Surplus Sit" — 1 Woodmont F.3 a " i 100 Educational Service Cantor F4 99 Future Support Servlc" E4 _ Cos--■ I !•' : .we_ 1 ST Maintanance•Operations•Trensponation E4 •,,.. ' i Parka- .. Dp.. rM Y.L.• } :{I I A 8 I C •+ ' ' ' a 5 FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON end Y1C1N/7 t• ;� i '4l -1/it 6. _ •a': � Ease a. '- �-�Itr .w � r Y � n -•. a , � • r• W E 5 , •nrt eaa r.,.n x'a' � :•}ay- � i �_ '•+ .• , i s 2a •6 I aY=i . 3 .aM•1. y • _ a a , a 1 .� .aeVY1M1 a • 3 C Y FEDERAL iWAY tn,eaeie r.mwe (253) 945-2000 jt w,ra: aw •, •icy y >,.. E 7- 8 Junior High School Boundaries r� ERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 210 r ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS I 'w'•�: =�-',I Code-- Coe' 10 Adelaide C-6 64 Illahee E•9 I " - 16 Srigadoon H 66 Kilo G-6 2 _ 1 i •� i 28 Camelot GS 62 Lakota DAti I 22 Enterprise D-9 61 Sacejawas E-5 14 Green Gables A-7 70 Saghalm C-8 30 Lake Dolloff G-6 65 Totem G-3 - 11 Lake Grove D-6 6 Merit F-6 I '•�'•` ]] Lakeland F-9 2 Mark Twain FA 29 Meredith Hill Hs SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS - 6 Mirror Lake E•6 3 l J 5 Nautilus 'ES cod.-. . ' - 15 Olympic View C•7 V• _ B.• i�r 21 Panther Lake E-8 80 Decatur C-6 r �- 37 Rainier Yaw F-10 81 Federal Way E-5 41 Sherwood Forest D-0 8] Thomas Jefferson GA b • 1' sa iu• 24 Silver Lake D-7 8 Harry S.Truman Fb •<- 25 Star Lake Ga 8 Merit F-6 'C- I5 Sunnyerest G-2 i ; •- •.__ 13 Twin Lakes 8.6 J 27 Valhal4 GA Future School Sites— •- 7 Wildwood F.5 Surplus Sites a• 100 Educational Service Center F.6 _ •�• a 99 Future Support Services Ed _ Code--■ I• u s... i 97 MainrsnanceOperaoons•Transportation E-6 L ,!• Il Parks- D,••, . *`a�• _ i 3 3 FEDERAL WAY. WASHING ON and VICINI ! ''rl ! •,a - r.F; - _ ;fe �1pa• i .73 �1! rimer • + •� + - 'r __ —� = •q•`r ! -1 .+ �' : ^` ' 'ram• / . .•r.rr 1 1lfl c -u .a inu•....'•. \, 1...-I_1 _ !s !r it s• r ....�;/i :;• 1• -J r• '.t{• �: pin. - l:• w l..d }' `�- -� -1. a r� 1 •. r am• i e e • ' aaas ar !! A ♦ aa,' -r rJ', ,� r ,• 3 !«` 1 t-,+. 1 a �: � - ` ••3 !'-�•ES3 1 ,t 1 i r-• 1 7 Nr�.. Cry- '� • ! ~j! •1 a �! t• .I a• v Ma .! r. •�' 1 a � t• -� aNEWAti- i t•: a !.a tj w. •� i r is �•...n.,. � b aN.ar r •• a arm r ! i a.• �•�us•wwr `i a ■ a .rra cyrrra, � � � 1 •di Y2 _ ' ✓fir r ! d • FEDERALI :' s == a i =� ' =' ..a•. WAY 10 i� na m• i L s 10 ru•.+a.a.ram (253) 945-2000 era iNw rF G 9 D •� � 9�E �0' \F '.`.mil��� � rn 6M s�EL" m Kill 11RSj c 2 �� H I III Pau all LILL _` E of "�C �•SSIC l�'.i ',�p.pi��!'. CC�'S�i�un. nr�• Q �I.. OIL '- Ail Airk 0 PUBLIC SCMOOIS SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 3 -SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities - The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast- 2000 through 2005 Capacity Summaries King County Impact Fees - Single and Multi Family Units 11 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999100 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Building Capacities This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District's "standard of service" in order to ascertain the District's current and future capacity. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not take into consideration the education program needs. The District has identified a Building Program Capacity for each of the schools in the District. This Full Time Equivalent (FIE) capacity is based on: • The number of classrooms available in each school • Any special requirements at each school • The contracted class load by grade Ievel In general, the District's current standard provides that the average class size for a standard classroom for grade K is 24 students , for grades 1-6 is 26 students and grades 7-12 is 25 students. Gate (Gifted and Talented Education) classrooms are 25 students, individual education programs classrooms are 15 students, and special education classrooms are 12 students. This size is determined based upon current ratios and trends as well as the classroom physical size. Educational Program Capacities change every year. This analysis is for the 1999100 school year. The capacity of an individual school could and does change at any time depending on program changes which may require additional space. 12 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999100 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITIES ELEMENTARY BUILDING JUNIOR HIGH BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY PROGRAM CAPACITY Adelaide 488 Il lahee 821 Brigadoon 528 Kilo 854 Camelot 374 Lakota 741 Enterprise 512 Sacaja -a 828 Green Gables 494 Saghalie 768 Lake Dolloff 482 Totem 709 Lake Grove 476 Lakeland , 1 Mark Twain 503 ;E -- - Meredith Hill 498 Junior High Average 787 Mirror Lake 398 Nautilus 542 SENIOR HIGH BUILDING Olympic View 450 PROGRAM CAPACITY Panther Lake 514 Rainier View 468 Decatur 1,165 Sherwood Forest 550 Federal Way 1,394 Silver Lake 528 Thomas Jefferson 1,373 Star Lake 502 Sunnycrest 462 1998 TOTAL 3,932 win Lakes Valhalla 494 Senior High Average777_1,311 '! Wildwood 428 Woodmont 1 450 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY I'AL 11,1.31 M ent School Elementary Average 484 Truman High School 194 1998 TOTAL 210 Notes: Elementary program capacities are based on the number of teaching stations in the building, contracted class size,and special use classrooms in place during the 99/00 school year. All available instructional space is calculated. Secondary program capacities are based on peak loading. The calculation is based on 25 students per available teaching stations. Capacities were calculated by the Study and Survey Committee. 3.3 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN r Portable Locations The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic education. It is not efficient use of District resources to build a school with a capacity for 500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates throughout the year and from year to year. Portables are used as temporary facilities or interim measures to house students until permanent facilities can be built or boundary adjustments can be made. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either moved to another school for an interim classroom, or used for other purposes such as storage or childcare programs. Some portables may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. It is the practice and philosophy of Federal Way Public Schools that portables are not acceptable as permanent facilities. The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for temporary educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools. r 14 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PORTABLE LOCATIONS PORTABLES LOCATED PORTABLES LOCATED AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AT SENIOR HIGHS NON NON afmccr1oNAL MfTNOCTIONAL L43TN MONAL MT71t;MONAL Adelaide 3 Decatur 4 Brigadoon 1 Federal Way 1 Camelot 1 Thomas Jefferson Enterprise 2 Truman/Merit 8 1 Green Gables 1 Lake Dollott 2 TOTA—= Lake Grove 2 Lakeland 2 Mark Twain 3 Meredith Hill 2 PORTABLES LOCATED Mirror Lake 4 AT SUPPORT FACILITIES Nautilus Olympic View 2 5-Mile Lake i Panther Lake 3 MOT I Rainier View 3 Clothing Banit 1 Sherwood Forest 4 Silver Lake 4 TOTAL 3 Star Lake 4 Sunnycrest 1 Twin Lakes 2 1 HEAD START PORTABLES AT DISTRICT SITES Valhalla Wiidwood Woodmont 2 Mirror Lake 1 herwood Forest 1 A Total 2 PORTABLESLOCATED AT JUNIOR HIGHS NON Vmvcno.NAL tM7 UMONAL Federal Way Public Academy 5 1 Illahee 3 Kilo 3 1 Lakota 3 Sacajawea 2 Saghalie 4 Totem 5 TOTAL 25 2 15 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Student Forecast Student enrollment projections are a basic component of budget development. Enrollment projections influence many of the financial estimates that go into budget preparation. The majority of staffing requirements are derived directly from the forecasted number of students. Allocations for instructional supplies and materials are also made on the basis of projected enrollment. Other expenditures and certain revenue projections are directly related to enrollment projections. Enrollment projections are completed annually in the Business Services Department. Projections must be detailed at various levels, district total, school-building totals, grade level and program level to include vocational and special education students. The basis of projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time. In a stable population the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. This method does not trace individual students; it is concerned with aggregate numbers in each grade level. The district has used this method with varying years of history and weighted factors to study several projections. Because transfers in and out of the school system are common, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases survival rates. Entry grades �•-. (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The district collects information on birth rates within the district's census tracts, and treats these statistics as a cohort for kindergarten enrollment in the appropriate years. The Federal Way School District is using three distinct methods for projecting student enrollments. The resultant forecasted enrollments are evaluated below. The first method is a statistical cohort analysis that produces ten distinct forecasts. These are forecast of enrollment for one year. The projections vary depending on the number of years of historical information and how they are weighted. The second method uses enrollment-forecasting software tied to a geographic information system. MicroSAMT4 software establishes survival, migrant and repeater rates for each grade level in a pre-defined geographic area. These rates are matched to the number of housing units per area. The rates are then used to project the following year's enrollment based on the number of planned new housing units. The software will project for five years. The third method is a projection using an enrollment projection software package that allows the user to project independently at school or grade level and to aggregate these projections for the district level. The Enrollment Master software provides statistical methods including trend line, standard grade progression (cohort) and combinations of these methods. This software produces a five-year projection of school enrollment. 16 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Short-term budget projections may be more conservative than the standard grade progression model. For the 1999/00 school year, the district chose the Enrollment Master TM projection using standard grade progression model. Standard grade progression is a reasonably accurate method for the near term future when the near future looks much like the near past. Long range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the cohort survival method. The cohort method of analysis becomes less reliable the farther out the projections are made. The Federal Way School District long-range projections are studied annually. The study includes information from the jurisdictional demographers as'they project future housing and population in the region.The long-range projections used by Federal Way Public Schools reflect a similar age trend in student populations as the projections published by the Office of Financial management for the State of Washington. Growth Management requires jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of twenty years. The Federal Way School District is a partner in this planning with the various jurisdictions comprising the school district geography. These projections create a vision of the school district in the future. 17 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999100 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAY Full Time Equivalent Enrollment History and Projections Simplified FTE(K Headcount=.5 FTE;Junior High FTE=.989 Headcount;Senior High FTE=.932 Headcount) Total K-12 Percent School Year Elementary Junior High Senior High FTE Change 1993-94 10,545 4,432 3,750 18,727 1994-95 10,505 4,626 3,758 18,889 0.9% 1995.96 10,689 4,838 3,796 19,323 2.2% 1996-97 10,863 4,930 3,913 19,706 1.9010 1997-98 11,123 5.073 4,082 20,278 2.8% 1998.99 11,480 5,080 4,120 20,680 1.9% 1999-00 11,622 5,110 4,348 21,079 1.9% P2000-01 11,595 5,178 4,436 21,209 0.6% P2001-02 11,562 5,421 4,465 21,448 1.11/0 P2002-03 11,535 5,621 4,480 21,636 0.93e • P2003-04 9,699 5,572 6,437 21,70E 0.3% F2004-05 9,672 5,570 6,663 21,905 0.9% P2005-06 9,673 5,659 6,716 22,048 0.6% •New Configuratiol Elementary K--5 A1lddle School 6-8 High School 9.12 f Enrollment History and Six Year Forecast 23,000 3.046 22,000 y r% 2.5% 21.000 ; ' 2.0% c 20,000 NO t o 9 j Y1 � •fG r:l V 2 19,000 !: ::f j '% K 1.5% u i a V. }��y 17.000 ti 1 0.5% 16,000 3 15.000 t, 4? ayt 33 rnt E' ti4 °wfJ d' a 0.0% kt a ,ps sa m� m m� b° 40 0 � ° b o b a d v us YS School Year QF rE --#--Percent of Change 18 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Capacity Summaries All Grades, Elementary, Junior High, and Senior High Schools The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information and the Student Forecast information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim measures. The information is organized in spreadsheet format, with a page summarizing the entire District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary,junior high, and senior high levels individually. The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in place each year. 19 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY-ALL GRADES Actual -- Projected- CAPACITY - CAPACITY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BUILDING PROGRAM Z I CAPACITY 19,994 19,994 19,968 20,048 20,472 21,796 I21,770 Add or subtract changes to capacity c Special Education Changes (26) (26) (26) o (26) (26) Truman High modernization and expansion 106 Increase Capacity at Three High Schools 450 c New Middle School '+ 800 n New High School 0 1,350 Adjusted Program Capacity 19,994 19,968 20,048 1 20,472 121,796 1 21,770 i 22,570 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 21,079 21,209 121,448 21,636 121,708 121,905 121,0411 Internet Academy Enrollment 487 550 600 650 680 705 730 Basic FTE Enrollment without Intemet Academy 20,592 20,659 20,848 20,986 21,028 1 21,200 21,318 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) n PROGRAM CAPACITY (598) (691) (800) 1 (514) I 768 570 1,252 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY Current Portable Capacity 2,275 2,275 2,425 2,425 2,425 2,425 2,425 Add/Subtract Portable Capacity Federal Way Public Academy 150 Adjusted Portable Capacity 2,275 2,425 2,425 2,425 2,425 2,425 2,425 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 1 1,677 1 1,734 1 1,625 1,911 3,193 2,995 3,677 20 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY-ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Actual -- Projected-- CAPACITY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 BUILDING PROGRAM ` CAPACITY 11,131 11,131 11,105 11,079 11,053 11,027 11,001 c n 0 1. Special Education Changes (26) (26) (26) w (26) (26) c Adjusted Program Capacity t 11,131 11,105 11,079 11,053 11,027 11,001 I1201 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 11,622 11,595 11,562 11,535 9,699 9,672 9,673 2. Internet Academy 138 150 150 150 130 130 130 Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 11,484 11,445 11,412 11,385 9,569 9,542 9,543 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY (353) (340) (333) (332) 1,458 1,459 1,458 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 3. Current Portable Capacity 1,325 1,325 1,400 1,400 1,350 1,350 1,35C` Add/Subtract portable capacity 75 Move to High School (50) Adjusted Portable Capacity 11 1,325 1,400 1,400 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 972 1,060 1,067 1 1,018 2,808 2,809 2,808 NOTES: 1. Add Programs 3 ECEAP, I SBD (Severely Behavioral Disordered)and 1 Pre-School Program. This reduces Basic Education capacity in the school years indicated. 2. Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. 3. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based upon actual population needs. 21 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999100 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY-JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Actual -- Projected-- CAPACITY 1999 1 2000 2001 2002 :z 2003 1 2004 2005 BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 n 4,721 I 4,721 14,721 z c n 1. Add New Middle School n ° 800 e Adjusted Program Capacity 4,721 4,711-1 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 5,521 ENROLLMENT 7lrnLt:irn TE Enrollment 5,110 5,178 5,421 5,621 5,572 5,570 5,659 Academy 185 200 225 250 275 275 275 TE Enrollment without Internet Academy 4,925 4,979 5,196 5,371 5,297 5,295 5,384 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY (204) (257) (475) (650) (576) (574) 137 ~ RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 3. Current Portable Capacity 625 625 700 700 700 700 700 Add/Subtract portable capacity 4. Federal Way Public Academy 75 Adjusted Portable Capacity 625 700 700 700 700 700 700 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 421 443 22S 50 124 126 837 NOTES: 1. Add new middle school 2. Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities.. 3. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based upon actual population needs. 4 Federal Way Public Academy will increase capacity at one junior high site. r 22 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIFS PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY-SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS ^� Actual - Projected-- CAPACITY 1999 2000 2001 2002 z 2003 2004 2005 BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY 4,142 4,142 4,142 4,248 n 4,698 6,048 6,048 n G Add or subtract changes in capacity n 1. Truman Remodel 106 2. Add Capacity to Three High Schools 450 c 3. Add New High School 1,350 c Adjusted Program Capacity 4,142 4,142 4,248 4,698 r 6,048 6,048 6,048 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 4,348 4,436 4,465 4,480 6,437 6,663 6,716 4. Internet Academy 164 200 225 250 275 300 325 Basic Ed without Internet Academy 4,184 4,236 4,240 4,230 6,162 6,363 6,391 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY (42) (94) 8 468 1 1 (114) 1 (315) 1 (3743) RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 5. Current Portable Capacity 325 325 325 325 375 375 375 Add\Subtract portable capacity Add from Elementary 50 Adjusted Portable Capacity 325 325 325 375 375 375 375 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 283 231 333 843 261 60 32 ti OTES: 1. Truman High School modernization and expansion 2. Add capacity to three existing high schools 3. Add new high school 4. Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. 5. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities arc available. This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based upon actual population needs. 23 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Kind County,the City of Federal Wav, and the City of Kent Impact Fee Calculations Single and Multi-Family Residences Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities. To determine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a formula was established. This formula can be found in King County Code 21A and was also substanially adopted by the City of Federal Way and Kent. The formula requires the District to establish a "Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be added to a school district by each new single or multi-family unit and to gather some standard construction costs, which are unique to that district. - STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR ANALYSIS Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined separately for single family units and multi-family units. The factors used in the 1999/00 Capital Facilities Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single family units and multi-family units, which were constructed in the last five- (5) years. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Following the calculations for the student generation factor is a copy of the Impact Fee Calculation for single family and multi-family units based on King County Code 21A and the Growth Management Act. Single Family Units Multi-Family Units r- 24 O p O COtD n C� {Op 1-- n 0/ n N M t(1 n y LL M N Q Ql cc co Q S M O C O G O C G C C C _ O C C _� ... N r N �O Q M y� e� O _bl rm m2 z CL,j 0 m N t j O O C7 In � z � � m CO p N V r In W QN VI Q f0 N L 9 M 01 r t0 O yto 14 CO Q l7 Q Gl'7 Pf r C V A e7 CO n O v {n LL O O O O hL4V fj �.N.00.+ AO O1 OOC SrC rGT MC MMC yrG OC NCr vOr� r yCCj C7 nuC ° Npp °O O Qt` NO , TrCOMM M Q M O V C Qi LQNoO N jnn to MOWo 9N UOn } MON i vin 7 G LL0OLLnLj CO co O C C O C O C C G O O C C Gd1 M n 1"4 I'D aA r N Q r n N Q cpppi M N t0 n Q7 .,. tf! r C L O - YM7 tN7 tM QOf tN0 C enfLi N N N d d V N n Q M M Q W d L N 1° tD ty O Q coh N N O r r M M to tO n N N E w n Q Q CEj (p LL r r N Q Q N M N n r O d enLL 0 0 r O z W C C G G C C O C C O W C O C i 0 L O OS N 2 C F tf1 0 M N Q m O1 Ocn CO D Q a N O NCN -> j L •.�. E C j V C Z d U) Z d V) C N y C w � u L i (— (' y° N Q e- N 01 O tO O v L 'd0 fD tO r 0 O .. � d � N F 5 V] N N T O F a Cj L Cj O m 0 m Cj to N O d L Cj m N u H z E E � M - � Q r n M E E � � rn n NM to O u L. d U U CA Z (y N Z W N c z` c T � T c c a LL = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ti = c , `n m E d E y v N N M Q ? Z O Z G c_ c� Y. I >+ N Cj E ` N t0 N LML N(en to C'a N E d d 0 0 0 O Z C to i i i Vl i Z ro Z Eo W w W � yCL � 32p L CL CI — d d d wdofNmaEjm x W Im � s m E E � zminr'n UU mac $i �°irn,� rnrnos �i �imCD FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE School Site Acquisition Cost: Student Student Facility Cost/ Facility Factor Factor Cost( Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary _ - 0.00 __ 10 484 0.2939 0.0656 50 SO Middle School 20.00 550,000 800 0.1530 0.0246 519) 531 Sr High 40.00 E-580,000- 1,350 ��� �0.154$ 0.0656 S367 S155 TOTAL S558 S186 School Construction Cost: Student Student %Perm Fac./ Facility Facility Factor Factor Cosy Cost' Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementan 96.70% SO 484 0.2939 0.0656 SO SO Middle School 96.70% 517,000,000 800 0.1530 0.0246 S3,144 S505 _6._o ._._�_ Sr Hi_eh 96.70% S40,800,000 1 1,3501 0.1548 0.0656 S4,524 51,917 TOTAL S7,668 S2,423 Temporary Facility Cost: Student Student %Temp Fac. Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Size SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary S60,374 25 _- -_ 0.2939 0.0656 523 SS Middle School 3.30% _S60,374 25 _ _ 0.1530 00246 $12 52 Sr Hi_eh 33 30% S60.374 25 -�- 0.1548 0.0656 S12 SS TOTAL S48 S12 State Matching Credit Calculation: Student Student Boeck Cost/ Sq.Ft. State Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Sq Ft Student Match SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 5101.39 _0 0.00% -� 0.2939 0.0656 50 SO Middle School 5101.39 1l0 0.00%� 0.1530 0.0246 SO SO New Sr High 5101.39 1201 60.62% 0.1548 0.0656 S1,142 S484 Total S1,142 S484 Tax Payment Credit Calculation SFR MFR Average Assessed Value (April 2000) S163,436 S45,536 Capital Bond Interest Rate(April 2000) 5.944/o 5.94% _ Net Present Value of Average Dwelling S1,206,330 5336,104 _ Years Amortized 10 10 Property Tax Levy Rate S1.42 S1.42 Present Value of Revenue Stream S1,713 S477 Single Family Multi-Family Residences Residences Mitigation Fee Summary Site Acquisition Cost S 558 S 186 Permanent Facility Cost S 7,668 S 2,423 Temporary Facility Cost S 48 S 12 State Match Credit S (1,142) S (484) Tar Payment Credit S (1,713) S (477) Sub-Total S 5,419 S 1,660 50%Local Share S 2,710 S 830 impact Fee 5 2,710 S 830 26 rz✓a.�vw n n. . .J........ .......... . SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM 1998/99 PLAN FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 1999100 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The 1999100 Capital Facilities Plan is an updated document, based on the 1998/99 Capital Facilities Plan. The changes between the 1998199 Plan and the 1999/00 Plan are listed below. SECTION I -THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES Marketing Academy is removed from the inventory INVENTORY OF UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY Site 85 is added to inventory—purchased site for the new senior high school. NEEDS FORECAST - NEW FACILITIES New High School site has been purchased and is removed from the needs forecast. MOT Site is removed from the needs forecast. This project is not actively being planned at this time. The current MOT site is not for sale at this time. r— SIX YEAR FINANCE PLAN The Six Year Finance Plan has been rolled forward to reflect 2000/2005 27 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION III SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION CAPACITY The average capacity of senior high schools is increased from 1232 to 1311. This change is a result of analysis of current building use and programs in place for the 1999/00 school year. Building Program Capacities are found on page 13. PORTABLES The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables purchased. Portable Locations can be found on page 15. STUDENT FORECAST The Student Forecast now covers 1999 through 2005. The new forecast reflects a decreased rate of growth. Enrollment History and Projections are found on page IS. CAPACITY SUMMARY The changes in the Capacity Summary are a reflection of the changes in the capacities and student forecast. New schools and increased capacity at current buildings are shown as increases to capacity. Capacity Summaries are found on pages 20-23. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION - KING COUNTY CODE 21A The Impact Fee Calculations have changed due to changes in several factors. The adjustment made in the Impact Fee Calculation, causing a change in the Impact Fee between the 1998/99 Capital Facilities Plan and the 1999/00 Capital Facilities Plan can be found on page 29. 28 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1999/00 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 1998/99 TO 1999/00 STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS Student Generation factors are based on rates for new developments constructed over a period of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation. The changes in student Generation factors between the 1999/00 Capital Facilities Plan and the 1998/99 Capital Facilities Plan are due to developments that were deleted or added based upon the age of the developments. Student allocation is also changed to reflect the middle school configuration. The Student General worksheet is found on page 25. IMPACT FEE Item From/To Comment Percent of Permanent Facilities 96.95 to Report#3 OSPI 96.70% Percent Temporary Facilities 3.05% to Updated portable inventory 3.30% Temporary Facility Cost $62,368 to Updated cost of most recently $60,374 purchased portables Boeck Cost/Sq. Ft $99.68 to Change per OSPI $101.39 Sq. Ft. Student/Middle School 112 to Square Foot Allocation change from 110 Junior High to Middle School State Match 59.89% to Change per OSPI 60.62% Average Assessed Value SFR - Per Puget Sound Educational Service $153.095 to District (ESD 121) $1639436 MFR - $35,488 To $45,536 Capital Bond Interest Rate 5.11% to Market Rate 5.94% 29 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: CORRECTIONS FACILITY AND ANNEX MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The project includes upgrade showers for ADA, adding office and conference room space, fire alarm system upgrade, expand laundry room to accommodate large inmate population and to add a work release annex building . The low bidder was M.J. Takasaki, Inc . , in the amount of $1, 353 , 000 . 00 , plus Washington State Sales Tax. 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tab and bidde ss proposal 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Exami er, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETE FISCAL PERSO L IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: 1 , 353 , 000 . 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS : CIP 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACT��I/O�N� /► Councilmember r/ �O moves, Councilmember seconds authorization to enter into an agreement with M.J. Takasaki, Inc . for the Corrections Facility and Annex Modifications and Additions Project in the amount of $1, 353 , 000 . 00, plus Washington State Sales Tax. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. BA PARKS FACILITIES BID TAB RESULTS January 26, 2001 PROJECT: CITY OF KENT CORRECTIONS FACILITY AND ANNEX MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS BIDDER BID M.J. Takasaki, Inc. $192720000 Alternate #1 $ 549000 Alternate #2 $ 27,000 �- Biwell Construction $1,284,435 Alternate #1 $ 61,416 Alternate #2 $ 210793 Brier and Associates $1,400,000 Alternate #1 $ 529000 Alternate #2 $ 929700 Bailey Berg $1,5049584 Alternate #1 $ 589408 Alternate #2 $ 689408 PROPOSAL revised 1/18/2001 Pro_ieci: City of Kent Corrections Facility and Annex Modifications and Additons 1230 S. Central Ave. Kent, Washington 98031 Arcaitect: Architects BCRA 2106 Pacific Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98402 (25-2) 627-4367 To he City of Kent, Having carefully examined the Drawings and Project Manual prepared by Architects BCRA, dated August 30, 2000 and June _'', 3000, respectively. have examined the Bid Documents and correlated the drawings to the site and understand the present conditions as well as .he requirements of the Construction Contract, and propose to funish all labor and raterials for the complete contract for the Modifications and Additions. In submitting this Bid. I agree: �-- 1. To told my Bid open until sixLy (60) calendar days after the actual bid opening. ,. To enter into and execute a contract, if awarded on the basis of this bid. on City of Lent Facilities Agreement, and to furnish proof of insurance as required by the project document. 3. To comviete the work in accordance with the Project Documents. T at -'-,e Owner has the right to waive any informalities in he bidding or to reject any or all bids. LaLP SLWI BASE BID Basic Bid for the complete contract as per plans and specifications, the lump sum (excluding WSST) oft„e m;1r,,m F,x h.••iiri :l v1-.TL-ji -rho` Toilars (S 7a oeo Additive Alternate 11: If the Owner chooses to accept this alternative item, provide the commercial laundry equipment, Section 11110, and equipment connections, raised concrete equipment pad with formed metal drain trough at washer-extractors, demolition at existing exterior wall and new construction of wall, floor and roof for ex-oarsion of Laundry Handling Room as shown on the Drawings. dollars 000. o,, 1. Addinve Alternate #2: If the Owner chooses to accept this alternative item, include construction of Telephone Room A113 at CKCF Annex, associated mechanical, electrical work per Addendum '_-o. 3 Attachments SKA-7,SKA- f 8S1C_%.-9, S1 11-1, SKE-1, cabling infrastructure site work per Addendum No. 3 Attachment SKA-10 and work of Addendum Rio. 3 Attachment Section 16 740 Cable Infrastructure (Bidder Design) �z� s�-•,,� -lh��,�, ,�, dollars (S �710cec.00 1. Facilities Projects in Work Modifications and Additions at the Work Release Annex and the Corrections Facility- 1. 1000 square foot office addition to provide two new offices and a conference room. 2. Upgrade showers to ADA compatability 3. New handicap lift in courtyard 4. Replacement of existing heating ventilating and air conditioning equipment 5. Replacement of copper piping in the mechanical room 6. Sleeving of copper piping at wall penetrations 7. Conversion of the existing building controls over to digital controls and connecting to the network 8. Fire alarm system upgrades 9. Expansion of the laumdry room,to accommodate 2 washers and 2 dryers 10. Work Release Annex building improvements I I. Construction of a new 1000 square foot strorage facility at the Annex 12. Connection of the Annex to the city network Implementation of a new computerized maintenance management software system for the facilities division which will automate the work order system among other things. Replacement of the current 10 ton computer cooling unit in the data center,with two new 5 ton cooling units equipped with a controller to alternate use.. Rework of the city council chambers heating ventilating and air conditioning system. Upgrades at the shops nursery,including a new green house,&paving of the property in places. Ongoing paving of the parking lots located throughout the city Recently Completed Facilities Projects Emergency Generators for the downtown complex,Commons,and Shops— including I Construction of a new 35' x 50'building to house and keep quiet,the downtown generators 2 Installation of two 600KW diesel generators to provide backup power to the Centennial bldg.,City Hall bldg.And the Police Headquarters bldg. 3 Installation of underground conduit between the generator bldg and the bldgs it supports 4 Installation of a 400KW emergency generator with sound enclosure at the Commons bldg. 5 Installation of a 125KW emergency generator with sound enclosure at the Shops bldg COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director Phone:253-856-5500 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASHINOTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: February 20, 2001 To: Mayor and Co. nc'1 Members From: Don E. Wickstrom, Director of Public Works Through: Regarding: Kent Springs Well Bid Opening and Award Bid opening for this project was held on February 16, 2001 with 4 bids received. Those bids are as follows: Arcadia Drilling $55,586.91 Holt Drilling $62,190.88 Charon Dilling $76,334.94 Hokkaido Drilling $87,308.97 Engineer's Estimate $77,757.78 Recommended by: Director of Public Works MOTION: Councilmenber edA4 moves, Councilmember_ seconds that the Kent �.. Springs Well contract be awarded to Arcadia Drilling, Inc., in the amount of$55,586.91. py C)tk" Kent City Council Meeting Date February 20 , 2001 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: KENT SPRINGS WELL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening was he on Friday, February 16 . Due to time constraints, the Pu lic Works Director will make a presentation at the Cou cil meeting. 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff,LExaner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL PELIMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE RE ED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 8B REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE--7 r 5 D. PUBLIC WORKS N114 TURD �G� a 7 D1 E. PLANNING COMMITTEE rib a7 m U/tilrAn� q,,yp F. PARKS COMMITTEE WL& G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES W b o1ruet" '1 `� r PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 2001 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Brotherton, Judy Woods, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Charlene Anderson, Mike Martin, Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Lloyd F. Weller, Betty Coblentz, Mike Coblentz, Gavin Miles, Geraldine Miles, Rita Bailie, Carl Bloom, Ken Koss, Alan Stuckey, Bob Nelson, Huy H. Nguyen, Barbara Clasen, Donald Clasen, Dan Moberly, Joe Miles, Don Shaffer, Louise Lee, Eric Wells, Gary Young The meeting was called to order by Chair Tom Brotherton at 4:03 PM. Approval of Minutes of January 8, 2001 Committee Member Judy Woods moved to approve the minutes of January 8, 2001. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Senior Planner Charlene Anderson said seven Comp Plan Amendments had been received. Two applications were withdrawn, and out of the five left, three were comp plan and zoning code amendments and two were capital facilities plan amendments. Ms. Anderson described the amendments: ■ Proposal A: Kentview Pod H is a mixture of AG and SR-3 zoning. The proposal is for SR- 4.5 which is a revision from the original application of a proposed 6 units per acre, along with a similar comp plan designation. Staff and the Land Use and Planning Board both recommend denial of the request pending a study of the Agricultural Lands and the Kentview project. The Agricultural Lands Policy will go to a Land Use and Planning Board workshop in March with a hearing in April. Ms. Anderson made reference to a letter Polygon had distributed to Committee members at that day's meeting detailing their proposal, and mentioned that a copy of a site plan was attached to the letter. Ms. Anderson said a comp plan and zoning amendment were not related to the site plan itself. ■ Proposal B, the Nguyen comp plan amendment, is for property located off of Kent-Kangley Road in Low Density Multi Family and MRG zoning. The lot has an existing house that would be used for a beauty salon. Staff and the Board recommend approval of the amendment. ■ Proposal C: the Coblentz property is a mixture of CM-1 (Commercial Manufacturing 1) located along SR167, and some SR-6 zoning in the back. The proposal is to designate the area multi family, and the Board and staff recommend that the Comp Plan be Low Density Multi Family and the zoning SR-8. SR-8 zoning would allow an amendment in the future for ✓� either multi family zoning or townhouse zoning MRT. Planning Committee,2/5/01 2 r Proposal F, Capital Facilities Plans: the Board typically holds a public hearing but doesn't make a recommendation on Capital Facilities Plans, leaving the flexibility of a decision up to the City Council. Each year the Kent and Federal Way School Districts have to submit a Capital Facilities Plan designating what their current inventory is,what the projected enrollment is, and what the construction needs are so impact fees can be established. ■ Proposal G: the Capital Facilities Plan for the City of Kent was included in the budget that was passed in December, but the actual official approval is not completed until a public hearing process is done with the Board and the Plan is then passed on to the Council. Judy Woods moved to approve Proposals B, F, and G. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Tim Clark remarked that staff's presentation had pointed out advantages in regards to the Coblentz property of adopting the designation of Low Density Multi Family on the Comp Plan map and Single Family 8 units per acre (or SR-8) on the zone map. Tom Brotherton said he was in favor of preserving the townhouse option. Mr. Clark moved approval of the land use designation to Low Density Multi Family and Single Family SR-8 on the zoning map for the Coblentz property. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Tom Brotherton said the Land Use and Planning Board had unanimously recommended denial of the Pod H request and staff had concurred with the recommendation. Tim Clark moved to i recommend denial of the Pod H recommendation. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods. In further discussion, Tim Clark said that lack of available land space for the school district, particularly on the valley floor, had been a problem for some time. Although Polygon has made every effort to accommodate the City's Master Plan in that particular area by establishing housing that would meet a variety of needs with a combination of apartments, condominiums, single family residences, and townhouses, the lovely planned community still adds 700 units of housing and presents the problem of dealing with a variety of needs such as access to shopping and the establishment of a public school to service that size of community. Polygon has a valid complaint in that the school district did not move forward aggressively, and after renovating the land, Polygon is trying to get some return on their money. However, if the request is approved, it would put a stress on the infrastructure on the valley floor to which there is no solution. Judy Woods stated that she values what Polygon has contributed to the community, and the City has had a very good working relationship with them. She noted, however, that she didn't feel comfortable going ahead until the Agricultural Lands Policy had been examined and the Land Use and Planning Board had made a recommendation on that policy. The Land Use and Planning Board voted strongly to deny the Pod H request after spending a lot of time in public hearing on the issue. Ms. Wood stated she was troubled that the City had given a fill permit for the land prior to working out all the details as to whether the school district would want to use the property or to see what other kinds of uses there might be for the property. Planning Committee,2/5/01 3 Tom Brotherton pointed out that Polygon had been very responsive to the neighbor's complaints about visual pollution, had reduced the number of lots and eliminated access onto Frager Road, and had put in berms and plantings around the periphery of the development to minimize the impact. Mr. Brotherton said he would favor the amendment except for the AG Lands Policy. Eric Wells, Polygon Northwest Company, summarized the letter he had earlier presented to the Committee which outlined the conditions that had changed since the initial application went before the Land Use and Planning Board and was subsequently denied. The site, which has split zoning, is unique and unlike any other land in the City of Kent that has straight agricultural zoning. It is inside an approved PUD and Master Planned Community, which also makes it a unique piece rather than just AG land. The City did grant the fill and grade permit under the intention that Council had approved the site for development, whether for a school site or something else. Since there are less than 8 acres of buildable land and because of the geometry, it does not appear that the land would be suitable for a school site, however Polygon would continue to work with the school district if the school district should decide the site would work. Nevertheless, if the school district goes away, Polygon doesn't want to be penalized by having to go back through the process and thus incur additional time delays. A whole building season could be lost. Polygon proposes to move forward with an additional buffer of almost an acre of land,which combined with the BMX Park (given to the Parks Committee last month), provides almost 1'/4 acres along Frager Road and preserves the recreational corridor there. The different changes r over the last month has allowed Polygon's request to be a little different application than what -- originally went before the Board, but with lowering the density, providing buffers, meeting with the neighbors, the school district's having taken a position that the site may not fit a school facility, and providing additional parks along the Green River, Polygon had hoped this would be an application that would receive the Committee's and Council's support at this time rather than to have additional delays. Mr. Wells said that because of the uniqueness of the property and it's being in a Master Plan and having split zoning, it did not really fit in with the AG Policy and wasn't productive AG land. City Attorney Roger Lubovich commented that a modified presentation at the Committee level was a problem as the concept or information was a new addition to what was presented to the Land Use & Planning Board. Acting on the new information would be inappropriate without going back to a hearing process so other people would have an opportunity to discuss it. The Committee could change its recommendations based on the existing information,but not if information was added after the hearing and other people had not had an opportunity to discuss the new options. Eric Wells said Polygon had listened to the input from the public hearing process and modified the Pod H plan according to that input. Tom Brotherton stated that the description and parameters of the land had not changed, but Polygon's had adapted their proposal to better fit the concerns of the neighbors and the environment of the land by adding buffers, reducing the density, and changing the access so it didn't come out on Frager Road. The original request was to rezone the land so they could build houses and that is still the same concept. Fred Satterstrom said the Land Use and Planning Board did not consider a specific site plan, and the question is whether or not the property would Planning Committee,2/5/01 4 r be an agricultural piece of land or a residential piece of land. The site plan is a conceptual drawing and useful information but not necessarily relevant to a policy level decision because it's not about a contract rezone. There would be no requirement that Polygon build pursuant to the site plan. The proposal changed in terns of density after the Land Use and Planning Board had reviewed the matter, listened to public testimony and then forwarded their recommendation to committee. Polygon has modified their proposal downward to a lesser density from SR-6 to SR-4.5, and may also be representing a viewpoint of the school district that could be different from what the Land Use and Planning Board had considered. Tom Brotherton asked if the Pod H application could be tabled until after the Agricultural Policy discussion. Roger Lubovich said a recommendation could be made to the Council to table the matter without remanding it back to the Land Use &Planning Board. Tim Clark retracted his former motion. He moved to table the Pod H application until there was further information on the AG Land. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Urban Separator Framework Policy Judy Woods moved to reconsider the January 18, 2001 Planning Committee recommendation on Urban Separator Framework Policy,#CPA-2000-1. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. EXECUTIVE SESSION r